City Council Minutes 12-17-1990 SpecialMINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 17, 1990 - 3:30 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley
Anderson, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
2. Consideration of awarding the Monticello Heartland Express
dial -a -ride bus system contract for 1991 and 1992.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the staff and
Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee analysis of the
two bids submitted to the City of Monticello. O'Neill
summarized the analysis by saying that the bid submitted by
Hoglund Coach Lines and the bid submitted by Medavan over a
four-year time period would result in approximately the same
cost. In terms of performance, Hoglund Coach Lines has shown
throughout the first year of service that the organization is
capable of providing excellent transportation service. It is
not likely that Medavan will be able to improve upon the
service provided by Hoglund Coach Lines; therefore, given the
fact that the costs are relatively equal, the Monticello
Transportation Advisory Committee, along with staff,
recommends that the City select Hoglund Coach Lines as the
transportation service provider for 1991 and 1992.
Warren Smith remarked that he is happy with the way the
transportation system has operated. He stated that the system
is still relatively new and building its ridership.
Fran Fair agreed that the transportation system is good for
the city.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Warren Smith, to award the 1991/1992 Monticello Heartland
Express contract to Hoglund Coach Lines of Monticello. Motion
carried unanimously.
3. Consideration of establishing an assessment formula for the
Sandberg East, 90-4 project.
City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, reported that the 1990-4
improvement project servicing the Sandberg East development is
nearing completion with primarily restoration work left to do
in the spring. Staff has been accumulating costs involved in
Page 1
Special Council Minutes - 12/17/90
this project and has compiled a total project cost, including
change orders and all indirect costs. Total project cost for
construction only will total $172,230. To this figure we must
add indirect costs such as engineering, legal fees, bonding
costs, etc., to arrive at total project cost. With indirect
costs, the total project cost has amounted to $223,400.
Wolfsteller then reviewed two methods by which the costs could
be allocated to benefiting property owners. Wolfsteller
reviewed Option A which essentially called for the entire
project cost to be assessed to benefiting property owners
except for the City assuming 285 feet of side frontage along
Gillard and also would include the City paying for the
oversizing expenses associated with future extension of the
utilities. Wolfsteller noted that utilizing this option may
result in a proposed assessed amount for each lot that might
be excessive. The reason why it is excessive is because only
one side of the roadway can be developed, and there are not
enough property owners to spread the total cost to.
Wolfsteller remarked that under Exhibit B the City would
assume 250 of the lateral sewer and water cost, with the
remaining amount to be assessed to benefiting property owners
on a front footage basis plus service connections.
Wolfsteller noted that under this option, the individual
assessment amounts will not be excessive. In this situation,
a precedent for the City paying 25% of the cost of the lateral
sewer and water cost is not being set because the City is, to
some extent, forced to provide sewer and water to the area
that was annexed as platted land. In addition, the only path
available to get to the annexed property had limited access to
the sewer and water lines from one side of the improvement.
Finally, Wolfsteller noted that although the City will be
paying for a portion of the lateral sewer and water costs
associated with this project, in the long run, the City will
be able to recover a major portion of that expense through the
application of an area assessment to be applied against those
properties that utilize this water and sewer service line at
some point in the future.
Ken Maus noted that Council decided to go ahead with this
project for environmental reasons. Extending the utilities to
Sandberg East was the right way to do it but not the least
expensive.
Page 2
Special Council Minutes - 12/17/90
Fran Fair asked if staff feels costs can be picked up with
area assessments associated with future projects in the area.
Rick Wolfsteller responded by saying that the area assessment
could be applied to pick up a major portion of the City's
contribution to the project.
Ken Maus asked if the cost per foot being charged to the
benefiting property owners under Option B is similar to that
charged to properties improved as part of other City projects.
John Simola reported that the cost per foot under Option B is
nearly the same as that which was charged to property owners
that received benefit from the Highway 39 project done a few
years earlier; therefore, the cost per foot being charged is
consistent with what other property owners have paid. Under
Option B, the cost per foot is quite higher than what the
normal improvement cost per foot would be, essentially because
only one side of the roadway is being assessed.
Dan Blonigen remarked that City payment of 250 of the project
cost amounts to a City subsidy. He asked why we are dipping
into the taxpayers bag. Ken Maus responded by saying that
this is a unique situation where it was important to the City
future considerations that utilities be extended to this area.
At the same time, however, the project costs have to be at a
level that the property owners can live with. At some point,
the assessments become too large which could result in the
City ultimately obtaining the property.
Motion was made by Fran Fair to select Exhibit B as a program
for assessing benefiting property owners, which includes City
absorbing 25% of the lateral sewer and water expenses due to
the unique situation whereby only one side of the improvement
can be assessed. This alternative was chosen with the
understanding that a portion of all of the amount absorbed by
the City may be recaptured in the future through area
assessments when additional properties are developed or
annexed.
Dan Blonigen noted that he might support a compromise between
Option A and Option B. Shirley Anderson was concerned that a
precedent might be set here. Wolfsteller reiterated that the
precedent is diminished because of the unique situation.
Ken Maus seconded the motion and expressed support for moving
ahead with Option B. Voting in favor of the motion: Fran
Fair, Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Opposed: Dan
Blonigen.
Page 3
Special Council Minutes - 12/17/90
Rick Wolfsteller noted that John Sandberg requested that the
assessment be placed against four lots. Council did not
oppose placing assessments against 4 of the 13 lots owned by
Sandberg so long as there is sufficient security that in the
event the assessments are not paid, the City will be able to
obtain a property without going through the tax forfeiture
process.
4. Ratification of salary adjustments for 1991.
City Administrator Wolfsteller presented Council with an
outline of proposed salary adjustments for all non-union
employees. Ken Maus reviewed previous Council action which
called for providing the City Administrator with the
flexibility to provide staff increases utilizing a $26,000
pool.
Marlene Hellman expressed her concern that the method by which
the overall employee increases were distributed was not fair.
She complained that the evaluation system was not consistent,
and the method by which the money was distributed was not
fair.
Rick Wolfsteller noted that he would be happy to sit down with
Marlene and discuss the specific reasons behind her salary
adjustment.
Shirley Anderson noted that if Rick can support the increase
proposed for each employee, she can support the overall plan.
Rick Wolfsteller described instances where individual salary
adjustments could be readjusted in a manner that would improve
comparable worth relationships.
Ken Maus noted that he would not be against providing the City
Administrator an additional sum to provide latitude to
increase certain individuals as deemed appropriate by the City
Administrator.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Warren Smith, to adopt the salary schedule as
proposed with the addition of $500 to be used to correct
inequities in the proposed schedule as deemed appropriate by
the City Administrator. Voting in favor of the motion: Ken
Maus, Warren Smith, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson. Absent: Dan
Blonigen.
Page 4
Special Council Minutes - 12/10/90
Rick Wolfsteller stated that it is certainly a good idea to
begin implementation of a formal evaluation system. We have
the forms already, and we should be evaluating each person at
their anniversary date.
{
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Page 5