City Council Agenda Packet 02-08-1999
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 8, 1999 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Roger Belsaas
Council Members: Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Call to order. J
~-- R t..
Approval of minutes of the special joint commission meeting held January 20, B1
1999.
1or'l Wr
Approval of minutes of the special meeting held at 5:30 p.m., January 25, 1999. c ~
-,J. 0 S
Approval of minutes of the special meeting held at 6 p.m., January 25,1999.6 \" 17
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held at 7 p.m., January 25,1999. () S .....t (20
1.
2.
A.
B.
c.
D.
E. Approval of minutes of the special MOAA Board/City/Township joint meeting
held January 27, 1999.
.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
5. Consent agenda.
Q\5tlA.~>
uJ11)~'
@
/(
B.
Consideration of approving City/Township joint resolution supporting annexation
of the Community United Methodist Church site.
Consideration of Li brary Board appointment.
C. Consideration of renewing membcrship in Economic Development Partnership of
Wright County.
D. Consideration of annual highway maintenance agreement with Wright County.
E. Consideration of Change Order No. 19 for City Project #93-14C, Monticello
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion.
.
F.
01^cJ
~rCi~
Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit within the 1-1 zoning
district to allow co-location of a wireless antenna placement on an existing tower.
Applicant: MCTC - Minneapolis Cellular Telephone Company.
.
.
.
Agenda
Monticello City Council
February 8, 1999
Page 2
G. Consideration of final payment and acceptance of Resurrection Church/Methodist
Church improvements, Project 98-01C.
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7. Consideration of a request for a subdivision within the 1-2 zoning district to allow a lot
line relocation. Applicant: Greg Ebert.
8. Consideration of alternatives for disposition of Rivervicw Square plat remnant parcel.
9. Consideration of establishing relocation benefits for the Riverside Oil bulk petroleum
facility.
10. Consideration of approval of citizen survey format and questions.
11. Consideration of funding participation ffild construction agreement with Wright County
for improvements to CSAH 75 East.
12.
Consideration of funding agreement with Wright County for improvements to CR 118.
13. Consideration of making application for a transportation loan to construct the Fallon
A venue Bridge with a pedestrian crossing.
14. Consideration of adopting priorities for redevelopment of the North Anchor and
authorization to hire a planner consultant to assist in the process for redevelopment of the
North Anchor.
15. Consideration of public sale of old sewer jet and retaining the vac-all rather than trading
both units in on ncw combination unit.
16. Consideration of increasing fees at Riverside Cemetery.
17. Consideration of bills for the first half of February 1999.
18.
j
Adjournment.
~ if s T P q;t,,, J - CrM 1t1. Cr ~ ~ S J
Me e ~~~. Lts, D \!~$S ~o ,)
C~ 8d 0 p ~Q>>;~ 1)w~
.
.
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP
HRA, CITY COUNCIL, PARKS COMMISSION,
PLANNING COMMISSION, EDA, AND DA T
Wednesday, .January 20,1999 - 6 p.m.
Present:
COUNCIL:
DAT:
EDA:
HRA:
PARKS:
PLANNING:
Mayor Roger Belsaas, Bruce Thielen, Clint Herbst, Roger Carlson
Mike Cyr, Rita Ulrich, Susie Wojchouski, Gail Cole
Chair Ron Hoglund, Bill Demeules, Ken Maus
Chair Steve Andrews, Bob Murray, Brad Barger, Darrin Lahr
Chair Larry Nolan, Jennifer Fearing, Earl Smith, Fran Fair
Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Roy Popilck
Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator
Ollie Koropchak, Economic Development Director
Wanda Kraemer, Administrative Assistant
Gregg Engle, Parks Superintendent
Dawn Grossinger, City Staff
Guests:
Barb Esse, MCP
Marianne Khauv, Chamber of Commerce
Michael Schroeder, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.
Jerry Kimball, Past Planning Director, City of Duluth
Brad Johnson, Lotus Realty
Pat Sawatzke, Walnut Street Property Owner
Paul & Evelyn Wurm, Park Place Apartments
Michelle Ewing, Riverstreet Station
aim Khauv, Best Western
Scott Douglas, Golden Valley Furniture
Diane Lange, Riverfront Owner
Woodrow Lange, Riverfront Owner
Brent Morningstar, Wright-Hennepin Electric & Security
1 . Call to Order.
HRA Chair Steve Andrews called the joint meeting to order at 6 p.m. and introduced
Michael Schroeder, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.
2.
Introductions.
3.
Workshop Purpose.
Mr. Schroeder presented a brief overview of the Revitalization Plan for the downtown
and riverfront area, noting that the comprehensive plan is intended to be a guideline and
provide strong direction for future development. He noted that the purpose of the
Page 1
~,r
.
.
.
4a.
4b.
Special Joint Commission Workshop - 1/20/99
workshop is to review the Downtown/Riverfront Revitalization Plan, receive input from
commissions, evaluate the need for broader community input, and consider a plan for
proceeding.
Overview of the Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan (Michael Schroeder).
Mr. Schroeder reviewed the City's Riverfront Revitalization Plan which was adopted in
1997 as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan to provide direction for development of
the riverfront. It was emphasized that the key to a successful downtown is a good mix of
compatible uses, and the value of development along the riverfront was also noted.
Mr. Schroeder stated that there are three components critical to the Plan:
a. Revitalization of the mall
b. Civic/governmental core area
c. Downtown/Riverfront Bridge Park
A Perspective of the Value of Riverfront Improvements.
Mr. Jerry Kimball, Past Planning Director for the City of Duluth, reiterated the value of
the riverfront, stating he has traveled to other cities researching waterfront development.
He suggested that Monticello's strengths be identified and nurtured and that the unique
aspects of the community be emphasized. Duluth began the process of revitalization in
the early 1980's with a vision. As a result of this vision, Duluth has experienced a record
number of conventions, more industry, and growth in local businesses; however, he noted
that the most important benefit of all is the pride the city now has in itself
Mr. Kimball suggested that a comprehensive plan is necessary, but additional planning is
also needed to obtain more specific ideas; and implementing a plan takes time. It also
takes many partnerships between various entities to accomplish the goals set in the plan.
4c. A Proposal for Monticello's North Anchor (Brad Johnson).
Mr. Brad Johnson of Lotus Realty stated that, as a developer, he considered the
Revitalization Plan as a way to turn a non-earning asset into an earning asset. Many
times the asset in question is not privately owned and, therefore, community involvement
is essential. He noted that restaurants and hotels are key to a successful retail business.
5. Commission Input.
Development of Monticello's North Anchor and Riverfront
Michael Schroeder opened the meeting for input regarding the goals and visions for this
area, and the following comments were received:
Page 2
,;lfJ-
Special Joint Commission Workshop - 1/20/99
.
1.
The City's relationship with developers needs to be enhanced by letting them
know what the City envisions for the riverfront area.
2. One of the goals is not to sell the park but to enhance it, perhaps even enlarge it.
3. Residents along the riverfront should be kept informed of the development
process.
4. Communication between the commissions needs to be improved.
5. The City should maintain current activities at the park such as hockey and skating;
festivals, music, etc., should be added to draw people.
6. Consider protection of the waterfront by buffering development.
7. Look at the long-term investment and make sure it is a quality development.
8. Perhaps the river's historical significance could be utilized such as a steamboat
prop on land welcoming people to Monticello.
.
9.
The islands could be used for activities such as treasure hunts since the water is
only 3-4 feet deep and could easily be crossed.
10. Paddleboating, tubing, or canoeing in the summer and feeding stations in the
winter for the swans.
11. The pathway system should be incorporated and made an integral part of the area.
Mr. Schroeder added that development on one side of the river affects development on
the other side. The Revitalization Plan was formulated with the idea that Monticello was
a great small town, not a suburb or a bedroom community. He felt that the ideas that
were being presented were much the same as noted in the Revitalization Plan.
Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill noted that the City needs to make a commitment
to the Plan and determine how willing it is to acquire private property to develop the
Plan. Economic Development Director Ollie Koropchak added that the I-IRA has
acquired three properties on Block 54, adjacent to the park, as they have become
available.
The Needfor Community Input
.
Mr. Schroeder asked for comments from the commissioners regarding whether public
input should be ineluded in the development process. Comments received from the HRA,
Planning Commission, Parks Commission, and City Council indicated that the
commissions should develop a more concrete concept for the area prior to receiving
Page 3
;;tfJ-
.
.
.
Special Joint Commission Workshop - 1/20/99
additional input from the public. The Design Advisory Team and MCP Chair felt that
input from the public was necessary to help determine what types of uses should be
included in the design/concept.
6.
Next Steps.
Mr. Schroeder suggested that each commission, at their next meeting, list the top five
things they would like to achieve with the North Anchor and Bridge Park area. Staffwill
then compile a list and distribute to all members.
The commissioners were generally in agreement that a more definite concept for the area
should bc developed prior to requesting specific plans from developers.
BRA Chair Steve Andrews stated that a summary of the meeting would be sent to those present
and adjourned the meeting at 8 p.m.
Karen Doty
Deputy City Clerk
Page 4
;tfr
.
.
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 25, 1999 - 5:30 p.m.
Members Present: Roger Belsaas, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Members Absent: None
2. Consideration of appointments to HRA.
At the January 11, 1999, meeting, the City Council tabled thc annual appointment to the
HRA pending further discussion.
Councilmembcr Clint Herbst stated that he was previously unaware of the power of the
HRA and felt the City Council should provide additional input on appointments. It was
his view that when the Mayor seat changed after the November election and the new
majority made public their intent to stop the community center project, the HRA did not
act in the City's best interest by voting to proceed with construction of the community
center without a referendum. Therefore, Councilmember Herbst recommended that Steve
Andrews and Bob Murray be removed from the HRA.
Councilmember Bruce Thielen responded that the HRA acted according to the Council in
officc at that time. To penalize them now for actions taken under a previous Council
could only be considered retaliation. He noted that the new Council took effcct on
January 4, 1999, and not in November 1998. Councilmember Herbst pointed out that
after the election, the direction of the new City Council was made public and should have
been followed by the HRA.
Economic Development Director Ollie Koropchak distributed a copy of the State
Statutes, Section 469.010, and reported that HRA Commissioner Dan Frie could be
replaced since his term had expired; however, removal of other members would require
that written charges be submitted followed by a hearing. Councilmember Bruce Thielen
then read Section 469.010 of the Statutes.
Councilmember Brian Stumpf questioned why only two of the four I-IRA members who
voted against the wishes of the new Council should bc penalized and suggested that they
discuss the possibility of the Council acting as the HRA. Councilmember Herbst
explained that thc reason for removal of Steve Andrews and Bob Murray was due to their
attempt to move forward with the project prior to reviewing all the information.
Mayor Roger Belsaas suggested that a joint meeting with the J:IRA be scheduled to
discuss the issue. Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill notcd that Council should also
meet to review the goal-setting worksheet to assist the commissions in accomplishing
goals set by the Council.
No action was taken by the Council at this time.
Page 1
cJ..B
.
.
.
Special Council Minutes - 1/25/99
3.
Consideration of staggered terms for Planning Commission members.
At the January 11, 1999, meeting, Council tabled appointments to the Planning
Commission pending research and additional discussion regarding staggered terms rather
than annual appointments. Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill suggested that an
ordinance amendment be prepared establishing 3-year staggered tenus and, aftcr Planning
Commission members select term expirations, the ordinance be adopted by Council.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO
APPOINT DICK FRIE, RICHARD CARLSON, ROD DRAGSTEN, ROY POPILEK, AND
ROBBIE SMITH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING 3-YEAR STAGGERED
TERMS. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Deputy City Clerk
Page 2
~B
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 25, 1999 - 6 p.m.
.
Members Present: Roger Belsaas, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Members Absent: None
2. Consideration of design alternatives for improving safety and traffic flow at the intersection of
Highway 25 and Broadway.
Mr. Tom Dumont of MN/DOT reported that the number of accidents at the intersection of
Highway 25 and County Road 75 has reached approximately 25 in three years, which is not
higher than the statewide average; however, improvements could be made to reduce the number
of accidents by about 50%.
Of the three options reviewed, option #3 would create the least amount of vehicle delay by
creating east and westbound left turn lanes and one additional westbound lane, with the current
median remaining in place; however, this option would require the elimination of parking on
County Road 75 near the theater.
.
Option #3A would make additional improvements to the intersection by lining up the left turn
lanes, installing left turn green arrows in conjunction with a green ball and removal of the current
median and installation of a narrow curb/lane delineator. This option would include two Il-ft
westbound lanes, a 13-ft inside lane, and an 8-ft parking lane near the theater. Mr. Virgil
llawkins, Assistant County Highway Engineer, noted that Wright County favored option #3 over
#3A, as there were concerns regarding the safety ofthe Il-ft driving lanes and 8-ft parking lane.
In addition, Wright County did not have funds budgeted for this project.
Counci I discussed each option and concerns with regard to loss of parking, access management
using the curb/lane delineator, truck traflic movement, snowplowing, and project cost. The
Public Works Director reported that the total cost of option #3A was approximately $35,000,
plus $7,000 for blacktop sensors. Wright County would cover the cost of the signal light
changes.
Mr. Brad Larson, owner ofthe Country Travel building, suggested that the City could replace
lost parking by using the vacant lot next to his building and the vacant lot currently owned by the
I-IRA.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION W AS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY
BRIAN STUMPF TO AUTHORIZE THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO CONTINUE WORKING
WITH WRIGHT COUNTY TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT USING OPTION #3A. Motion
carried unanimously.
.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Deputy City Clerk
;(0
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 25,1999 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Roger Belsaas, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Members Absent: None
2.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 11. 1999.
A.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD
JANUARY 11,1999, AS WRITTEN. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held Tuesday. January 19. 1999.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRUCE
THIELEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD
JANUARY 19, 1999, AS WRITTEN. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
A.
Appointments to North Anchor discussion group.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRUCE
THIELEN TO APPOINT BRUCE THIELEN AND CLINT HERBST AS CITY
COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO THE NORTH ANCHOR DISCUSSION GROUP.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Citizens comments/petitions. requests. and complaints.
None.
5. Consent agenda.
A. Consideration of approving renewal of Men's Softball Association beer license.
Recommendation: Grant the beer license contingent upon the receipt of the
necessary insurance documents and appropriate fees.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
None.
Page 1
~})
.
.
.
Council Minutes - 1/25/99
7.
Public IIearing--Consideration of a resolution adopting proposed assessment roll for
delinquent utility bills and certification of assessment roll to County Auditor.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that the proposed assessment roll contained
utility billing accounts which are delinquent more than 60 days and includes the
additional $50 administration fee for the preparation of the assessment roll. It was
recommended that the delinquent accounts be certified in 1999 at an interest rate of 8%.
The City Administrator also noted that any accounts that had been paid since the list was
prepared for the Council meeting would be deleted prior to certification.
Mayor Belsaas opened the public hearing.
There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROGER CARLSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF
TO ADOPT THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE DELINQUENT CHARGES AS
PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 99-2.
8.
Presentation by S.L.O.P.E. (Stop Landfilling Our Precious Environment) encouraging
Council members and citizens to attend public hearing at Wright County Courthouse at
8 p.m.. Thursday. January 28. 1999.
Mr. Stanley Held and Mr. Al DeRuyter, speaking on behalf of S.L.a.p.E., provided an
update to the Council regarding the proposed expansion of the Superior FCR Landfill and
recent action taken by the Board of Adjustment to deny Superior's application for a
variance to the 200-ft setback as required by the waste handling district zoning ordinance.
Attendance at the Wright County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on
Thursday, January 28, 1999, 8 p.m., was encouraged.
9. Consideration of approving City/Township ioint resolution supporting annexation of
Kiellbergs West Mobile Home Park.
Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill reported that the MOAA Board, at its previous
meeting, took action to support the annexation of Kjellbergs West Mobile Home Park. It
was noted, however, that the current annexation request would not include the parcel
adjoining the park, but it would be eligible for future annexation following the
City/Township annexation process.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO
ADOPT THE JOINT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ANNEXATION OF KJELLBERGS WEST
MOBILE HOME PARK CONTINGENT ON COMPLETION OF THE SANITARY SEWER
PROJECT AND CONNECTION OF THE WEST PARK TO CITY SERVICES. Motion
carried unanimously.
Page 2
,;U)
.
.
.
Council Minutes - 1/25/99
10.
Background for the City Council's ioint meeting with the MOAA Board and Monticello
Township Board.
City Planner Steve Grittman explained that the MOAA Board's land use plan differs from
the City's comprehensive plan in the following five areas, which will be the focus of
discussions at the joint meeting scheduled for January 27, 7:30 p.m., at the Township
Hall.
Area 1
North of Silver Springs Golf Course and west of Orchard Road overpass, this area was
designated by the MOAA Board as "future industrial" in order to highlight the need for a
freeway interchange at Orchard Road.
Area 2
This area lies east of Silver Springs Golf Course along the freeway and is identified as
industrial in the City's comprehensive plan; however, the MOAA Board suggested low
density residential use.
Area 3
The property owned by John Chadwick and proposed for a gravel mining operation is
located south of County Road 39 and east of the YMCA land. The City's comprehensive
plan shows this area as industrial based on its accessibility and the presence of two major
power line corridors through the property. The MOAA Board, however, suggested a
change a low density residential use.
Area 4
This area is a portion of YMCA land which is separated from the bulk of the YMCA
property by 90th Street and is designated as low density residential by the City's
comprehensive plan. The MOAA Board suggested public/quasi-public zoning to reflect
its current ownership.
Area 5
The 220-acre property east of Highway 25 and south of Kjellbergs East Mobile Home
Park is currently in the development process by Gold Nugget Development. A residential
PUD application was submitted for concept approval, an EA W has been reviewed, and a
preliminary plat has been submitted to the Planning Commission; however, the public
hearing was continued by the Planning Commission pending receipt of information from
the upcoming joint meeting. The City's comprehensive plan, along with previous land
use plans, directed this land for low density residential development. The MOAA Board
suggests redesignating this site for industrial development.
No action was required by Council at this time.
Page 3
~])
.
.
.
Council Minutes - 1/25/99
11.
Consideration of reducing retainage for contract with Adolfson & Peterson on Proiect No.
93-14C. Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion.
Public Works Director John Simola reported that Adolfson & Peterson, the contractor for
the wastewater treatment plant expansion, has requested a reduction of $248,000 in
retainage. After reviewing the status of the project, HDR recommended that the City
could reduce the retainage by $200,000 while still adequately protecting their interests
with the remaining $150,000.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO
APPROVE A $200,000 REDUCTION IN THE RET AINAGE AMOUNT, LEAVING A
BALANCE OF $150,000 TO BE RETAINED BY THE CITY. Motion carried unanimously.
12. Consideration o[bills for the last half of January 1999.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON
TO APPROVE THE BILLS FOR THE LAST HALF OF JANUARY 1999 AS PRESENTED.
Motion carried unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
Karen Doty
Deputy City Clerk
Page 4
OlD
.
.
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT OAA WORKSHOP
MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION BOARD
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP BOARD
Wednesday, January 27,1999 - 7:30 p.m.
Monticello Township Hall
MOAA Board Present: County Commissioner Pat Sawatzke, Mayor Roger Belsaas,
Councilmember Clint Herbst, Township Chair Franklin Delli,
Township Supervisor Ted Holker, County Planner Tom Salkowski
Additional City Council Members Present: Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Council Members Absent: Brian Stumpf
Additional Township Board Members Present: Ted Kopff, Ken Scadden, Charles Holthaus
1.
Introductions.
2.
Review and accept agenda.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROGER BELSAAS AND SECONDED BY FRANKLIN DENN TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA. Motion carried unanimously.
3.
Brief overview of MOAA planning process - Tom Salkowski.
Wright County Planner Tom Salkowski reviewed the history of the MOAA Board and
annexations, noting that a new agreement was reached in March 1998 between the City and
Township whieh included the additional responsibility of land use planning for the MOAA
Board.
4. Current land use plan map proposal.
Wright County Planner Tom Salkowski reviewed the draft land use map and noted that a
public hearing was held by the MOAA Board regarding the proposed land uses. Comments
from residents attending the public hearing indicated concern about the area located between
the two golf courses being designated as industrial. In addition, the Board felt the Southwest
Area Plan which was attached to the joint City/Township resolution was no longer
appropriate and should be deleted from the agreement.
City Planner Steve Grittman reviewed the five areas of the proposed land use map which
differed from the City's current comprehensive plan. Industrial truck traffic, interchange
access, the current city utility system, and the cost to upgrade utilities for industrial
development were some of the points of concern discussed.
Page 1 ~
.
.
.
Special Joint OAA Workshop Minutes - 1/27/99
5.
Discussion - pros and cons of map proposal.
There was considerable discussion regarding the 220-acres east of Highway 25 and south of
Kjellbergs East Mobile Home Park proposed to change from residential to industrial. Steve
Grittman explained that the original designation of residential was due to the site being
surrounded by residential, the topography being more suited to residential than industrial, and
attempting to shift industrial truck tralIic away from the commercial corridor. Residential vs.
industrial traffic generation was discussed based on a recent comparison prepared by City
Engineer Bret Weiss. MOAA Board members noted that since the area was surrounded by
roads on three sides, they felt it was more suited to industrial development.
Additional discussion ineluded the area east of Silver Springs Golf Course along the freeway,
which was identified as industrial in the City's comprehensive plan due to the power line
corridor along the freeway; however, the MOAA Board proposed that the area be designated
as low density residential to allow higher-end home construction between the two golf
courses.
The group also discussed the area owned by John Chadwick located south of County
Road 39, east of the YMCA property, and west ofthe future Chelsea Road alignment. The
City's comprehensive plan designated the area for industrial based on its accessibility and the
presence of two major power line corridors through the property; however, the MOAA Board
proposed that the area be changed to low density residential.
Public comments were then accepted by the Board.
The owner of the property located between the two golf courses requested that the land use
remain industrial as planned by the City due to its exposure to the freeway, which is
necessary for industrial development.
Mr. Horst Graser, representing Gold Nugget Development, explained that they began
working with the City in developing the 220-acre site east of Highway 25 in January of 1998
and only first heard ofthe land use issue in October 1998. He noted that a PUD concept was
approved, an EA W was accepted, and a preliminary plat has been submitted for residential
development of the site, which is based on previous approvals. He also informed the group
that industrial truck traffic would not have easy access to Highway 25, as their request for an
access from the proposed residential development was denied by MN/DOT. Mr. Graser
requested that a decision on the land use for this area be delayed until further research of
other areas that could be designated as industrial.
