City Council Agenda Packet 09-11-1995AGENDA
REGULAR M STING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 11. 1995.7 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 August 28, 1995, and the
regular meeting held August 28, 1995.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
A. Consideration of ordering a public hearing for the Maplewood Circle
storm sewer improvement prgject on the west side.
4. Citizens commente/petitions, requests, and complaints.
5. Consent agenda
A. Consideration of a driveway aisle and parking conditional use permit.
Applicant, Vector Tool.
8. Public Bearing --Consideration of accepting Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facilities Plan and amendments.
7. Consideration of adopting 4th Street Park ice hockey rink and general
skating plan.
8. Consideration of approval of a change order to the comprehensive plan
project by adding a stronger park planning component.
9. Consideration of purchasing computer printing equipment.
10. Consideration of a joint venture with the City of Buffalo for purchase of a
stump grinder.
11. Update on biosolids land acquisition.
12. Consideration of setting a date for additional 1998 budget review.
13. Adjournment.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 28,1998 - 6:30 p.m -
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
A special meeting of the City Council was held for the purpose of discussing the
proposed 1996 budget and tax levy.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that two tax levy options were
prepared with increases ranging from 7.9% to 10.7% in terms of actual dollars
collected. He reviewed various items included in each option such as an $80,000
levy for a future interceptor sewer line reserve, $300,000 for partial payment of
wastewater treatment plant engineering design fees, park improvements of
$93,000, as well as increases for additional staffing in the building and public
works departments due to the growth of the city.
Council discussion focused on including the wastewater treatment plant design fees
in the plant bond issue and reducing the $300,000 allocation to $160,000-$20U,000
for other needs such as land acquisition for sludge application.
Council also discussed the proposed increase in the general Fund of $313,848, which
included the street department budget items and proposed Full-time public works
secretary position. It was noted by Council that perhaps the street department
budget could be reduced by budgeting for the items over a longer period of time.
Mayor Fyle then adjourned the special meeting and requested that the 1996 budget
discussion be continued at the end of the regular Council meeting.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
0
MINLYTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL.
Monday, August 28,1995 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Brad F yle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
Mayor Pyle requested that the amended motion regarding the Maplewood
Cirrle storm Bower project be clarified as follows: •... and the City will pay the
cost of tree removal for trees located outside of the easement area and where
construction occurred within the drip line, where damage cannot be
attributed to other factors, and where tree damage appears within one year
of the project.'
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
REOULAR MEETING HEIR AUGUST 14, 1998, AS CORRECTED. Voting in
favor: Brad File, Shirley Anderson, Brian Stumpf. Absta-in: Clint Ile:hbY.
Opposed: Tom Perrault. Perrault was opposed to the revision of the
Maplewood Circle storm sewer project motion.
3. (`enaidarwHen of wddinB ifs+mn to the aa�nnda,
Reaommendadon: Adopt a resolution approving the application for
a pull -tab license by the Monticello Lions Club for Joyner Lanes.
SEE RESOLUTION 95-81.
Page 1 0
Council Minutes - 8/28/95
B. f:nnaideration ofacmrovinea rhanp to garbage and me in
collectinn dayfi.
Recommendation: Approve the change of days of service for
recycling and garbage pickup to Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday,
effective October 1, 1995.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SEaRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT
HERBST TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion
carried unanimously.
City Engineer Bret Weiss reported that a draft comprehensive sanitary sewer
study has been completed as previously authorized by Council. The request
for the study came from developers Tony Emmerich and Orrin Thompson to
determine whether or not their properties could be served by city sanitary
sewer. He noted that both Emmerich and Orrin Thompson Homes provided a
majority of the fiords necessary to complete the study, which included an
analysis of sanitary sewer capacity issues relating to the Emmerich and
Orrin Thompson properties as well as city-wide capacity issuco.
Weiss reviewed the overall sanitary sewer system necessary to service the 40 -
year development area as identified by the City Planner and also noted that
the City may want to consider interim improvements to the wastewater
treatment plant in order to accommodate Further development within the city
until the new plant is constructed. Weiss stated that the study reveals that
the existing sewer system serving the Meadow Oak area has sufficient
capacity to serve the Orrin Thompson Homes and Emmerich properties;
however, bill development of the general area will require extension of an
interceptor sewer. Part of the cost of this line will be paid by trunk fees paid
by Orrin Thompson and Emmerich at the time of development.
No action was required by Council at this time; acceptance of the final
comprehensive sanitary sewer study will be considered at a future Council
meeting.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO APPROVE THE BILIS FOR THE MONTH OF
AUGUST AS SUBMITTED. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 2 0
Council Minutes - 8naw
A. It was the consensus of Council to set a special meeting for
Wednesday, September 27, 1996, at 7 p.m., for the purpose of
discussing possible consolidation of the EDA and HRA as requested by
the IDC Executive Board.
B. The City Engineer requested that Council authorize installation of `1&
minute parking" signs near the high school in lieu of the 'visitor
p~ signs that were taken down during the pathway prgject.
It was the consensus of Council to authorize installation of the signs as
requested.
At this time, Council continued the discussion from the special
meeting held at 6:90 pm. regarding the 1996 budget and tax levy.
Discussion focused an setting a maximum Is" amount now while
continuing to closely review and/or reduce the amount at future
meetings.
AI+TIr.R DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE DY CLINT IIvR= AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO SET THE MAXIMUM TAX LEVY FOR
1996 AT 62,997,460, A 5.5% INCREASE OVER 1996. Motion carried
unnn. usly. SEE RESOLUTION 96.62.
D. It was the consensus of Council to set a special meeting of the Council
for Wednesday, December 6, 1995, at 6 p.m., for the purpose of holding
a public hearing on the final 1996 budget and tax levy, and a
continuation date of Wednesday, December 13, 1995, 6 p.m., if
necessary.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Council Agenda - 8/11/95
3►.
(s.w.)
See attached memo from the City Engineer.
MEKoIaA.mtJbf
TO: Honorable Mayor and City CMx9 Members
FROM: Bret A. Wein, P.E. • (Sty FaPes
DATE: September 9, 1995
SUBJECT: Bads Yard Dramp Concerm
bfeadew Oaks 4th Addldon
City of Moutlodb Project No.
Osbf Aqect No.
As a part of the mviow for the Meadow cab 4th Addition project. the City expressed a eoaema
with the ability to provide positive draft p tom the mar yards of Meadow Oaks 4th Addition
adjacent to the tear lots of :Meadow Oaks 3rd Addition. Initially. the back yards worm mended
to be graded to drain to Maplewood Chole along lot lines. This can be acted on the attached
dtawing which was the approved development pias. WUe the development plan ladictted a
drainage paaem in this manau, and wWo the am is generally graded in this matmar, we did
nit :«.c:r: • c :;FLa51c drnirrr eexmenu ft m Lot 3. Block 2 in ardor to satiety the
development plan and drain the an through this lot. Qtszently, the deaimp does pat Woagh
Lot 3 otuaide of the drainage easement This plan intends to add m additional fear devolopod
lots to the drainage area. which Ond hst=wn the muff.• to the dtt:inege swag We have
coafled rho developer char he meat Wall a corm uwar system tom the back yard dralosge
swale to tate Meadow Oak Pond or watt with the adjoining neighbors to dal with the alnratkm
in anoshei maaac. The bog solution for the problem is to purchase the ttecessasy cuezodat tom
Lot 3. Bloch 2 and allow the dtttinage to proceed as is the ctna+eat poem This would mquittt
very minimal grading with Meadow Oaks Ah Addition and abould preserve most of the tract.
The second opdoa would be to lostall a pipe Thom the adjolning tear yards to the Meadow Oda
Pond. Tial nlmr>sative would cost between 3g,000.00 ad $10.000.00 and would posd*'new-
the removal of several. trees. Thin option would sill not provide a puitive ovstlaO.dtalaage
route, however, no parson would be is danger of bdq flooded as a pat of this solution. no
developer has pcadonad for a public Improvemcat project for-stalWica of the norm swat as
a fall back option if the casamcat cannot be weslted out with the paoptasy in Let 3. Block 2.
