City Council Minutes 06-27-1983MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
June 27, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen,
Ken Maus.
Members Absent: Jack Maxwell.
1. Call to Order.
2 . Approval of the Minutes.
A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus and unani-
mously carried to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held on June 13, 1983 and the Joint Meeting held
with the Planning Commission on June 21st, 1983.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, Complaints.
Wesley Olson, representing the Monticello Jaycees, requested
approval from the Council to authorize the Monticello Jaycees
to sponsor a traveling circus show on the former Oakwood Block
on Saturday, July 23, 1983. The Jaycees planned to have two
performances with a seating capacity of 1,400 per show and
they have submitted an application with the $100 fee per City
ordinances. Mr. Olson noted that the ordinance does allow
the Council to waive the $100 fee for non-profit organizations
and requested consideration of waiving the fee.
The Council discussed concerns about possible parking problems
with the circus being located in the downtown area as the
possibility exists that many of the patrons would be parking
in the downtown parking lots, etc. It was suggested that the
Jaycees contact the school district to see if they would
allow parking on their playground area at the corner of
4th and Pine Streets, next to the public library. As a
result, a motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen,
and unanimously carried to approve the traveling show permit
to the Monticello Jaycees for a circus performance on
July 23, 1983, contingent upon the Jaycees making efforts
to work on the parking problems and try to find suitable
locations for parking areas. It was noted that the Council
would reimburse the,$100 traveling show fee if parking
congestion does not turn out to be a problem to the down-
town businessmen.
- 1 -
Council Minutes - 6/27/83
4. Consideration of Hwy 25 Bridge Lighting.
At the previous Council Meeting held on June 13, 1983, the Public
Works Director was authorized to have Olson & Son's Electric
perform a detailed inspection and miscellaneous repairs of the
bridge wiring to determine what cost would be necessary to
renovate the Hwy 25 bridge lighting system over the sidewalk.
After the inspection was completed, it was found that only
minor repairs would be needed to get the system in operation
and replacement of four light fixtures was estimated to cost
$1,864.80. If one of the two remaining fixtures that are
believed to be okay are found faulty after being lit, it
would cost an additional $316 to replace one fixture.
The initial investigation by the electrician costs $210
making the total cost of the repairs estimated at $2,074.80.
Although the majority of the Council Members felt that a
$2,000 investment to repair the bridge lighting would not
be feasible if the new bridge was in operation within 5
years, it was the Council's opinion that it would probably
be longer than 5 years before a new bridge was constructed
and operational.
Council Member Blonigen felt that if the repairs are made,
a second quote should be obtained on the work as he thought
the first quote seemed high. As a result, a motion was made
by Blonigen, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to
have the Public Works Director obtain a second quote for
repairing the Hwy 25 bridge lighting and submit it to the
Council at the next meeting for comparison.
5. Consideration of Presentation by OSM Relating to the Feasi-
bility Study on Meadow Oak Drainage.
Mr. Chuck Lepack of the City's Consulting Engineering Firm,
OSM, presented a review of the feasibility report they com-
pleted regarding the possible storm water drainage from
Meadow Oak Subdivision into County Ditch 33. As part of
the feasibility report, three alternatives were recommended
to be presented to the County Board as follows:
1. A direct discharge to the river of all drainage
from the Meadow Oak Subdivision which would require
a construction of a storm sewer pipe estimated at
$217,000.
M=
Council Minutes - 6/27/83
2. An overflow discharge into County Ditch #33 which
would only allow excessive drainage to be directed
into County Ditch #33.
3. Control discharge into County Ditch #33 which would
require the installation of a gate that would be
closed normally preventing any discharge into the
County Ditch until the waters would reach a certain
level which should only occur during an abnormally
high 100 year rainstorm.
Mr. Lepack noted that prior to the Meadow Oak Subdivision,
the area in question had a culvert for drainage that was
approximately three feet higher than the one proposed at
this time. Although the new culvert for drainage run off
would be three feet lower, by having a controlled discharge
gate installed, drainage should be less under a controlled
discharge than what would have occurred in the past during
a large rain fall without a controlled discharge.
Mr. Gene Bauer, the property owner along County Ditch #33,
expressed concerns to the Council about the large 18 inch
culvert that would drain from Meadow Oak onto his property
which then has to go through a small culvert into County
Ditch #33. In the past, his fields, when they have become
flooded, dry up in a short period of time and can continue
to be used but if the development was allowed to drain by
controlled methods through his property, he felt he would
always have water running through his property and his
property would not be useable. It currently appears that the
County Ditch #33 has been having problems with drainage even
without the Meadow Oak Subdivision and that the County Board
will possibly have to consider doing some type of repairs to
the Ditch regardless of whether Meadow Oak is allowed to
have a controlled discharge. The possibility does exist
that Meadow Oak Subdivision for the present time could
completely block the culvert leading into this Ditch and
retain its drainage entirely on its own property, but it
was some of the Council Members opinion that this would
only delay a problem that will have to be looked at once
the entire Meadow Oak subdivision is developed in the future.
