City Council Minutes 07-14-1986MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 14, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: Arve Grimsmo
1. Call to Order.
The regular meeting of the City Council was duly called to order
by Acting Mayor, Fran Fair.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and carried
unanimously to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 23,
1986.
Prior to proceeding with the agenda, Acting Mayor Fair turned the
floor to Administrator Eidem. Administrator Eidem said he wished
to take just a moment to introduce Barbara Jones, the newly appointed
Administrator for the Sherburne/Wright Counties Cable Communications
Commission. Eidem provided the Council with a brief background on
Ms. Jones and indicated that the Cable Commission's offices would
be located in the Monticello City Hall. Acting Mayor Fair acknowledged
Ms. Jones' presence and welcomed her to the City of Monticello, and
wished her good luck as Cable Administrator.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
John Simola, Public Works Director for the City, presented a petition
that had been submitted by Mr. Lucius Johnson. The petition requested
the installation of storm sewer to his property lying south of Sixth
Street at the termination point of Linn Street. Simola indicated
that the request was for storm sewer connection to be installed as
part of the interceptor sewer project. Simola reported that the
estimated cost of the storm sewer connection would be approximately
$4,500.00, and that 1000 of said amount would be assessed to Mr.
Johnson.
Motion by Bill Fair, second by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to
accept the petition of Mr. Lucius Johnson requesting an installation
of storm sewer with the expense for such installation to be assessed
entirely to Mr. Johnson.
4. Public Hearing to Consider the Vacation of Property Line Easements
within the Construction 5 Addition.
Acting Mayor Fair convened a public hearing to accept public comment
on the proposed vacation of property line easements within Construction 5
Addition, said easements being 6 feet in width and adjoining the
-1-
Council Minutes - 7/14/86
lot lines between Lots 1 & 2, Lots 2 & 3, Lots 3 & 4, and Lots 4 & 5.
Administrator Eidem explained that the conditional use permit that
was reviewed at an earlier meeting and granted for the development
of 54 multiple housing units would require the location of buildings
such that they would lie over the easements. Eidem indicated the
perimeter easements would remain intact as would the main drainage
easement to the west of Lot 1. Acting Mayor Fair requested public
comment. Mr. Norm Ecklund, representing Northern States Power, asked
if any utilities were currently in these easements. Administrator
Eidem indicated there were not. There being no other questions from
the public, the Acting Mayor closed the public hearing.
Motion by Bill Fair, second by Dan Blonigen, and carried unanimously
to vacate the easements described above with said vacation to be
contingent upon the execution of an approved development agreement
between Construction 5, Inc., and the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment
Authority ensuring that the development as proposed will occur.
The recording and certification of said vacation of easements shall
not occur until the proposed project has been included in the development
agreement. If the project does not occur, then the easements shall
remain intact.
5. Consideration of Awarding Contract to the Lowest Responsible Bidder
for the 1986 Seal Coating Project.
Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed the bids received for
the 1986 Seal Coating Project. The bids received and reviewed are
as follows:
1. Batzer Construction Co.
P.O. Box 1025
St. Cloud, MN 56301
2. Allied Blacktop Co.
10503 89th Avenue N.
Maple Grove, MN 55369
3. Buffalo Bituminous, Inc.
Box 337 - Hwy. 55 West
Buffalo, MN 55313
Bid I Sq. Yd.
$21,096.04 $.59
$19,272.48 $.539
$19,487.02 $.545
City Sweeping
Bid II Sq.Yd.
$18,736.14 $.524
$17,127.12 $.479
$17,987.00 $.5030
Simola noted the low bidder was Allied Blacktop Company from Maple
Grove in the amount of $17,127.12 with the City doing all of the
sweeping, and $19,272.48 with the contractor doing the sweeping.
Simola noted that the annual budgeted amount for seal coating was
$20,100.00. Simola also wished to point out that the unit price
for 1986 seal coating showed an improvement over the 1985 seal coating
-2-
Council Minutes - 7/14/86
project. In 1985, the cost per square yard of seal coating was awarded
at $.568, while the cost per square yard for the 1986 project is
$.539.
Motion by Bill Fair, second by Jack Maxwell, and carried unanimously
to award the 1986 Seal Coating Project to Allied Blacktop Company
of Maple Grove, including the contractor sweeping option, in the
amount of $19,272.48.
6. Consideration of a Recommendation from the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Contracting Subcommittee to Commence Negotiations with PSG.