This drAuge problem affects 13 Ica in do stat taus of those being the propostd bbadow Oaks
Ah Addition less. Subsequondy, it is the opioioa of the City -alnoer that the developer should
act but the ensu for the gotta sewer project solely. but should be a pact of a unsawat pojea
with tho usessment spread to all btadlad parcels.
Thadom we are asking; that you scbodule tho public heatlaa fir the dtainaas paeblsm for
September 23, 1995. and authorise gaff to condaus to pttttttto the auu= with the developer
344
Memorandum
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
September 9. 1995
Page 2
Paying any com associated with the easexacm aegtdsitim The lots chat would be subject to
assemTMe^• for this project m some rmount ere as follows:
I=
ADDITION
1 1 2'
Meadow Oaks 4th
2 2
Meadow Oaks 4th
3 2
Meadow oaks 4th
4 2
Meadow Oaks 4th
5 2
Meadow Oalo 4th
6 a
Mandow Oaks 4th
7 2
Meadow Cal® 4th
9 2
Meadow Oaks 4th
1 2
Masdow Oalm 3rd
2 2
Meadow• CWm 3rd
3 2
Meadow Oaks Ant
4 2
Meadow Oaks 3rd
5 2
Meadow Oalm Std ,.
The aaached map Identifies approximate dtaiaage
osa Itr the improvemant project, an wall m
htgtt Shu tba proposed Incas' a of tho swab
and the s = rower Improvemam prcdcm.
ee
i{.AciviPam o95.tnem
Council Agenda - 9/11/95
VT)'' ,
Velar Engineering is requesting a very simple conditional use permit
request which would allow elimination of curb in an area proposed for future
expansion. As you know, this is a common practice of the City to allow
elimination of a curb in areae where it is likely that a parking lot or drive
area will be expanded at some time in the future. According to the City
Engineer, the curb line eliminated will not result in drainage or erosion
problems.
Motion to approve a stall, aisle, and driveway design conditional use
permit which would allow elimination of a curb line.
The motion is based on the Ending that the conditional use permit
eliminating the curb line will not result in erosion problems and is in
the location of a proposed future expansion.
Motion to deny the stall, aisle, and driveway design conditional use
permit.
[:_ ST FF OMMF.NDATION;
Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use
permit as requested based on the finding noted under alternative 01.
D_ SUPPORTING DATAi
A copy of the Vector Tool site plan is available to review upon request.
Council Agenda - 9/11/95
W"
W.S.)
Our Wastewater Facilities Planning Report was completed by OSM/RCM in
April of this year. The report evaluated four alternatives for the expansion of
wastewater treatment facilities to meet the expected growth of the
community. The first alternative considered was to upgrade the existing
activated sludge and trickling filter process. This could be done for
approximately $10,870,000, with an additional $620,000 of interim
improvements. Converting the plant to a trickling filter plant would coat
approximately $12,670,000 plus $620,000 for interim improvements; and
converting the plant to a totally activated sludge plant would be $9,900,000
plus $620,000 for interim improvements. A remote site using an oxidation
ditch, which would be a sister plant to our existing facility, would cost
$13,165,000 plus $620,000 for interim improvements and would not have
sludge digestion capabilities. Consequently, sludge would have to be hauled
back to the existing plant for further processing and treatment. No costs
were included for miscellaneous site improvements, including storm sewer
modifications, on any of these estimates.
A fifth alternative was studied during one of the workshops. That
alternative was to abandon the existing plant and to build an entirely new
plant at a remote site. It had assumed, however, that we would still have to
bring the wastewater back to the original point of discharge to the
Mississippi River. It did not include ousts for abandoning the existing plant,
and the estimated cost of this alternative was approximately $20 million.
After further study at the workshops, it was determined that alternative 01,
upgrading the existing process, and alternative 03, going to an entirely
activated sludge process without the trickling filters, would be the best
approaches to be studied fiuther. Consequently, in order to reduce the cost of
those two to a manageable amount, we looked at phasing the construction.
Phasing an upgrade of the existing treatment plant would cost $620,000 for
interim improvements, $7,090,000 for the first phase, and $4,240,000 for the
second phase, for a total project cost of $11,950,000. For alternative 03, an
entirely activated sludge facility, the phasing would coat $620,000 for interim
improvements, $9,290,00 for phase 1, and $1,900,000 for phase 2, for a total
of $11,810,000. The original Facilities Plan recommended moving ahead
with alternative Nl on a phased approach, and the staff concurred with this,
as the upgrade of the existing facility appeared to at least give us a process
that would be better able to handle a shock load than the pure activated
sludge process.
Council Agenda - 9/11/95
Upon reviewing our estimated project costs and expanding the existing plant
which has in excess of 60 pumps, staff had some concerns whether or not we
were moving in the right direction; and on April 10, 1995, we asked the
Council to allow us to prepare a request for proposals and distribute it to
OSM and RCM and two or three other firms for the interim improvements
and design of the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. The Council
did authorize the RFP, and four firms were interviewed on May 22, 1995.
Part of the RFP process required them to review the existing Facilities Plan
and to comment on the appropriateness of the direction recommended.
Almost all of the firms recommended additional study in the area of an
oxidation ditch expansion at the existing wastewater treatment plant site.
Some firms suggested studying the sequencing batch reactor process.
On June 12, 1995, a special meeting was held to select an Engineer. Based
upon the additional information provided by the consultants, 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.
4. Creation of a Class A sludge.
At that meeting, HDR was selected to move ahead with further study of an
oxidation ditch and sequencing batch reactor for the existing expansion.
Estimates of cost given for the new project ranged Brom $B to $8.5 million.
HDR completed a review of the Facilities Plan and the first draft of the
amendments to the plan studying the sequencing batch reactor and oxidation
ditch. They presented that to the Council at the workshop held on the
evening of September 6,1995. City staff and the Council were somewhat
surprised when we (bund the expansion project had blossomed Brom an
estimated high of $8.6 million to one ranging in cost from $8.6 million to
$11.6 million. Through fiuther discussions with HDR, it was determined
that the higher costa were due to the need to provide for hydraulic or flow
capacity at the beginning of the plant to handle what might reach the facility
up to the year 2035, the addition of a 3 -basin SBR, which would treat up to
IN% of our design, and the addition of other items that were not originally
considered such as ultraviolet disinfection, dewatered sludge, stand-by
generator, and a maintenance building. After looking at some of these items,
it was determined that the project could be closer to $8.5 to $9 million.
Council Agenda - 9/11/95
One of the interesting things about the project was that the oxidation ditches
and the sequencing batch reactor were very comparable in cost, generally
speaking within 5% to 10% of each other. HDR recommended the
construction of a sequencin5 batch reactor system, as it was lower in capital
cost, had a smaller foot print, would be able to handle phosphorus removal,
and they had a reasonable comfort level with the process that it would
handle Monticello's loadings. City staff and PSG did not have the comfort
level with the SBR system that HDR did due to the fad that we have not
been able to research or visit an SBR facility sized at 2 million gallons or
more that handled the loadings that the City of Monticello is expected to
receive here. Consequently, we asked the City Council for a couple more
weeks to look at the issues regarding the SBR and oxidation ditch prior to
the staff recommendation. The Council then decided to present the current
data at the public hearing for September 11, 1995, but then continue the
public hearing to September 25, 1995, at which time we should have enough
information so that staff can make a recommendation and further
information in regard to funding of the facility and the expected rate
increases which would go along with that.
The first alternative is just to present the basic infurmatiun on the
Facilities Plan itself and have HDR present or bring the public up-to-
date with the two amendments to the plan studying the SBR and
oxidation ditch, then continue the public hearing to September 25,
1995.
The second alternative would be to conclude the public hearing and
make a decision as to which proem to pursue.
