Loading...
City Council Minutes 05-14-1984MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL May 14, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held April 23, 1984. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Petitions for sewer and water extensions for the Bondhus Tool Corporation facility and the First National Bank Building were received by the Council. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to accept the petitions and refer them to the City staff to prepare feasibility studies on the best alternatives for serving these properties with utilities. 4 & 5. Public Hearing - Improvement of Hart Boulevard and Cedar Street, and Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Improvement of Hart Boulevard and Cedar Street. At the previous Council meeting, the City Engineer, John Badalich of OSM, presented feasibility studies for the improvements of Cedar Street and Hart Boulevard with bituminous surfacing and curb and gutter. Mr. Badalich reviewed with the Council a revised feasibility report for the above improvements with revised cost estimates, etc. The revised feasibility report for Hart Boulevard consisted of a combination of urban and rural type construction with an urban type street being 33 feet in width from the medical clinic eastward to a low point in Hart Boulevard. From this point easterly to where Hart Boulevard connects to County Road 75, the proposed construction would be a 26 foot bituminous surfaced street without curb and gutter. Mr. Badalich noted that the estimated cost of this improvement,including some storm water drainage improvements, was estimated at $77,800.00. Based on approximately 1,400 feet of assessable property, the cost for the street improvements was estimated at $48.21 per foot and $28.22 per foot for water main construction that would be assessed to approximately 365 feet of frontage. - 1 - Council Minutes - 5/14/84 Prior to the meeting, Mr. Badalich noted that he had met with Mr. John Bondhus, property owner along Hart Boulevard, and noted that Mr. Bondhus would prefer that the curb and gutter be extended all the way past his property to a point approximately adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant entrance. Mr. Bondhus felt that the additional curb and gutter would help direct water flow from entering his pond areas on his property. The additional cost for the 500 ft. of curb and gutter on both the north and south sides of Hart Boulevard to the Wastewater Treatment Plant property would raise the proposed assessments for the assessable property to approximately $50.50 per foot for street improvements. Mr. Badalich also reviewed the improvement of Cedar Street from the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to Lauring Lane. There are three alternatives consisting of Alternate A, blacktopping existing gravel surface of approximately 26 feet in width at an estimated cost of $37,200.00; Alternate B would consist of widening the surface to approximately a 36 foot width with curb and gutter at a total cost of $79,600.00; Alternate C consisting of a 34 foot bituminous surfaced street without curb and gutter at an estimated cost of $54,200.00. At the previous Council meeting, Alternate C was tentatively recommended for consideration by the Council. With 1,130 feet of assessable property along Cedar Street under Alternate C, the assessment per foot was estimated at approximately $48.00. Mr. Wilbur Eck, majority property owner along Cedar Street, noted that under the proposed assessment, he would be assessed approximately $32,000.00 for street improvements, which he felt would be excessive. Mr. Eck noted that at the present time he would still not have sanitary sewer available to his property and questioned why his property would be assessed 100% for street improvements when in 1977, the majority of the City property improved under the street program was only assessed 20% of the cost. Mr. Eck noted that in 1978, he requested that his property along Cedar Street be improved as part of the 77-3 Improvement Project and be assessed only 200 like everybody else; but he was denied the improvements,as future utilities had to be installed along Cedar Street. Mr. Eck felt he is being penalized because of the delay in installing sanitary sewer along Cedar Street, and as a result should be considered for a 200 assessment similar to the 1977-3 Project. Mr. Eck noted that he will strongly oppose any assessment in the $30,000 to $40,000 category at the assessment hearing. In regard to the Hart Boulevard improvement, Dr. John Kasper also questioned not the improvement but the method of assessments, as he also was informed during the 77-3 Street Project that Hart Boulevard could not be included in that project because of future water main extensions; and he also felt the Council should consider a 20% assessment - 2 - Council Minutes - 5/14/84 factor now that Hart Boulevard is being proposed for curb and gutter. It was noted by Councilman Maus that possibly if property owners along Hart Boulevard and Cedar Street were denied street improvements in 1977 because of future planned utility improvements by the City, possibly the City should consider an assessment policy similar to the 77-3 Project, as it appears it is not the fault of the property owners that the improvements were not made six years ago. It was also noted that since the original street project in 1977 included curb and gutter for all streets, possibly the City should consider improving Cedar Street under Alternate B, consisting of curb and gutter and a 36 foot width rather than Alternate C, which was only bituminous surfacing. As a result, motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution authorizing plans and specifications be prepared for the improvement of Hart Boulevard as discussed with the additional curb and gutter to extend to the Wastewater Treatment Plant property and to improve Cedar Street under Alternate B, consisting of curb and gutter and a 36 foot bituminous surfacing but without sidewalk being considered at the present time. It was noted that at the time the bids are received, the Council can decide whether to hold an assessment hearing and establish an assessment roll prior to the actual awarding of the contract if so desired. 