The City Council briefly reviewed the executive summary supplied
by Beling Consultants, who had assisted the City's subcommittee in
the investigation of contract operations for the Wastewater Treatment
Plant. John Simola, Public Works Director, reviewed the process
the committee had gone through and indicated that the committee's
unanimous preference was to, indeed, contract operations at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant and to negotiate such a contract with Professional
Services Group (PSG). Mr. Simola introduced Mr. Mike Robbins, the
Senior Vice President of PSG. Administrator Eidem noted that neither
in the agenda supplement prepared by him, nor in the executive summary
prepared by Beling Consultants, was the contract price indicated.
He wished to note that PSG had bid the annual operations at a budgeted
amount of $265,000.00 per year for three consecutive years. Eidem
stressed that, while this amount appeared to be approximately $25,000.00
higher than the 1985 operating budget, the City's operating budget
did not accurately reflect total related expense since many man hours
out of engineering and administration were not charged to the department.
Eidem also noted that the staff had documented the need for one additional
staff member at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and that the annual
cost of such a staff member would very likely push City cost to approximately
the same as the bid cost. Eidem noted lastly that the comparative
figures were between the 1986 budget and 1987, 1988, and 1989. Noting
that even a 4% increase annually on the 1986 budget, would eventually
cause the City to exceed the bid amount.
Councilmember Fair indicated that, having sat on the subcommittee,
he had received a favorable impression of contract operation, the
goals of contracting, and each of the firms interviewed. He noted
that he had visited two plants in other locations that were under
contract operations and had come away with an overall favorable impression;
and he supports the recommendation of the subcommittee that the City
contract operations and attempt to negotiate said contract with PSG.
Councilmember Maxwell indicated his preference for pursuing the contract
option so that the City could enter into contract operations for
the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Councilmember Blonigen indicated
that he had spoke at length with Public Works Director Simola and
felt satisfied that contracting operations was the most efficent
manner for the City to proceed. Blonigen noted that while there
-3-
Council Minutes - 7/14/86
is, at first appearance, a difference in the financial obligation
of the City, he feels the merits of the contract of services far
outway the difference in money. He noted that he believed delivery
of sertrica-and possible long range cost savings substantiated the
need to continue with the contracting process.
Motion by Blonigen, second by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to
direct the Wastewater Treatment Plant contracting subcommittee to
commence negotiations with PSG.
7. Consideration of Authorizing Negotiations for the Acquisition of
the Northern States Power Maintenance Building.
Acting Mayor Fair recognized Administrator Eidem, who explained that
over the last several months there has been considerable discussion
concerning the City's acquisition of the Northern States Power service
station/maintenance building located on West County Road 39 adjacent
to the City of Monticello's Public Works Department. Eidem explained
that Councilmember Maxwell had done an appraisal of the building,
but NSP had also had a formal appraisal prepared. He noted that
to date, there had not been a formal asking price for the Council
to consider. At this point, Eidem introduced Norm Ecklund, Director
of Area Relations for NSP. Mr. Ecklund informed the Council that
NSP was, indeed, interested in selling the building, and they had
established an asking price of $89,500.00. Ecklund noted that if
this price is found to be unsuitable to the City, Northern States
Power is ready to begin negotiations.
Maxwell noted that his appraisal was substantially less than this
amount, said appraisal reflecting an estimated value of $67,000.00.
Council and staff considered it essential for representatives of
the City and NSP to sit down together to review the two appraisals
to find out if there were discrepancies in what was appraised.
Motion by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and carried unanimously
to appoint Jack Maxwell and Tom Eidem to a negotiating subcommittee
to attempt to arrive at an agreeable sale price and report back to
the Council.
Before closing this agenda item, Dan Blonigen wished to note for
Mr. Maxwell's information that the building was reconstructed when
NSP purchased it. He wished to note that some adjustments had been
made to the original plans, and that consequently the plans Mr. Maxwell
had available to him might not reflect the actual conditions on site
at this time.
8. Consideration of Granting Approval for a Simple Subdivision - Applicant,
MPI Wolter__
Mel Wolters appeared before the City Council to request final approval
of a simple subdivision, creating two buildable lots, out of Lot 2,
Block 1, in Doerr Estates. The request for the simple subdivision also
am
contained a request for a variance to reduce t
on one of the lots. Acting Mayor Fair noted f
the Planning Commission had granted approval t
Wolters indicated that it was a fairly simple
new building lot and that the variance request
access to the rear lot.
Council Minutes - 7/14/86
he street frontage
or the Council that
o this request. Mr.
request to create one
was included to allow
Councilmember Blonigen indicated that, in his opinion, due to the
extremely large size of the lot, perhaps the entire parcel should
be replatted. Blonigen expressed some concern over the creation
of two irregularly shaped lots and the granting of variances. He
was concerned with establishing a precedent for approving lots with
only 33 feet of frontage. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated
that the Planning Commission, at their meeting on July 8, 1986, raised
the same question of precedent. Anderson noted that some discussion
of the Doug Pitt subdivision which received approval contained lots
with far less frontage than Mr. Wolters' proposal.