C_ STAFF RF.CCi►1MF:NDATICN;
At this time, staff recommends alternative 01 as outlined above, and I believe
this was the consensus of the Council as per the workshop Orom September 8,
1995.
Please refer to the Facilities Plan and the draft amendments for the
Information. There will be handouts to the general public at Monday
evening's meeting.
Council Agenda - 911]/)5
d"A
(J.O.)
As you will recall, a few weeks ago the City Council reviewed the Parke
Commission and Hockey Association proposal for rebuilding the existing
hockey rink and adding a temporary rink at Fourth Street Park. At that
time, Council concluded that the City would fund the cost of the materials for
the building of the hockey rink, and the Hockey Association would be
providing all labor needed to rebuild the original rink. Council tabled
approval of the concept of developing a secondary temporary rink due to the
concern regarding long-term labor costs associated with installation and
removal of the temporary rink on a seasonal basis. Staff was directed to
work with the Hockey Association to come up with a plan for making the
second rink a permanent rink. In response to this suggestion, a plan has
been developed as follows.
The existing configuration of the original rink would remain essentially the
same, and the secondary rink would be placed along side and directly east of
the original rink. The secondary rink would be partially permanent and
partially temporary. The section of the rink which would be temporary
would be located in the area of conflict with the baseball field. Under this
proposal, every spring a section of the boards which overlap into the ballfield
area would be removed and either turned to become part of the outfield fence
or removed so that the softball outfield fence could be installed. According to
measurements taken on the field, it appears that about 1/4 of the second rink
would have to be of a temporary nature. The Hockey Association indicated
that they would be willing to provide the manpower necessary to install and
remove the temporary section of the secondary rink.
City public works crews are too busy to build the second rink in 1995, which
means that the Hockey Association will need to provide the labor for the
second rink construction if We to be done in 1996. If the second rink is built
in 1995, City crews could be involved in building the rink and/or the work
could be contracted out.
This plan does not require removal of any of the existing lighting and will not
require relocation of the fire hydrant, which results in a substantial savings;
however, it includes additional costs associated with obtaining contract
assistance or City crew labor expense.
John Simols and Roger Mack have reviewed this alternative and have
indicated that they support this plan.
Council Agenda - 911IJ95
g_LLTERNATM ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the original hockey rink plan
as proposed by the Parks Commission and Hockey Association.
Under this alternative, the permanent rink would be reconstructed,
with the material cost being paid by the City and labor provided by the
Hockey Association. A seasonal secondary rink would be installed
along the long side of the main rink. This rink would be completely
temporary and would require installation and removal of the entire
rink on a seasonal basis.
This is the alternative that the City Council rejected originally in lieu
of another option that would allow for a secondary rink to be
permanent.
2. The second alternative would be to approve funding of the cost of
materials to rebuild the original rink at the same location and to fund
the full cost, including labor, of a secondary rink which is part
permanent and part temporary at an estimated Cost of $20,000.
Council should select this option if it agrees with the view that the
second rink is a'general' city hockey rink which is being built
specifically so that the general public has a place to play somewhere
other than the general skating area when the Hockey Association is
using the main rink.
Under this alternative, the City would provide the funding for
materials for both rinks, and the Hockey Association would rebuild the
original rink in 1995 and perhaps the second rink as well. If the
Hockey Association builds the rink in 1995, the cost would be reduced
to 815,000.
The Hockey Association would be responsible for seasonal removal of
the portion of the secondary rink that conflicts with the outfield fence;
however, the City loader may be used to assist in moving the rink
sections for storage after they have been disassembled by the Hockey
Association crews. Also, there may be a need to upgrade the lighting
in the perk to accommodate the second rink. In addition, the general
skating area will be moved slightly, which could also resat in the need
for some additional lighting, which is covered in the 820,000 figure.
S. The third alternative would be the as= as alternative #1 except to
require that the Hockey Association provide labor for the second rink,
thus establishing a project cost of $10,000.
Council Agenda - 9/11P95
The fourth alternative would be to provide materials only to rebuild
the original hockey rink only at a cost of $7,500.
(_ STAN RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative U2 or Y3 as outlined above. It is our view that
these alternatives are consistent with the goals of the Parks Commission to
improve winter recreation resources and is satisfactory to the Hockey
Association. It's up to Council to determine who should provide labor for the
second rink.
Copy of previous agenda item dated July 24, 1995.
®!ice Council Agenda - 7/24/95
3A. C:onaideration of funding sk portion of th_e cost to reconstruct 4th
Street hocks: r a. (J.O.)
A_ REF .RF.NCF. AND RArKAROuNn:
The Parka Commission requests that the City Council approve funding of a
portion of the cost to reconstruct the existing hockey rink and to develop a
smaller temporary hockey rink that would be installed in the late fall and
removed prior to baseball season. This item is not in the 1995 budget;
however, it is important that the work be done in 1995. Therefore, the Parka
Commission requests that funds used to support this project be paid out of
existing capital funds and then paid back to the general fund out of the 1996
budget.
Following are reasons supporting the project:
1. Many of the boards need replacement due to the fad that they have
completed rotted out and have exposed jagged edges. The plan as
proposed would remove all of the rotted wood and use the good
materials that remain for the second rink.
2. The existing rink is larger than necessary; therefore, the proposal calls
for actually reducing the size of the main rink by about 1/4.
3. Another problem at 4th Street Park is that the general public has no
place to play hockey during Hockey Association practices, which
results in hockey players using the general skating rink. This problem
is very difficult for the attendant to control. By adding a second rink,
the conflicts between hockey and recreational skaters should be
eliminated.
4. Finally, the 1992 recreation survey indicated that winter recreation
facilities are reported to be substandard. Upgrading the hockey rink
facility is a positive response to this problem cited by the public.
Oth r items of nnte relating tin yaj ark
The Hockey Association funded and constructed the existing hockey rink,
which is available for use by the general public when practices are not being
held. The current proposal for funding the 4th Street Park rink includes City
funding of the majority of the materials with the Hockey Association
providing labor. Construction of the storage room within the warming house
was Llso funded by the Hockey Association.
14
Council Agenda - 7/24/95
As a final note regarding park operation, the ice maintenance program is
workin; satisfactory. Under the program for the park, the Hockey
Aasociation floods the hockey rink and the general skating area, while City
crews remove snow.
Following is the plan for upgrading hockey facilities at the 4th Street Park.
1. The Hockey Association will remove the existing boards from the main
hockey rink. It is estimated that this will take 80 man-hours,
resulting in a value of labor of about $1,600.
2. The hockey boards that are in good condition would be separated from
the rest and donated to the City for a small seasonal rink. As noted
earlier, the Hockey Association funded the entire cost of the existing
rink and will donate the boards to the City for development of the
smaller rink. It is estimated that this value will amount to about
$500.
3. New hockey boards will be purchased for the balance of the seasonal
rank. Under the plan, the City will fund this portion of the project at a
cost of $2,000.
4. City crews will build the seasonal rink sections. They will be installed
in November and removed in April by the City. Su*me help on staff
will do the work associated with building the seasonal rink sections,
thereby reducing the cost of the labor involved. It is estimated that it
will take 160 man-hours to complete the construction of the rink
sections, which results in a value of $3,200.
5. The City will purchase materials for the main rink at a cost of $5,000.
6. The Hockey Association will install and paint the main rink. Total
man-hours are estimated at 160, resulting in a labor value of $3,200.
In summary, if one includes both cost of materials and labor under the plan
as proposed, the total cost to make the improvements as proposed will
amount to $15,820. The cost of materials amounts to $7,500, of which the
City would fund $7,000. The labor value is estimated at $8,000. Of this
amount, the Hockey Association will contribute $4,800. The City, by building
the seasonal rink sections, will contribute $3,200. Total contribution by the
Hockey Association under the plan is $5,300. The City contribution is
$10,200.
M
Council Agenda - 7/24!96
Motion to adopt the plan for replacing the hockey rink boards and
building a secondary temporary rink for use at the 4th Street Park.