6. Consideration of Making Final Payment to PALCO for the Construction of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. At the April 23 Council meeting, the final payment request to Paul A. Laurence Company on the Wastewater Treatment Plant construction project was tabled to allow the staff to review existing odor problems at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to determine if any construction defects were causing the odors before final payment was made. Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council his findings relating to the odor problems at the Treatment Plant, which he summarized as follows: 1) A possible leak in the sludge storage tank has been found by the Wastewater Treatment Plant personnel because the cover on the tank may be too light and raises slightly as pressure increases, letting gases escape into the atmosphere. The contractor would be responsible for adding additional weight to the cover to eliminate this problem. 2) A problem with the resource recovery system, which consists of methane gas being supplied to a waste gas burner. Currently, moisture collects in the line feeding the gas burner which blocks the flow and results in gas escaping through a release valve. A definite solution to eliminating the moisture problem has not yet been determined but does not appear to be the fault of the contractor at the present time. 3) Some problems are occurring - 3 - Council Minutes - 5/14/84 in the odor control system consisting of air scrubbers that scrub the air prior to being released from the preliminary treatment area. The problems are with the chemicals that are being used and are sometimes crystalizing causing the chemicals to not reach the air scrubbers. A solution may be in the search for a new chemical that would not crystalize. 4) Public Works Director noted that there may be some problems with the operation and how the Plant is being run by the personnel in that the staff is currently using the equalization tank as an aeration basin, and not as an equalizing tank as it was originally intended for. It was noted that by using the EQ tank as an aeration basin, an activated sludge culture is being grown resulting in odors being emitted from this area that were not originally designed for this purpose. In addition, currently almost all of the sludge is being reprocessed and not being hauled away as originally planned for. This operation procedure of continually recirculating sludge is not condusive to controlling odors at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. In summary, the Public Works Director felt that once the first three items were corrected along with some changes in Plant operations by the staff, odors could be reduced substantially at the Plant, but it should be noted that the facility will not be 1000 odor free. As a result of their research, the staff recommends that the final payment to Paul A. Laurence Company be made, as any items needing correction by the contractor would be covered under their one-year performance bond. As a result, motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize final payment in the amount of $103,354.00. 7. Consideration of a Request to Extend the Wastewater Treatment Plant Grant. Also at the April 23 meeting, the City Council discussed the extension of the Grant budget period six months to January 31, 1985. This item was also tabled at the last meeting until the final payment request was reviewed. Project Engineer, Jerry Corrick of OSM, explained to the Council the primary reasons why the City should request an extension of the Grant period to January 31, 1985. Mr. Corrick noted that although it was learned it would not be necessary to extend the Grant budget period for the purposes of paying back the EPA and PCA for legal fees if the City should recover them through the lawsuit in process, there were two other reasons for requesting the Grant budget period extension. Number one was that the claim made by OSM for additional engineering monies on Step II. The Engineer has requested additional fees relating to the preparation of plans and specifications for the Wastewater Treatment Plant,and currently the EPA has ruled these funds are - 4 - Council Minutes - 5/14/84 ineligible but is currently reconsidering its decision. The appeal process has been time consuming; and if the appeal is granted to OSM, and the Grant budget period has elapsed, the engineering firm would not be eligible for reimbursement even if they received a favorable determination from the EPA. The second reason noted by Mr. Corrick for keeping the claim open was that the City could possibly receive some additional funds from the PCA for innovative and alternative technology funding for Change Orders Nos. 62-96. Mr. Corrick noted that the PCA is currently reviewing this request which could amount to an additional $5,000.00 reimbursement to the City if approved by the EPA. If the Grant period is not extended, Mr. Corrick noted that the City would not be able to receive this additional $5,000.00 in Grant monies. On the other side, one reason for not extending the Grant budget period would be that the City could apply for final payment reimbursement from the PCA, which is currently withholding 10% of the Grant monies totalling approximately $86,000.00. By extending the budget period to January 31, 1985, the City would not be able to receive this $86,000.00 for an additional six months, which would result in approximately $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 in lost interest income. As a result, a motion was made by Blonigen to approve applying for a Grant budget period extension to January 31, 1985, but to ask for reimbursement from the City's engineering firm for the City's lost interest income by doing the Grant extension. The motion died for a lack of a second. Motion was then made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the Grant extension request to January 31, 1985. Voting in favor was Maxwell, Maus, Fair, Grimsmo. Voting in the opposition was Blonigen. 