Mr. John Gries, representing Ocello LLC, requested that, in all fairness to Gold Nugget
Development, the 220-acre site remain designated as residential. He explained that Ocello
LLC extended utilities to the 220 acres as required by the agreement for the Monticello
Business Center development, which they could recoup if the land use is changed. The land
was then sold to Gold Nugget Development for residential development. In addition, he
noted that there is currently industrial land available along the freeway which has been vacant
for seven years.
Page 2
;t~
.
.
.
Special Joint OAA Workshop Minutes - 1/27/99
Mr. Shawn Weinand also requested that the land use for the 220-acre site remain as
residential. He explained that he has a large investment in the roadway system in the area
and noted that at this point in the process, litigation would ensue if the land use is changed to
industrial.
Mr. Dave Klein stated that he also had an investment in the 220-acre site east of Highway 25
and reminded the Board that the construction industry brings many high-paying jobs to the
area. In addition, at the current rate of construction, it was his view that the City will deplete
its supply of residential areas faster than the supply of industrial property.
Mr. Kurt Markling, owner of 7 acres located on the east end of Monticello between 1-94 and
County Road 75, requested that the proposed public land use for his property be changed to
commercial use, which is the use currently being marketed.
Residents from various areas noted their concern that some of the proposed industrial uses
would surround residential areas and requested that the Board consider the investment
residents have made in their homes. Questions were also raised as to whether the City's
comprehensive plan could differ from the land use plan adopted by the MOAA. County
Commissioner Pat Sawatzke responded that property located in an area designated by the
City for a use other than shown in the MOAA plan would not likely be allowed to be
annexed.
6.
Discuss alteration of ioint resolution.
The proposal to delete the Southwest Area Plan from the joint City/Township agreement was
discussed, along with extending the deadline of the agreement in order to complete
negotiations on the land use designations. It was the consensus of the group to extend the
deadline for adoption of the land use plan four additional months, with County Planner Torn
Salkowski and City staff drafting the language changes.
The Township Board members were in agreement with the land use plan as proposed by the
MOAA Board; however, Council members requested an opportunity to further discuss the
plan at an upcoming Council meeting.
7. Adiourn.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROGER BELSAAS AND SECONDED BY FRANKLIN DENN TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
Karen Doty
Deputy City Clerk
Page 3
.;J..t
.
.
.
SA.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
Consideration of approvine City/Township joint resolution supportine annexation
of the Community United Methodist Church site. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to approve annexation of the Methodist Church site due to the
impending development of the property. This request follows action by the MOAA
Board approving annexation of the site to the city. 'rhe follow-up resolution being
considered today by the City Council was delayed to coincide with the timing of
development of the site. Now that construction will occur relatively soon, it is
appropriate to consider annexation at this time.
As additional background, the rezoning and conditional use requests were approved by
the City on May 11, 1998.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt resolution supporting annexation of the Community United
Methodist Church site.
If this option is selected, the resolution will be forwarded to the Township.
2.
Motion to deny adoption of the resolution supporting annexation.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator recommends alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution.
.
.
.
IN TilE MATTER OF THE AMENDMENT TO TIlE
JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
I)URSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.0325, SURD. 1
TO:
Minnesota Municipal Board
165 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly agree that the joint resolution bctwccn the
Town ofMonticcllo and the City of Monticello designating an area for orderly annexation datcd March 6, 1998,
be amended to include the following:
Both the Town and the City agree that no alteration of the stated boundaries of this agreement is
appropriate. Furthermore, both parties agree that no consideration by the Board is necessary. Upon
receipt of this resolution, the Municipal Board may review and comment but shall, within 30 days, order
the annexation of the following-described property in accordance with the terms of the joint resolution.
Property known as Community United Methodist Church:
The West 369.50 feet of the East 435.50 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of Section 13, Township 121, Range 25, and the West 369.50 feet ofthe East 435.50 feet of the
South Half of 1,ot 22 of AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. ONE, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Wright County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the centerline of County Highway
No. 118. Except the South 500.00 feet of the East 435.50 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter.
Approved by the City of Monticello this ~ day of
,19_
City Administrator
Mayor
Approved by the Town of Monticello this _ day of
,19_
T own Chair
Town Clerk
~It- /
.
.
.
58.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
Consideration of Library Board appointment. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the two recent appointments to the Library Board by thc Council at thc first meeting
of the year, there still remained one vacancy on the Board for a term that would cxpire
December 31, 1999. This vacancy had never been filled for the past two years, and
recently Librarian Marge Bauer indicated that Mr. Torn Parker, who resides at 1125 West
River Street, has indicated a willingness to serve on the Library Board. Marge indicated
that Mr. Parker is an NSP employee and has architectural background experience that
may be beneficial for the Library Board in dealing with remodeling and upgrading of the
library facility in the future.
If the Council is comfortable with the recommendation to appoint Mr. Parker to the
remaining one-year term, a simple motion to approve is all that is necded.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Confirm thc appointment of Mr. Torn Parker to the vacant position on the Library
Board with the term to expire December 31,1999.
2.
Do not appoint at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It's the recommendation ofthe Administrator, along with Librarian Marge Bauer, that
Mr. Parker be added to the Library Board effective immediately.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
2
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
sc. Consideration of renewine membership in Economic Development Partnership of
Wrieht County. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City has again received a request for continuing our membership in the Economic
Development Partnership of Wright County for 1999. The membership dues for the City
would remain at $1,004.50, the same amount as in the past years, but it would also have
an additional $500 that is still expected to be contributed by the Monticello
Chamber/IDC, making the total City contribution $1,504.50.
The City has been a member of the Economic Development Partnership since December
1993. The membership fee has been split between the IDC and the City with
approximately $1,000 being paid by the City and the other $500 contributed by the IDC.
With the IDC turning over its finances to the Chamber of Commerce, it is my
understanding that the Chamber has been willing to absorb the other $500 contribution if
the City renews its membership.
With the City having its own Economic Development Director, many of the programs
being proposed by the County Partnership arc already existing locally such as our
revolving loan program, our own marketing efforts through the IDC and the City, and
other consulting services that we provide in trying to attract businesses. Originally when
the City considered membership in this newly-formed county organization, there were
concerns that many of the activities proposed by the Partnership would be duplications of
efforts and programs that the City currently has. The basic reason for joining the
Partnership was that, although wc had our own economic development department,
what's good for the county would ultimately be good for the city in encouraging tax base
increases throughout the county. In addition, even though the Partnership may be geared
toward assisting smaller communities in the county, the City would benefit in the future
by being positioned to accommodate larger industries that may need a larger work force
and/or a good transportation network for their business location. Finally, we also did not
want to be the only major community in the county not to participate with the Wright
County Partnership.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve continued membership in the Economic Development
Partnership of Wright County at a cost of $1 ,004.50 as invoiced.
Under this alternative, the City would continue membership with the
understanding that the Chamber of Commerce would be responsible for the
balance of the membership dues of $500.
3
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
.
2.
Motion to deny continued membership in the Economic Development Partnership
due to the duplication of efforts already being accomplished through our own
economic development programs.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON:
While the staff recognizes that the County Partnership undoubtedly duplicates programs
and activities we currently provide ourselves, staff supports continued membership in the
organization with the Chamber of Commerce contributing $500. Most Wright County
communities are members of the Partnership, and it would appear appropriate for the City
of Monticello to continue as a member also.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter, invoice, and membership dues structure.
.
.
4
*
. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP OF WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A NON-PROFIT PRIVATE/PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP
'-_.."'~","~,_.._-
_._"'.._-"--"'._-~'._-'-'.~._.'."--_."--".._".
January 20, 1999
Rick Wolf steller
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway, Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Wolf steller,
1 would like to take this opportWlity to thank you and the City of Monticello for your membership
with the Economic Development Partnership of Wright County in 1998. Because of your support
the Partnership has been able to advance itself as an organization as well as impact Wright
COWlty'S economy and business environment.
.
1998 was again abusy and successful year for the Partnership. Major accomplishments included:
· R~eiving,501(c)(3) tax-exempt status and state certification as a Community Development
Corporation.
· Coordinating funding for dIe start-up of Mink Lake Manufacturing in Buffalo.
It" ;'FUnding the second expansion of Eden Electronics in Montrose.
~, . D~erm!~ing ,1.99"7,a~dl 99.8bu~iness expansi~n projectstQ have contributed.$1,8 to the
county'~economy.' ,
· Hosting several business workshops in the spring and fall for area business owners.
· LaWlching a web page to promote the County, the Partnership, and its members.
· Assisting the City of South Haven with its wastewater treatment project.
· Completing a business retention and expansion survey of the COWlty'S businesses.
The Partnership's Board of Directors have developed action plans for 1999 that include:
· Increasing marketing efforts for Wright COWlty and its commWlities.
· Addressing the labor shortage by promoting and coordinating resources that enhance the
productivity ofbusiriesses.
· Seeking expanded financial resources that enhance the economic environment of the county.
Recent elections have resulted in new council members for many of Wright County's
communities. For the benefit of new members (as well as veteran), 1 would be happy to appear
before the council to give a brief presentation on the Partnership and answer any questions you
mayh'ave. J can b~ reached at (6~2) 477-3086. Thank you for your continued ~upport.
.
Sincbrely, . ';' " . ' ". ' .
~~~
Marc Nevinski
Executive Director
o ,
, ,
CC Roger Bclsaas, Kiuy BaUos - Chamber of Commerce
Enclosures: Invoice, Dues Schedule .
PO Box 525, 6800 ELECTRIC DRIVE, ROCKFORD, MN 55373 (612) 477-3086; FAX (612) 477-3054
SC-I
.
.
,
Economic Development Partnership of Wrie:ht Countv
Invoice 1999
January 20, 1999
1999 Supporting Membership Dues for: City of Monticello
City portion (Based on 1990 population of 4941)
Chamber IIDC's portion on behalf of the City
Total
$1004.50
$500
$1504.50
Please return a copy of this invoice along with your payment to:
Cathy Thisius
EDP of Wright County
Security State Bank
PO Box 449
Maple Lake, MN 55358
The Economic Development Partnership of Wright County is a non-profit 501(c)3
organization. Membership dues are tax deductible. A receipt will be sent to you
confirming your 1999 contribution to the Partnership.
Thank you for your continued support of the Economic Development Partnership.
Should you have any questions regarding the Partnership, please contact Marc Nevinski
at (612) 477-3086.
S-c-~
.
.
.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP
of WRIGHT COUNTY
1999 Membership Dues Structure
Wright County
$
.50 per capita*
Municipalities
< 1000
1001-2500
2501-5000
> 5000
$ 100.00 plus .10 per capita
$ 500.00
$ 500.00 plus .10 per capita
$ 1000.00 plus .10 per capita
Townships
$ 100.00 plus .10 per capita
Utility Companies
$ 1000.00 plus .10 per capita
TelecommlUlications Provider
$ 1000.00
Banks & Lending Institutions
Deposits up to $25 M
Deposits of $25 M to $50 M
Deposits of$50 M to $75M
Deposits over $75 M
$ 250.00
$ 500.00
$ 750.00
$1000.00
Associate $ 50.00
(Includes non-business, non profit, schools and civic organizations)
Businesses
I to 4 employees * *
5 to 10 employees
11 to 20 employees
21 plus employees
$ 75.00
$ 100.00
$ 150.00
$ 200.00
Honorary Member
(Appointed by the Board of Directors)
No Dues Required
*Per capita rates are based on 1990 census.
**Number of employees includes active owners and management and pertains to regular
employees (over 20 hours per week) Part Time employees of 20 hours per week or less to
be counted as 1/2 employees
S-C-3
.
.
.
5D.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
Consideration of annual hi2hway maintenance a~recment with Wri~ht County.
(J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item involves our annual maintenance agreement with Wright County for portions of
CSAH 75 (Broadway) and CSAH 39 (Elm Street and Golf Course Road). In an
agreement with Wright County, the City of Monticello performs winter maintenance on
CR 75 (Broadway) from Willow Street on the west portion of our community to the
j unction of CR 39 and 118 on the eastern portion of the community . We also sweep this
section of road one time in the spring for Wright County. In addition, we do about 25%
of the snow and ice removal on that section ofCSAH 39 from Broadway to the public
works building.
Each year the County reimburses us based upon the maintenance costs for the County per
mile for previous years. For example, our 1999 Maintenance Agreement reimburses us
$8,712.66 based upon the 1997 annual cost per mile to the County for similar services.
The City of Monticello has continued to do this maintenance, as we feel it offers a better
level of service to our citizens. A copy of the agreement is enclosed for your review.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve the 1999 Maintenance Agreement with Wright
County as enclosed with the reimbursement for this year of $8,712.66.
2. The second alternative is not to approve the maintenance agreement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works Director that the
City Council approve the maintenance agreement as outlined in alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of letter from Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway Engineer; 1999
Maintenance Agreement.
5
7856
Jet. T.R. 25 and C.R. 138
Telephone (612)682-7383
Facsimile (612) 682-7313
8
WAYNE A. FINGALSON, F.E.
Highway Engineer
682-7388
VIRGIL G. HAWKINS, P.E.
Assistant Highway Engineer
682-7387
RICHARD E. MARQUETTE
Right of Way Agent
682-7386
v~,.y Ok
"C~
J-~Z
~lJ
""I -4 "y
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright County Public Works Building
1901 Highway 25 North
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
December 23, 1998
Rick W olfsteller, Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: 1999 Maintenance Agreement
:::> L-
n' ~f(;.f-
Dear Mr. ~rsteller:
It is once again time to renew our annual municipal agreement for the maintenance
activities on the road(s) listed on the enclosed agreement.
.
You may remember that the costs used in computing the reimbursement for the
maintenance agreements is the highest average annual cost per mile for either the rural or
municipal roadway segments in the previous year. This is consistent with state-aid procedures.
In most cases maintenance activities are more costly in municipal areas therefore these are the
routine maintenance costs that are used in computing the cost per mile for reimbursement. To
give you an idea of the cost for each maintenance activity we have shown the 1997 average
cost per mile for each activity in the 1999 maintenance agreement.
I have enclosed two copies of the 1999 agreement for your review and approval by the
City Council. Please return both copies of the executed agreement. After approval by the
County Board, one of the copies will be returned to you for your files. A check reimbursing
your city for the maintenance activities covered under our 1998 agreement, will be sent to you
under separate cover.
If you have any questions concerning this or if you note any discrepancies please don't
hesitate to contact our office.
Happy Holidays!
Sincerely,
Zi!z~. ~
Wayne . Fingalson
Count Highway E
.
Enc.: (2) 1999 Mun. Maintenance. Agts.
Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
51) - I
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 1999
s
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Monticello hereinafter referred to as
the "City" and the County of Wright hereinafter referred to as the "County".
. WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes, permits the County to designate certain roads and streets within the
City as County State Aid Highways, and
WHEREAS, the City has concurred in the designation of the County State Aid Highway within its limits as
identified in County Board's resolutions of August 28, October 8, November 5, December 3, December 27, 1957 and
January 7, 1958, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed to the best interest of all parties that the duties and responsibilities of both the City and
the County as to maintenance on said County State Aid Highways to be clearly defined,
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED with regard to said County State Aid Highway maintenance:
That the City will be responsible for routine maintenance on the following highways.
MAINT.
PLAN ROAD SEGMENT MILES COST/MI. * TOTAL COST*
C. CSAH 75 Willow S1. to E. Jet. CSAH 39 3.74 1,689.49 $6,318.69
(Includes four lane portion.)
D. CSAH 39 From City Public Works Bldg. to 0.32 422.37 135.15
W. Jet. of CSAH 75
B. CSAH 75 Four lane portion 3.10 645.38 2,000.67
B. CSAH 39 From CSAH 75 to Kampa Cir. 0.40 645.38 258.15
. ESTIMATED TOTAL = $8,712.66
That routine maintenance shall consist of the following: (Maint. Plan)
C. (CSAH 75) - Snow and ice removal.
D. (CSAH 39) - 25 % of the snow and ice removal.
B. One-time spring sweeping only.
*Based on 1997 average annual costs.
That when the City deems it desirable to remove snow by hauling, it shall do so as its own expense. The City shall
also be responsible for all snow and ice removal on sidewalks and other boulevard related maintenance outside the curb
or street area.
That the County will be responsible for all other maintenance.
That the City shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the County and all of its agents and employees of any form
against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action of whatever nature or character arising out of or by reason
of the execution or performance of the work provided for herein to be performed by the City. It is further agreed that any
and all full-time employees of the City and all other employees of the City engaged in the performance of any work or
services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall be considered employees of the -City only and
not of the County; and that any and all claims that mayor might arise under Workmen's Compensation Act of the State
of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a
~nsequence of any act or omission on the part of said City employees while so engaged on any of the work or services
~vided to be rendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the City.
(Sheet 1 of 2)
5D-2-
That the County shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the City and all of its agents and employees of any form
against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of actions of whatever nature or character, whether at law or equity,
arising out of or by reason of the execution, omission or performance of the work provided for herein to be performed by
the County including, but not limited to, claims made arising out of maintenance obligations of County, engineering,
eesign, taking or inverse condemnation proceedings. It is further agreed that any and all full-time employees of the County
and all other employees of the County engaged in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein
to be performed by the County shall be considered employees of the County only and not of the City; and that any and all
claims that mayor might arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said
employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on
the part of said County employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall
be the sole obligation and responsibility of the County.
That in December of 1999 ,the City shall receive payment from the County for their work. This amount shall
be based on the 1998 average annual cost per mile for routine maintenance on Municipal County State Aid Highways.
The average annual cost per mile will reflect only those costs associated with the areas of routine maintenance for which
the City is responsible.
ADOPTED:
,19_
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the
City Council of said City on , 19_,
City Clerk
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED:
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
Name of City
Chairman of the Board
Date
ATTEST:
County Coordinator
Date
.
(Sheet 2 of 2)
6D-3
.
.
.
SE.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
Consideration of Change Order No. 19 for City Project #93-14C. Monticello
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Change Order No. 19 involves seven changes at the wastewater treatment plant, each
ranging in cost from a low 01'$148 to a high 01'$7,746, for a combined total of$18,067.
The two most significant items of these changes involved the supernatant remover for the
sludge storage tank and valving and freeze protection for the draw off of clear liquid from
the sludge to reduce the overall amount of sludge at a cost of $6,206. The other item,
totaling $7,746, involved the addition of dampers and controls to be able to run the heat
pasteurization class A sludge system if the odor control system is not functioning. Once
we start the class A process, we risk losing the entire inventory should the class A heat
pasteurization process be stopped for any great length of time. Consequently, this change
was put in as a safeguard against losing our inventory of class A sludge.
We are getting close to the last CPR's on the project. There are approximately five items
that are being worked on on a time and material basis that will generate CPR's. We are
also working on final discussions with the engineer and contractor on any extras they feel
they may have coming, and liquidated damages and other charges the City feels it has
coming. The two remaining issues to solve at the facility are the operation of the heat
pasteurization class A sludge system and such testing and approval as the odor control
covers on the sludge storage facility and SBR's. Final punch list items are being worked
on, and we are moving toward completion of the project.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve Change Order No. 19 in the amount of $18,067.
This brings the total change order amount on the project to $485,881.50, or 4.19%
of the original contract amount.
2. The second alternative would be not to approve the change order.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and HDR to
approve Change Order No. 19 as outlined in alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Change Order No. 19 and a description of each one of the CPR's that make up
the change order.
6
IiR.
Change Order No.
. W~rTI'G~
BIOl'l
HOR PRljlilcl No.: 0812J1.OO4.164
owner's prcjeetNo.~ '930140
'oct Ccn~r. AdQlbon and ~
at Is 41greecf to mOdify U\o OJn..=- ~I.od to above IS follows:
tern NQ. ItBm 8nd d Charlaes COnnet. Pt1co CM!1'aCt Tll'I'l(;l
~ IMnlM8 DeaHSe fneree&
1 CPR No. 166 0 16.209 Q IaV& Oc avs
2 CM No. 172 0 5148 0 &'f'S Oc IaY9
:3 PF\ No. 118 0 17.746 0 avs Oc law
4 PR No. 187 0 ~ Oc :w 0 :avtl
S 8020 s-.arW:Iltor 0 $0'4 o da\l 0 ~
6 PR 11scmec"'al'lloaJ DOriIonI 0 s:aS9$ odev Odi:\vo
7 Mi..llaneoos iBR;4I1J 0 $451 o d." OdaVSlo
SUI).. Total $0 $18.061 Odavs o daVe
Nit o claW
summary: It is ~ tD modify me Conner referred ,., above as follows:
41 (deer@_IIi1) of lI'1is Ol1ange Order
Conlraet Tme prior to this Changa Ordlw
nterlm compJettOn lntM:
~ 1, 1998, Man:h 1, 1'li198 and ApI'il1, 1WB
T1aI etbn Oatil; ~ IS. 1998'
Net Increase (dtenl:8S8) or !hi! Change Omer
o
R~ COrlhet Time wftn ell approved Change Ofdtrs
Contrc:t Price prior 1D this ChQnqa Owder
1:$ 1 B.067
1it8yised Contract Price with e. ippl'CYed Chlln98 0fdenI
Interim COInpfetiOl'l DateS:
Gb~ 1, 1998. Mefch 1. 1998lSnd Apri 1. 1998
ins! - : 15 1 8
,.. chllllgU lnelud.t In this Ch4Ilge 0RIet' are to be accomplished in ~da..ce with tilt!! tenns, stlpulaUans Md
IW~ndf ~ns D.}1M,~ . ~Contract: as mOUgh Includlld therein.
, ~/~~ I 2-!C//9,!
Po r conuaclor by. _ ~ DaJ:(1
111i~{;::.l ~tV\./ .1 P-ILffi1
RGoommOnde<S fOr App1'OV8113y (HOA Engineering, Inc.) 0ai8
$ 11 ,749,OIf.SO
J
I J I
AJ)prOVCtd fOr O'Mler by; Aaeat 0.
Oisb1but1on: ~r L-..JOcntraetor ~CQ L-JFl9ld L-Jothet
The City of Monticello agrees that by paying Adoifson & Peterson, Inc. for
ange Order 119, Adolfson & Peterson, Inc. does not waive or forfeit any time
airn(s) pursuant to article 12 of General Conditions Agreement between the
rties.
extension
.