Motion to deny the plan for replacing the hockey rink boards and
building a secondary temporary rink for use at the 4th Street Park.
C_ STAFF F. .O NDATiON:
It is the view of City staff and the Parks Commission that the existing hockey
rink must be rebuilt, or it should be closed. The boards are definitely in need
of replacement. We also concur that having a second hockey rink at that
location will provide greater opportunity for general use of the general
skating area by separating hockey from general skating uses, which will
result in a safer, more enjoyable skating experience for the general skating
public. It is also our view that the program for finding and building the
hockey rink is fair and equitable to both the Hockey Association and the City.
The Hockey Association sees the benefit of city tax dollars going toward the
purchase of materials for a rink that will benefit their organization. The City
benefits by having a contribution of labor provided by the Hockey Association
to build a hockey rink that is used not only by the Hockey Association but by
the general public.
Fourth Street Park hockey rink board replacement program summary sheet.
plv
FOURTH STREET PARK
HOCKEY RINK BOARDS REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Problem:
Marry boards need replacement
2. The rink size is larger than necessary.
3. The general public has no place to pay hockey (luring Hockey AssOGaticn practice.
4. Hockey players use general skating rink. which Conflicts with general use --difficult ter attendant to control.
5. Winter recreation facilities reported to 109 substandara in 1992 survey (pre -Bridge Park improvements.
Facts:
1. Hockey Association practices occupy a large share of available ice time at Fourth Street Park
2. Hockey Association funded and constructed ex�sting hockey rink. wfbch is available for use by all cmzens.
3. H=ey A550crallon funded cOnStrUC110n Of Stdrage room within warming house.
4. Ice maintenance program is working satisfactorily in 1994-95. Hockey Ass=Mon floods hockey rink.
City removes most snow.
Proposed SoWtlon:
1, Replace main hockey rink with smaller rink - com ar10 effkJency of use.
2. Develop second seasonal hockey rink at Fourth Street Park.
Proposed Budget:
l
Cat
Imaotinws �n kAterM
Mases Ana rano"M ststrq balm earl row a=1" M*
Oboe bona we apnada A donated b cat b mdr
seem" MW
Nw bona btakllssse f1V baYtnu of t•asQ1n MI
are awe bulb iesn" err uaaua—
(YqOaW In ". A rsrllbnse M ftd * Cat)
are MOCKI u "a for nen ma
Mbasv tinct hWb 8 DaMra nes r1M
ITOTAL COST
tat gum
'Cat 4n be rbkAe Mal Oa UM hdp
000
stow
$5,000
iTAob
COST
FUNOM
Labor
Lav
Tad
IlccaN
Man
Value
CW
A1saa
Cby
m
11,900
$1,800
O
fano
10
1Zo00
161)
$3.200
17.2110
1D
$5900
ISO
13:!70
1 90 290
7A P 011ll �t1�30011 oVio-
HOCKEYAK4: 01/13/95 r
Council Agenda - 9/11/95
■nsivia
. (J.0.)
The Parks and Planning Commissions request that the City Council review
the proposal submitted by Steve Grittmen for supplementing the
comprehensive plan process by placing additional emphasis on the park
planning component of the plan. As you know, the original comprehensive
plan project proposal included some emphasis on the park planning related
issues; however, the level of attention to park planning is not sufficient to
satis& park planning needs. Therefore, the Parks and Planning
Commissions request that the comprehensive plan project be slightly
modified to include a stronger park planning basic component. In order to
accomplish this, the City Council will need to approve an expenditure of an
additional $4,000 on the comprehensive plan project.
Following are reasons why the Commissions believe that it is important to
complete a comprehensive park plan at this time.
ni �1 - Movemant Planning, The rapid growth of the community
will result in the need for additional park facilities. The park plan will
assist the Parks Commission in getting a clearer definition of where
park improvements should be made first and what types of facilities
need to be installed in the park area identified. With this
understanding, the Parks Commission will be able to develop a capital
improvement plan for park development that will enable efficient and
methodical development of park 0acilities as the need arises.
Park D iramen a. The park plan will help the City
substantiate the need for park land acquisition from developers at the
time of subdivision development. This information will help the City
legally acquire land or park dedication fees necessary to match the
residential growth.
The park plan will identify areas that
may need to be preserved as open space.
t1tilisatien of the Mis asinni River a n .nenity, For some time, it
has been an underlying goal of the community to make better use of
the Mississippi River as an amenity. The park plan will identify
methods and strategies for utilising the recreation potential of the
river msouroe.
Council Agenda - 9/11/96
5. Com=hensiye Plan Devetnjpment/P rk Manning n `g tom, It just
makes sense to complete the comprehensive plan process and detailed
park planning at the same time due to the strong interrelationship
between the two plane.
6. PAxk O;+a, n spare Man gempn .. The plan would identify strategies for
improving the manner in which the park system is maintained. For
instance, certain parks are simply mowed drainage ponds with very
little functional value. A plan for long-term use of such areas should
evolve out of the project.
You will note in Grittman's proposal that, in addition to the basic study
proposal, he offered two alternatives for additional study. Both Commissions
felt that the basic plan was sufficient ($4,060) and that it was not necessary
to include either one of the alternatives.
$_ i.T .RNAT . ACTION4;
Motion to approve a change order to the scope of the comprehensive
plan to include additional park planning as identified in the memo
from Steve Grittman under the basic plan at a cost of $4,060.
This is the alternative selected by the Parks and Planning
Commissions.
Motion to deny a change order to the comprehensive plan and direct
City staff to complete the parks planning component.
Under this alternative, the plan will be done on an 'as time is
available' basis. Given the staff workload, it is likely that the project
will not be completed soon.
C. RTAFF RECOMMENDATION;
Staff recommends alternative #1. It is the view of staff and the Parka
Commission that significant investments in park development have been
made in the recent past; however, certain aspects of park planning and
development has been somewhat neglected. At the same time, growth of the
community is increasing rapidly. These two tactors require that the City
take a proactive stance toward park planning development so that efficient
and sensible park improvements can be made on a timely basis.
Proposal from Steve Grittman.
JrN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING - OESIGN - MARKET R E S 6 A R C N
Mernorandum
TO:
Monticello Park Commission
Jeff O'Neill
FROM:
Stephen Gdttman 1 Elizabeth S=kman
DATE:
14 August 1995
RE
Monticello - Park & Tail Plan Proposal
MS.
802
At your request, we have prepared a tistiq of wont program elernmn typically involved in the '
prepaadon of a Pads and Trail System Plan for you to consider when Bedding whether the Clry
should tinder mice coetpledon of web a document. The attached Litt provides a demded outline of
the typa of things that may be addressed within a Ws Put & Trail System Plan. The work
program elements described go above and beyond the information addressed as part of the
Comparhensive Plan, in which the recession system is a past of the larger community facilities
section.
The basic identification of pant locations and wmmary of major part elements and their
problems/opportuaides are generally addressed on more of a commartity-wide basis with in the
Comprehensive Plan but an be expanded significantly through the choice of some or all of the
tasks which :rave been id—ifled. Sit= Clry Staff has —malatod a significant amount of
Inventory documentation, the cost of the Paris System Plan is lower than other similar projects
produced for other communities.
We have for—=rod the eacmam to provide a cost for Plan msb which will add organization to the
City's Park :acilid- and help program &nue additions co :he system as the City grows. In
addition, the basic estimate would formulate concept plans for rho River Mill and Klein Pam
parks. bases upon their flmctional rotes In the overall system. The 'Additional Alternatives'
provide e=: -.=m far (1) additional inventory analysis, including euisdng para and sail facilities
layouts. and .) update of the communiry survey information is a targeted random sample which
could be u::ii:ed to test the community's desire for specific park system elements. The Iauer
alternatives L -e not essential for the completion of the basic elan document.
