Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 01-09-1984I AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 9, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the P.egular Meeting Held on December 12, 1983, and the Special Meeting Hold on December 27, 1983. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. old Business 4. Consideration of Authorizing OSM to be Engineer on Re- construction Project for County Highway 75. New Business S. Consideration of Proposal by First National Bank of Monticello to Create a Shared Drivo with the Monticello Library. G. Annual Appointments. 7. Consideration of Resolution Setting 1984 Sower User Marque. 8. Consideration of Entering an Agreement with Wright County for County State Aid Highway Maintenance. 9. Consideration of Proposal to Purchase a Welder. 10. Adjournment. MINUTES r REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL December 12, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. 1_ Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigon, Ken Maus. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made. by Maus, seconded by 8lonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 28, 1983. 4. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit, Applicant - K & 11 Auto Repair. Mr. Ken Stolp, owner and operator of K 6 11 Auto Repair, reclueulod a Conditional Use Permit to allow his major auto repair business to continue in a B-4 'Lone. The previous owner of the building, Mr. Jim Teslow, operated a used auto sales facility and also did minor- repair inor repair business; but now that Mr. Teslow, sold Ule building to Mr. 1 Stolp, a new Conditional Use Permit would Le required. Mr. Stolp noted that his main businusu would W auto repairs, but he would still be interested in occasionally selling used automobilcu, primarily during the summer months. The Planning Commission recummended approval of the Conditional Use Permit provided the following conditions wore attachedt 1. Used auto sales could continue provided the site contains enough space for both used auto nalon and major auto repair businosuou. 2. That no scruuning fence bo erected on tho Cast side or on the north side of his property. 3. That he maintains at !cast uix off-atr0ut parkiny apaceu. 4. That the entire ualeu lot, parking lot, and driveway bo hard surfaced. 5. '111111. he allow an arun on his lot to be used for employee parking. I_ b. That 1.110 10L bo kepL clam and neat in appuarancu. Council Minutes - 12/12/83 7. That the used autos be removed as soon as possible. 8. That the existing used auto parts be removed. 9. That the noise level emitted from major auto repair business be kept at an acceptable level. 10. That the Conditional Use Permit be granted for a period of one year at which time it would be reviewed for renewal . ii. A mut-illy review o: Lhe prUperLy will 'we --3—Lu6 Ly Li:, building inspector to see that the property is meeting the above conditions. Motion war made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the Conditional Use permit for the major auto repair business for K 6 II Auto wiLh Lilt! above 11 conditions attached. 5. Consideration of a Request for Conditional Use Permit, Applicant - Our Own Ilardwarc . Mr. Dennis Seitz, owner of the Our Own Hardware store, requested a Conditional Use Permit to be allowed to sell bulk kerosene in a 0-4 Zone. Mr. Seitz is currently selling bulk kerosene out of two 265 - gallon storage tanks located outside of the rear of his building, but the facilities do not meet Minnesota Fire Code Regulations. Nwm.roun change would have to be made for Mr. Seitz to continue with the bulk kerosene sales including securely fastening the storage Lanka to a permanent stand or platform, providing an area around the tanks to contain any spillage of overflow, a protective barrior around the perimeter of the two tanks, laboling the Lanka, and converting the existing gravity flow from the Lanka to some sort of pumping facilities. Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approvo a Conditional Uuo Permit allowing Mr. Seitz to continue his Intlk kerosene sales provided Lha facilitioa moot all Fire Code I<ugulationa, with all improvements being completed within 45 days. 0. Consideration of a ItequcuL for a Conditional Use Permit, Applicant - Murl'in Landscaping. Murfin landscaping requested a Conditional Uso Permit to allow ouLduor sales and oerviCo for their landscaping business in a B-3 Zone. The proposed uito would W the former location of Dino'u Restaurant on pant County Road 75 owned by Floyd r.ruac. Mr. Murfin would be utilizing Llto front portion of this property as a sales lot for Lruca, shrubbery, decorative rock, etc. - 2 - D --i4- Council Minutes - 12/12/83 Planning Commission recanmended approval of the Conditional Use Permit Lprovided the following conditions were met by the applicant: 1. That the Conditional Use Pcrmit be granted for a one year period of time at which time it would be reviewed. 2. The black-LVpped surface would be checked for any crack:: or potholes, which would have to be fixed before the business would be allowed to be open; and the condition of the existing sewer line would have to be checked prior to eoenino. 3. The business would be reviewed on a monthly basis by the Zoning Administrator. 4. The property would have to be kept neat and orderly in appearance with equipment to be stored at the rear of the property out of public view from County Road 75. S. :10 more than four pieces of equipment could be stored it: any one Lime on the properly and would have to be stored below the embankment out of public view. G. That a building permit be taken out for Lheir proposed r� office building and that the building meet State Building ( Code Requirements. Notion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve lire Conditional Use Permit for Murfin Landscaping for a period of one year with the above conditions attached. 7. Consideration of Preliminary Plat Isoview for Lila Proposed Now Sub- division to be Named Country View Terrace. The Monticello Country Club preuonted the preliminary plat for a 10 -lot residential subdivision to be named Country View Terrace located adjacent to County Road 39 Wast. Tho proper, ad dovo lopment would havo ten residential single family lots with a neparate Uervicc road adjacent to County (toad 39. The preliminary plat all reviewed by Ute City Cngincer and City staff recommondud that Lilo following changes be included in the final plat: 1. Thal a curved radius bu inutalled on the curb at the northwest cornor ul the proposed Club View Drive. 