G~/1
~ hIIIm CPR No. DeSoription Amount
165 $il,.2.06
. 2 172 $141$
3 178 Added dampQr and exhaust piping to Hut Pe::steurizatlon system dl,ll;:work $1.746
Pu ose: To exhaust to atmQs l1e~ when biofilter il) not nmnin . drafl control
4 1B7 Add.0d circuit 10 &an'lfJler SMP1006 S311e
p oae: E:dra eiTcuit fO( the twO-
5 NA. $514
6 113 S2,6Gl8
7 iliA $457
TDtaI 00 No.19! S18 .00
Original e.,..tract Amount: S11,283,.:,lOO.Dll
Change Ord$l' No..
1 $0.00
2 ($4.607.00)
G M,llIaa,QO
. 4 $10,376.00
5 $10,GaG.OO
I> $12.682.50
., $:3$.$2.00
a S2S,64:3.00
9R SO.OO
10 137,047.00
11 $59,201.00
12 S2S,074.00
13 $0.00
14 $23,174.so
16 $66.041.QQ
18 $3.2,024..00
17 SQ6.642.50
18 $2Q.240.00
19 $18.067.00
$465,88'.50 4.1$% <i vri$lMl ~r1Iot_1
~9Vil:Ad CcIntlUt Amount: S'1.749.D81.50
-''''
.....
** TOTAL PAGE.0~ **
.
~ Adolfson
, I & Peterson
Construction
;E/~
.
.
.
SF.
Council Agenda ~ 2/8/99
Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit within the I-I zoning district
to allow co-location of a wireless antenna placement on an existin:: tower.
Applicant: MCTC - Minneapolis Cellular Telephone Company. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On February 2, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing and
recommended approval of a request to allow co-location of a wireless antenna on the
existing tower at the Bondhus site.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt recommendation by the Planning Commission as noted under
alternative #1 of the attached report.
2. Motion to deny approval of the conditional use permit request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator recommends alternative #1.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of report to Planning Commission.
7
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -02/02/99
5.
Public Hearing - Considerationofa reQuest for a Conditional Use Permit within the 1-1
Zoning District to allow co-location of a wireless antenna placement on an existine
tower. Apolicant: MCTe. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
MCTC (Minneapolis Cellular Telephone Company) is requesting approval ofa Conditional
Use Permit to place an antenna array on the existing US West wireless communications
tower currently located on the Bondhus property on East Broadway. The MCTC antennas
would be mounted below the US West antennas, and the shelter would be constructed within
the existing fenced enclosure. The shelter is a 12 foot by 18 foot structure, 9 feet high, and
would be constructed of rock aggregate panels. The applicant has indicated that the area is
screened in part by existing evergreen trees, but will be partially visible for west bound
traffic on Broadway (County Highway 75). No additional construction relating to the US
West monopole tower would occur with this project.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for MCTC, based on
a finding that the co-location meets the intent of the City's wireless antenna
regulations, subject to a condition that low evergreen shrubs are added to the east and
north side of the enclosure to enhance the landscaping and screening of the ground
facilities.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the co-location, based on a finding that the additional
antennas and ground equipment will further compromise the aesthetics of the East
Broadway area.
3. Motion to table action on the CUP, subject to the submission of additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the CUP with the screening condition listed in Alternative 1.
The intent of the Wireless Antenna ordinance which was adopted recently was to encourage,
if not require, co-locations of antennas where possible, in an effort to minimize the
proliferation of wireless towers in the community. This application appears to meet the
objectives of the ordinance, and the additional screening at the base would enhance the most
visible portion of the installation.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Detailed Facility Plan
-1-
~p~1
.-PZ-M
{ R1
~~ -
~rre t,..l QJ~H7N
T .
Z T
SCHOOL
>TATES
R1
~
.
~~/v
Exhibit A - Site Location
.
UHlJUTB
. ro
ANTENNA SITE SUBLEASE AGREEMENT
DESCRIPTION OF SUBLEASED PREMISES
Description of Site I Site Sketch
(CUr-rt
. '7 ~r..v y
45 I..)::r-
~ .....
") a.r" I'/r(\
-<5 xY'o'
P. R. -,....r.
.. t i A. '-K s
"
- ^ .~t1;
~()#1IV
6r '-:;
Exhibit B M Site Plart
,
'1
/:. . ......:.$'
~ -;-.)': "-
/y ,,)-~
<?-< '>
... ..,..c___ hC-'7)~~~'~~~'-_.
t -<. l'd";'PANV bI.. \ \
~7 ~//
i- / .<. F"ENCE INSTAlLED ' / <.,Y
E:<lSTING BUILDING . ~ '/ BY US WEST Y
bOtJb 11/15 CO~P. ~ ;:;
. 0/
.... {(,.0..__~. ',+ . _.~'. ""j, ..., ..' ,.' -.
.A
(1.,/
f~
v~
'.
- . "_ - - _a,. fl. '.. ... .~ ....... - .
'.
.
. -. -'. ..,.....-. +-
IONOPOLE'
AZIMUTH)
Fi N at> .41.$.,4- I!,:
lfD I L':J 'f..;ZS' WI P
-\-.
.".<--
c.+tL! tJJ>b(~
US WEST ANTENNAS
(BETA 4) 165" AZIMUTH)
TENNAS
~IMUTH)
1.
~
32'
I
d Facility Plan
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
5G. Consideration of tinal payment and acceptance of Resurrection Church and
Methodist Church improvements, Project 98-01C. (B.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This project was initiated to extend sanitary sewer service to the Resurrection Church and
Methodist Church properties. The project was previously assessed to the benefiting
properties. The contract as bid was for $40,804.24, with a total constructed value of
$41,911.25. The contract has been fulfilled and all punch list items addressed adequately.
We therefore recommend the City accept the project, initiate the warranty period, and
process final payment to Kuechle Underground, Inc., of Kimball, MN, in the amount of
$2,095.56.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to accept the project as constructed, process final payment,
and initiate the warranty period.
2. The second alternative would be to not accept the project.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Engineer that the project be accepted as constructed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Final pay voucher.
8
. '..,
.
,
,.
f
il~
'.
FEB-05-1999 14:10
.&
WSS
..--....
& Associates, Inc.
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.
350 Westwood Lake OffIce
8441 'Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
612-541-4800'
FAX 541-1700
February 2, 1999
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello,:MN 55362
Re: Final Construction Pay Voucher No.2
Resurrection Church / Methodist Church Sanitary Sewer Extension
~~~o/,:~Mo~\.~;mro, 98-01C
j,!I!I!!III~!!L~< .",..." .... ....-t
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
6125411700 P.03/05
B.A. Minc15tead[, P.E.
Brct A. Weiss. RE.
l'ctcr R. Willenbring. RE.
Donald ~ Sterna, RE.
Ronald B. Bray, RE.
Enclosed are tlu'ee (3) copies of the final Construction Pay Voucher No.2 for the referenced
, project in the amount of $2,095.56. We recommend final payment subject to receipt of the
following items:
1) Satisfactory showing that the Contractor has complied with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding State Income Tax and;
2) 'Evidence in the form of an Affidavit that all claims against the Contractor by reasons of
the contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured.
Please make payment in this amount to Kuechle Underground, Inc. at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, InG
<DAJ-A- J~
Bret A. Weiss, P .E.
City Engineer
Enclosures
c: Rick Wolfsteller, City of Monticello
Kuechle Underground, Inc.
run
MinneApolis · St. C/ouJ
I"fr4lt1WtuN EnginlWS PIA",,".
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~G~I
F: iW7'trI/i.JOlI6.W --'4"
FEB-05-1999 14:11
WSB & RSSOCIRTES INC.
CONSTRUCTION PAY VOUCHER
6125411700 P.04/05
,-
.'
ESTIMATE VOUCHER NUMBER:
. WSB PROJECT NUMBER:
.PROJECT:
2 (FINAL)
1096.01
DATE
PERIOD ENDING:
January 22. 1999
January 15. 1999
RESURRECTION CHURCH J METHODIST CHURCH SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA
KUECHLE UNDERGROUND, INC.
20 MAIN STREET NORTH, PO BOX 509
KIMBALL. MN 55353
CONTRACTOR:
CONTRACT DATE:
COMPLETION DATE:
May 11, 199B
WORK STARTED:
WORK COMPLETED:
.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
TOTAL ADDIT10NS
TOTAL DEDUCT10NS
TOTAL FUNDS ENCUMBERED
TOTAL WORK CERTIFIED TO DATE
LESS RETAINED PERCENTAGE
LESSPREVIOUSPAYM~
TOTAL PAYMEN18 INCL. T1i1S VOUCHER
BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT THIS VOUCHER
$40,804.24
$0.00
$0,00
$40.804.24
0.00%
$41.911.25
$0.00
$39,815.69
$41.911.25
($1,107.01)
$2.095.56
APPROVALS
WSB &ASSOCIA~S INC.
In ao:otclance with field ObMMllion, II p.rfonned in accordance with indultIy and.rdl, and b.Nd on our praft"lona' opinion. the materials installed
are satisfactory and the wr;)r1< properly performed In acxordanoe whh the plana and IpeclfiCllions. The total wo,. i iss ea eatitinmllted to be 100% completed 8$
ofJ,nuary15,1998. Weherebyreeommendpaymentofthilvoucher. 0 I ~
Signed: Signed: l.S>A.tt J..
COnstruction ObStrver PrOject ManagerJEnglnear
KUECHLE UNDERGROUND, INC.
This is to QJrtify that to the bat of my knowleclge, information, and belief, the quantltlell and values of work c::trtified herein is a fair approximate estimate
for the period covered by thl, voucher.
Ccntradcr;
Date:
Signed:
TItle:
CITY OF MONT1CELLO
Checked by:
Approved for payment:
Aulhoriad Representative
Dale:
.le:
tiG; V
F;\WPWlN\l Q96.0IWo.:'fI\IL
. ------ ,--~-,-,~-_.~._._~._,._._-'~'_.,--_.. - _.~-
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
7.
Consideration of a request for a subdivision within the 1-2 Zoning District to allow a
lot line relocation. Applicant: Greg Ebert. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At its last meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed lot
split/resubdivision of the Martie Farm Store parcel at Dundas Road and Oakwood Drive.
The subdivision as designed included a number of internal jogs in the proposed lot line to
account for the current encroachment of the existing building onto the proposed lot.
Since the proposed lot line did not provide the required 30-foot side yard setback from
the existing building, staff had suggested an alternative layout which meets the setbacks,
maintains slightly more than the minimum lot width, and minimized the jogs in the new
lot line. However, the applicant indicated that the revised proposal by staff would not
provide adequate buildable area for the new user.
Several options were discussed by the Planning Commission, but no consensus resolution
was arrived at. Consequently, the Planning Commission voted to deny the proposed
subdivision and directed the applicant to reapply with another alternative. The Planning
Commission discussion indicated that they would be willing to consider a new lot line
which included some jogs, but would not be interested in considering a variance for
setback since the condition was caused by the property owner--a situation which
disqualifies the proposal for variance consideration.
The applicant will be approaching the Planning Commission with a revised subdivision in
March, at which time he will also be bringing forward a request for a conditional use
permit for the use of the new lot. The applicant has indicated that the CUP site plan will
include improvements which should help to minimize concern over the lot line layout.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Motion to approve the subdivision, subject to meeting all setbacks and other
zoning criteria applicable in the 1-2 District.
2. Motion to deny the subdivision based on a finding that the Planning Commission
has directed the applicant to resubmit the proposal with a revised layout
concurrent with the request for a conditional use permit.
3. Motion to table action on the subdivision subject to additional information.
- 6
\ ~"' t.
~~I
9
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrccommends denial, based on the Planning Commission's findings and that the
applicant has indicated his intent to prepare a revised subdivision and site plan. Although
the design was not finalized during the Planning Commission's discussion of the item,
the applicant was given direction which he agreed was adequate to provide him with the
ability to revise the proposal and prepare plans for the next meetings in March.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Survey
Exhibit C - Alternate Lot SplitI"ayouts
.
.
10
FEB-03-1999 09:32
NAC
612 595 9837 P.02/04
e>-
.~~~~~~~Di~.~..7[
'I ~ ~1IllF4 'iIlJi~":i....( '7 ~. :--.......
1)~oq.~~~~~~""<.~. "JtJ~ if2 '~~'oJ!'>:.:.' ...,
-r .7-01 "'J.~ 'i '-i../rf rthM~~ ./j.. . 'l.:jl'~ ~...
, 'IJ ~. '.tQJ ~ ~ ~ . '/Jft.. .~ ~ ~ '/ fliiff '/'!h",..,. ........ ..
l~~ '?lll'~~ "<Y '::<1JIlih: ~ ~~ ~." . 1IfIII!Ii~ ~ ,
~"- ~ 1l.l!j!IP i/;!;Y f1 ~ "~'l ~~'~~J.
I -......0. 'fI, '1.J:1b.... "lJj,,,- I"m:P ~ ~ ';.f..lJ':Ji..,. :!..[/l f fJJiD / 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .
'I 'U1"r7 -!!Iff / ~ .u;[ ~ ~ t;f!l/f lJ;;?J. 0. ':PT ~ ~ YJ ~
- ;".- 1!Il tg! _");I j. ,~ 7 f '1:t~ liJ. ~/'~ ~[~ ~~
CI'I ~J"/ ~ . ~. "lgl/~. ) ~ '/ R 'l:J. ~ · ~ 1'- :<; <l h )
_____ ~m .,.. f ~ ~ 'Y '0~ ~~ ~... ~~ ~
'- 1'/" (.} f ~ -. I ,,-J:./ , :."lJ. ~ 'rJEB:"""
:co-. H;~A" .... 'J; ..J .. . """- "// --., 1li.,... ~
I ~ ~ . 'h Ii......- \:... -, I ~7')
-., ~ __ -:- . . . ~"ti~...~ ~...:::; 't5'" I "oj
-.01 ~~ -..... " ".. ' . . .. ..... ~ . I t ~ ~ ~
,~--- 'IP.A~ 63' ...-..~~ ...~~ . ~~~
1::::= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 .rlJ6..( ~ ............. ~ ~
'.: I 'R ~ "'i1~ '-4~ PS I ~
. /~, ...1., "I" /~
~:. t~'If~ '. · . ':. A~~' ~
,. 'V \ 7 ,,~~'A
: __~~C~. · ~l,~' I,
C 1. I ~~l~'" " I 1 -
..:a ~~ #- Q-
, _ 1 I. 1'1 ~
~
(/)
~
.......
e
:::E
-
...J
u
\~
lJJj P;~
I
· I Z '
~
-
s....
~~ JA ~ !STA';~
~ ....,..t:,. ~,'..I./fil I
.... . ::J I' '~. .. ~"';"i"." : --.!....
:2:?1'- I 1 - A D- P. .~!A!.A' .~. _ - ~ :
~ I "A~ ';', ..~
,&. I' ""'- . ~ .:.,.; ·
.c:.. .. '. ~v. l"""'"'
~ ~ --............. j t. 4-1 ..\... I' ,. · - ,\"""r.l'\~~
Vt -............::........ 1_, L" ~ I
'it "'~..... , \ . · ~ \ . ~ I tij.. :f '
~ '0 r:i1 ~ \'- r::J.... ':0.( .. -l.IJ,?' '. ~"t. " io.~.J~.I'~ ~Jl
/;;'1 ~ '- -,) '\ I b:Q~~' ~ ..~~~ ~I" . .~~ :: '''''.~.\t'
____~ ........ """ z'" ~ I. -" r .~jS\ .ToT. . . .r.'" '''"I' .
.' - - . ,J.:..... j - - -. : - ~ . . .1. t1, ./. · .~ft
ij~, . "~:..~...... ,"'.I-a" "'-.; ~'21 ~ : ~=""" ;v,-,'
I \. ","' ......... \. J . 4~ .. ~~..
~.. _ .;.;--'_._.......... d'f -?'f',l, ~. ~ I.. ~ ~ ~ -r. Ir" · .~~
If p-,. .J. ~ r.. _I. ~ ./'"'... r:']""/"'*fooloI"t.\.\.~
I ^......v I TUTTC' J
-...,...
J
SCHO
RI
e
Exhibit A .. Site Location
7-/
FEB-03-1999 09:33
.
I I
I ,
i -_j ·
I ,
i I
, I
i ~ I ~
I ~ ' ~
i ~ I 1
, · i
i ~ I
I :!o:: I
i CS I ~
I I
i . I
I I
i r
If ,"
I
r
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.I. ,M 1'1
"".. f,lU:
.Il. .:;r. .I"..I~'"
..
NAC
612 595 9837 P,03/04
:."'4 JI ,.,.. ... . ..._ ..........
DUNDAS
___ _ __ _.....-- IIiII _ _ _ _ _ ___~ - -__
...,. ,f"Iit fI...,... ..XI J
..
f! :..
Ii ~
r,.c,..;on.,1
.... .___ __.... ,_.d
KLEIN
OUTLOT B
I
I
I
I
,
I,
!B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ,
I
\.
I
I
I
BL.OCK
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_J
, ROAD
--------- -
INDU5TRlt_
2
~
~
'-
~
.~
3
"
'"
.
t<l
\.
,
.
:;
"
'.....t."hllt.~.....::""
t:"":- ;:'7;"'oA" :;;-;-:.R' -;:7':.
, . ~
r-:..
I
e, ..i~
EAST 392.
r-~ __--- .!'~t::'~.;!.;'_ __ _____:.._ _ _ _ - ~iI_ _ __ _ __ ___ ___...___._ ~
I I 22J, 08 lU.OO'
1111- ~ . .. .
I ..; I ~ .
. . t!: . .
,:, ' I k r------~----,
:~ I OAKJvOOO ~ ~ .. I ..,
: i " ~ L__J
1: i 's aj'V"'" E (
t: II " I' ,JfI,!O I
III! ..,; ~~ #I J
(~: i . I
~ \t: I PARCEL A I ~ I
~ ~ I' l.OIi ACi'ES I." I
... ! . .. I
. I",;:.... :at
I, c.!
! i ... ............. ,. ~ I'
!l: "I fl;fr/>C .... I
: ~ I I ;,,.=~:~~!..(I:. ' ,$ r
: 'I I If ~~~&\'I.. , PARCEL
1 It... ~ // e.4S A:;;!J
I t ~ r
I I ,- i I
I LD~ ! I j
: I I : ~ I
I II . 'I" It:: I
: . . ~ I' ~ i
41 1 'J" I
"l_ ______________--------.;.,!;,' or, 1;, I
. lI. l~ ~ !~,..:f1I'. ClCf.-=:.:tW/Jt IIC':;'!" rl~~ ~ " ..-
T -, - :\':"i/"", -:, ~..=' Ui.'! I
s f;'21'JS' E ~1i.OO' ". ~ - ~ ":89'21'35,'.
~ \.____....,..,..-- '; . ,..r::. I I
_- ["I r-
I I 'I
~ ,I (
t l. I I
''1'1; I. I
l ~.;l I
I ~ ~l I
. t ;., I
~ ....i 1
~. , I
! ~
, . , I
~ ~l 'j
~ c;: I
1 ~: I
. I; . I
.. I; I
. I
I : --~--~-----
. w~..~.....'W""".;
L
I'.
. I
~""! :t--------~~~'f,fi:7- "'--lI--.
---- 'f' H.e~'2;;JJ..~..~,;
lJjr~..I"1I. &,A"'J '
~~~r ;, ~:c U-.'" .;:,.. I
FARMS !.
Exhibit B · Site Survey
7-2-
FEB-03-1999 09:33
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
.
,
I
,
.. I II
..
I
I
I
~I
~I
~I
I
fSl
~
~I
C11
,
I
I
I
I "
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NAC
612 595 9837 P.04/04
--------------------,
., ,.,. :1 '"'' ..._ J ~.... "",.,..,
-
DUNDAS · ROAD
-------~
2.06 AC;;U
.
----i'iJ:;--------
1t.S'.t1 ., ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..4L;(€fl.N ' IIJE
'P~boS>t' P.7'f
~
I
I
,
,
I,
I
I
i8
I
1
I
--~...
INDUSTRlk
2
00
~
,
'j
I
I
I
I
t
'I
I.
I
I
I
BLOCK
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
'1
I
1
I :. .
I
I
I
J
_J
~
EA~r 392.
r-!-----::~:~~--------~---
I I' 223,08
~I. ~
I ~
" , :::
, :.1
I i I OAKt~OOO
:, 1--". ~...,~
=11. D~~
~, ~ t' ~ I R...otJ ,~
~ "'C:J. ~III-I.
(::'1'( . ,"
~ Ill~! I 'PARCEL A
~ ~ '! ,.
e ~ ;.
I ~ i I
~ J~'
...
.; t:
:i -
III "'I I
! I
I
J i
! ~ I
: . ~
", 1 '
"1_ ______________--------..:"
i t t.",,~ ~ f&."f.Ji~~. l!t'1:=:'f:.:r. _~n. t_~rt!:", ""
__ --~ . '''~i I
\ T S ti'ZJ"35' E Z$o.CO .Iol>!:";==o;,~ ';~'e!i'il'JS'"
" ,_-__~-- .; , ,p, I I
. --...-... . I "I r-
I I.
S . I
~ 'I
~ L 1
.{ I' 1
'" l 1 :.
. I
t ~ .1
\ ..;
\ Jl\ "I
: lQ ;1
, ~ .... ,;1
. ,.1
~. , I
n:!
~ ... I ,
\ ~l I
~ ;; I
, :e, I
; I; . I
.. I: I
I:, L__-------.
....-v ...-&:... . -.,co ,r.- '
L .
)l.. .
. . I
__ __ ..., ~"'=':"-__:_~-:.-~::'~'..'fi.~.
H S9'21"J1' It Ja..!
r... ,~. II' ,.' I. ...10 J *
~1""Ll'C'''''';W.::'' ,
FARMS !.
LOi
.-'J,t.r:::~n.~
7"J .~~~ ~~ ~..c::
~~
KLEIN
OUTLOT e
i:::
'~
3
!. "
-,
,
i"
~.
.'
.!
, .
---
~~;.~.....:..
----
~ ,_ iIto ;~iJf~' 0(':'-." .... ,.
. -
1~3
~~.. .
~I ,l.!~
Exhibit C - Alternative Lot Split Layouts
TOTAL P. 04
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
8.
Consideration of alternatives for disposition of Riverview Square plat remnant
parcel. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At a recent City Council meeting, the Riverview Square preliminary plat was approved
under the condition that a remnant parcel north of East County Road 39 was platted along
with the Riverview Square plat. Subsequent to the meeting, John Simola and I met with
Hilary Hoglund to further study the problem and offer the following plan for handling the
remnant parcel.
lloglunds have agreed to give the land to the City and will provide $1,000 toward platting
costs. The City would then take care of platting the property a cost of $5,000. The City
could then sell or keep the land. Prior to sale, the City will need to vacate underlying
utility and roadway easements. It is not known at this time if there are any buyers for the
land. In lieu of sale, it could be used as a place for an entrance sign to the community.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I.