5775 Wayzata SIvC. - Suite 555 • St. Lotus Park, MN 554 tri • (612) 595.9636 -Fax. 595-9837
g14
Monticello Park & Trail Planning
Proposed Work Program Elemew
L Invenzom.
1. Analysis of City Staff's detailed inventory of park elements summarized in chart ftummar,
identifying numbers and conditions of =Lmq elements
ALtV7'=VC 1. Preparation of individual park and aml property plana showing the
layout of emistin A-
IL Community Survey:
1. Analyze the results Of the == commustiry survey and utilize the information to guide
the City in the unprovem— of ==g pazk(traa &= and the plain 11 or devetopmert
of future parluo-ail areas. Park and mal development in the cat=mmiry mutt reflect:
rwidcat;3' desires to ensure tong term use and eMoyment.
AltentadVe H Conduct a targeted update of the survey for specific qw== and
issues utilizing i random sample survey format.
Needs Assessment & Analysb:
1. Analyze individual parks and uTa segmean to identify those am that are in need of
improved or expanded facilities, prepare a summary of Lmm
2. Classification of parics by site, service area, and use charactatisfics (neighborhood or
community uWJst71c' parwplaypy"d scasus. =-)
3. Classification of trails by location (on -saran off-street gmd&s=mmd etc.), size, and
purpose (mu1d-u3c, pedestrians only, wheeled users. etc.)
4. Identify potential park and cmil based an the physical and/or community
resident inventory
Policy Phan:
1. F=bltsh a series of policies to guide the governiq bodies toward malting decidons about
the recreational system iac:udiag flaming, acquisition. davdaptacm, purpose, design.
maintenance, and opexation.
Racre2donal F2cMesMaterplan-
I . Establish 3 Physical Plan Of the Cd=g and PrCpOqCd recreational del==
2. Summarize the prOposed ch aM of -4M,4— M the rscrsadonal sysarm, emphasizing why
and where things are needed
Racmdonal Mwmissa & Ded=-
1. Provide a guide for recreational system planning and design which idezoifics things to
consider in the development of specific arms such as slope, contposition. SWW values,
adjacent land uses and land owner. idery, economics. and long-term sells.
%6
SS3 A: k �4c 512 595 3F.-7 ?.34194
2. Develop park C261ides ==ept plans for die River Mill and Wein Farms parks, based on
tll= assigned ftmc=ul mic in the Monticello Park System
Design Standards
I Develop a series of standards by which to follow in the development: of r=madmal
elements including such things as minimum sizes, area capachics seppotting
infrasaticnire, levels of use. vehicular access, handicapped saess, suff2an , and
landscaping.
ImPlImmeautim-
I Discuss Land acepridda oppormuntim and park dimfim"on fee inventory/developer cost
analysis
2. Provide the bask Ibr cspmd zopmovemem j; by audimng the priorities for parlUtrail
drvelopment
3. Oudine Wdona for &oft g P 'P2
4. Discuss—p=m ==alogml. stoppers ; I mmh as casnatuniry adicatkon paWmd
signap, am.
Can for Basic Pazt Plan Em—
(Trot including Altemadvesland 1litoWabove) . . . . . . .
Inventory Akernadve I . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . $1,350 P,
Survey Alternative 11 . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . S I= A; &
Work Producs
Mus estimate is for the ptudaction of a opmo Pub ad hails Plan which would also serve 33
an dement to be i1mutgrizad into the City's ,*, Plea. The Pmi*mnm don = Inetnelmg
the additional com of r in I de fatal docuateat which would be deWdOM VCMI ftmm=U
langdt, qwumiry of wp= mvcsmd and tho UND of CGIM. A rep n CSdMUC Can bo Food
for the cost of privaing qm mqjm
10
City Council Agenda - 9/11/95
(J.O., C.B., KD.)
At the 7/24/95 Council meeting, City Council was asked to consider approving
the purchase of an additional laser printer, switchbox, and necessary cabling
as budgeted for 1995. The proposal was to purchase another IBM 4019 laser
printer and a switchbox which would automatically send print jobs from any
connected workstations to the next available laser printer. The Council tabled
action and naked city staff to look into other options available that might be less
costly and provide for a color printing option.
As stated previously, Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill does not have access
to any printer. When he has to print something, he sends it through the fax
machine which is not as efficient and does not look very professional.
Otherwise, he copies documents onto disk and has someone else print it.
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak is still using a Toshiba P321
dot matrix printer for all of her work. Over the past couple months, the print
quality has degraded to very poor, and the documents look unprofessional and
are hard to read. Her printer does not have the capability of printing directly
on letterhead. When she needs to send out a document on letterhead, she has
to print it first and then copy it onto letterhead paper. This reduces the print
quality even more. Also, the dot matrix printer does not support landscape
(sideways) printing. If 011ie has anything that requires landscape printing, she
has to give it to someone else to do.
If the City purchases an additional IBM 4019 laser printer, a switchbox, and
cabling, 011ie and Jeff would be connected via the switchbox to the laser
printers. This would allow them the same access to a laser printer as the
current users in the central office. Also, there would be complete compatibility
across the system because everyone would use the same printer drivers.
If the City purchases 2 smaller printers, 011ie and Jeff would each have a
printer connected directly to the computer in their office. They would prepare
and print their own documents using the specific printer drivers fbr their
printers. The staff in the central office would continue to use the existing IBM
4019 laser printer. We would, however, have to replace the switchbox so that
all 4 users can be connected. As you recall, the switchbox was damaged by
lightening and 1 port is unusable. A replacement switchbox fbr a Maximum of
4 users would be under 1100.
City Council Agenda - 9/11/95
B. ALTERNATM ACTIONS:
1. Approve the purchase of an intelligent switchboz for approximately
$1180, an IBM 4019 laser printer estimated at $2500, and cabling coating
about $150. Cost would total approximately $3,830, and annual
maintenance would be $204.
This option should be selected if City Council agrees that a laser printer
should be accessible to all computer users at any given time. By utilizing
an intelligent switchbo:, output from all users would be routed to the
next available laser printer. We are satisfied with the quality and use of
the IBM 4019 we currently have and feel comfortable with purchasing
the same type of machine for a second printer.
A secondary advantage is that there would be complete compatibility
among all system users since everyone would utilize the same type of
printer. At the time a document is created, it is assigned a specific
printer driver which would match the printer to which a computer is
connected. If a document is sent to a different printer than what it was
originally assigned, the document is reformatted. Reformatting may
result in changes in the document depending upon how close the match
is between the printer drivers for the different printers.
2. Approve the purchase of 2 color inkjet printers, ranging in price from
$300 to $550 each, and a replacement switchbo: for under $100. In
addition, Council may wish to authorize placing the printers on a
maintenance contract. The total coat for equipment would range firom
$700 to $1,200. The total for an annual maintenance agreement on the
printers would be $938.
This option should be selected if Council feels that cost savings outweigh
the benefit of having all computer users connected to the same printer.
Under this option, the inkjet printers would be placed in Jeff OWeill'a
and 011ie Koropchak's offices. The best value is probably the HP Deakjet
8550 which is listed at $550. The text print quality is nice and the print
speed is aooeptable.:.e data sheet suggests this printer as a fast, small -
office printer. Please refer to the modellprice comparison listing for more
information.
3. Approve the purchase of a color inkjet printer, a small laserjet printer
(cost $500), and a replacement switchbo:. Also, Council should consider
authorizing placement of the printers on a maintenance contract. The
total equipment cost would range firom $700 to $1,100. An annual
maintenance contract on the printers would be $300.
12
City Council Agenda - 9/11/95
Council should select this option instead of alternative #2 if it is
preferable to have the professional quality of a laser -type printer for the
Economic Development Director.
With this alternative, Jeff ONeill would use an HP color inkjet printer
and 011ie Koropchak would use an HP Laserjet 4L printer. The laserjet
printer produces higher quality text printing but only prints in black and
white. The professional look of the laserjet output may be more
advantageous at this point than the option to print in color. Again,
please refer to the model/price comparison listing.