Administrator Eidem indicated to the Council that it was the Doug
Pitt subdivision proposal that generated an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance such that the street frontage of an irregularly shaped
lot should contain a minimum width of 53 feet, said number being
two-thirds (2/3) of the required minimum lot width at building setback
line. Eidem noted that consequently, the Pitt subdivision could
not be used as a precedent since the requirements of the ordinance
had changed since approval of that subdivision. Eidem went on to
say that the Council needed to be aware of the consequences of granting
a variance where a hardship or finding of fact relating to the uniqueness
of a lot mandated the granting of such a variance. Eidem indicated
that land use planning law generally held that the granting of variance
without a finding of fact was essentially amending the ordinance
and lessening the minimum requirements. He noted that for a governing
body to arbitrarily grant variances that will allow development below
the minimum standards essentially lowers those minimum standards
without officially amending the ordinance. Eidem stressed that the
finding of fact needed to be documented in order to justify the granting
of the variance.
Councilmember Bill Fair defended the configuration indicating that
the proposal exceeds all other requirements with respect to size
and density, setbacks, etc. Councilmember Maxwell also supported
the lot split concept based on the fact of the substantial quantity
of land available. Administrator Eidem indicated that the question,
at this point, was not a question of design and density or configuration,
but rather a question of process. Eidem indicated that in the absence
of the finding of fact substantiating a hardship or a uniqueness
to the parcel, any future request for a 33 -foot front lot would have
to be legitimately considered. Acting Mayor Fair asked Mr. Wolters
if he had considered any other design that might more adequately
address the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Wolters indicated
he had not really considered any other design. Mr. Wolters noted
-5-
Council Minutes - 7/14/86
that there is a house in place, and that he wished to create the
new building site without infringing or encroaching upon the existing
structure. It was Mr. Wolters' contention that a different design
configuration could encroach upon the existing structure and would
lessen the rights to property enjoyment of that existing structure.
Councilmember Bill Fair indicated that the parcel in question is,
in fact, unique because it was designed and developed under a different
set of requirements from the City's subdivision ordinance and was
annexed as designed. He felt that the parcel deserves specific consideration.
He indicated that he found no difficulty in finding that the parcel
is, in fact, unique based on the design considerations under which
it was developed. He noted that the proposal exceeds all other municipal
requirements and that the variance would not be considered arbitrary.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, read the following letter into
the record: To the City Council: We desire the lot at Lot 2, Block A,
remain single family dwelling zoned. We desire the lot at Lot 2,
Block A. not be divided to contain (2) two single family dwellings.
The statement was signed by Teresa Whitson, Lot 1, Block A, 1328
West River Street.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and carried
unanimously to approve a simple subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, in
Doerr Estates, with one lot (Parcel 1) being granted a variance in
minimum width of lot frontage from 53 feet to 33 feet.
9. Consideration of Awarding the Contract for the Sealing of the Interior
Beams and Decking for City Hall.
Gary Anderson presented to the Council one bid for the resealing
of the interior beams and decking of City Hall. Mr. Anderson noted
that the exposed beams and decking were becoming extremely dry and
in some areas some minor splitting of the laminate was occurring.
Mr. Anderson indicated that one bid for the work had been received,
that bid being from Lindberg Painting and Wallcovering in the amount
of $2,984.60 to be paid upon completion. Mr. Anderson further noted
that that price had been originally submitted in July of 1985, and
that Mr. Lindberg had agreed to do the work in 1986 for the same
price. Anderson also noted that Lindberg had proposed to do all
work in City Hall in the evening hours and on weekends so as not
to disrupt the operations in City Hall.
Councilmember Blonigen raised a question based on the bid proposal
submitted which did not address the decking. The written proposal
submitted originally talked only of sealing the beams, and Mr. Blonigen
felt that that needed to be clarified. Mr. Anderson assured the
Council that the bid proposal included all decking and beams within
City Hall for the one bid price.
Motion by Fair, second by Blonigen, and carried unanimously to accept
the proposal of Lindberg Painting and Wallcovering in the amount
of $2,984.60 for the cleaning, sanding, sealing, and finishing of
the City Hall ceiling including beams and decking.
Council Minutes - 7/14/86
10. Consideration of Approving the Specifications for Refuse Hauling
Contract and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids.