Motion to authorize staff to acquire the remnant parcel at no cost plus $1,000.
City staff is directed to proceed with the platting and street vacation process once
the land is obtained.
2. Motion requiring that the Hoglunds plat the property.
Under this alternative, Hoglunds would be required to plat the property and would
be responsible for selling it to adjoining property owners if they so desire. This
option is complicated by the fact that the underlying land has no value for resale
until the City vacates the road and utility easements. The Hoglunds could request
vacation of road and utility easements, which would pave the way for sale by
Hoglunds.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To expedite the matter, staff recommends alternative #1. This option will assure
completion of the platting process and enable the Riverview Square Plat to proceed
immediately to final platting stage. Although the land has an odd shape and has limited
value to adjoining property owners, it appears that the value of the land is equal to the
City's net cost ($4,000).
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map data.
11
,
'.
o
~
~
~
'(
~
)f
~
.
~
~
~
;t-
~
Ci
~
~. '"lJ
. "II
--
~
I, .
+1
oa
("0.....
<1
,.,
n
><
o
~
Q..
"t
..J
~
~
w
~ ' I
'-
r-
,
I
\
\
\
.~-, -CU"'?Jnl_ 3NI
\ 4" .,.
.. "~~l ._.
';.;~) \ . i~oto
'" ,,";, ~ ~
>.~ \\,~ ~
", ~.
' , ,
; ",
",
,
"
"
"..
CD
~~
+0(1)
4. er .
N ':T
4.
..J
0..
:::-.- - !'f7l\"" ".t,
-'~~"" 0('0", 'T i
. -.:'. \:'('60;:(,.. I>- -s...... : /
o . '. "P>'., v~
...... ~,~~, '< ' ~"...........
~ ".... ,
-, 0--"" ~ "(;l
.. . !' 2' "S- {' (;l <
..... """ 'laS-</
4." o<'f' ~
/
.<{
'"
~\ + C\J
"'~ ~
<r ~
---... 0.,
/ 'V..{ l>-
I 1l>;z., .:J1>--1
..yo ~6'
..(0- o..{
.9/&
"
\
.
~
1\
..:-
'.
---1-0'
.. I ":I'
I-
o
..J
I-
::>
o
W I
,
-I{) ,
o r<)
0Cl
-r<) .
If) to
to
o _
UJ N
(1) :
~ I
j'
,
,
,
"
...... "
, . S' <
/' ......
<0:/( >
~ <t /
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
9.
Consideration of establishing relocation benefits for the Riverside Oil bulk
petroleum facility. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to review the status of the bulk plant operations and provide
direction on further action.
A relocation benefit program has been available to the bulk tank operators for a number
of months; however, actual relocation ofthe tanks has not occurred due to a number of
reasons. The purpose of this report is to update Council on the status of the project and to
obtain direction for future action.
Since very early in thc process of the development ofthe community center, City staff
has been working with the bulk tank operators on development of plans for relocating the
tanks. Early in the process, promises were made by the City to the operators that the
tanks would be allowed to stay in place until the best time for a move (March/April
1999). The operators have been aware of the relocation benefits for many months and
have been attempting to complete relocation plans. At this point in time, plans are still
under formulation and cannot be finalized until each operator knows if the City will
provide additional economic development funding for development of new bulk tank
plant facilities.
City Obligation to Provide Relocation Benefits
Prior to the community center project, both Riverside Oil and 1M Oil were operating
under a 30-day lease. The terms of the lease included an annual payment of$I,200. The
lease also required that the site be cleaned up by the operators upon termination of the
lease. The relocation benefits provided are, therefore, based on this arrangement.
According to Dan Wilson, relocation specialist, the City is obligated to provide relocation
benefits; however, the City is not obligated to relocate a business displaced by a
govenunental action. In the case of the two bulk plants, it appears obvious that the cost
to buy land and develop an up-to-date facility is greater than the funding capacity of the
businesses alone. Following are the maximum benefits that consultants and the City
Attorney can justify.
Riverside Oil - Jeff Michaelis
The proposed relocation benefit for Riverside Oil is estimated at $69,000, which is
comprised of approximately $28,000 for relocation ofthe tanks (will be based on actuals)
and $35,959 for loss of fixtures/property due to the move. An additional $6,000 is
provided in addition as an incentive to avoid litigation. If Riverside Oil goes out of
business, the benefits will be in the neighborhood of $50,000-$60,000, and the City may
be required to demolish the facility. These costs are covered by the clean-up grant.
12
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
.--.
.
Michaelis has been working toward development of a bulk tank site at the Seefeldt
property, which is a site that is properly zoned for the intended use. According to
Michaelis, his business cannot support thc actual cost to move from a leased site to a
purchased site. Michaelis needs a minimum of approximately $40,000 in economic
development assistance to establish his business at the chosen alternative location.
JM Oil - Bill Aydt
The proposed relocation benefit for JM Oil is $63,200, which is comprised of $28,000 for
relocation of the tanks and $29,263 for loss of fixtures/property due to the move. An
additional $6,000 is provided in addition as an incentive to avoid litigation. If JM Oil
goes out of business, the benefits will be in the neighborhood of $50,000-$60,000, and
the City may be required to demolish the facility. These costs are covered by the clean-
up grant.
Aydt has been looking at sites in the industrial park where land costs will amount to
approximately $80,000. Aydt also notes that the cost to relocate is too high for his
business to sustain. He is also considering abandoning building a bulk plant and simply
buy a bigger truck with his relocation proceeds. He would then ship product in from
other bulk tank sites outside Monticello.
~
Both operators need to know if the City will be willing to provide funds above and
beyond relocation benefits so that plans can be made accordingly.
.
Economic Development Funding
The City may have some ability to provide funding to assist in establishment of bulk tank
facilities based on a finding of public purpose. The City cannot legally provide funds in
addition to relocation benefits without determining that there is a public need satisfied by
providing funds to a business. In the case of the bulk tank facilities, the public purpose
could include the following:
1. Job preservation.
2. Bulk tank facilities provide a necessary service to local businesses and the City
itself on a regular and emergency basis. Although fuels can be pure has cd by
providers near Monticello, the convenience of local bulk plant to local industries
and the City is important. Also, the presence of the bulk tanks and locally stored
fuel provided emergency generators with a convenient supply of fuel during the
recent wind storm recovery.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIeNS:
"
1.
Motion to direct City Staff and operators to work with the Economic
Development Authority to develop a financing plan that would include a public
13
.-.-- --_......" ----- ..- ,..---"".--- ._-~,._'--
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
10.
Consideration of approval of citizen survey format and questions. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to review the attached survey format and questions prepared by
Decision Resources, Inc., at the direction of Mayor Belsaas and Councilmember Thielen.
In the next few weeks, over 400 citizens will be selected randomly to respond to the
questions. The results should be available by March 8, 1999.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve or modify and approve the survey format and questions.
2. Motion to deny approval of the survey format and questions.
. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator and the Council subcommittee recommend approval of the survey
format and questions as proposed.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of survey.
15
.
.
.
(" ,
. ,
6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES
748 P02
FEE 05 '99 11:33
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COMMUNITY CENTER STUDY
REVISED VERSION
Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a survey
research firm located in Minneapolis. We've been recained by the
City of Monticello to speak with a random sample of residents
about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because
your city representatives and staff are interested in your opin-
ions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual
responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of
the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1.
How long have you lived in the
City of Monticello?
TWO YEARS OR LESS.... ...1
2.1 TO 5.0 yEARS..... ...2
5.1 TO 10.0 YEARS. ......3
10.1 TO 20.0 YEARS.... ..4
OVi:R TWENTY YEARS.......5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... ..6
EXCELLENT....... ...... ..1
0000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ONLY FAIR. . . . .. . . . . . . . . - 3
POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... ..5
2.
How would you rate the quality of
life in Monticello -- excellent,
good, only fair, or poor?
3. what do you like most about living in Monticello?
4. In general, what do you think is the most serious issue
facing the community today?
The City of Monticello has begun construction of a new community
center.
5. Prior to this survey, were you
aware of this Community Center
project?
YES. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . 1
NO" . to . . .. . .. . . . . . 'I , . . .. " . . . 2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... ..3
IF "YES," ASK:
6. What have you heard about this project?
1
/0 --' I
6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES
748 P03
FEE 05 '99 11:34
.
7.
From what you have heard and
seen, do you favor or oppose
the Community Center project?
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you
feel strongly that way?
STRONGLY FAVOR....... ...1
FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
STRONGLY OPPOSE...... ...4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF "OPPOSE" OR "STRONGLY' OPPOSE," ASK:
6. Why do you feel that way?
.
As you may know, the city is currently building a Community
Center. The building will contain a large community room, meet-
ing roomS, a senior center, a teen center, a gymnasium with a
walking/running track, an aerobics and exercise area, City Hall
offices and National Guard offices. Four other facilities were
planned for inclusion: an aquatic facility, a skate park for
skate boarders and roller bladers, a climbing wall, and a child-
renls indoor play area. These four facilities would have charged
user fees to defray their operating expenses. Daily passes for
the center would cost about $2.00 for a child, $2.50 for an adult
and $10.00 for a family. The property tax increase for the
entire project, including the four facilities just discussed, was
$____ per month or $____ per year on a $100,000 home; on a
$150,000 home the increase was $ per month or $ per year.
- -
The City is considering removing the aquatic facility, the skate
park, the climbing wall, and the children's play area to reduce
the property tax increase. Since the Community Center project
has already been levied on property taxpayers, each facility
removed would reduce property taxes payable in 1999. But, since
these facilities draw paying visitors to the center and generate
revenue for the city, any loss of operating income may be passed
through to taxpayers I so a property tax decrease in the short run
may be negated by increases to cover center operating costs. As
I re-list each facility, I will indicate the amount of that tax
decrease for a $100,000 home. For each one, please tell me if
you would strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or
strongly oppose its removal.
STF SMF SMO STO DKR
9 . An aquatic facility, with a water
slide, jacuzzis, a zero-depth pool
containing children'S water play
equipment and locker rooms. The
removal of this facility would
decrease your property taxes by
$_ per year. 1 2 3 4 5
.
2
!O ,2-
6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES
.
10. A skate park for rollerbladers and
skateboarders. Its removal would
decrease your property taxes by
$____ per year. 1
"
11. A climbing wall. Its removal
would decrease your property taxes
by $___ per year. 1
12. A children'S indoor play area.
Its removal would decrease your
property taxes by $___ per year.
748 P04
FEE 05 '99 11:34
STF SMF SMO STO DKR
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
1
3
5
2
4
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
~~O~~~ What is your age, please? Stop me 18-24.......... ... ......1
~ . ~ when I read the interval which 25-34............ .......2
~\~~~~in. it. 35-44.... ........... ....3
I
Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age
groups live in your household....
.
14. First, persons over 657
IF SENIORS WERE PRESENT, ASK:
15.
Do you or members of your
household use the current
Senior Center?
How likely would you be to
use the Senior Center located
in the new community Center
facility -- very likely,
somewhat likely, not too
likely or not at all likely?
17. Other adults, including yourself?
16.
45 - 54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
55-64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
65 AND OVER.... '" ......6
REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ....3
VERY LIKELy........... ..1
SOMEWHAT LIKELY... .., ...2
NOT TOO LIKELy....... ...3
NOT AT ALL LIKELy.... ...4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ....5
18. School-aged children and pre-schoolers?
19. Do you rent or own your present
residence?
20. Gender (BY OBSERVATION)
.
21. Area of City ~ ~
,IS\) \.
~~ 0 J'-
\~C~
~
3
OWN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %
RENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ...%
MAliE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %
FEMALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %
/0-3
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
11.
Consideration of fundint: participation and construction at:reement with Writ:ht
County for improvements to CSAH 75 East. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This agreement with Wright County involves the improvement of CSAH 75 to a point
east from the east end of the median in front of the high school, easterly past Hawk's Bar,
near the freeway exit ramp. The project involves the construction of a new median,
highway, two signal systems (one of which is for the Hospital and School District), large
diameter storm sewer installation, pathway reconfiguration and a possible pathway
underpass under CSAH 75. This project differs from the CR 1] 8 project in that the City
of Monticello is taking the lead on this project rather than the County. The City Engineer
has performed traHic counts and conducted staff in pre-design task force meetings,
expending near $7,500 on upfront costs for the project. In addition, we have split the cost
of aerial photography and topography for the project with the County, with both the
County and City each paying $4,000.
The project itself is currently estimated by our engineer to be in the neighborhood of
$3,000,000. The major sources of funding for the project are Wright County, the City of
Monticello, the Monticello School District and/or the Monticello-Big Lake Community
Hospital District. The actual costs to the different bodies cannot be given at this time, as
the project has not been designed. We do have estimated ballpark figures based upon
percentages of costs laid out in the agreement, and those will be discussed further in the
text of this agenda supplement. There may also be assessments to adjoining property
owners along the highway for such items as curb, etc.
With the City taking the lead on the project, we have advantages and disadvantages. One
of the advantages is that we have more freedom in the design and can look at the interest
of the City a little bit more than the County would if acting on their own. In addition, we
can have more participants in the task force to try to bring harmony into the final design.
We can also look at effects to our residents that the construction may have and make sure
that our residents are not significantly inconvenienced by thc project.
The disadvantage is primarily cost. The City has to upfront and pay for 100% of all the
pre-design work, meeting with the different groups, putting traftic data together, and
holding public inf()rmational meetings prior to actually getting down to the design work.
Secondly, Wright County's funding participation limits them to pay a maximum of 10%
of the County's share of the project for engineering, surveying, inspections, and testing
services. They have, however, in this case agreed to pay an additional $4,000, or one-
half, of the preliminary mapping work for the project. The estimated upfront or
engineering costs, excluding our preliminary mapping and design work, is expected to be
about ]4%. Consequently, we are losing about 4% of the County's share of the project
by taking the lead. If the County's share of the construction project were half, or $] .5
million, it would bc about $67,500 additional cost just to take the lead. We are hoping to
reduce this amount by doing the inspection with our own forces, but it does cost money to
16
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
.
take the lead on such projects. The County has worked with us to develop an agreement
which reaches the maximum allowable payments to the City under County-wide
guidelines and policies, so to get more funding from the County is probably not easily
achievable. A tally of the various construction cost items and how they would be spread
is included in the enclosed agreement for your review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the agreement with Wright County for
the improvement of CSAH 75 as drafted.
2. The second alternative would be to approve the agreement with Wright County
contingent upon an amendment made by the City Council.
3. The third alternative would be not to approve an agreement with Wright County.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and City
Engineer that the City Council approve the agreement as drafted and outlined in
alternative #1. We feel the project should move forward and this is our best option at this
time. We have discussed and will continue to discuss the possibility of limiting the
project in scope to not go further than the existing median in front of Total Mart, and are
expecting to use our own inspectors to lower costs. Even if the agreement is approved
today, we would continue to work on those issues.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed agreement with Wright County.
.
17
FEB-04-99 THU 11:31 AM WRIGHT CO. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
.
AGREEMENT NO. 98-04
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF mOHW AYS
FUNDING PARTICIPATION AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF WRIGHT
and
TIIE CITY OF MONTICELLO
.
For
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR:
SAP 86-615-12
CSAH 75 - GRADING, BASE, SURFACING. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL.
AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
P:\DA 1 A \WPWlN\AO:\U!BMNT\J'I'A98-Q4,MON
~llnwy 4. lY':J9
.
11-1
s
FEB-04-99 THU 11:31 AM WRIGHT CO. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
p, 03
.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
TIllS AGREEMENT. made and entered into by and between the Cowuy of Wright.
Minnesota. acting by llnd thfough its County Board of CommissiODer$ hcretDattet refene4 to as Ihe
"County- and the City of Monticello. Mbmesota. acting by and through its City Coo:ncil, heteiDafter
referred to as the -CitY-.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, plans and specifications have been prepam.t for the huprovement of County State
Aid Highway 75 (from the High School to 1-94), hereiDafter referred to as CSAH 75. ud said
consb:uc:tion plans are designated as SAP 86-675.12.
The project includes, but is not limited to, street reeoDStrucdon, curb/sidewalk: construction.
drainage improvements. utility Improvements, traffic control signal improvements, raised mcd.iaD
.. street scape" iInprovements. and other miscellaneous hnprovements within tile corporate limits of
MonticeUo. and
WHEREAS. a Cooperative Agreement between the County and the City ootlines the
responsibilities and financial commitments: for the proposed project.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD THAT:
Article 1
.
The City shall construct or cause to be constructed. a project meeting state aid standards of
street improvetnentl including. roadway, utility, drai.na;e, and other miscellaneous improvements upon
or along CSAH 75 within tile City limits in accordance with the approved plans and specifications as
prepared by the City's consultant eqineet, and as approved and on me at the office of the County
Engineer, and:
Article 2
It is agreed that upon completion of and accepWlc:e of the work as to quantity and quality by
the County, the County Engineer shall determine the 8Ctual amount that the County will reimbUrse the
City in accordance with the followin& fundiDg participation schedule:
1. CSAH 7S IltlProvements (ftom W34hiQiton Street to I-~:
This CSAH 75 segment would be reconstructed. to an urban section (curb & JUucr and
raised n'1t:dian) with utility and dniDqe improvements, with input from the County and the
CSAH 75 Tuk FOICe Committee. 'This participation is consistent with Wrigbt Coumy's
existin& tl1nding policies. 1be City would be requited to obbdn any additional permanent RIW.
as required to do the work. It is not anticipated that additional permanent right-of-way woukl be
needed. Tempowy right-of-way may be needed for construction purposes &. would be the
responsibility of the City to obtain.
.
2
//-2--
FEB-04-99 THU 11:32 AM WRIGHT CO. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
p, 04
.
Traffic Control Sigoal Syste1ll CODStJUCtion
(including permanent IU'CCt lighq as part of project)
Bnainecring Services
Puading Panicipuion
County Ci1x
100ft OtJ
l00';i O~
l00~ 0"
70% mM
0% 10011
0% l001i
SO% ~%
O~ 100"
0% l00~
("'A) (*A)
O%(*B) 100% (*B)
100% 0%
7S%(~) 25%(*C)
SO%(*D) 50%(*0)
(~ (~)
(III) see Note$
.
Grading Items
. Common Excavation. TUe. Borrow, Agg. Ba$e
. Turf Establishment
Surfacma Travel Lanes (WarlNon-Wear)
(including turn lanes)
SUrfacinl PaVed Shoulders (Wear)
New ConcretelBituminous Walk
New Curb & Gutter (Entrance Pour-Backs)
Retaining Wallil
Right-of-Way (Permanent or Temporary)
Permanent Street Lighting
Storm Sewer
Utility Work (San. Sewer, Water, and Casting Adjustments)
Signing/Striping
LaDdscapedlRaised Concrete Medians
2. NOTES:
A. The County will participam on storm sewer related irems based on the (%) of couuibutiDg llow
8$ determined by tile State Aid Hydraullcs Engineer. -
B', Insulation of existing water main, caused by the lowering of the highway grade. i5 an cli&ib1e
state-aid expense. which would be paid for by the County. All other utility costs would be in
accordance with the above cost split.
C. The Cost for the concrete curb &; gutter for the Iandscaped'DlCdians will be paid.1~% by
the County. Costs for ISlMct'9ptng, treel, etc. that will be located within the landsCaped
median wW be the City's cost. MaintcDanCC of the cc::Dtcr laDdscaped median. upon
completion of the project. will be the responsibility of the City.
D. The Coonty will DOt be responsible for certain maiDtenance provisions upon completion of
a traffic control signal system. PaInting, reIamping. cleaning of the signal system. street
light mainumance. and power costs to operate the signal and street light systCI11S will be the
l'e$pOIlSibiIlty of 1he City.
.
3
/(--3
FEB-04-99 THU 11:32 AM WRIGHT CO. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
p, 05
.
E. The City will provide ensineeriDg services for design, comuucdon, and ad"\fniVt'atioD of
the project. The County will nOl participate in any enalDeeriDg costs incurred by chc City
that are necessary for the City to assess their ponion of the project costs (Feasibility
Studies. heMina&. lqal expenses. eIC.). The COUIlty sb.a11 reimburse the City for
eD&ineerinc ~rvices for the County's portion of the projecL The CountY will reimburse the
City for engineering services for the County's portiOD of tbe project based upon the
foUowing table. The final reimbursement wUl be computed using the apptopriare ~ below
times the County's portion only of the contract construction eost. The County will
reimburse the City up to $4.000 for preliminary mapping work on this project.
From
Over
Over
O\'et
Over
$ 0
30.000
100.000
250,000
500.000
thru $50,000 up to 18%
thru 100,000 up fa 16%
thtu 250,000 up to 139'6
thru ~,OOO up to 11 %
thru Jndeftnlte up to 10%
of County's Portion
of County's Portion
of County's POniOD
of County's Portion
of County's Portion
F'. MobUization costs are to be split based on the ratio of Coumy costs versus the entire project
costs.
G. Traffic comrol costi are to be split based on die ratio of County costs versus the entire project
costs.
.
H. All riaht.of-way acquisition costs (petmaneDt & temporary) are the responsibility of tbe City.
I. The County wUl pay for the initial striping of crosswalks and pavement markings as outlined
on the plan. Maintenance of the crosswallcs upon ~mplctioD of the project will be the
responsibility of tbe City.
(*) Unless parking is restricted in which case 100% County Costs.
The City Engineer shall prepare a preliminary estimate of COnstrllCtion cost for the prOject. 'I11e
preliminary cost estimate shall identify both the City's sba:re and COUD.ty's share of cost for the proj4:lct
based. upon tbls 1\md.ing agreement. Tbls prelli:niJW'Y construction cost esdmatc shall be attached to this
funding alreement.
It is intended that the work outlined above in Article Two is to be done by a contraCtOr on a
uuit p.-ice basis through a contract duly let by the City. At such time as the City awards a contract,
the City wUI prepare a new estimate of the County's share of the construction cost based on the unit
prices bid by the City's contractor. A copy of such revised cost estimate will be forw8Idcd to the
County Higbway Engineer.