8. Consideration of an Earlier Adopted Resolution Authorizing Plans and Specifications for the Improvement of County Road 75. At the April 23 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the feasibility study and ordering plans and specifications for the improvement of Highway 75 contingent upon the County Board approval. The County Board, at their May 7, 1984, meeting,approved the feasibility study as presented and agreed to the alternate proposal of entire replacement of the existing pavement chosen by the City. It was the consensus of the Council to proceed with the project as originally planned and no further action was necessary at this time, as plans and specifications were previously authorized. - 5 - Council Minutes - 5/14/84 The City Engineer noted that plans and specifications should be ready for approval by the Council on June 11 with possible bids returnable June 21, 1984, with construction to start as early as the first part of July, 1984. 9. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting a Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Authorizing Distribution. Originally, the Meadow Oak Subdivision required an Environmental Impact Statement because its number of units proposed exceeded 500. The developers of the Meadow Oak Subdivision reduced their overall planned number of units from 532 to 465 resulting in the necessity for a revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet on this Subdivision. In reviewing and commenting on the revised Environmental Worksheet, which has been recently completed by the developer, the goal is to determine whether or not an Impact Statement shall be required as opposed to what scope will be in the required Impact Statement. Had the number of units remained over 500 within the Subdivision, an impact statement would have been required; but now it can be determined by the Council that an Impact Statement is not necessary. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution 1984 421 accepting the revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet and authorizing distribution of the Worksheet to various federal, state, and local agencies. At the end of the comment period, all comments will be assimilated and presented to the Council for determination as to whether or not an Impact Statement will still be required. 10. Consideration of a Proposal to Replace the Roof on the Picnic Shelter at West Bridge Park. Last year, the City staff attempted to replace the roof on the Community Building in West Bridge Park through a combined project with the Lions Club. The Lions Club had initially wished to add on to the existing Community Building by extending the roof overhang with an open type shelter. The Lions Club and the City were unable to get together on the combined project and, as a result, the Public Works Director is recommending that the City replace the roof only on the structure at an estimated cost of approximately $3,500.00. The Public Works Director has received two quotes for the roof re- placement from Blonigen Builders for $4,323.00 and from a partnership consisting of David Crummy and David Briner for $3,226.00. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to accept the low quote for the roof replacement on the West Bridge Park Warming House in the amount of $3,226.00 from David Crummy and David Briner. - 6 - Council Minutes - 5/14/84 It was noted by Councilman Maus, who is also a member of the Lions Club, that the Lions are still considering a proposal to build an entirely separate structure independent of the existing Community Building that would be primarily a shelter facility. 11. Consideration of a Proposal to Replace Air Compressors at the WWTP. Public Works Director John Simola reviewed with the Council the problems the City is having with its two air compressors located in the basement of the digester building at the WWTP. The compressors are currently Worthington, three cylinder, air-cooled models that have had numerous breakdowns during the past year. Mr. Simola noted that apparently these air compressors are running at too high of an RPM and too close to the maximum pounds per square inch capacity and that possibly they were not sufficient for the needs being generated at the WWTP. Both air compressors have had malfunctions and parts for repairing these compressors are becoming hard to obtain, as the company no longer has parts available except on specific orders. Mr. Simola noted that in checking for suppliers for parts for the Worthington Compressors, it has been brought to his attention that these compressors may not be best suited for this particular application at the WWTP. As a result, Mr. Simola recommended that the City replace either one or both of the air compressors with a new water-cooled, piston type air compressor or screw type air compressor, which would be more suitable for this application. Councilman Maus questioned the City Engineer as to whether the air compressors at the Treatment Plant met the specifications and if they were suitable for the intended operations at the Plant. John Badalich, City Engineer, noted that the compressors were suitable for the intended use and have been used in similar situations at other wastewater treatment plants, but he noted they were not originally planned by their firm to be used as extensively as they are now by the Plant operators. Mr. Badalich noted that additional demand for the air compressors has been created by the way that operators are running the Plant. In addition, he noted that they could have specified more expensive compressors as now recommended by the Public Works Director, but at the time the plans were being prepared for the WWTP, they felt the ones specified would be sufficient and were approximately half the cost. Public Works Director presented quotations received from various suppliers for the water-cooled, screw type air compressor ranging in price from $5,336.00 to $8,245.00. His recommendation was that the City still purchase at least one replacement air compressor from Sullair Corporation in the amount of $7,181.00, which would have a ten-year nonpro-rated guarantee. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to purchase one Sullair screw type, water-cooled air compressor with a ten-year warranty from Sullair North Central for an amount not to exceed $7,181.00. - 7 - Council Minutes - 5/14/84 12. Consideration of a Motion Adjusting Building Permit Requirements for Minor Building Improvements. Building Inspector Gary Anderson reviewed with the Council a recommended policy that be adopted regarding when a building permit would not be required. The current policy has been that a building permit not be required under the following five conditions: 1. The amount of work to be done is less than $800.00 and requires no structural change. 2. When reroofing or residing is to be done and no structural repair will be done. 3. A portable building of less than 100 square feet is to be placed on a lot, provided that it will be the only accessory building in addition to the garage. 4. When driveways, sidewalks, and other similar hard surface accessories are placed on a property. 5. For the installation of wood burning fireplaces or stoves. Mr. Anderson recommended that the policy be changed for when a building permit is not required as follows: 1. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square feet. 2. Fences not over 6 feet high. 3. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet high. 4. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. 5. When driveways, sidewalks, and other similar hard surface accessories are placed on private property, except when onto City right-of-way work must be done in accordance to City specifications. 6. Painting, papering and similar finish work. 7. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall on residential house and for garage when projecting not more than 54 inches. 8. Prefabricated swimming pools in which the pool walls are entirely above the adjacent grade and if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons. - 8 - Council Minutes - 5/14/84 Mr. Anderson also recommended that the Council establish a minimum set fee that would be charged for inspections made by the Building Inspector on projects that may not require a building permit but should have an inspection done by the Building Inspector regardless. An example was when a homeowner reshingles a roof or puts new siding on, or replaces a picture window, etc., the Building Inspector would like to determine the proper methods for replacement; and as a result, a minimum fee of $15.00 to $30.00 should be charged even though a building permit is not actually necessary. A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, to adopt the Resolution 1984 #22 establishing the eight criteria for when building permits are not required and setting a fee of $15.00 for the Building Inspector's services as a charge when a building permit is not necessary under the current fee schedule. The motion also included a directive to the Building Inspector to publish in the local paper an explanation of when a building permit is required and the procedures for obtaining building permits, etc. Voting in favor was Grimsmo, Fair, Maus, Maxwell. Voting in the opposition was Blonigen. 13. Consideration of. a Simple Subdivision. Mr. Tom Chock requested a simple subdivision to divide Lot 3, Block 42, into two equal 33 foot by 165 foot parcels with half of the lot to be attached to Lot 4 and the other half attached to Lot 2. On Lot 4, Mr. Chock currently has an existing 4-plex, which would make this parcel a 99 x 165 ft. parcel; and the simple subdivision would create another lot of the same size for a new proposed 4-plex Mr. Chock is planning. The subdivision would create a lot that would be in conformance with the Ordinance requirements for a 4-plex building. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the simple subdivision request of Mr. Tom Chock to subdivide Lot 3, Block 42, into two equal parcels with half to be attached to Lot 4 and the other half attached to Lot 2. 14. Consideration of an Appeal of the Decision of the Planning Commission Relating to a Variance for Multi -Family Dwelling. Mr. Bill Murphy is proposing to build a 12 -unit apartment building on three residential lots, Block 10, Lots 8, 9, and 10. With the proposed 1.2 -unit apartment building, Mr. Murphy proposed to build eight 2 -bedroom units and four 1 -bedroom units, which would require the lot size square footage to be 33,500 square feet. The current lot size square footage of Lots 8, 9, and 10 amount to only 32,670 sq. ft., resulting in Mr. Murphy requesting a variance from the Ordinance for the 830 sq. ft. shortage. In order to be in conformance with the present Ordinance, Mr. Murphy would have to build six 2 -bedroom units and six 1 -bedroom units rather than eight and four. - 9 - Council Minutes - 5/14/84 The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, recommended that the variance request be denied because of precedences that this would set. Previously, the Planning Commission denied a similar variance to Construction 5 on a request of a similar nature and the Planning Commission recommended that Mr. Murphy conform to the City requirements. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to also deny the variance request for a reduction in the square footage requirements and require that Mr. Murphy meet City Ordinances as established. 15. Consideration of the Quarterly Liquor Store Report. Liquor Store Manager Mark Irmiter was present at the Council meeting to review the first quarter financial statements for the Liquor Store operation. After review of the financial statements, the report was accepted as presented by consensus of the Council. Rick Wolfstell Assistant Administrator - 10 -