The 3 -year contract for refuse hauling with Corrow Sanitation expires
on August 1, 1986. The Council was presented with a revised contract
and requested to approve the contract spec's and order an advertisement
for bids. It was noted that prior to advertising for bids, the Council
could attempt to renegotiate a contract with Corrow Sanitation as
had been done three years earlier. Zoning Administrator Anderson
indicated to the Council several points that Corrow Sanitation wished
to have changed in the contract. Eidem explained that this was not
the time to renegotiate the contract, but rather a time for the City
to determine what the contract specifications that they would require
would be. Councilmember Blonigen indicated that in his opinion it
would be better to renegotiate rather than go to the bidding process.
Public Works Director, John Simola, felt that there might be benefits
to investigating the bidding process, since there might be a refuse
hauler who would be willing to bid a substantially lower amount in
order to get established in the City of Monticello, much like Corrow
had done six years earlier. Simola also suggested that an option
for once a week refuse pick up be included in the specifications,
whether bid or negotiated. Simola went on to note that he recalled
that Corrow received a substantial increase to cover the increased
fuel prices of a few years back, but there had never been a decrease
when fuel prices dropped.
Eidem explained that what the Council should be considering is the
level of service delivery that they wish to maintain and that the
specifications should be adopted to address that issue. Upon adoption
of those specs, either bids could be taken or negotiations could
commence in order to determine the cost of achieving that level of
service. Eidem noted that the main issue at hand was to evaluate
the specifications thereby setting the level of service to be provided,
and then, and only then, could the process continue to determine
the cost of that service delivery.
Motion by Maxwell, second by Bill Fair, and carried unanimously to
approve the specifications for refuse hauling and ordering staff
to meet with Corrow Sanitation by the next regularly scheduled Council
meeting in an attempt to negotiate an extension of the existing service
contract.
Staff noted that Corrow Sanitation agreed to continue service delivery
beyond the August 1 date under current contract prices in the event
that a new contract had not been executed by August 1. The Council
noted that should negotiations with Corrow Sanitation be unfruitful,
the City would advertise for bids for refuse hauling.
11. Consideration of Change Order Nos. 1, 2, and 3 for the interceptor
Sewer Project.
Public Works Director, John Simola, explained to the Council the
substance of Change Orders 1, 2, and 3 to the interceptor sewer project.
-7-
Council Minutes - 7/14/86
Change Order No. 1 is to increase the length of submersible pump
power cables to 50 feet, increase conduit size to 2 inches, set a
power pole with !�-inch conduit, and to change the concrete base of
the control panel in size for a total amount of $1,886.58. Simola
explained that Change Order No. 2 was an addition to the interceptor
sewer connected with the authorized installation of the water main
in Chestnut Street. The work included the installation of additional
1 -inch corp. stops, 1 -inch curb stop and box, connections to existing
curb stops, abandoning to existing corp stops, cutting in tees, and
connecting to existing 6 -inch stub. Also included was the installation
of one 4 -inch sanitary sewer service all for the total cost of $3,640.00.
Change Order No. 3 involved changing the granular bedding material
and to increase the quantity from 500 cubic yards to 800 cubic yards.
Cost of Change Order No. 3 is $5,000.00.
Motion by Blonigen, second by Bill Fair, and carried unanimously
to approve Change Orders 1, 2, and 3 to the 1986 Interceptor Sewer
Project.
12. In a non -agenda item, Zoning Administrator Anderson requested the
Council to consider paying Fullerton Lumber, the general contractor
on the Fire Hall construction, all but approximately $3,000-$5,000.00
of the retainage currently held by the City. Anderson asked that
the Council authorize the Fire Hall Building Committee to determine
the appropriate retainage and grant final payment of the balance.
Anderson noted that all but some minimal items had been completed.
Anderson noted that due to the large retainage of the City, Fullerton
Lumber had not paid its local subcontractors who had completed their
work. Blonigen noted that that was not a failure on the City's part
but on the contractor's part, and the City should not be responsible
for paying the subcontractors to cover the failure of the general
contractor. Blonigen went on to say that he felt the entire retainage
should be withheld based on the poor scheduling performance under
the terms of the general contract. Blonigen noted that the schedule
called for the building to be completed in February of 1986) and
here it was mid-July and it still was as yet incomplete. It was
noted that the fact that the City had not begun to assess liquidated
damages for non-compliance with the contract was concession enough.
The rest of the Council agreed with Blonigen that if we are unable
to get the contractor to complete the project while retaining in
excess of $20,000.00, it would be very unlikely that we could get
successful completion if the City retained only $3,000.00. It was
the consensus of the Council to withhold the entire retainage amount
allowed under the contract to ensure final completion by the general
contractor.
13. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned.
Th mas A. Eidem
City Administrator