Article 3
The City shall be responsible for all field inspection of materials (Including required testing at
intervals outlined In the latest MnDOT Materials Control Schedule), quantities, and contractor
performance (IncludinC sub1Di.tnl1 of Weekly Diaries, Change in Construction SUltu.'i: foJ;'IDS, and all
other reQ.uired fonus, to be submitted to the District 3 Slate Aid Engineer, with copies to the County)
for the road improvement project- 1bete will be no inspection cost to the County, beyond the
cniineerina reimbursement as outlined in Article Two. Section 2(E), unless 1he County requests
inspection services ~ond dIe standard requirements and testing procedures for normal State Aid
tunded projects. The City will monitor tbc wage rates 10 inswe that the conttactDr and subcQntractors
bay. complied with tba ~CI$ as specifiod, and dlat the contract W eompUed with the EEO
rcqutrcments.
.
4
/1-1
FEB-04-99 THU 11:33 AN WRIGHT CO. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
p, 06
.
Article 4
Upon award of the contract by the City, the COUIlty will forward to the Cily. within 30 day..
SO~ of their sbare of the costs, based upon the contract unit price$. Upon written notice by the City
that the project is more tban 50% complete, the County will forward an additional 4096 oftbeit share
of the project costs. Upon completion and final ~ of the work. the County will forward a
tlna1 payment to the City within 30 days. Whenever it appears the cost of the County participation
construction covered under this Aareemr:nt Is about to exceed the current amowtt of encu:wbmsd
County funds, the City shall notify the County Engineer's authorized representative in writing prior to
performance of the additional County cost participatioD CODstruction. Notification sball include an
estimate in the amount of additional funds aecessary to complete me County cost patticipatkm
eonsttuetion including construction ~ costs aDd the reasoa{s) why the current amount
encumbered will be exceeded. The County shall, upon its appmval of the additional County cost
participation construction, agree that this action will have the effect of 5lfTIII!Ilfiing dais Agreement 10 as
to include the County's share of the costs of the addirlonal consttUction.
Should the City cause the performance of additional comract CODStruction which would
otherwise qualify for County cost participation covered under this Agreement. but for which the
County has not previously CDCumbercd t\mds, rbat additional contract construction is done at the City's
own risk_
The City Engineer shan provide to the County Engineer a blue line as bunt plan of the roadway
improvements. This as-built plan shall be 5Ilbmltted to the County within six months of the final
completion of the project.
The City shall keep records and accoonts that enable it to provide the ~ with the following
. prior to final payment by the County:
1. Copies of the City contraCtor's invoice(s) covering all contract coIUlttuCtion.
2. Copie$ of the endorsed an4 canceled City warrant(s) or checks(s) paying for fiua1 wutract
cOD$truction. or compu.tc:r documentation of the warrant(s) issued certified. by an appropriate 'City
official that final cOIl$lJ;uction contract payment. has been made.
3. Copies of all construction contract c.bange orders and/Ot' supplemental aareemcnts.
4. A cenification fonn signed by the City's Bngineer in charge oftbe eontract cansttUCtion attesting
to the following: '
!. Satistactory performance and completion of aU contract CODSt1'UC:tioo in accordance with CowlLy
and State Aid approved City plans, specifications and/or special provisions_
b. AcceptaDce and approval of all matmials furnished for the S1atc C05t participation CoD8UUCtion
covered under this Agreement relative to compliance of l:bose materials 1:Q the Slate's curIeDt
MnIDOT "SW1dard SpecificatiOdS for Construction".
c. Full payment by the City to its contractor for a.11 contract construction.
A copy of the "as built' plan sent to the County Engineer.
5.
.
5
!I-~
FEB-04-99 THU 11:33 AM WRIGHT 00. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
p, 07
.
.......w. S
The City shall be teipOllSible for all snow and ice removal on sidewalks and other
boulevardlsidewa11clbikepatb related maiDtel18lK:e outSide the curb or SIrect area.
Article 6
The City shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the County and all of 1m aaeua and
employees of any form *aainst any and all claims. Mmands. actions or causes of action of wba1ever
nature or character arising out of or by reason of the execution or performance of the wort provided.
for herein to be performed. by the City. The County shall indemnify. save ami hold barmlC$S the City
and all of its agentl'l and employees of any form against any and all claims, demands. actiOllS or causes
of action of whatever nature or character arising out of or by reason of d1c execution of performance of
the work provided tor herein to be performed by the County.
~7
It is further agreed that any and all full~time employees of the County and all other employees
of the County en:aaed in the perfo~ by any wort or services required or provided for herein to
be performed by the County shall be considered. employees of the County only anc:l not of the City and
that any and aU cJahns that mayor might arise under Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third
parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part Qf said County employees while so engqcd
on any of the work or services provided to be rendered heroin shall be the sole obligation and
responsibility of the County.
.
it is further agreed that any and all full-t:ime employees of the City and all other employees of
the City engaged in the perfonnaDce by any work or ~ces required or provided for berein to be
performed by the City sball be considered employees of the City only and not of the County and that
any and all claims that may or might arise under Worbnlm's Compensation Act of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of $aid employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third
parties as a consequence of any act or or.nission on the pan of said City employees which so engaged (Ill
any of the work: or services provided to be rendered horein shall be the sole obligation and
responsibility of the City.
Article 8
Before this agreement sba1l become binding and effective it shall be approved. by the City
Council of Monticc:llo and it shall also be approved by the County Board. and such other officers as law
may provide.
.
6
/ / ...,(p
FEB-04-99 THU 11:34 AM WRIGHT CO. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
P. DB
M IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF me parties have duly executed this agreement by their duly
authorized offtcers and caused cheir respective lOlls to be hereunto affixed.
.
Reconunended for Approval:
CITY OF MONTlCELlfl
Reconzrneoded for Approval:
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
Coon!}' EDalneer
city Engineer. MOIIticello
Chair. COUnty Board
Mayor. CitY of Monticello
COUl1ty CoordU1a1Dr
City Attorney. City of Monticello
County Attorney
City Administrator. City of Monticello
Date
Date
.
.
7
11--7
12.
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
Consideration of funding agreement with Wri~ht County for improvements to
CR 118. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Wright County is in the process of developing plans to improve CR 118 from CSAH 75
all the way to St. Michael this summer. City staff has been working with Wright County
on the project, as we will be constructing pathways along a major portion of CR 118 in
the city limits of Monticello. Our cost sharing agreement with the County provides only
a few items for which the City would be responsible. Should modular block retaining
walls be necessary to protect City property or the pathway, the City would pay for 50% of
that cost. If the City does not allow parking to occur along CR 118, we would have no
cost for shoulders. The bituminous pathway, of course, is our cost and any curb and
gutter required by us or for driveway or entrance pour backs within the city limits. And
of course, utility work, sanitary sewer, water, etc., would be our cost.
The other cost that we would see would be the cost of acquiring additional right-of-way
from property within the city limits for roadway and pathway use and additional right-of-
way outside the city limits needed for pathway only. The cost for additional right-of-way
could reach $40,000. A copy of the proposed agreement is enclosed for your review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
The first alternative is to approve the funding participation and construction
agreement with Wright County for improvements to CR 118 within the city limits
of Monticello as enclosed.
2. The second alternative would be to approve the funding participation and
construction agreement with Wright County contingent upon an amendment
directed by the City Council.
3. The third alternative would be not to approve the construction agreement. Not
approving the construction agreement would make it very difficult for us to work
with the County to get our pathways in on their right-of-way in locations and
would not be in the best interest of the City of Monticello.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works Director that the
City Council approve the funding agreement as outlined in alternative #1. We believe the
funding participation is fair, and the additional costs for engineering as outlined in the
agreement are reasonable. We are concerned about the pathway right-of-way costs,
though, and bclieve this should be further studied to reduce our pathway and/or right-of-
way costs.
D.
SUPPORTING OAT A:
Copy of proposed agreement.
18
.
.
.
FEB-04-99 THU 11:34 AM WRIGHT CO. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
...
AGREEMENT NO. 98~06
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
FUNDING PARTICIPATION AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF WRIGHT
and
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
For
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR:
COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 18
(Formerly County Road 118)
SP 86-618-04
GRADING, BASE, AND BITUMINOUS IMPROVEMENTS
F:\DATA\WPVVIMAGREEMNl"MONTl1!.AGA
Fe,-,rlJ8'Y 4, 1999
/t -j
8
FEB-04-99 THU 11:34 AM WRIGHT CO. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
p, 10
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
.
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the County of Wright,
Minnesota, acting by and through its County Board of Commissioners hereinafter referred
to as the "County" and the City of Monticello, Minnesota, acting by and through Its City
Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, plans and specifications have been prepared for the improvement of
a Count)' Highway, hereinafter referred to as CSAH 18 (from CSAH 75 to the Ea3t City
limits), and said construction plans are designated as SP 86-618-04.
The project includes, but is not limited to, highway reconstruction, bituminous
pathway, drainage improvements, utility improvements, and other miscellaneous
improvements within the corporate limit of Monticello, and
VVHEREAS. a Cooperative Agreement between the County and the City outlines the
respon5ibilrties and financial commitments for the proposed project.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD THAT:
Article One
.
The County will construct or cause to be constructed a project meeting state aid
design standards of street improvements including roadway, utility, drainage, and other
miscellaneous improvements upon or along CSAH 18 within the City limits in accordance
with the approved plans and specifications on file in the Office of the County Engineer,
Wright County Minnesota.
Article Two
It is agreed that upon completion of and acceptance of the work as to quantity and
quality by the County, the County Engineer will determine the actual amount due from the
City in accordance with the following funding participation schedule:
1. CSAH 18. (From CSAH 75 to the East City Limits):
The segment of CSAH 18 (formerly CR 118) from CSAH 75 to School
Boulevard will be overlayed with bituminous pavement, the Intersection with School
Boulevard will be Improved by the addition of turn lanes. The area from School
Boulevard to the Eastem City limits will be reconstructed (widened to Include 8 foot
wide paved shoulders) and improved by the addition of turn lanes and bypass
lanes, including ditch grading. This participation is consistent with Wright County's
existing funding policies.
.
2
IZ -Z-
FEB-04-99 THU 11:35 AM WRIGHT CO. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
P. 11
The County will obtain permanent and temporsl)' Right-of-Way. as required
. to do the work.
Funding PartiCipation
County ~
Grading Items 100% 0%
. Common excavation, borrow, agg.base
. Turf establishment
Modular Block retaining wall 50% 50%
Surfacing Travel Lanes (WearlNon..Wear) 100% 0%
Surfacing Shoulders (Wear) 70% 30%(-A)
New Bituminous Pathway/Cone. Walk 0% 100%
Curb & Gutter (&Entrance Pour-Backs) 0% 100%
Storm Sewer (-8) (*S)
Signing/Striping 100% 0%
Utility Wort< (San. sewer, Water, and Utility Adjust.) 0% 100%
. Right-at-Way Costs (within City Limits) 0% 10001O(*C)
(*) See Notes
2. NOTES:
A. Unless parking is restricted in which case 100% County Costs.
B. The County will participate on storm sewer related items based on the (%) of
contributing lIow as determined by the State Aid Hydraulics Engineer.
C. All right-of-way costs and acquisition casts within the city limits are the
responsibility of the City. However, the County will acquire the right-of~way
necessary for the highway improvements and be reimbursed by the City. In
areas outside the city limits where additional RNJ is necessary for the off-road
bike path , the City shall reimburse the County also for this cost.
D. The County will provide engineering services for design, construction, and
administration ot the project. The County will not participate in any engineering
costs incurred by the City that are necessary for the City to assess their portion
of the project cost (feasibility studies, hearings, legal expenses, etc-) or for any
City improvements associated with the project. The City will reimburse the
County tor engineering services for the City's portion Of the pro}ect based upon
.
3
12,3
FEB-04-99 THU 11:35 AM WRIGHT 00. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
p, 12
.
the following table. The final reimbursement will be computed using the
appropriate % below times the City's portion only of the contract
construction cost.
From $ 0 thru $ 50,000 up to 18% of City's Portion
Over 50,000 thru 100,000 up to 16% of City's Portion
Over 100,000 thru 250,000 up to 13% of City's Portion
Over 250,000 thru 500,000 up to 11% of City's portion
Over 500,000 thru Indefinite up to 10% of City's portion
E. MobiliZation costs are to be split based on the ratio of County costs and City of
Monticello costs versus the entire project costs.
F. Traffic control costs are to be split based on the ratio of County costs and City
of Monticello costs versus the entire project costs.
G The County will provide the signing and pavement markings (including any
crosswalks) needed for the Improvements. MaintGnance (repainting) of any
crosswalks, upon completion of the project, will be the responsibility of the City
of Monticello, or the SChool District.
H. Maintenance of any sidewalk I bikepaths, upon completion of the project, will be
the responsibility of the City.
.
It is intended that the work outlined above in Article Two is to be done by a
contractor on a unit price basis through a contract duly let by the County. At such time as
the County awards a contract, the County will prepare a new estimate of the City's share
of the construction cost based on the unit prices bid by the County's contractor. A copy of
such revised cost estimates will be forwarded to the City.
Article Thre.
The County will be responsible for all field Inspection of materials, quantities, and
contractor performance for the road improvement pr*ct. There will be no inspection cost
to the City, beyond the percentages as outlined in Article Two, Section 4(b), unless the City
requests inspection services beyond the standard requirements and testing procedures for
normal State-funded projects. The County will monitor the wage rates to Insure that the
contractor and subcontractors have complied with the wages as specified, and that the
contract has complied with the EEO requirements.
Article Four
Upon award of the contract, the city's portion of the contract shall be computed
based upon the contract unit bid prices. The City shall forward to the County, within 30
days of the contract award, 50% of their portion of the cost. Upon notice by the County
that the contract is 50% complete, the City shall forward an additional 40% of their portion
of the cost, and the remaining 10% upon completion of the work.
.
4
I Z "Lf
FEB-04-99 THU 11:36 AM WRIGHT CO. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
p, 13
.
Upon final completion of the work the COunty Engineer will submit a certificate of
performance which indicates that he inspected the work and it complies with the plans and
specifications. The County Engineer will notify the City of the final amount of the City share
based on the actual quantities used and the funding participation amounts shown in Article
Two. The City Engineer will review this amount and approve it prior to processing any final
payment to the County. The City will be responsible for reimbursing final payment to the
County within 30 days of approving the final payment amount. The County Engineer will
provide to the City a blue line as built plan of the roadway improvements within the City
limits- This as-built plan will be submitted to the City within six months of the final
completion of the project.
Article Five
The City will be responsible for all snow and ice removal on pathways and other
boulevard/sidewalk related maintenance outside the curb or shoulder area.
Article Six
.
The City shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the County and all of its agents
and employees of any form against any end all claims, demands, actions or causes of
action of whatever nature or character arising out of or by reason of the execution or
performance of the work provided for herein to be performed by the City. The County shall
indemnify, save and hold harmless the City and all of its agents and employees of any form
against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action of whatever nature or
character arising out of or by reason of the execution of performance of the work provided
for herein to be performed by the County.
Article Sayan
The County indemnifies, saves, and holds harmless the City and all of its agents
and employees of any form against any and all claims, demands, actions, or causes of
action whatever nature or character arising out of or by reason of the execution or
performance of the work provided for herein to be perfonned by the County and further
agrees to defend at its own sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced
for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising hereunder and
within the corporate limits of the City of Monticello.
It is further agreed that any and all full-time employees of the County and all other
employees of the County engaged in the performance by any work or services required or
provided for herein to be performed by the County shall be considered employees of the
County only and not of the City and that any and all claims that mayor might arise under
Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behatf of said employees while
so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act
or omission on the part of said County employees while so engaged on any of the work or
services provided to be rendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of
the County-
.
5
/2 -s-
.
.
.
FEB-04-99 THU 11:37 AM WRIGHT CO. PUBLIC WORKS
FAX NO. 6126827313
P. 14
Article Elaht
Before this agreement will become binding and effective it will be approved by the
City Council of Monticello and it will also be approved by the County Board and such other
officers 8S law may provide.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this agreement by their
duly authorized officers and caused their respective seals to be hereunto affIXed.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Recommended for Approval:
Recommended for Approval:
County Engineer
City Engineer, Monticello
Chairman, County Board
Mayor, City of Monticello
County Coordinator
City Attomey. City of Monticello
County Attorney
City Administrator, Monticello
Date
Date
6
/ z ~(p
Council Agcnda - 2/8/99
--
.,
13.
Consideration of makin~ application for a transportation loan to construct the
Fallon Avenue Brid~e with a pedestrian crossing. (B.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In 1997, the City of Monticello secured federal funding for a pedestrian pathway bridge
and pathway improvement project to cross 1-94 at County Road 118. The pathway
segment portion of the project will connect the bridge to the CSAH 75 pathway and will
extend along County Road 118 to the Meadow Oak development. The federal funding is
for 80% of the construction cost, with the remainder paid by the City along with all
indirect costs.
Since the funding was received, staff has worked with thc County to examine the
possibility of combining our funding with County funds to reconstruct the roadway
bridge to include the pathway component. It now appears that funding through the
County or other sources is not available.
~
An option discused by the staff included the City upfronting the cost of reconstructing the
county bridge with the thought that the County could reimburse the City for the principal
costs. This may make sense considering the pending County Road 118/I -94 ramp
discussion. It is not likely that an agreement could be reached with the County
Commissioners, however. A second option would bc to move the funding over to the
proposed Fallon Avenue bridge. This bridge will be needed in the near future, and we
could offset a portion of the cost through our existing grant.
..
If the Council is interested in either of these options, staff would suggest applying for the
new transportation loan program, which is similar to the funding received for the new
treatment plant. The interest rate is no higher than 3%, and there is no construction
interest. The application is due to MN/DOT District 3 no later than February 26. We
should know the results sometime in July.
The Council could just choose to move ahead with the stand-alone pedestrian bridge.
The project must be let prior to July 1, 2000.
B.
1.
2.
3.
--"""
.. 4.
AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Authorize moving forward with the stand-alone pedestrian bridge.
Authorize preparing the application for the lean for the Fallon A venue bridge.
Authorize preparing the application for the lean for the County Road 118 bridge.
Authorize preparing the application for the lean for the County Road 118 bridge
and loop ramps.
19
___"'..._ ,..~...~_ n. _
..--.".--'.'-..- .-.----.,. ".-- ._~,'-".
.
14.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
Consideration of adopting priorities for redevelopment of the North Anchor and
authorization to hire a planner consultant to assist in the process for redevelopment
of the North Anchor. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Adoption of Priorities
At the conclusion of the joint Council and Commissions Workshop held January 20,
1999, Michael Schroeder of Hoisington-Koegler suggested the City Council and each
City Commission in attendance develop and list five priorities to achieve in the
redevelopment of the North Anchor/Riverfront for submission to a North Anchor
Subcommittee. Secondly, the Council and Commissions were directed to appoint two
members to the North Anehor Subcommittee. Thirdly, the process criteria for
redevelopment of the North Anchor to be determined after discussion and determination
of priorities by the Subcommittee. At the Council meeting of January 25, Council
members Bruce Thielen and Clint Herbst were appointed to represent the City Council on
the subcommittee. The meeting date of the subcommittee will be determined upon
submission of all the priority lists.
Please use the attached worksheet--each Council member is asked to list their five
priorities to achieve in the redevelopment of the North Anchor/Riverfront prior to the
February 8 Council meeting. Each Council member's priorities to be discussed at the
meeting for consideration to adopt the City Council's five priorities for redevelopment of
the North Anchor.
Authorization to Hire a Consultant
Council is requested to consider authorization to hire a planner consultant to draft
preliminary design sketch options, to assist in the organization of and attend not-to-
exceed four meetings, and to assist in preparation of a request for proposals if so
authorized. The proposed consultant services relate to redevelopment of the North
Anchor. Design sketches serve as a starting point to generate discussion, to create visual
images, and are valuable tools for use in decision-making processes. Secondly, the
decisions for redevelopment of the North Anchor present a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity
and investment for both the current and future generations of the City of Monticello;
therefore, it is important to have the expertise of a planner consultant.
The HRA contracted Schroeder for the meeting of January 20 at a fee not-to-exceed $500
for 3-5 hours plus expenses. The HRA limited the plus expenses to not-to-exceed $150.
Based on Schroeder's experience with the Downtown Revitalization Plan, Schroeder was
asked to submit a proposal for continued service.
21
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
.
The submitted proposal is attached. The not-to-exceed fee including expenses for four
meetings totals $2,860, and the not-to-exceed fee including expenses for sketch plans
totals $3,750, for a grand total 01'$6,610. The fee to assist with a developer's request for
proposals and one meeting is an additional not-to-exceed amount of $3,385. Staff has
requested a second proposal from Steve Grittman, Northwest Associated Consultants.
The second proposal will be submitted to the Council at Monday's meeting.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
Adoption of Priorities
1. A motion to adopt the five priorities to achieve in redevelopment of the North
Anchor as developed during discussion.
2. A motion to deny adoption of five priorities to achieve in redevelopment of the
North Anchor.
3. A motion to table any action.
Authorization to Hire a Consultant
.
1.
A motion authorizing to hire Planner Consultant Michael Schroeder, Hoisington-
Koegler, to assist in the process for redevelopment of the North Anchor at a not-
to-exceed fee of $6,61 0 for four meetings and sketch plan development and a not-
to-exceed fee of $3,385 for assistance with an RFP and one meeting.
2. A motion authorizing to hire Planner Consultant Stevc Grittman, Northwest
Associated Consultants, to assist in the process for redevelopment of the North
Anchor at a not-to-exceed fee of $ for four meetings and sketch
plan development and a not-to-exceed fee of $ for assistance
with an RFP and one meeting.
3. A motion directing staff to re-negotiate the fees with Planner Consultants Michael
Schroeder and/or Steve Grittman and table any action until the Fcbruary 22
Council meeting.
4. A motion to deny authorization to hire a planner consultant for redevelopment of
the North Anchor.
.
22
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
No staff recommendation is given for development of the Council priorities.
The City Administrator recognizes the decisions made for redevelopment of the North
Anchor will have an impact on current and future generations, will need careful
consideration of opportunities and investments, and must be a concept developed for and
by the public sector through the assistance and guidance of a planner consultant. Without
a proposal1rom Grittman, the City Administrator recommends alternative #2 or #3.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Form for use to list five priorities.
Proposal from Michael Schroeder.
Proposal from Steve Grittman submitted at Council meeting.
.
.
23
.
.
.
FIVE PRIORITIES TO ACHIEVE FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH
ANCHOR
City Council
Please use this form as a worksheet to select five priorities you would like to achieve with the
redevelopment of the North Anchor. At the February 8 meeting, each Council members choices
will be discussed and then one list offive priorities will be compiled to submit to the North
Anchor Subcommittee.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
/t./ -I
.
.
.