Best Buy sells a warranty for $39 for four years on printers purchased
from them. The warranty covers parte and labor. However, the warranty
states that it is intended for home office use and not commercial. A Beat
Buy salesperson mentioned that they do honor the warranty even though
it states otherwise. The main disadvantage to the warranty is that the
equipment must be brought into the store, and the closest store is 40
miles away. It would be inconvenient and would oust the city in travel
time and mileage to take the printers in for service. Also, it is possible
that there may be situations where Beat Buy could refuse to honor the
warranty under the commercial use clause.
If alternative 02 or 03 is selected, it is recommended that Council
consider authoriz ng the placement of the inkjst/laserjet printers on a
maintenance agreement with Computer Parts and Service. This would
be the same type of contractwe have on other equipment which provides
-n-alts preventive maintenance and repair service. The cost would be
$11 or $14 per month depending upon which model is selected.
Please note that under option 02 or 0, different printer drivers would
be used for documents created on the computers connected to the inikjet
or laserjet printers. If a document needs to be shared with a user
connected to the IBM 4019 laser printer, reformatting may produce
changes to the document. Thia may or may not be a problem, depending
on whether the changes affect the look of the document. An option would
be to select the IBM 4019 printer driver prior to creating the document.
In this case, the document could be created on the inkjet or laserjet
printer but printed on the IBM 4019 printer.
Deny the purchase of any new printers.
This option should be selected if City Council finds that they do not feel
it is necessary to purchase any additional printers at this time.
City Council Agenda - 8/11/95
t'._ STAFF RECOAnffibnATION;
City staff recommends alternative d2 to purdiaee two HP Deskjet 8650 printers
and a 4 -way switchbox at a cost of approrimately 81,200. Both Assistant
Administrator OTieill and Economic Development Director Koropchak feel that
a color option will enhance their work and the quality of presentations they do.
They also agree that the tart quality of the inkjet printers will meet their needs.
The HP Deshjet 6000 (8300) or 6600 ($400) wouiu also do an adequate job.
However, the Best Buy salesperson recommended the 865C model (8660)
because it should stand up to commercial use better.
D- SUPPORTING DATAi
Copy of Best Buy warranty, copy of advantagWdisadvantage sheets for an inlpet
printer versus a laser printer; copy of model/prioe comparison listing for
printers. Handouts will be available at the meeting to look at the print quality
of various printers.
FIIQ Pa# civw � .
No bed s�'� e
No Servile
Pr
1
BEST BUY P" "TS & LABOR
PERFORMANCE CONTRACT
lahono.r Gm>m a udiim h d>A dapd.t ar,lmr ab
• WAkmm.l.uustmp tenudbpab�eama mryo 6m ab and mdb
aoapd � a b iy Sm o 5nu (am Ya qut d b uekmd p b lot b9
Srwr cam a�a pa.n ag b .ted b de pA odar. bvaaalrW +W vnu
m ad w.aidphku
w ta• 4aae. Wk.. a c¢pb tdrd
• q'>n•. daa lwepbdttd RdmaarGww(atb,drth ml mPd lodd
paha nsgn lu p aw saA
• Ih, 1pinm.. Gas�.wvtaml.ero't durbo msd ad-Vudplymt
N•d di bdae. rbw, uidcel a aia�dduayr m b tosad
•
Its lcbaou Gmss dm m u �pm wad p grid drnap Wb
bd rut rkmml Deer, a dry toed p tw .t.1 pdobd m Wwrd W
m—W. nb=tWtb baon wd c=a1"W&M d+b
• b Nd -m. G.wrs den p•b apo .9 pww,
• ar4'IwS...9lgnt1. wdh b pem.t mbmw oda b bM lagp�tll lmw
Goes, w+an rvid m.d, 6 aqa M ah t. -u. oder
b dY (aprry —I pod e�td Eev aqn
• Adm q" ub b km d hgkv" W I", G®5 aA b4bd.a a pdd
dblp(
I • blurt hbpmr—Loaeemwm �tYa �lhn pian x�bimradocJ
l ran Wdacul.t4Mar arnrt�.d to h4r-atr�Gw�_
• nC,b apd vodoec'to btarb •�Jraq�G®1 deto
+$d d h de.und lel lua (uabr ud. b em d h..4
• Pa Adocarr Gw. do mtaa bi a drip bwd do
• lw kd— 1*--.gbccdbata".!Lwo.eaulurbmw.dh
bd 6, 54', lea/vr
• (Y�jj�AG�au(aumtplr llb hh dgt.bMbdbkAw.r
Gmres ml toad ap teAy rem •ae+rr J medma 6 h Rda*mr 4w�r
ad a apd pats,a W b
b bp(o,h
Abwsu Gaaa
to 1. 51101110 71
dam 0S'A%IOU
Obew 1qr t� d R• wsia rGrw r I.crr:} od laay 6 to eoi I U,ar,
imdLta p tea G tw d nd w p aduul �d ai h pc:u d 911+d h pwd
pwlrer pr a tpn b tvt ury daab bra h, n t9ol Iln kicw• Gwo..A
ubmagbbbaWb—WF—Jbp.!Np+•,bd... aad
tac�eeevi lu.dolpkJRS by dut.�noardbpmodrpsad
a.xa d IN wd papar pard b, taaa bpi
• rm Pb* wr GOpbrmdJy%andkj4Ia h 106e 1717. (d
NW 9717
• �j (IYrn (!g Il fe{irm•funaeto,cdpe..yr wd,rat5p
I,aoal lr..lat luyf� rub, Vill ewape as SSm a .Cr, uq dbl o
mb4•puaJ6.aep�tlot�BC1� lot dSUbWru+clAwa av
pad o drd m rd.at tEttr b prJtoo 0 W uT•^• i/1t d m CN:aa aq
dr tbedaq bb w�1
11. ,J I.,, —
Finally, an
affordable way to
extend your Parts &
Labor Warranty to
four years!
WARRANTY
Shop and compare!
Most stores make enormous profits
from selling extended warranties. They
pay high commissions to motivate their
salespeople to sell them to you.
At Best Buy, we've cut the profits and
we don't pay commissions. We
provide dependable, comprehensive
servi— at affordable prices)
Best Buy's Warranty
Extends the Manufacturer's
Parts & Labor Warranty to
4 Full Years!
Best Buy's
Performance Guarantee:
"We guarantee the Performance
of your product to
factory specifications for the
duration of this plan.
Your product does not have to
break for you to benefit from this
peri ...once guarantee."
Best Buy's
No Lemon Guarantee
8 your product requires mora than three
repairs during the extended warranty
period, Hest Buy will replace It Creel
VALIDATION
Transfer of OwnersWp C
N
Ibrr d Ib Owe
ii+
0
W" d Oqd Qs
Btu en a pandtontn Ouvrrtn et trtnclmDeY b enOeM aNtm b
Ow Pcd ISrtIMO p MW neem w ars -- - Pwb ww"
churmrtt M orptrt PO&A" vlt m —0 a s*r CWWA tapob
nctbtt, sora bt oswrna w.. ar,r. na't^.o now to
rrtlangna Gow tt b kwhm t 01 att nmhracb" 0 p airy
N
m
0,
Co
N
m
0
D
V
S o
-
®
V% � AA
al
n
O ! a
"tl a
O
a u�.�
�3
D
V
PURCHASE OF 2 SMALLER INKJET PRINTERS
(BEST BUY)
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
lower initial coat
color option available
4 year low coat warranty for parte and
labor (*states that warranty not
available for producta purchased for
commercial or rental purposes)
option might be to purchase
maintenance agreement throw
Computer Parte & Service - would
provide on-aite preventive maintenance
as well as repair service
transparencies turn out very well,
especially in color
higher operating costa
slower printing speed
depot (carry -in) warrant' only through
Beat Buy (salesperson said they would
repair printers purchased for business
use, although warranty states
otherwise)
may not be durable enough
(salesperson suggested purchasing
from business equipment dealer
because the printers they carry are not
intended for business use)
if printer problems, would not have an
alternative available immediately
documents created on computers
hooked up to different printers would
be formatted differently; may create
problems if documents need to be
shared
The 2 i*et printers would be placed in outer offices for use by Assistant
Administrator Jeff O Weill and Economic Development Director 011ie Koropehak.