It was noted by Mr. Lepack that if the Meadow Oak Subdivision
would be allowed to drain into the County Ditch, this area
could be included in the assessment district to help pay
for improvements that apparently now are necessary to the
Ditch.
- 3 -
Council Minutes - 6/27/83
Although the City Council could not take action other than
authorizing the feasibility report to be presented to the
County Board for their review, a motion was made by
Grimsmo and seconded by Fair to accept the feasibility
report prepared by the consulting engineer and present
the report and a petition for a controlled discharge
from Meadow Oak into the County Ditch #33. The County
Board will now have to hold future public hearings on the
ditch problem and in the meantime the Meadow Oak Subdivision
run off will be entirely contained within its own property
boundaries until some type of a solution is reached by the
County. Voting in favor of the motion were Grimsmo, Fair,
and Maus. Opposed was Blonigen who felt that the Meadow
Oak Subdivision should pond its own water on its own
property.
NOTE: At this time, Council Member Maxwell was in attendance.
6. Consideration of an Appeal on a Variance Request - Country
Kitchen Restaurant.
The Country Kitchen in the Monticello Mall recently decided
to move their pylon sign from the north side of the building
to the south side to gain better exposure from I-94. The
sign was also raised to 32 feet above the roadway in com-
plainance with City ordinances.
As part of the pylon sign, the Country Kitchen has always
had a small reader board attached to the sign which
allowed them to change the wording daily to advertise their
specials. In addition, this reader board is also used for
messages not necessarily related to the Country Kitchen,
but for such things as advertising civic events, etc.
Because the sign was raised in height when it was moved to
its new location, the reader board is currently difficult
to reach for the employees to change messages and as a
result, Country Kitchen applied for a variance to place
this reader board sign back in its former location at the
north end of the building near the front entrance.
The Planning Commission,at their public hearing on this
matter,denied the variance request for the second pylon
sign as they felt allowing an establishment to have two
pylon signs would result in additional requests by other
businesses for the same and it was noted by the Planning
Commission that another restaurant requested a similar
type advertising sign which was also recently denied.
- 4 -
Council Minutes - 6/27/83
Mr. Bryan Tschida, manager of the Country Kitchen Restaurant,
requested that the Council reconsider the denial and noted
that this was the first request the Country Kitchen Rest-
aurant has ever made for a variance in their nine years of
business in Monticello. Mr. Tschida felt that the Country
Kitchen has always had this reader board message sign for
nine years and was not a new requE:st for an additional sign
as some others have asked for. He noted that if the sign
would have been raised in its present location to the maximum
height, there would be no problem with the message board, but
he was not aware that by moving the sign to the rear of the
building, he would lose his rights to retain the message
board in its f ormer location.
Mr. Tschida also noted that other businesses in Monticello
have more signs than the current ordinances allowed and
felt that in his case, the reader board sign would not
be any worse than what has always been there for nine
years.
Although some concerns were expressed by Council Member
Fair concerning the precedent this would establish by
granting a variance for two pylon signs, a motion was
made by Maus, seconded by Maxwell to approve the variance
request for the reader board sign at the Country Kitchen
to remain at its former location due to the fact this
establishment has always had this message board sign
near its entrance. Voting in favor were Blonigen, Maus,
Grimsmo, and Maxwell. Fair was opposed.
7. Consideration of a Proposal by Curry and Associates to
Serve as Independent Computer Search Consultants.
u
Mr. Dave Maca.uley,of Curry and Associates presented to the
Council a data processing development plan for the City of
Monticello. The proposal includes three phases consisting
of project planning and organization, data collection
analysis, and def ini tion of requirements. A final phase,
implementation, will be undertaken if the City decides to
continue beyond the feasibility stage. The basic proposal
by the independent consultant to determine the needs of
the City in regard to computer processing would cost $6,800.
It was estimated by the consultant that after the needs of the
City are determined, a computer system with programs to
operate the financial records for the City of Monticello
cost between $15,000 to $30,000.
- 5 -
Council Minutes - 627/83
The Council discussed whether the consulting fee and the cost
of the computer equipment could be justified by the City
over the expected life of the equipment which is usually
about five years. It was noted that the City currently
expends approximately $5,000 per year for computer processing
with its auditing firm and it was recommended that the City
Staff pursue other alternatives and check with other cities
and service bureaus regarding computer applications for the
City. The possibilities include sharing computer time with
either the present firm the City does business with and also
checking with other cities and vendors. It was the Council
concensus to table any action regarding the hiring of a
consultant at this time to study the City's needs for com-
puter applications.