Creatiy~ Solutiolls lor Lalld t'luDiD, ..d Dedlll
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
11I13
(gO
4 Februuy 1999
Ms. Ollie Koropchak
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
R.E: Proposalfor Planning Assistance
Downtown Monticello 's North Anchor
Dear Ms. Koropchak:
Thank you for'the opportunity to provide this proposal for assisting thc city in defining directions for
downtown"s, North Anchor. As I understand the city"s needs. I would be providina assistance to a
subcommittee charged with establishing a vision for the North Anchot' and exploring genen.l alternatives
for its development. Work may also include, depending on the directions chosen by the subcommittee,
assisting staff in preparing a Developer Request for Proposal.. I fiu:ther understand that it is the city's
desire that the work associated with these tasks be accomplished in no more than four meetings with the
subcommittee.
Based on the understanding of the city's needs described above, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. proposes
the follOWing scope of work:
· Meet with the subcommittee (Workshop One) to review input from the various boards and
commissions; review areas of qreement and non.agreement; establish preliminary goals for
development of the North Anchor; outline several broad approaches or possibilities that would meet
those goals.
· Develop sketch plans of several approaches to development of the North Anchor (as outlined by the
subcommittee in Workshop One) to illusta.te potential arrangement of desired uses;' areas of
conflict or areas that may require further study: possible project site boundaries; potential ,
development capacity and intensity; impacts' of development on SUIT01Ulding uses; relationship to
the river; general development character; or other areas necessaxy to understand the likely
implications Qf development actions. It is anticipated that three to five alternatives may be explored
at this "sketch plan" level.
· Meet with the subcommittee (Workshop Two) to review sketch plans and select a preferred
alternative; refme or modify goals for development to ensure consistency with preferred alternative;
discuss desire and process for soliciting proposals for development of the North Anchor. As this
meeting allows for input into the initial di.rc<:tions for the North Anchor, it would be appropriate to
invite the community, affected property and business owners. nearby residents and all city boards
and commissions to the workshop.
· Revise preferred direction based on comments from the sub~mmittee. the community. property
and busincss owners, and city boards and commissions.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, MinneapoJi&. MN 55401.1659
Pb (612) 338-0800 f'x (612) 338--6838
/4-2-
?p:R~ ~~, S~ A,~
~,1~3n~ Nnl~NTSTnH
8~898~~-C:T9
?~d f98
.
.
.
. ----.-, -.-....,.-- --
Ms. OWe Korvpchak
4 February 1999
'sse 2
. · Create outline for Developer Request for Proposal.
'. Meet with the subcommittee (Workshop Three) to review outline for Developer Request for
Proposal; defme timing and process for receiving and reviewing responses to Developer Request
for Proposal; discuss points of evaluation of Developer Proposals.
· Work with staff to, finalize Developer Request for Proposal. incorporating input received in
Workshop Three. '
· Work with staff to establish process and format for interviews; meet with ccshortlistcd" proposers to
review directions for North Anchor defined by the subcommittee.
· Meet with the subcommittee to revicw and evaluate Developer Proposals (Workshop Four). This
"workshop" might actually be "developer interviews."
Fees for the work described above would be as follows:
· For meetings (workshops as described above) with subcommittee: Afee not to exceed $715.00 per
meeting, including expenses.
· For developing sketch plans of alternatives for development of the North Anchor: A fee not to
erceed $3.750.00 including expenses.
· For drafting an outline for a Developer Request for Proposal; working with staff to complete the
document- Afee not to exceed $1.720.00 Including apenses. '
· For working with staff to establish process and format for developer interviews; meeting with
"shortlisted" proposers; and interviewing ccshortlisted" proposers (at Worslcbop Four): .A. fee not to
exceed $950.00 including expenses, plus thefee related to one meeting ($715.00).
I do not know if the city has a timeIine for proceeding with this, project. H not, we might include that as
the first item to be considered in Workshop One. The timing and frequency of subcommittee meetings
should also be detemrincd at the outset of the project lIO that other bows and commissions can anticipate
when their actions or reactions might be required.
,
,
Please call me if you have any questions. I look forward to the opportunity to help the Monticello
community in considering this important venture.
~
Sincerely.
I
~ichaelSchroeder
/4 -' :3
Zp:80 66. r.R Rl~
f'PH >qR
~ Illnln' I Iln I 'II lTc' I I-II I
FEB~08-1999 07:06
NAC
612 595 9837 P.02/03
N
NORTH WEST AS SO elATE 0' ..'c,O N 5 U L TAN TS'
'COMMUNITY PLANNI'N'O .~' OESIGN .- MA~KET RESEARCH
.
. .F~bruary 8. 1999
Ms. Ollie'Koropchak
Economic Development Director
250 East Broadway ,
Mont.icellp, MN 55362'
RE:
FilE NO:
Monticello - North Anchor Task Force
191.06
. Dear Ollie:
. .' , .
. Thank you fo~ the opportunity to provid~ an estimate'of the cost to assi~t with the City's
North.Anchor project: As I understand the ~ffort, a group of.repr~sent~tlves from several'
cOmmunity and City interests will be'attempting to"devel,op a conc~pt.plan which would.
form the basis, for ,a requ'est for private devel.opment proposals~ as well. as a method to
evaluate development offers which are ~ubmitted.
....
, , ..
You have if'\dlcated that as many as four meetings would be planned with the group, from'
which a series of sketch plan alternatives would be developed. These would likely be
refined to,a chosen alternative, and a Request'For. Propos~ls'would be,draft~d to solicit.
private developer interest. NAC's role, if 'selected, would ba':to help develop each task
. force" meeting agenda, facilitate the meetings, prepare sketph alternativ.es for the group,
- I refine the chosen alternative, and assist City staff' with :the preparation of an RFf:'.' I would
'! ,estimate the, time involved in thi's. proc~ss to ~e as fo!lows:, '
.
Meeting preparation~ 3 hours'
Meetin,Q attendance: 3 hours
I . . Time per m~eting: 6 hours
I -
"'
S~etch preparation (each): 5 hours
RFP preparation: 8 hours .
My regular charge rate is currently'$85 par hour. Howeve,r, NACls'arrangement with the
City includes a discounted fee for City~generated projects of $72.50 .per hour, and a cap
on meeting charges of $200 per meeting. The' Sketch preparation' task would' be
! undertaken by myself 'and my staff Landscape Architect. Her charge rate for City work is
curr.ently $35 per 'hour. As a result, I would estimate the' fOIlQwin,g costs for NAC~s
. I. involvem.ent in this project .
5775 WAY'ZATA eOUL..EVARD, SUI,"'&: 555 ' S'T, , LOUIS PAR'K; MINNESOTA '55416'
P H'O N E 6 1 2.595. 9 6 3 t5
I . ,"
.FAX 61 2-595-9'837 'E~MAIL NAC@'WINTERN'ET,COM
.' .," .' . .'" '/i} -- if
..' ".,
, . . I
, .
.
.
.
FEB-08-1999 07:07
NAC
612 595 9837 P.03/03
Meeting preparation/facilitation: $417.50 per meeting @ 4 mtgs. -
Sketch preparation $250 per sketch @ 3 sketches.
RFP assistance . $72.50 hourly rate @ 6 hours -
TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE
$1,670
$ 750
$ 435
$2,855
This estimate is the maximum fee, assuming four meetings and three sketch alternatives.
You had Indicated that fewer than four meetings may be necessary, and the number of
sketch alternatives is only a guess at this time. Finally. RFP assistance would be hourly.
we have some examples from which the City may work, and this may help to reduce the
consultant time necessary for this portion of the project.
We have always valued our opportunity to work with the City, and I thank you for the
chance to continue our relationship with this project. If there is any more information which
would be helpful to you regarding this estimate. please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Stephen W. Grittman, AICP
Principal
,/L/-~
TOTAL P.03
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
15.
Consideration of public sale of old sewer jet and retaining the vac-all rather than
trading both units in on new combination unit. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved the purchase of a new sewer vac combination unit in
November of last year. That approval was based upon the low bid from ABM
Equipment, which included trading in our old 1981 sewer jet cleaning machine for
$11,500 and our old 1979 vac-all for $7,500. We did make the trades with ABM such
that the City of Monticello had the right to offer the units t(.lr public sale to see if we
could receive a higher value from the general public. If we did offer them for sale to the
general public, however, we would need to receive a minimum of $12,247.50 for the
sewer jet machine to break even due to sales tax, and $7,987.50 for the vac-all, as this
was the cost we would have to pay ABM if we did not trade these units in, to include
sales tax.
The City of Monticello placed a bid advertisement for the sewer jet in the local
Monticello paper and we received two bids, one bid from Schluender Construction in the
amount of $14,001, and another from Flexible Pipe Tool Co. for $15,501. The high bid
from Flexible Pipe Tool Co. is $3,253.50 higher than what we would get trading the unit
in. Consequently, it is in our best interest to sell the unit privately.
We were also considering doing the same thing with the sewer vac-all machine to see if
we could receive a higher amount on a public sale. However, the Street Superintendent
indicated that he would prefer that we keep the sewer vac, as he felt there might be
scheduling problems in using the combination unit, which would be tied up on sewer
work most of the summer months. In addition, the old vac-all was able to perform
functions while the truck was moving and the new unit is not able to do that.
Consequently, therc would be certain functions such as vacuuming leaves from curbs that
might be served better by the old machine. The vac-all portion of the unit is in fair
condition. However, the truck we believe has a burnt valve in the engine and will need a
clutch in the near future, and the unit is quite old. The repairs could be made in-house at
minimal costs, and we could continue to use the unit until the engine created more
problems or the clutch fails prior to making repairs. The Street Superintendent has
indicated that the vehicle could be stored outside in the recently-acquired site from TDS
on the south side of CR 39 and would not take up much needed inside storage space.
We would have to make up the shortfall of $7,987.50 in the trade, and this could be done
by not purchasing the additional plow for one of the loaders that is in the budget for 1999
at $7,000. We have been able to retrofit one of the old Norwegian plows to serve this
purpose, and it appears to be working adequately so we would not need those funds.
24
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. 'fhe first alternative would be to sell the old sewer jet to Flexible Pipe Tool Co.
based upon their high bid of $15,501 and keep the old vac-all for the street
department use, and utilize the $7,000 proposed for the loader plow to make up
most of the shortfall.
2. The second alternative would be to sell or trade off both units.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and Street
Superintendent that we sell the sewer jet to Flexible Pipe Tool Co. and that we keep the
vae-all as outlined in alternative #1. It appears that keeping the vac-all will not cost the
City significantly and could improve productivity of the street department, and will not
create the need for additional storage. In addition, should we decide to sell the unit after
a few years, the value would probably not be a whole lot less than the current trade-in
value.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
None.
.
25
.
.
.
Counci I Agenda - 2/8/99
16.
Consideration of increasing fees at Riverside Cemetery. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello took over Riverside Cemetery trom the Masons in late 1996. We
assumed full operations and made every attempt to follow the same procedures and
policies instituted by the Masons over the many years. It became apparent, however, that
citizens expected more services from the City than they did the Masons, and the amount
of mowing at the cemetery increased significantly. Last year we began snow plowing,
not only for burials but to keep the cemetery open for visitors.
With the only real revenue at the cemetery being the sale of grave sites, the cemetery has
come close to breaking even with losses of approximately $950 in 1996, $268 in 1997,
and $1,195 in 1998. With us not quite breaking even for the operations at the site, and
some additional costs to be incurred in the future for upkeep, maintenance, and
improvements, we need to look at increasing our fees. Currently, because of the losses,
we are not adding any money to the perpetual care fund. In discussing this with the City
Administrator, we felt that at a minimum we needed to put $2,000 annually into the
perpetual care fund so that it would have a chance to grow so at some time in the future,
when the cemetery is full, the perpetual care fund would be able to maintain it. In
addition, we need to put some money away for those regular maintenance and proposed
improvements. There are fencing repairs needed in the future, as well as the possibility
of some road improvements with re-graveling or blacktop surfacing. In reality, we
should be adding $2,000 to $3,000 annually for fees to cover our losses plus additional
improvements. This would mean additional revenue of $5,000 per year. With only 30
grave sales per year, this would mean we need approximately $167 additionally from
each grave sold to cover the $5,000.
We have surveyed area communities and found that many ofthe communities are higher
than us and several are also considering increasing fees to cover increasing costs of
operation. Also, the City of Elk River has instituted a $150 fee on their three cemeteries
for perpetual care on graves that never paid a perpetual care fee. They have uscd the year
1950 as a cut off. We could research this further with the Masons to try to come up with
a recommendation in this area.
Some ccmeteries also charge an administrative fee to cover the costs of coordinating and
recording all information regarding graves, burials, etc. This is charged before the grave
is opened. A copy of revenue vs. expenses since 1996 is enclosed for your review along
with a cemetery lot price comparison with other communities.
26
Council Agenda - 2/8/99
.
Based upon the above information, the following is the recommended increase in our
fees:
CURRENT PROPOSED
GRA VE DESCRIPTION ",,"""" FEE INCREASED FEE
Full Grave Site, Flush Stone Area $350.00 $500.00
Full Grave Site, Raised Stone Area $400.00 $550.00
Infant Grave Site $175.00 $200.00
Cremation Grave Site $200.00 $225.00
Administrative Fee (all burials) $0.00 $50.00
(to be collected at time of burial)
Perpetual Care Fee, Graves Sold Pre-1960 $0.00 $100.00
(to be collected at time of burial)
It is our opinion that the proposed increases will allow us to put at least $2,000 into our
ongoing perpetual care fund, cover our cost of operations, and put approximately $2,000
per year into an improvement fund.
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to raise the fees as outlined above effective April 1, 1999,
after notice to nearby funeral directors.
2. The second alternative would be not to increase fees but to use our cash balance,
currently $12,000, to cover shortfalls and use our perpetual care funds, presently
$21,080 plus interest from the Masons, as necessary to make improvements and
cover shortfalls.
3. The third alternative would be to modify fees as directed by the City Council.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works Director that the
City Council approve the new fee structure as outlined above. We believe this will allow
us to maintain the level of current services to the cemetery and also make improvements
while continuing to build a perpetual care fund.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Copy of Riverside Cemetery Revenue vs. Expenses report; Cemetery Lot Price
Comparison report with other communities.
27
RIVERSIDE CEMETERY
~
1998 ACTUALl1999 PROJ ECT
REVENUEVS.EXPENSES
..,.."................,..,
.. .................,.",
..................." '"
......................".
,iRS\lENO,E'
.:::::::::::::.::::;;;:::;:::::::::::::
::: ::::: :::: :;:~;:::: :i:;:;:;:::;;; :;::
:','",',',',,'}}',',<,}:;,': '..".'.:.'...'.'.......'...'..i..i..,.,'.'.,..:.',..:.j.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::,:;:.;.; -
1997
ACTUAL
11,750.00
10,575.00
660.00
414.82
"'.':':""'" ...............,...........,..11
.:.:.:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:;.;.:.:.:.:.;:;:::::': "
1999
PROJECTED
. . . ...
"......................,..,...............
.,..'......................................,..........................................
."., . )~:>}>>>>}!>:::~:::t)))r)<))?:
riU\/'\\
..........., ...........
..................."..................
..................................'.'...;.:':':':.>:.;.:.:-:...........
DESCRIPTION
Sale of Grave Sites"
Excavation Charges - Vault....
Excavation Charges - Cremation....
Interest Earnings
FINANCE CODE
651.34941
651.34942
651.34944
651.36210
1996
ACTUAL
2,800.00
1,210.00
0.00
0.00
:,;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.;.;,:.
iri~ }Y:]:]::::::HHm~:nr
1998
AC.JUAL
9,425.00
12,005.75
74.25
0.00
4,010.00 1 23,399.821 21,505.00 1
c
TOTAL REVENUE
'SALES: 1996: 8 FULL GRAVES. 1997: 32 FULL GRAVES, 2 CREMATION GRAVES. 1998: 26 FULL GRAVES, 4 CREMATION GRAVES.
"EXCAVATIONS: 1996: 4 VAULTS, 1 CREMATION, 1997: 25 VAULTS. 6 CREMATIONS. 1998: 32 VAULTS, 2 CREMATIONS.
IWH'"
:::::::: :~;:::::;:::::;::
"............................"..".,............-...................,.,"'.'
-:;:::::::::::::;::::::: :;: ::;:::::::: :::r: rr:::::::::::::::: :;;;:j:~;!:i:~:~ . :::::::::::::::::::::: ;:;: :;; ::::;::::;:;:::
.................eH H XH.' 'p" "'C" HNH'H"SH "e'"'s''' ,',,'......,
........ .. .. ,,,...
......... .. "...
........ ". ...., .....
................. " .', , . '. ' . ...........
......... " . , .....
...........,..., ',' ..... "", ,. .........
........ .... '. . ......
........ ..... .... . . ......
....-.....,.."".......
.............:.;.;.;.:':';,;':.:.;.;.:.:.:.:..
':%!!:j::::i:::}'!:!.,!:,:::::::)"'H!!:::!:.:j:j:::,:::iii:iiiiii!!!!.!:!:!::::m,::'iiiiiiiii:11
1998 1999
~CTUAL PROJECTED
1,106.72
4.44
57.59
67.81
15.86
206.39
1,458.81
;.;.,.",..:-:.;.:.:.:.;.:.::::::::::::::::;;;:;,:,:,:,','
...............................,.,'.............
................""......
................... .
PERSONAL SERVICES.
Salaries, Full-Time: Reg.
Salaries, Full-Time: OT
PERA Contributions
FICA Contributions
Medicare Contributions
HealthlDental/Life Insurance
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
SUPPLI.ES
~iscellaneous Operating Supplies
ndscaping Materials
iscellaneous Repair & Maint. Supplies
TOTAL SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVIC~S
Lawn Service
Custodial/Caretaker
Excavation
Stump Removal
Miscellaneous Professional Services
TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
OTI::!ER CHARGES
Advertising
Legal Notice Publication
General Public Information
Ordinance Publication
Miscellaneous Printing
General Liability Insurance
Refuse
Refu nds/Reimbursements
Miscellaneous Other Expenses
Improvements
Other Equipment
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES
--.~'"
1=
FINANCE CODE
651.49010.1010
651.49010.1020
651.49010.1210
651.49010.1220
651.49010.1250
651.49010.1310
1996
ACTUAL
273.00
7.20
12.55
17.38
4.05
42.27
356.45
1997
ACTUAL
2,506.06
112.99
112.59
-160.67
37.60
347.36
3,277 .27
651.49010.2199 30.45 196.23 63.63
651.49010.2250 0.00 32.80 0.00
651.49010.2299 0.00 35.46 34.85
30.45 264.49 98.48
651.49010.3105 2,408.23 6,789.39 6,230.27
651.49010.3110 0.00 105.00 1,800.00
651.49010.3115 1,350.00 9,800.00 12,571.50
0.00 0.00 200.00
651.49010.3199 737.50 3,431.25 161.50
4,495.73 20,125.64 20,963.27
651.49010.3499 0.00 0.00 0.00
651.49010.3510 0.00 0.00 117 .95
651.49010.3520 0.00 0.00 0.00
651.49010.3530 0.00 0.00 0.00
651.49010.3599 73.49 0.00 0.00
651.49010.3610 0.00 0.00 0.00
651.49010.3840 0.00 0.00 0.00
651.49010.4395 0.00 0.00 0.00
651.49010.4399 0.00 0.00 60.82
651.49010.5301 0.00 0.00 0.00
651.49010.5801 0.00 0.00 0.00
73.49 0.00 178.77
-==t- 4,956.12
-946.12
23,667.40 i2'69~
-267.58 -1194.33
~ n.'~""""-------~'
TOTAL EXPENSES
YEAR END TOTAL DEFFICIENCY
/lR # I
.
@
~ <!
Z ~
l!!
01
...
..
Q..
~
~
~ ....
:<:!; Q
Z ~
'"
-
.fl ~
.s
'" l!!
... 01
02 .5
01
$ .!!l
~ :<:!; ~ .. .~
z z .. ~
E oQ
z i ~
0 '"
(J) l;: e
'ti-
0:: .. '" 02
l;: .. ..
< .. e> oQ
a.. go'" ~
01;:
:E III '" '"
:-:!; .~ ~ Q..
0 :-:!; :-:!; ..
z z oQ
U z ~Jg ~
UJ e .(1
u Q.t: E
. [i: 'k E 'E .(1
..~ ~t:
a.. ~ '"
~ e>8 .5 cS
0 ",... OI~
01;:'" -a"
...J 0 "''1:1
> 0 ~ ~ ~ l;: .. e
N '- '" e02
0:: ~ z - ..
jg :3 ..
w '\:(oQ
~ .(101;: ..'1:1
.5 ~ l;: ..
W _ III
.ija '" '"
:E ..01;:
W '" ~ III ~
~ l!! '" ~
U 0I;:Q..
.,.01 ~ ~
'1:1 ...
l;: .. ~ ).
'" Q.. :;l!!
0 Ql~ ). 01
0 :-:!; ~ i;x l!! l;:
N Z OIQ
~ ~ Q ... ..
.. ...
~- Q..'"
Q.... c:. '"
.. III ..,j;;
). m ~.2
l!! t;
~.S Q ..
Q Q ;~
...- ., Q..
~OI al ...
.., .5 ...02
.,.ole ~'1:1
Q
~..2 .- ..
LO 0 .se>
r- :-:!; '1:1 E
Ul 0 01'"
Z ~ ~ '" .S i3
'" ::..
.S .. ~.(1 '"
'oli!: ..2~ ~
Q M
(J e'" ~
",'"
t ::.. Q' 0
w ~~ ~
I-
u:; .. ~
~ "
. w ~ ....
~ (J "I;: I-
!I:: .!! 0
--'
.. .. ~
C> 'S: ~
z .. w
0 ole (J ~
'"
~ -l ... ~
..2 ~ n::
~ Ii: 0
w ole ~
n::
y- !;Xl ~ ~
n::
M
N
~
0
1&.,2,-
.
.
.
MONTICELLO RIVERSIDE CEMETERY
GRAVE STATUS
AS OF FEBRUARY 8, 1999
GRAVES OCCUPIED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,042
GRAVES PURCHASED/RESERVED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . .. 959
GRAVES OPEN FOR SALE //""__n....,)~,'..
(EITHER RECLAIMED BY CEMETERY OR NEVER SOLD) . . . . . . . . . . . . .(,(. .... .1..,..2. 1.3.. . .
- CREMATION GRAVES: 38 "n_ .."