The central office staff would continue to use the IBM 4018 laser printer, but the
swiWl&z needs to be replaced because it was damaged by lightening.
D WET.SUM: 9/8198
9u
PURCHASE OF AN IBM 4019 LASER PRINTER & SWITCHBOX
(COMPUTER PARTS & SVC)
ADVANTAGES
lower operating cost
faster printing speed
DISADVANTAGES
higher purchase price
no odor option available
maintenance agreement provides on-site maintenance agreement costlier than
service and quarterly preventive Best Buy warranty
maintenance; includes all parte and
labor
durability guaranteed
if printer problem, could immediately
send documents to other printer
complete compatibility because printers
would be the same
There are other laser printers available, some of which are lower priced. In most
cases, by the time you add options fbr memory, postscript printing, and an
additional paper tray, the out will be in the $2000 range. The disadvantage of a
different brand is that documents may not be compatible due to the difference in
printer drivers.
LASER.SUM: 9/I/9b
PRINTER MODEUPRICE COMPARISON
Printer
Print C
Bpeed
POP
ftp- C—b
(.02-.03/
psallty
I
stae
Trav
HP Deslget
800X600 dpi indud
4ppm (BdVV)
3 X 5 to
100 sheet recommended
600C
500 -sheet
I ppm (color)
8.5X 14
to use high
$999.
(.0065/
OM memM
quality 20 to
HP DeskJet
WOX600 dpi Included
4ppm (B&W)
3 X 5 to
?
24 lb -,ape
660C
.6ppm (color)
8.5X 14
$11 - 920 per
HP DeskJet
S00X600 dpi included
7ppm (BRW)
?
7
8550
3ppm (color)
Iream
HP DeskJet
600X300 dpl Inclu
4-7ppm (BR
8.5 X I 1 to
180 sheet
12000 or
I.2ppm (color)
8.5 X 14
1200C/P5
L—ark
SOOX300 dpi Included
2-3ppm (B&VA
3 X 5 to
160 sheet
WInWrIter
.5ppm (color)
9 X 14.33
150C
r
HP LaserJet
300X300 dpi not
4ppm (BRW)
8.8 X 11 and 100 sheet can use high
41.
availabk
er
quality or
COPY Pape
IBM 4019
300X300 dpi no color110ppm
(BRW) 8.5 X 11 to
200 sheet $4 - $20 per
Laser lasPrtnla
avallabla
8.5X 14
ream
T r
PRNCOMP. WK4: 09/07/95
Printer opda=
Price Items
$299.99
$399.99
$549.991
$999.99 $1000.00
postsatpt:
Ind. 4MB
memory
$349.991
1
$499.
$1,350.00
B a W txlor 7-�
Cattorlldaro C"" AL
$24.99 $29.99 $mon
700 pages 400 pages
(.03-.05/po (27,08/pql
$11 /month
$14/month)
$14/month
CI
v
$33 *11 /month?
200
(.17/
n/a 1 $11/month
n/a $17/month
827.
1000
(.02-.03/
BRW Tone 1
858 .
3,000
(.01-.Q2jm
$109.00
BRW Tone
500 -sheet
898.9
drawer
15.000 pages
$999.
(.0065/
OM memM
SM9.00
postsatpt
fonts
v
$33 *11 /month?
200
(.17/
n/a 1 $11/month
n/a $17/month
Council Agenda - 9/11/96
io. Conodderation of io nt venture vdi h the MIX of Buff_ale [or rnrrhAm
of a etnmLmiader for the tree d lnartment. U.S.)
Periodically the Cities of Buffalo, Elk River and Monticello get together to
discuss our past joint ventures and look at other ways of sharing existing
equipment or jointly purchasing additional equipment. Some of the
discussion centered around the need for a stump grinder for grinding stumps
on public property such as boulevards, parks, and in and around city
buildings. The City of Elk River already has an arrangement whereby they
utilize a stump grinder. Consequently, the City of Buffalo requested a joint
vei.:ure to purchase one.
We also have been discussing possible joint ventures on equipment with the
County, specifically with Bruce Theilen of the Wright County Parks
Department. Bruce was very interested in being the third party on our joint
venture for the stump grinder and requested last year that the County Board
consider doing so. The County did not authorize it, however, as they had
some concerns, not with the possible savings but with the workings of a joint
venture with a city and multiple cities. Consequently, the City of Buffalo
and Monticello budgeted in 1996 for the purchase of a stump grinder. Our
tree fund budget includes $7,600 for the purchase. Since new stump grinders
cost in the area of $20,000, for the joint venture between the City of Buffalo
and Monticello, we would consider purchasing a used or re -conditioned
stump grinder. There is still interest from the Wright County Parks
Department, however, in going on a 3 -way joint venture, and Bruce will
again be approaching County officials to do so. What I would ask the City
Council to consider is spending $6,000 to $7,600 for a stump grinder on a
joint venture with the City of Buffalo and/or a 3 -wary joint venture with
Wright County. The City of Buffalo would take the quotes and do the
purchasing of the stump grinder, and we would repay them either for one-
half or one-third.
The Bret alternative is to authorirs the concept of a joint venture with
the City of Buffalo and/or Wright County fbr the purchase of a new or
used stump grinder with the City's participation not to exceed the
budgeted amount of $7,600.
The second alternative would be not to consider purchasing a stump
grinder but to continue contracting fbr stump grinding as needed.
Council Agenda - 9/11/96
V RrAFF NDATION;
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that City Council
authorize a joint venture as outlined in alternative &1 but to p with a low-
cost used stump grinder. In the past, we have waited until we accumulated a
great number of stumps to be ground out throughout the city and had a
contractor come in and do the grinding. Part ownership of a stump grinder
would allow us to grind out the stumps as needed at a reasonable cost. The
cost to grind the stump at city hall by contract would be $66. We last had a
stump grinding project in 1990 which coat $1,268 for 1,847.6 inches of stump
diameter (88¢ per inch). We then had City crews collect the stump grindings
and fill the holes with black dirt.
None.
16
Council Agenda - 9/11/95
M1PI1[sT1` tl'"-1Ir'+r-rMIKOM
On April 10 of this year, the City Council held a special meeting to discuss
this same subject. At that time, City staff presented detailed information
regarding the history of farm land application of sludge from the Monticello
Wastewater Treatment Plant. As stated back then, the City had less than 70
acres permitted for sludge application, and we were mated out on those sites
and in need of additional land immediately. Much of the discussion centered
around the City's search for suitable land on `hand shake agreements' with
farmers, the problems with having to lime farm land to a 6.6 pH or higher,
and the need to have our own property for guaranteed application rights.
Much of the discussion centered on the site which our search criteria led us
to, which was the Susan Hanaford property on County Road 106 west of
Highway 26. At that time it appeared that the only option we had to acquire
that property was the eminent domain process and that it may be necessary
to perform grading on the site to control surface water run-off before using
the property.
At the conclusion of the April 10 meeting, the Public Works Director
requested that the Council create a subcommittee to work on the sludge site
issue and to ultimately work with the Township. Mayor Fyle and Council
Member Perrault volunteered to be on the subcommittee. Since that time, we
have met on several occasions and looked at the following issues:
The committee considered expanding the search Brom a 5 -mile radius
around the wastewater treatment plant to a 10 -mile radius. A soils
map was prepared of the additional search area, and a couple of sites
which looked promising were field -chocked but proved to be less
desirable.