8. Consideration of a Proposal to Alter Sewer Lines and Discharge
Points for Wrightco.
For the past several months, the City of Monticello has been
working with Wrightco in an attempt to help them or assist
them in making a single point discharge from their plant to
the City sewer system. Wrightco Products currently has three
discharge points from their plants into the sewer system and
as part of the recently enacted pretreatment ordinance, a
single discharge point will be required of Wrightco.
Currently, the discharges from Wrightco Products flow into
the West Bridge Park lift station and are then pumped down
River Street to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Public
Works Director, John Simola, in reviewing the situation with
Wrightco has determined that if Wrightco Products could have
their main discharge enter into the sewer lines that go down
Walnut Street and then down Third Street to the east and
eventually connect into River Street sewer system, their
large flow would not have to go through the lift station
in the Bridge Park. In addition, by re-routing the discharge
away from the downtown area, some of the odor problems that
have been experienced during the past could be eliminated
from the downtown area. In addition, when an interceptor
sewer line is constructed along the railroad tracks in the
future, this new discharge point for Wrightco Products would
enable them to hook up to the interceptor sewer system much
easier than from their present discharge point. The elimi-
nation of Wrightco's discharge through the lift station
in West Bridge Park will enable more development to occur
in the western portion of the City which has to flow through
the lift station before any major improvements would have to
be made to the lift station, etc.
- 6 -
Council Minutes - 6/27/83
The total cost estimate of rerouting the current three dis-
charges from Wrightco Products to the new sewer line was
estimated to cost $20,767.00 with the City's share of this
cost being $11,438.00 and Wrightco's cost being $9,329.00.
It was noted that Wrightco has agreed to the proposed route
and discharge point and agreed to the cost sharing for the
rerouting.
Based on the information presented, a motion was made by
Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to authorize
the Public Works Director to proceed with the rerouting of
Wrightco Product's sewer discharges into one new point at
Third and Walnut with the City's cost to be approximately
$11,438.00 per quotes received.
9. Consideration of Awarding Contract for Seal Coating of City
C+-rc"n+-c
Bids for the 1983-2 Seal Coating Project were received at
2:00 P.M. on Monday, June 27th, 1983 as follows:
Allied Blacktopping, Inc.
Batzer Construction
Buffalo Bituminous
ITEM #1 ITEM #2
(Without Sweeping) (With Sweeping)
.479 per sq. ft.
$35,720.47
.45 per sq. ft.
$33,557.85
.409 per sq. ft.
$30,500.36
.424 per sq. ft.
$31,618.95
.38 per sq. ft.
$28,337.74
.359 per sq. ft.
$26,771.70
It was recommended by the Public Works Director that the low bid
from Buffalo Bituminous at $.409 per square foot with Buffalo
Bituminous doing the sweeping,be accepted in the amount of
$30,500.36. It was noted that the City had budgeted $27,800.00
for the 83 Seal Coating Project and to meet the budget, some
seal coating would have to be eliminated. Questions were
raised by Council Member Blonigen as to whether the City
could do the sweeping of the excess rock from the streets
cheaper than the contractor since the the City does own its
own sweeper, but Mr. Simola felt that the City did not have
sufficient man power to do the job as cheaply as Buffalo
Bituminous.
As a result, a motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and
unanimously carried to accept the low bid of Buffalo Bitumi-
nous in the amount of $.409 per square foot with Buffalo
Bituminous doing the sweeping and clean up provided that
the quantities were altered not to exceed the budgeted amount
of $27,800.00.
- 7 -
Council Minutes - 6/27/83
10. Consideration of Submitting a Formal Request to the Minnesota
Commissioner of Revenue for the Purpose of Reinstating the
Office of City Assessor.
Minnesota Statutes require that before the City can have its
own City Assessor, a formal letter to the Commissioner cf
Revenue has to be submitted requesting that the office of
City Assessor be reinstated to the City of Monticello.
Since the City has recently hired Mr. Gary Anderson as
Building Official and Mr. Anderson is a certified assessor,
a motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen and unani-
mously carried to adopt a resolution requesting that the
Department of Revenue reinstates the office of City Assessor
for the City of Monticello. (See Resolution #74).
If approved, the Council discussed what policy should be
established regarding assessing of City property and rec-
ommended that, if possible, an entire survey of the City
should be made within a 12 month period in an effort to
obtain an equalization of values throughout the City.
11. Department Head Meeting.
The Council discussed and reviewed various items with the
following department heads in attendance:
Karen Hanson Senior Citizen Director
Buddy Gay Wright County Sheriff Deputy
John Simola Public Works Director.
12. Approval of the Bills.
A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair and unani-
mously carried to approve the bills for the month of June.
Meet' Adjourned.
• �iCl
Rick Wolfste ler
Assistant Administrator