-INFANT GRAVES: 10 n'.._
- FULL SIZE GRAVES: 1,165
GRAVES WITH UNKNOWN STATUS/UNKNOWN BURIALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
TOTAL GRAVES IN RIVERSIDE CEMETERY
5,230
CEMETERY CAPACITY: ~
% OF CEMETERY FILLED OR NOT OPEN FOR SALE ........................~
% OF CEMETERY OPEN FOR SALE ...................................... 23%
C:\OFFICElRIVERSI DlGRAVSTA T. FRhl: 0210811999
..,..-.-- ---
ORC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/28/1999 15,30:06
.
Schedule of Oills
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL050S-V06.00 COVERPAGE
GL54 0 r~
Report Selection:
RUN GROUP... D129
COMMENT. ..
1/29 CI'<S
OATA-JE-ID DATA COMMENT
0-01291999-754 1/29 CKS
Run Instructions:
Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 066 10
.
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~/28/1999 15:30:07
"'NDOR NAME
DESCF~ I PT I ON
AMOUNT
A E MICHAELS
*FY* PARKS-OLDG REPAIR
51.31
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICE
R I C 1<: W
JEFF 0
GARY A
AN SHELTER
29.32
21.77
28.58
57.73
143.40
AME GROUP
*FY* PARKS-SUPPLIES
40.24
ANDERSON/GARY
TRAVEL EXPENSES
9.60
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY
COMM CENTER-PROF SERV
824.57
BELLBOY CORPORATION BAR
LI QUOF~
.A)( MISC
704.94
432.26
1,137.20
BERLIN TIRE CENTERS, INC
STREETS-SUPPLIES
237.51
BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA COM
BEEF~
TA)( MISC
583.30
28.80
6 '12. 10
BOYER TRUCK PARTS
*FY* STREETS-REPAIR PRTS
42.60
ORC ASSIST CENTER
COMPUTER SERVICE AGREE.
'1,818.00
C F~ MFG. CO
RECYCU NG 0 I NS
5,145.90
CELLULAR 2000 OF ST CLOU
TOM 0
FIRE DEPT
GAI~Y A
MATT T
262.56
3.92
67.53
7.39
341 .40
~UINAD OFFICE PRODUCTS
LIBRARY-REPAIR TYPWRTER
68.00
Schedule of Bills
ACCOUNT NAME
FUN 0 & ACCOU~
8UILDING REPAIR SUPPLIES 101.45201.22:
TELEPHONE
TELEPHONE
TELEPHONE
TELEPHONE
*VENDOR TOTAL
101.41301.32
101.41910.32
101.4240"1.32
101.42701.32
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.45201.21'
TRAVEL EXPENSE 101.42401.33
PRO F S R V.., EN GIN E E R I N G F 4 6 1 . 4 9 2 0 1 . 3 0
LIQUOR 609.49750.25
MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.25
*VENDOR TOTAL
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43120.21
8EEF<
MISC TAXABLE
*VENDOR TOTAL
609.49750.25
609.49750.25
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
10"1.43120.22
PROF SFN
DATA PROCESSI 101.41920.30
RECYCLING BINS
101.43230.24
TELEPHONE
TELEPHONE
TELEPHONE
TELePHONE
*VENDOR TOTAL
101.43115.32
101.42201.32
101.42401.32
601.49440.32
REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EQ 211.45501.40
ORC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/28/1999 15:30:07
.NDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
CLINE/RICHARD
REIMB SAFETY OOOTS
REIMO SAFETY BOOTS
CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT
PARKS~~SNOW DEFLECTOR
*FY* PARKS-TIPPER OODY
*FY* PAFH,SPLOW
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING
BEEr~
T A)< M I SC
DAVE PETERSON'S FORD-MER
*FY* PARKS-VEH RENTAL
*FY* STREETS-VEH REPAIR
~cg~STRIBUTING
~EER
T A)< ~1I ~3C
COMPANY
DAYTON'S COMMERCIAL INT.
*FY* CH
DEMEULES FAMILY LIMITED
TIP 1-23 SEMI ANNUAL
DONLAR CONSTRUCTION COMP
*FY* COMM CENTEr~
DUN & BRADSTREET CORP FO
DIANE,SEMINAr:;:
EHLERS & ASSOC.INC PUBLI
GEN Ef:;:AL
DISTRICT 1-24
DLUE CHIPS
FIRST TRUST NATIONAL ASS
*ry* SUPPLIES
. PREMIUMS
*FY* CH-LAPEL PINS
AMOU~H
90.00
90.00
180.00
222.84
4.880.90
4.419.75
9,523.49
4,234.75
73.35
4,308.10
347.10
57.34
404.44
1,356.70
744. 10
38.40
2.139.20
7L 00
24,275.72
238,243.85
169.00
105.00
210.00
210.00
525.00
313.81
'1,233.87
Schedule of Dills
ACCOUNT NM1E
FUND & ACCOU
CLOTHING SUPPLIES
CLOTHING SUPPLIES
*VENDOR TOTAL
601.49440.21
601.49440.21
SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT
MOTOR VEHICLES
MOTm~ VEH I CLES
*VENDOR TOTAL
225.45201.24
101.45201.55
101.45201.55
BEER
MISC TAXABLE
*VENDOR TOTAL
609.49750.25
609.49750.25
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
*VEN DORTOT AL.
101.45201.41
101.43120.22
BEER
OEER
MISC TA)<AOLE
*VENDOR TOTAL
609.49750.25
609.49750.25
609.49750.25
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
240.49201.56
TIF PAYBACK INSTALLMENTS 213.46513.65
PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 461.49201.30:
CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS
101.41990.33:
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.31'
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 213.46524.31'
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 213.46525.31!
*VENDOR TOTAL
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43127.21!
MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.41301.43(
ORC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~28/1999 15:30:07
WNDOf-( NAME
DESCr~IPTION
AMOUNT
GARTNER'S OFFICE PRODUCT
CH ....~)U PPL I ES
*ry* CH-SUPPLIES
*ry* CHSU PPLI ES
*ry* CHSUPPLIES
*ry* CH-SUPPLIES
*Py* CHSUPPLIES
*ry. CH-SUPPLIES
*FY* CH-SUPPLIES
*ry* CH-SUPPLIES
*FY* CH-SUPPLIES
OCP REG FOLDERS
CH-SUPPLIES
CH-SUPPLIES
CH .'.SU PPL I ES
17.64CR
35.50
170.82
-18.45
300.35
783.10
742.65
121.69
115.87
252.20
13.64
759.97
25.55
79.14
3,401.29
GENERAL RENTAL CENTER
*FY* COMM CENTEr~
*FY* STREETS-SUPPLIES
48.78
45.58
94.35
eARD'S OUSINESS MACHIN
FINANCE-CK SIGNER MIA
171.00
GRIGGS. COOPER
LI Qu()r~
WINE
L I Quor~
FREIGHT
WINE
FREIGHT
L,rQuor~
FREIGHT
WINE
FREIGHT
WINE
FREIGHT
WINE
FREIGHT
l_IQUOR
TA>< MISC
& COMPANY
98.19CR
88.26CR
12.93CR
1 .50
137.70
0.75
20.85
4.50
186.72
o . '75
91 .00
2.25
256.40
8.25
595.14
26.99
1.133.42
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE INC.
OEEr~
5,249.65
.RY'S AUTO SUPPLY
FY* SHOP
4.78
Schedule of Bills
ACCOUNT NAMe
MIse OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MIse OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OfFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OfFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OfFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
*VENDOR TOTAL
MISC OTHER EXPENse
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIes
*VENDOF< TOTAL
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
LIQUOR
WINE
L I QUo'R
fREIGHT
WINE
fREIGHT
LIQUOR
fREIGHT
WINE
FREIGHT
WINE
FREIGHT
WINE
f~RE I GHT
LIQUOR
MISC TAXABLE
*VENDOR TOTAL
BEER
FUN D & ACCOUt
101.41301.20'
101.41301.20:
101.41301.20'
101.41301.20
101.41301.20
101.41301.20
101.41301.20
101.41301.20
101.41301.20
101.41301.20
101.41990.20
101.41301.20
101.41301.20
101.41301.20
461.49201.43
101.43127.21
101.41301.31
609.49750.25
609.49750.25
609.49750.25
609.49750.33
609.49750.25
609.49750.33
609.49750.25
609.49750.33
609.49750.25
609.49750.33
609.49750.25
609.49750.33
609.49750.25
609.49750.33
609.49750.25
609.49750.25
609.49750.25
SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT 101.43127.24
2,867.26 CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 601.49440.21
227.50 PROF SRV CUSTODIAL 211.45501.31
92.55 MOTOR PUELS 101.42201.21
47.52 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 211.45501.31
54.37 MISC OPEr~ATING SUPPLIES 225.45201.21
ORC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/28/1999 15:30,07
.NDOR NAME
DE~3Cf~ I PT I ON
AMOUNT
HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
*PY* ~3[W[r~
*FY* SHOP
*ry* PAr~I<S
*py* STREETS
*rccy* Srr~[ETS
*Py* RENTAL HOUSE
*Py* ICE & SNOlt4
*Py* ICE & SNOW
*ry* SHOP
*FY* STREETS
*FY* ICE & SNOW
*FY* STREETS
*FY* WWTP
12.65
22.77
11 .90
4.73
8.51
13.21
10.01
0.36eR
7.60
10.03
56.91
11 .40
4.97
179.19
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
*FY* WATER-CHEMICALS
HERMESIGERALD T
LIBRARY-CLEANING CONTRCT
IAIDAY CREDI.T OFFICE
-.rIRCMOTOR FUEL
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
L I DRAr~Y".MA
JIM HATCH SALES CO
PARI,SSU PPL I ES
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE L
FREIGHT
LIQUOR
L I QUOf~
FREIGHT
FREIGHT
LI QUOR
FREIGHT
WINE
BEER
LIQUOR
0.85CR
84.99CR
100.10CR
0.78CR
2.98
390.09
5. 10
244.10
49.90
008.05
1,321.50
K MART STORE
CCVIDEO TAPES
DEP REG-HUMIDIFIER
eJMM CEJJTERPHOTO ALBUM
18.08
31 .94
10.64
60.66
Schedule of Dills
ACCOUNT NAME
LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
RENTAL HOUSE EXPENSES
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT RePAIR PARTS
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
*VENDOR TOTAL
FREIGHT
LIQUOR
LIQUOR
FREIGHT
FREIGHT
LIQUOR
rr-~EIGHT
WINE
BEER
LIQUOR
*VENDOR TOTAL
MISC OTHER EXPENSE
SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
*VENDOR TOTAL
FUND & ACCOU
602.49490.21
101.43127.21
101.45201.22
101.43120.22
101.43120.22
240.49201.43
'101.43125.22
101.43125.22
101.43127.22
101.43125.21
101.43125.21
101.43125.21
602.49480.21
609.49750.33
609.49750.25
609.49750.25
609.49750.33
609.49750.33.
609.49750.25
609.49750.33:
609.49750.25:
609.49750.25:
609.49750.25
101.41110.43~
101.41990.24
461.49201.21'
ORC PINANCIAL SYSTEM
~/28/1999 15:30:07
~N[)OR NAME
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
KEN ANDERSON TRUCKING
*Py* 1 ANIMAL
*Py* 14 ANIMALS
5.50
77.00
82.50
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTE
LEGAL SERVICES
COMM CENTER
MALL REDEVELOPMENT
228.70
566.34
35.90
830.94
KRAMOER & ASSOCIATES LNC
ASSESSING SERVICE
1.948.50
LARSON'S ACE HARDWARE
*PY* COMM CENTEr~
*Py* DEP REG-CLNING SUP
*Py* KLEIN FARMS PARK
*FY* SEWER
*TY* WATEr~
*FY* WATER
.*FY* PAF~I\S
PY* RENTAL HOUSE EXP
*TY* PI RE HALL
*Py* CH
*TY* PAr~KS
*Py* SHOP
*FY* SHADE TREE
*FY* STREETS
*FY* RENTAL HOUSE
*FY* CEMETARY
*FY* L I8RAF~Y
*Py* LI8RARY
45.93
3. 17
58.29
29.21
15.67
46.77
13.83
95.57
24~~.26
69.77
406.33
396.49
14 . 11
31 .28
31 .28
1 9 . 7 0
14.07
5.62
1,547.15
M.B.P.
STREETS....FUEL
1,597.49
MAUS FOODS
CH "'SU PPLI ES
15.40
MN DEPT OF TRADE & ECON
*FY* SCERG RANT REIMO
2,483.45
MN PARK SUPERVISORS ASSO
PAF~I\:::)MEM8ERSH I P
25.00
.~TICELLO SENIOR CITIZE
CONTr~ACT
2,833.33
Schedule of Bills
ACCOUNT NAME
FUND & ACCOUt
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVLC 101.42701.31'
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101. 4270 1 .3""
*VENDOR TOTAL
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.31-
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 461.49201.31
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 213.46522.31
*VENDOR TOTAL
PROF SRV
ASSESSING
101.41550.31
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
CLEANING SUPPLIES
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
BUILDING REPAIR SUPPLIES
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
RENTAL HOUSE EXPENSES
MISC REPAIR & MTC SUPPLI
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
MISe OPERATING SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
RENTAL HOUSE EXPENSES
MIse OTHER EXPENSE
CLEANING SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
*VENDOR TOTAL
461.49201.21
101.41990.21
101.41910.31
602.49490.21
6 01 . 4 9 4 4 0 . 2 1
601.49440.22
101.45201.22
240.49201.43
101.42201.22
101.41301.21
101.45201.21
101.43127.21
224.46102.21
101.43120.21
240.49201.43
651.49010.43
211.45501.21
211.45501.21
MOTOR FUELS
101.43120.21
MIse OPERATING SUPPLIES
101.41940.21
GRANT REIM8 - AROPLAX
222.46501.66
DUES, MEMOERSHIP & SUBSC 225.45201.43
SENIOR CENTER eONTRI8UTI 101.45175.31
8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/28/1999 15:30:07
. VENDOR NAME
DESCI~ I PT I ON
AMOUNT
MONTICELLO/CITY OF
LIQUOR-SEWAGE/WATER
18.87
NATIONAL AUTOM08ILE DEAL
DEP REG-OLDER USED CAR
60.00
NAWCO ATTN: JOHN 8AGCO
TIP -7 SEMI ANNUAL
10,000.00
NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTA
OAA
R I V E r~ MIL L PAR 1<;
GENEr~AL
GOLD NUGGET
RIVER VIEW PLAZA
PROF FEES
1,746.96
584.53
1,197.87
1,666.65
747.26
300.00
6,243.27
P & D PREMIUM AUTO GLASS
STREETS
379.47
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
. LI QUOR
FREIGHT
f"REIGHT
LIQUOR
FREIGHT
WINE
76.70cr~
0.8SCR
6.59
725.85
12.04
300.41
967.34
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
TAX (VlXSC
352.20
PRES8YTERIAN HOMES HOUSI
TIF 1-19 SEMI ANNUAL
11 ,924.51
PI~CUSSE/JAMES L
DCP r~EG
PU 8L I C WORI<S
120.00
150.00
270.00
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GR
WWTP
35,360.50
ROYAL PRINTING & OFFICE
*ry* ~3Tr~EETS
*FY* LIBRARY
. *Py* PAI~I'\S
*FY* PARI<S
25.00
42.60
25.53
38.34
Schedule of 8ills
ACCOUNT NAME
WATER & SEWER
fUND & ACC
609.49754.
DUES. MEMBERSHIP & SUOSC 101.41990.
TIF PAYBACK INSTALLMENTS 213.46507.
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 225.45201.
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.
*VENDOR TOTAL
REPAIR & MTC
VEHICLES 101.43120.
LI QUOR
FREIGHT
FREIGHT
LIQUOR
FREIGHT
WINE
*VEN DOr~ TOTAL
MI SC T A)<ABLE
609.49750.
609.49750.
609.49750.
609.49750.
609.49750.
609.49750.
609.49750.
TIF PAYBACK INSTALLMENTS 213.46519.
PROF SRV CUSTODIAL
PROF SRV CUSTODIAL
*VENDOR TOTAL
PROF SRV - PSG, INC
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
101.41990.
101.43110.
602.49480.
101.43120.
211.45501,
101.45201.
101.45201,
ORC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/28/1999 15:30:07
VEN[)or~ NAME
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
ROYAL PRINTING & OFFICE
*FY* PAr:;:!<:S
*ry* WWTP
*FY* CH ADM
*PY* PARKS
*FY* CH ADM
*FY* CH
*FY* AN SHELTER
*FY* PW ADM
*FY* PUBLIC WORKS
20.39
29.09
53.80
5.37
3.37
5.39
4.30
120.07
60.92
434. 17
SALZWEDEL/PATRICIA
AN CONTROL CONTRACT
1,197.49
SCHARBER & SONS, INC.
PARKS"VEH REPAIR PARTS
221.71
SCHLUENDER CONSTRUCTION
*FY* WWTP
*FY* WATER
*ry* PAf:;:I<:S
180.00
200.00
200.00
580.00
SENTRY SYSTEMS, INC.
*FY* LIQUOR STORE REPAIR
88.88
SHERBURNE COUNTY CITIZEN
PET AD
30.00
SIMONSON LUMBER COMPANY
*FY* Srr:;:EETS
*FY* PARI<:S
PW INSP
SHOP
RENTAL HOUSE EXPENSE
PARI<:S
WILDWOOD RIDGE-POSTS
SHOP-OP SUPPLIES
RENTAL HOUSE EXPENSE
7TH STREET EXT
1 2 . 5 7
264.49
116.69
51 . 12
38.98
250. 1 '1
122.64
50.45 .
209.69
44.96
1,161.70
SIMPSON/CYNTHIA R
F I RECLEAN I NO
50.00
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT SUP
GEN ()PEr~A T I NG
'121.75
Schedule of 8ills
ACCOUNT NAME
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
PROF SRV - CONSTRUCTION
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
MISe OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MIse OFFICE SUPPLIES
*VENDOR TOTAL
FUND & Ace
101.45201.
436.49201.
101.41301.
1 0 1. 4 520 1 .
101.41301.
1 0 1 . 4 1 30 1 .~
101.42701.~
101.43110.
101.431'10.
PROF SRV - ANIMAL CTRL 0 101.42701.
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
101.4520'1.
MISC PROFESSIONAL
MIse PROFESSIONAL
IMPROVEMENTS
*VENDOR TOTAL
SERVIC 602.49480.
SERVIC 601.49440.
240.49201.
REPAIR & MTC
MACH & EQ 609.49754.
ADVERTISING
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
MIse OPERATING SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
BUILDING REPAIR SUPPLIES
RENTAL HOUSE EXPENSES
BUILDING REPAIR SUPPLIES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
MIse OPERATING SUPPLIES
RENTAL HOUSE EXPENSES
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
*VENDOR TOTAL
prWF SRV
CUSTODIAL
MIse T,A.)<AOLE
609.49754.
101.43120.
101.45201.
101.43115.
101.43127.
240.49201.
101.45201.
101.43115.
101.43127.
240.49201.
462.49201.
101.42201.
609.49750.
ORC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
t1t01/28/1999 15.30:13
FUND RECAP:
Schedule of Bills
FUND DESCRIPTION
DISBURSEMENTS
"101
21 1
2"13
222
224
225
240
436
450
461
462
601
602
609
651
GENERAL FUND
LIBRARY FUND
HRA FUND
SCERG (ECON RECOVERY GRANT)
SHADE n~EE FUND
PARI, FUND
CAPITAL PROJECT REVOLVING FD
93-14C WWTP EXPANSION PRJ
96-04C HWY25/MNDOT IMPR
98-03C COMMUNITY CENTER
98-12C 7TH STREET EXTENSION
WATER FUND
SEWEF~ FUN D
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
RIVERSIDE CEMETERY
44,823.42
406.11
46,656.13
2,483.45
'14.11
886.74
665.73
41 .62
1,186.00
239,740.11
44.96
3,559.40
35,789.82
34,396.72
19.70
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
410,714.02
.
DAN 1\ RECAP:
DISBURSEMENTS
BANI\ NAME
GENL GENERAL CHECI\ING
LIQR LIQUOR CHECKING
376.317.30
34,396.72
TOTAL ALL BANI\S
410,714.02
.
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND AP
DATE
APPROVED BY
.. . .. .. .. .. .. .,. .. .. ... .. .. T
7'" .. '" .. .. .. ... .. .. ... ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .,. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ... .. .. .;. - .. .. - .. .. ..
-- - -- .- .., ~-- _._,-- -
eRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/01/1999 13:04:06
.
Schedule of 8i11s
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL050S-V06.00 COVERPAGE
GL540R
Report Selection:
RUN GROUP... M131D COMMENT... 1/31/99 MANUAL CKS
DATA-JE-ID DATA COMMENT
__'m_______~,___ ------------------------
M-01311999-767 1/31/99 MANUAL CKS
Run Instructions:
Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 066 10
.
.
8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
02/01/1999 13:04:06 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 1
.NDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P ID LINE
CLINE/RICHARD
1143826 VOID CK 180.00CR CLOTHING SUPPLIES 601.49440.2111 767 00020
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING
1120491 VOID 2,035.90CR BEER 609.49750.2520 38889 767 00007
1120491 VOID 1,356.70CR BEER 609.49750.2520 51061 767 00008
3,392.60CR *VENDOR TOTAL
DAVE PETERSON'S FORD-MER
SEWER-1999 FORD F-350 22,195.76 MOTOR VEHICLES 262.45201.5501 767 00017
DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, INC.
WRONG DEPT 734.00CR REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EQ 602.49490.4044 80038 767 00022
WWTP-R & M 734.00 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EQ 602.49480.4044 80038 767 00023
0.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
FIRST TRUST NATIONAL ASS
WRONG VENDOR 313.81CR MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43127.2199 66382 767 00021
FRANK MOSKO
TELE,VOICE/DATA CABLING 3,800.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 461.49201.3199 PRINTS 767 00015
~ETH R. SHULTZ
ARK DEDICATION LAND 25,000.00 LAND 240.49201.5101 767 00002
MARQUETTE BANK MONTICELL
TO 4M FUND 3,000,000.00 INVESTMENTS 955.10401 767 00005
MN DEPART OF NATURAL RES
REGISTRATIONS 3,995.00 DNR PAYABLE 101.20811 767 00003
TITLES & REGISTRATIONS 4,865.00 DNR PAYABLE 101.20811 767 00006
TITLES & REGISTRATIONS 5,302.00 DNR PAYABLE 101.20811 767 00014
TITLES & REGISTRATIONS 2,702.00 DNR PAYABLE 101.20811 767 00019
16,864.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
MONTICELLO DEPUTY REG #0
SEWER-FORD F-350 REG 1,471.72 LICENSES & PERMITS 262.49201.4370 767 00018
MONTICELLO/CITY OF
PW-FILM 13.83 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43110.2199 PETTY CASH REM 767 00009
PARKS-PARKING FEE 6.00 TRAVEL EXPENSE 225.45201.3310 PETTY CASH REM 767 00010
PW..POSTAGE 1. 70 POSTAGE 101.43110.3220 PETTY CASH REM 767 00011
PW-TRUCK WASH 1. 00 REPAIR & MTC" VEHICLES 101.43110.4050 PETTY CASH REM 767 00012
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY/WATER 29.80 DELIVERY MAIL SERVICE (U 461.49201.3240 PETTY CASH REM 767 00013
52.33 *VENDOR TOTAL
U S POSTMASTER
~WSLETTER-RECYCLING 393.55 POSTAGE 101.43230.3220 767 00001
EP REG-POSTAGE 330.00 POSTAGE 101.41990.3220 767 00004
POSTAGE 367.20 POSTAGE 601.49440.3220 767 00016
1,090.75 *VENDOR TOTAL
8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/01/1999 13:04:06
.NDOR NAME
OESCRI PTION
REPORT TOTALS:
.