The subcommittee suggested that lettere be sent to all local area
realtors along with the description of the needs of the City to find out
whether or not fitrm land or a complete farm existed for sale that
would meet our criteria and needs. We received only one response to
our inquiries, and it was for a small hobby farm which could not begin
to meet even a portion of our needs.
The committee suggested we again talk to other communities to am
what steps they were taking to accomplish the sludge site problems
they had. The City of Buffalo owns some of their own land; however,
they are searching for additional land and the possibility of building a
Council Agenda - 9/11/85
treatment facility at the sludge application site. The City of Big Lake
owns their own land for application, the City of St. Cloud is in a
similar process as we are, searching for additional land. The City of
Elk River recently purchased adequate land for sludge application just
a few years ago and then formulated a plan and are in good shape for
the present and their proposed expansion of their wastewater
treatment plant. Darryl Mack, the plant superintendent, indicated
that they struggled with finding a site and came hack to their first
choice afar bypassing it the first time around. When asked if they
could provide room for us on an emergency basis, they indicated that
their plan did not allow for application by others and was only
adequate for their own needs, although they are only using 45 acres
right now of their 120 -acre site. PSG contacted the metro wastewater
plant in the Twin Cities to we if we could haul sludge to that facility
after St. Cloud had turned us down; we were told that this would not
be allowed at metro either.
We looked again at the lijellberg property south of the east trailer
park currently owned by Tony Emmerich. We had passed over this
land previously, as the purchase price was extremely high and only
half the land, or approximately 60+ acres, would be usable for sludge
application due to the topography and nature of the soils at the site.
We thought maybe we should go back and look at this site again to use
it as an interim site only for the next few years and that the site may
appreciate in value to offset our investment in it for monitoring wells
and such. However, we found that the property probably had already
increased in value due to the extension of sanitary sewer lines and
proposed development near the area and that Mr. Emmerich does not
wish to sell at any price. Consequently, for the short-term proposed
use of this property, it does not appear applicable to keep pursuing it
and we must again find a long-term use site.
We were informed that Mr. Shieres was selling 20 acres of the
property we currently use for sludge application on his property. Since
a root crop cannot be grown for human consumption for approximately
38 months after the last sludge application and the property cannot be
occupied for a homesite until 12 months after an application, this site
is no longer available to us. Consequently, our inventory of usable
acreage has dropped to 50 or less, and we cannot meet our needs for
even the immediate fixture.
Council Agenda - 9/11/95
Our "ace in the hole" property, so to speak, which was 20 acres of the
Remmele parcel north of ltjellberg's West, did not obtain a suitable
pH. As you may recall, we limed approximately 25 acres of the site as
a backup hoping to achieve a pH in excess of 6.5 so that we could apply
for a facility permit for the site if we had to. Several tests have been
taken over a period of time, and we have only achieved a pH of 6.4.
We cannot even apply for a permit until we reach 6.5. We are re-
testing the Bite again for the third time to see if it has changed. Again,
our investment just to utilize this 20 acres would be in the $10,000 to
$20,000 range.
We have begun researching whether or not on a short-term basis there
is a contractor out there in Minnesota who may have a permitted site
and would take the sludge off our hands temporarily until we can find
a solution. The cities contacted so far who use sludge application and
hauling have had to provide their own permitted sites and are
ultimately responsible for the sludge disposal, whether it's contracted
out or not. We are still researching to find out whether or not any
avenues are available to us in regard to contract application on
someone else's site even if it was terribly expensive.
We have re -investigated a 160 -acre site out on West County Road 39
which we had passed over in the past. Additional investigation of this
site indicates that it would be borderline or may not even be
appropriate for sludge application due to expected water table and soil
water -holding capabilities. Ail sludge would have to be surface
sprayed to take advantage of every inch of top soil to make the
necessary clearance to the groundwater.
As stated at the workshop on Wednesday, September 6, 1995, we are
proposing to fast track the sludge treatment portion of the wastewater
treatment plant expansion. This would be a heat pasteurization
process which would render the sludge inert and would create a
Class A sludge. It is possible that this system could be on-line in late
1996. It is also conceivable that since this is a permitted process and
must be demonstrated that it is a pathogen kill pasteurization process,
we may not be fm to apply the sludge from this process until the
winter of 1996-97 or the spring of 1997, which may be well beyond our
time needs.
10. The rules for sludge are changing-, new draft regulations ibr the PCA
indicate that the pH limit may be dropped to 6.0, which would help us
with the Remmele site and reduce costs of permitting other sites. They
Council Agenda - 9/11/95
would also change the application rights to the sandier soils, making
our needs for land a little greater and our needs to produce a Class A
sludge, which is a totally agricultural product and expected to be
applied the same as any other type of fertiliser, under the same
restrictions. We do not know when the final version of the rules would
be adopted.
This pretty well brings you up-to-date as to where we are! Several months
further down the road with not even enough land to meet our immediate
needs and with the daily accumulation of sludge increasing, time to running
out and we don't have an easy solution.
We do know that under current regulations, we need land with a pH of 6.5 or
greater. To raise the pH of farm land, it takes 6-12 months; and to permit
land based upon a hand shake agreement with a farmer could take several
months after that. It could take six months or longer to permit a site that we
own or lease and that we currently have neither a short-term or long-term
solution. Consequently, it's opened up for general discussion at the meeting.
20
Council Agenda - 9/11/96
12. [`n aiderallon of se ng a citta for ed ilio wl IM h +dget review.
(R.W.) 1
' ,.i
A. REFRRRNCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting, the Council had agreed to establish a preliminary
1996 tax levy proposal that would amount to no more than a 6.6% increase
over the amount levied in 1996. This increase would amount to $166,266
over the 1995 level and could total up to $2,997,460 if kept at the maximum
level.
To arrive at the 6.6% increase, $148,207 was dropped from the levy amount
proposed under option #2, and this amount was taken from the capital outlay
revolving fund that had tentatively been earmarked for the wastewater
treatment plant design fee category. As you may recall, $300,000 was
initially proposed as an option to be used for paying for a portion of the
engineering design fees for the wastewater treatment plant expansion, and
the Council had decided that funding for the design and construction should
take place through a future bond sale and suggested the reduction of
$148,000 be taken from the initial amount proposed to be set aside for design
fees. As a result, any remaining balance would be possibly set aside for
future treatment plant land expansion acquisition or possibly to be used for a
sludge site acquisition in the future.
Since the budget workshop, the City was also notified by the State
Department of Revenue that we would lose an additional $31,431 in HACA
aid over what we were originally told we would receive. This reduction is
because of certain tax increment financing districts that we are penalized for.
At the time the workshop information was prepared, we were not aware of
this additional reduction that was being proposed in our aid formulas. At
this point in time, the easiest place to account for the additional $31,431 loss
in revenue was also through the capital outlay fund levy, and I have
tentatively reduced further the amount to be set aside for future land
acquisition down to $120,362 firom the original $300,000 proposed under
option #2.
During the workshop, it was the Council consensus that an additional
workshop session or special meeting would be held by the City Council to
further review the budget in more detail, especially concerning specific
capital outlay expenditures proposed. It is assumed that each department
head or supervisor will be given an opportunity to explain the mason for any
budget proposals submitted. After reviewing the items in more detail, the
Council Agenda - 9/11/95
Council could still have the option of amending or altering the budget as you
see fit, with the only limitation being you cannot increase it above the 5.5%
increase proposed initially.
Although our official public hearing will not be held until early December, it
is suggested that the Council set a special meeting date for the second
workshop session to fiuther review the budget in the near future. While a
meeting would not be necessary in the next week or two, as we do have
additional time before the public hearing, the Council may want to return to
the budget discussion relatively soon to keep things fresh in your miinde. As
a result, Council may want to look at setting a special date or meeting before
a regular meeting as we did in the past. As a reminder, the Council already
has a special meeting set for Wednesday, September 27, so that date is out;
but we could certainly look at the week before or the week after as
possibilities.
Set a date for a special meeting or workshop to fiurther discuss the
1888 budget proposals.
22