.
AMOUNT
3,066,588.15
ACCOUNT NAME
RECORDS PRINTED - 000023
Schedule of 8ills
FUND & ACCOUNT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 2
CLAIM INVOICE PO# F/P 10 LINE
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/01/1999 13:04:07
.
FUND RECAP;
Schedule of Bills
fUND DESCRIPTION
DISBURSEMENTS
101 GENERAL FUND
225 PARK FUND
240 CAPITAL PROJECT REVOLVING FD
262 SANITARY SEWER ACCESS FUND
451 98-03C COMMUNITY CENTER
601 WATER FUND
602 SEWER FUND
609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
955 INVESTMENT HOLDING FUND
17,290.27
6.00
25,000.00
23,667.48
3,829.80
187.20
3,392.60 CR
3,000,000.00
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
3,066,588.15
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME
DISBURSEMENTS
~L GENERAL CHECKING
LIQR LIQUOR CHECKING
3,069,980.75
3,392.60 CR
TOTAL ALL BANKS
3,066.588.15
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
DATE ............
APPROVED BY
.
-
CITY Of MONTICELLO
GL060S-VOS.00 RECAPPAGE
GL540R
8RC FlNANCIAl SYSTEM
02/04/1999 14:14:10
Schedule of Bills
CITY OF MONTICEllC
GL050S-V06.00 COVERPAGE
Gl540R
.
Report Selection:
RUN GROUP... 0205
COMMENT... 2/05 CKS
OATA-JE-lO
DATA COMMENT
-------------- ------------------------
0-02051999-773 2/05 CKS
Run Instructions:
joba Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 066 10
.
.
aRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
02/04/1999 14: 14: 10 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 1
_OOR NAME
. ESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
ADOLFSON & PETERSON, INC
*FY* WWTP-#22 REQUEST 35,943.00 PROF SRV - CONSTRUCTION 436.49201.3025 #22 773 00002
AEC ENGINEERS & DESIGNER
*FY* PW-SCHOOL 450.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.43115.3320 773 00001
ANDY'S TOWING SERVICE
*FY* PARKS-TOW 186.38 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.45201.3199 95861 773 00003
ANKENY KELL ARCHITECTS,
COMM CENTER 35,793.58 PROF SRV - ARCHITECTS' F 461.49201.3020 0008993 , 773 00004
ARAMARK
CITY HALL 75.95 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.41940.2199 6013-870971 773 00005
ASSOC OF RECORDS MGRS/TH
KAREN-DUES FOR 1999 150.00 DUES, MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 101.41301.4330 773 00006
ASSOCIATED VETERINARY CL
*FY* AN SHELTER 155.45 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.42701.2199 33106 773 00007
BELLBOY CORPORATION BAR
LIOUOR 1,471.69 LIOUOR 509.49750.2510 15793500 773 00010
eOUOR 1,924.23 LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 15816800 773 00009
~X MISC 244.30 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 1661000 773 00008
3,640.22 *VENDOR TOTAL
BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA COM
BEER 183.70 BEER 609.49750.2520 42937 773 00016
TAX MISC 30.40 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 42938 773 00018
BEER 989.85 BEER 609.49750.2520 46024 773 00017
TAX MISC 27. 40 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 46025 773 00019
1,231.35 *VENDOR TOTAL
BIG LAKE MACHINE
*FY* STREETS 45.12 STREET MAINTENANCE MATER 101.43120.2240 2587 773 00011
BRC - ASSIST CENTER
*FY* DATA PROC 1.818.00 PROF SRV - DATA PROCESSI 101.41920.3090 1203817 RI 773 00012
C J BROWN BUSINESS SERVI
*FY* WINTER NEWSLETTER 2,495.80 NEWSLETTER 101.41301.3195 773 00013
CENTRAL MN REFRIGERATION
*FY* SHOP 464.90 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EQ 101.43127.4044 058586 773 00015
*FY* SHOP 693.67 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EQ 101.43127.4044 058746 773 00014
1,158.57 *VENDOR TOTAL
.SEARCH
Y* PARKS 541. 66 CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 101.45201.2160 325813 773 00020
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICEllO
02104/1999 14: 14: 10 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 2
.oOR NAME AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM F/P 10 LINE
. OESCR I PTI ON INVOICE POll
CLARK FOOD SERVICE, INC.
*FY* C!TY HALL 261.59 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.41940.2199 V288098 773 00021
CLINE/RICHARD
SAFETY BOOTS REIMB 90.00 CLOTHING SUPPLIES 601.49440.2111 773 00022
CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT
*FY* PARKS 598.35 REPAIR & MTC - VEHICLES 101.45201.4050 57591 773 00023
CULLIGAN
*FY* RENtAL HOUSE 26.17 RENTAL HOUSE EXPENSES 240.49201.4381 773 00024
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING
BEER 2,035.90 BEER 509.49750.2520 38889 773 00028
BEER 3.311.19 BEER 609.49750.2520 39581 773 00027
BEER 8.664.95 BEER 609.49750.2520 39989 773 00026
TAX MISC 225.00 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 40003 773 00025
BEER 425.05 BEER 609.49750.2520 40213 773 00029
14,662.09 *VENDOR TOTAL
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
BEER 2.80CR BEER 609.49150.2520 52019 773 00030
4iER 80.80 BEER 609.49750.2520 52353 773 00031
18.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
DESURIK-A UNIT OF GEN. S
*FY* FIRE 44.48 REPAIR & MTC - VEHICLES 101.42201.4050 1251499 713 00014
OISCOUNT PAPER PRODUCTS,
LIOUOR STORE 104.49 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 609.49754.2099 205991 773 00032
DNR WATERS
*FY* WATER APPR. FEE 1,980.05 LICENSES & PERMITS 601.49440.4310 773 00033
DONLAR CONSTRUCTION COMP
COMM CENTER 150,679.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 461.49201.3030 113 773 00034
DOUBLE 0 ELECTRIC
*FY* WATER ACCESS 1,055.09 BUILOINGS 265.49201,5201 3234-4 773 00036
*FY* RENTAL HOUSE 63.00 RENTAL HOUSE EXPENSES 240.49201,4381 3235 773 00035
1,118.09 . *VENOOR TOTAL
DYNA SYSTEMS
*"Y* SHOP 909.27 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43121.2199 10013080 773 00037
EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOCI
*FY* STREETS 178,58 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101,43120.2199 14641 773 00038
.LE/JIM
,EEL TOE BOOTS REIMB 90.00 CLOTHING SUPPLIES 101.43120.2111 773 00039
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
02/04/1999 14: 14: 10 Schedule of Bills GL540R-Y06.00 PAGE 6
.NDOR NAME AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT INYOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
DESCRIPTION CLAIM
MARCO BUSINESS PRODUCTS,
*FY* COMM CENTER 79.88 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 461.49201.2199 01786219 773 00108
METRO FIRE INC
*FY* FIRE 79.00 CLOTHING SUPPLIES 101.42201.2111 98372 773 00109
MICHELS TRUCKING, INC
*FY* FREIGHT 86.00 FREIGHT 609.49150.3330 660134 773 00110
MID AMERICA BUSINESS SYS
*FY* CH ADM 14,878.78 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 101.41301.5701 25993 773 00111
*FY* CH ADM M/A 1,269.00 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 101.41301.3190 25993 773 00112
16,147. 78 *YENDOR TOTAL
MIDDENDORF I JOHN
SAFETY BOOTS REIMB 90.00 CLOTHING SUPPLIES 601.49440.2111 773 00113
MINNEGASCO
LIQUOR STORE 273.81 GAS 609.49754.3830 773 00117
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC SUPPL
*FY* STREET LIGHTING 1,625.67 MISC REPAIR & MTC SUPPLI 101.43160.2299 514160 773 00115
~FY* STREET LIGHTING 463.39 MISC REPAIR & MTC SUPPLI 101.43160.2299 516875 773 00114
2,089.06 *YENDOR TOTAL
MN COUNTIES INSURANCE TR
PW ADM 250.00 DUES. MEMBERSHIP & suesc 101.43110.4330 1999 DUES 773 00118
MN DEPART OF NATURAL RES
REGISTRATIONS 2,636.00 DNR PAYABLE 101.20811 773 00116
MN DEPT OF TRADE & ECON
PRIN WWTP GO NOTE 241.266.34 BOND PRINCIPAL 358.47001.6010 773 00119
INTEREST 279.562.54 BOND INTEREST 358.47001.6110 773 00120
520,828.88 *YENDOR TOTAL
MN STATE TREASURER
*FY* SURCHARGE-4TH QTR 9.028.14 BUILDING PERMITS 101.32211 773 00121
MN U C FUND
GE SCHMIDT 223.00 U. C. BENEFIT PAYMENTS 101.45201.1420 773 00122
MONTICELLO PRINTING
*FY* PARKS 337.82 PRINTED FORMS & PAPER 101.45201.2030 773 00128
*FY* EC DEY 38.87 PRINTED FORMS & PAPER 250.46501.2030 773 00129
*FY* DEP REG 34.08 PRINTED FORMS & PAPER 101.41990.2030 773 00130
410.77 *YENDOR TOTAL
~TICELLO SENIOR CITIIE 2.833.33 SENIOR CENTER CONTRIBUTI 101.45175.3136 MARCH, 1999 773 00131
CONTRACT
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
02/04/1999 14: 14: 10 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 9
eNDOR NAME AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
- DESCRIPTION
RED'S MOBIL
367.85 *VENDORTOTAL
RELIANCE DATA CORPORATIO
*FY* SHOP 518.20 PROF SRV - DATA PROCESS I 101.41920.3090 22980 773 00187
*FY* SHOP 1,249.00 PROF SRV - DATA PROCESSI 101.41920.3090 23050 773 00186
1,767.20 *VENDOR TOTAL
RON'S GOURMET ICE
ICE 76.86 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 29681 773 00188
ROYAL PRINTING & OFFICE
*FY* PARKS 10.60 MISC REPAIR & MTC SUPPLI 101.45201.2299 6377 773 00189
*FY* AN SHELTER 0.85 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.42701.2099 6378 773 00191
"'FY* WWTP 16.00 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 602.49480.2099 6379 773 00192
*FY* WWTP 5.99 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 602.49480.2099 6380 773 00190
33.44 *VENDOR TOTAL
ROYAL TIRE OF MONTICELLO
*FY* STREETS 147.59 REPAIR & MTC - VEHICLES 101.43120.4050 052764 773 00193
*FY* STREETS 25.00 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 101.43120.2211 063616 773 00194
172.59 *VENDOR TOTAL
eF AUTO PARTS 106.50 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 101.45201.2211 01131424 773 00195
*FY* PARKS
S W WOLD CONSTRUCTION IN
UTILITY REIMB 6.88 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 601.11501 773 00202
SALZWEDEL/PATRICIA
TRAVEL EXPENSES 84.00 TRAVEL EXPENSE 101.42701.3310 773 00123
OP SUPPLIES 52.35 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.42701.2199 773 00124
CONTRACT 1,197.50 PROF SRV - ANIMAL CTRL 0 101.42701.3120 FEB 15 773 00125
1.333.85 *VENDOR TOTAL
SCHLUENDER CONSTRUCTION
*FY* COMM CENTER 10,547.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 461.49201.3199 3337 773 00196
ST JOSEPH EQUIPMENT INC
*FY* STREETS 557.65 IMPROVEMENTS 101.43120.5301 S 172076 773 00203
STAR TRIBUNE
*FY* PARKS 122.50 ADVERTISING 101.45201.3499 245561001 773 00197
SUPERIOR FCR LANDFILL,
*FY* WASTE 294.22 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.43230.3199 NOVEMBER 773 00201
~RIOR SERVICES-CENTRA
v* RECYCLING 4,347.95 PROF SRV - RECYCLING CON 101.43230.3101 DECEMBER 773 00198
FY* GARBAGE 8,013.56 PROF SRV - REFUSE COLLEC 101.43230.3100 DECEMBER 773 00199
*FY* GARBAGE SALES TAX 781.32 SALES TAX 101.43230.3720 DECEMBER 773 00200
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
Q2/04/1999 14: 14: 10 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 10
eNDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
SUPERIOR SERVICES-CENTRA
13,142.83 *VENDOR TOTAL
SURPLUS SERVICES
*FY* PARKS 25.00 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 101.45201.5601 900587 773 00204
*FY* PARKS 70.00 CLOTHING SUPPLIES 101.45201.2111 900587 773 00205
95.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
BEER 5,235.85 BEER 609.49750.2520 152635 773 00207
TAX MISC 95.15 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 152636 773 00209
BEER 13,117.45 BEER 609.49750.2520 153155 773 00208
TAX MISC 28.95 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 153155 773 00210
BEER 11. 70CR BEER 609.49750.2520 153320 773 00206
18,465.70 *VENDOR TOTAL
U SLINK
CH 47.08 TELEPHONE 101.41301.3210 773 00213
FIRE HALL 1. 25 TELEPHONE 101.42201.3210 773 00214
AN SHELTER 21.37 TELEPHONE 101.42701.3210 773 00215
WATER 14.12 TELEPHONE 601.49440.3210 773 00216
PW 13.89 TELEPHONE 101.43110.3210 773 00217
.LDG INSP 9.85 TELEPHONE 101.42401.3210 773 00218
EP REG 1.18 TELEPHONE 101.41990.3210 773 00219
LIQUOR STORE 8.34 TELEPHONE 609.49754.3210 773 00220
117.08 *VENDOR TOTAL
U S POSTAL SERVICE
CH 2,000.00 POSTAGE 101.41301.3220 1126272021 773 00221
UNITED LABORATORIES
*FY* STREETS 1,082.21 LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES 101.43120.2130 21193 773 00224
US FILTER-WATERPRO
*FY* WATER-RESALE 760.10 METERS & VALVES FOR RESA 601.49440.2271 4996448 773 00212
*FY* WWTP 313.67 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EO 602.49480.4044 5002051 773 00211
1,073.77 *VENDOR TOTAL
USA WASTE SERVICES, INC
*FY* WASTE 3,499.40 PROF SRV - REFUSE COLLEC 101.43230.3100 16680 773 00222
*FY* WASTE 3,496.62 PROF SRV - REFUSE COLLEC 101.43230.3100 17016 773 00223
6,996.02 *VENDOR TOTAL
VIKING COCA COLA
PW POP 74.55 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.43110.4399 2192924 773 00227
TAX MISe 185.59 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 2195790 773 00226
TAX MISC 145.05 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 2196696 773 00225
.H POP 23.16 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.41940.4399 2196854 773 00228
428.35 *VENDOR TOTAL
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
J2I04/1999 14: 14: 10 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 11
.ENDOR NAME AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE PO# F/P 10 LINE
DESCRIPTION
VIRTUAL PHONE
*FY* TOM 42.55 TELEPHONE 101.43115.3210 5307 713 00229
*FY* MA TT 42.54 TELEPHONE 601.49440.3210 5307 773 00230
85.09 *VENDOR TOTAL
VOSS LIGHTING
*FY* STREET LIGHTS 175.17 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43160.2199 2030705-00 773 00232
*FY* STREET LIGHTS 22.81 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43160.2199 2030705-01 773 00231
197.98 *VENDOR TOTAL
WARNING LITES OF MIN
*FY* COMM CENTER 290.49 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 461.49201.3199 3044 7 773 00233
WATSON COMPANY, INC/THE
TAX MISe 371.73 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 534364 773 00234
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT
*FY* SHOP 313.81 MIse OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43127.2199 00066382 773 00236
WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECURITY
DEP REG 19.12 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 101.41990.3190 773 00238
PARKS 15.98 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 101.45201.3190 773 00239
e WATER TOWER 21.25 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 601.49440.3190 773 00240
56.35 *VENDOR TOTAL
WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELE
STREET LIGHTS 8.00 ELECTRIC 101.43160.3810 773 00237
WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.
*FY* GEN ENGINEERING 472.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.00-00019 773 00255
*FY* MAPS 3,063.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.27-01011 773 00251
l'FY* GENERAL LOT 45.25 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.30-00997 773 00248
*FY* CARDINAL HILLS 6TH 432.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 454.49201.3030 01010.50-00011 773 00244
*FY* RIVER MILL 2ND 226.25 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.61-00007 773 00268
*FY* COMM CENTER 135.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 461.49201.3030 01010.66-00009 773 00269
*FY* KLEIN FARMS ESTATES 216.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.69-00008 773 00260
*FY* ST HENRY'S 135.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.72-00010 773 00261
*FY* WILDWOOD RIDGE 1.239.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.75-00009 773 00243
*FY* FIRE STATION DRVWY 398.25 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.77-00003 773 00256
*FY* ST BENEDICT'S 100.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.81-00003 773 00262
*FY* RIVER FOREST 7,206.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.83-00005 773 00257
l'FY* LYMAN/EMMERICH 2,967.25 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.88-00003 773 00270
*FY* PARKING LOT OVRLYS 501.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.90-00005 773 00258
*FY* EST ST ELEVATIONS 6,101. 75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.91-00004 773 00252
*FY* MARQUETTE BANK 271.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.93-00003 773 00254
*FY* LYMAN/EMMERICK 2,194.25 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.95-00001 773 00271
*FY* LYMAN/EMMERICK 2,640.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.95-00002 773 00272
*FY* ROLLING WOODS 90.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.96-00001 773 00277
e*FY* WATER & SEWER STUDY 1. 800.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.97-00001 773 00241
aRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
02/04/1999 14: 14: 10 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 12
.ENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE PO# F/P ID LINE
WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.
*FY* TH25/CHELSEA ROAD 2,028.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.00-01048 773 00250
*FY* TH25/CHELSEA 1,029.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.40-00012 773 00216
*FY* TH25 STORM SEWER 2,018.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.60-00001 773 00249
*FY* KLEIN FARMS 3RD 486.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 452.49201.3030 01059.01-00006 ' 773 00218
*FY* KLEIN FARMS 4TH 162.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 458.49201.3030 01059.21-00010 773 00245
*FY* HS TRUNK 86.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 453.49201.3030 01079.01-00008 773 00246
*FY* 7TH ST CONSTR 1,303.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 462.49201.3030 01087.01-00003 173 00213
*FY* RESSURECTION CHURCH 45.25 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 459.49201.3030 01Q96.01-00006 773 00219
*FY* COMM CENTER 1,186.13 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 461.49201.3030 01101.00-00006 773 00263
*FY* COMM CENTER 4,524.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 461.49201.3030 01101.01-00003 773 00264
*FY* CSAH 75 STUDY 359.25 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01109.00-00006 773 00265
*FY* CSAH 75 321.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01109.10-00001 773 00267
"FY" CSAH 75 3,239.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01109.10-00002 773 00266
*FY* CO ROAD 118 6,938.61 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01125.00-00002 773 00274
"FY" CO ROAD 118 3,232.44 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01125.00-00003 773 00275
*FY* SE BOOSTER STATION 5,747.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 464.49201.3030 01129.00-00004 773 00259
*FY* CO ROAD 118 665.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 465.49201.3030 01134.01-00002 773 00253
63,671.18 *VENDOR TOTAL
Y M C A - NW
CONTRACT 625.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.45177.3199 FEBRUARY 1999 773 00241
~P MANUFACTURING COMPAN MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.45201.2199 577435939 773 00242
*FY* PARKS 117.83
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/04/1999 14:14:10
.ENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
REPORT TOTALS:
.
.
AMOUNT
1,055,535.14
ACCOUNT NAME
RECORDS PRINTED - 000284
Schedule of 8ills.
FUND & ACCOUNT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 13
CLAIM INVOICE PO# F/P 10 LINE
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
02/04/1999 14; 14; 15 Schedule of Bills GL060S-V06.00 RECAPPAGE
. GL540R
FUND RECAP:
FUND DESCRIPTION DISBURSEMENTS
---------~------------------
101 GENERAL FUND 136.787.58
211 LIBRARY FUND 1.501.19
225 PARK FUND 1,248.21
240 CAPITAL PROJECT REVOLVING FD 2.120.51
250 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTH FD 38.87
265 WATER ACCESS FUND 1.055.09
358 WWTP NOTE 520.828.88
361 1998B GO WATER SYSTEM REF BD 2.148.64
436 93-14C WWTP EXPANSION PRJ 36.006.84
450 96-04C HWY25/MNDOT IMPR 5,136,25
452 97-03P KLEIN FARMS 3RD 486.00
453 97-07C HIGH SCHOOL TR ST SEW 86.50
454 97-01C CARD HILLS VI 432.00
458 97-04C KLEIN FARMS 4(LION'S) 162.00
459 98-01C RES CHURCH 5S & WM 45.25
461 98-03C COMMUNITY CENTER 203,237.08
462 98-12C 7TH STREET EXTENSION 1.303.50
464 98-24C BOOSTER PUMP/WW RIDGE 5,747.00
465 98-23C UTIL/CR118-WILDWOOD 665.00
.~ WATER FUND 9.887.52
SEWER FUND 36.593.95
609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 84.433.95
610 TRANSPORTATION FUND 5.228.33
651 RIVERSIDE CEMETERY 355.00
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 1.055,535.14
BANK RECAP:
8ANK NAME
DISBURSEMENTS
GENL GENERAL CHECKING
LIQR LIQUOR CHECKING
971,101.19
84,433.95
TOTAL ALL BANKS
1.055,535.14
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
DATE ............
APPROVED BY .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/04/1999 14:14:15
Schedule of Bills
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL060S-V06.00 RECAPPAGE
GL540R
.
FUND RECAP:
FUND DESCRIPTION
DISBURSEMENTS
.
.