2. That curbing be installed on the uouLh side of the propelled Club View Drivu. r, 3. That curbing be installed right up to Lilo existing County Road 39 asphalt uurfaeo. - 3 - O Council Minutes - 12/12/83 4. That the City rig ht -of -way for the proposed Club view Drive off of the existing Golf Course Club Road entrance end at the west side of the Club View Drive right-of-way. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the prolitainary plat for the proposed subdivision called Country View Terrace contingent upon the four changes being inrorporated into the final plat. 8. Consideration of Ratifyinq 1984 Salaries for Non -Union Personnel. ThL Council revicwcu wil.i, L . .,..,,,,,,. s -.,.tee. _..c _ -_- _alp ,—cP_ . for non-union personnel. 'Clic City Administrator noted that Mr. Alb.ert moyer's probationary period as thu new wastewater Trua Lment plant Superintendent is currently over, and it was recommended that lie be appointed the Wastewater Superintendent. The Council also discussed the current Economic Development Director's position currently held by Allen Pelvic under the CETA Program. The Council noted that although this position is currently partially funded by CETA, some concerns were expressed by the Council over whether the City will continue to need a Community Development Director in the future. It was recommended that the City Administrator inform Mr. Pelvit that the position would be reviewed in the future to determine whether this position is warranted. Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, to adopt the following salary schedule for the non-union personnel for the year 1984 as fol lows 1 Lynnea Gillham $ 7.95/hr. Diane Jacobson 5 7.71/hr. Marlene Hellman $ 7. 39/hr. koger Mack $23,725.00 Walter Mack $23,444.00 Albert Meyer $23,133.00 Gary Anderson $23,920.00 Mark Irmiter $27,505.00 Seen Hancock $21,320.00 (tick wolfsteller $30,070.00 John Simola $29,815.00 Karen Hanson $12,600.00 Allen Polvit $17,500.00 Vuting in Laval was Grimsmo, pail, Maxwell, Maus. VoLing in Oppoaitionl Blonigon. - 4 - 00- Council Minutes - 12/12/83 r- 9. Consideration of the Resignation of Dr. Philip White from the Monticello Ilousina and Redevelopment Authority. -' Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to accept Dr. White's resignation from the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority effective Deeomber 31, 1983. The Council requested that the City Administrator write a letter of thanks to Dr. White for his service to the committee. 10. Consideration of Ratifying the 1984 law Enforcement Contract with Wright County Sheriff's Department. Recently, the Wright County snerifi's Depaa Lwul,l snha_t'_Cd 'I—i' 1984 I.aw Enforcement Contract with the City of Monticello, which called for an 8.2% increase in the current hourly rate from $15.25 per hour to $16.50 per hour. The City of Monticello currently contracted for 7,115 hours of service during the year, but to keep within the 1984 budget for police protection, the hours would have to be dropped to 6,905 hours. This cut in service would amount to approximately one-half hour -per day, which was felt could be absorbed without any noticeable effect in service. As a result, motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve ratifying the 1984 contract with r^, the Wright County Sheriff's Department for approximately 6,905 hours of coverage at S1G.5O per hour for a total annual cost of $113,935.00. 11. Consideration of Ralifyinu the Publication of a Nulice of Public: Ilearinq on the Proposed Sale of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Applicant - Key Tool and Plastics. Motion was made by liluniy,:n, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried 1.0 adopt the r,!uoluLion establinhing December 27, 1983, at 5:00 p.m. au Lhc dat.e for a public hearing to consider preliminary approval for the issuance of IadUaLrial DovalopmcnL Revenue lionds for Key 'fool and Plan Li Co' proposed development within Lhe City of Monticello. Seo RosoltiLion 1983-092. 12. Consideration of an ApnointmenL to City Staff - Stroota and Parku Maintenance Department. public work❑ Director, John Simola, noted that 40 applications for the position of Operator/Mechanic were received and reviewed by the public Worku Director and City Strcel Superintendent. it wall recommendod by Ute public Worku Director that Mr. Tum Mooreu I,,; hired by Ute City to fill the position in the Stroals and Parks Department. Ic Council Minutes - 12/12/83 Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the appointment of Mr. Thomas Moores to the Streets and Parks Maintenance Department effective immediately. 13. Approval of a Partial Listinq of Bills for December. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of December as submitted. nu aLa; . ifi Assistant Administrator ` MINUTESSPECIAL MELTING - MONONTICELI.O CITY COUNCIL December 27, 1983 - 5:00 P.M. Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus. Members Absent: None. A special meeting of the Monticello City Council was duly hold at 5,00 P.M. on Tuesday, December 27, 1983, in tlee City Council Chamberu. MamMro present were crjm--co, Nair, Ulcnigcn, Yax•e ll, r.:ua. mc.:bere absent: [tone. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, and this being a special meeting, the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting were dispensed with. 1. The Mayor convened a public hearing for the purpose of accepting public comment and testimony with respect to a proposal by Key Properties to Issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds under Minnesota Statute 474. Mr. Jack Gries and Mary Eull were present representing Kay Properties. They explained that Key Properties Is interested in construction of. a 20,000 sq. ft. building on tho property lying between Lauriny Lane andInterstate 94. The building would then be leased to Key Tool and Plastics, currently operating in Big Laka, for their expansion. Tho new facility would create approximately 40 now jobs in the community. They noted that the total amount of the bond issue will be approximately $650,000 to be applied to the cost of acquisition of land, building construction, equipment acquisition and installation, and all of the associating fees. Mr. Gries went on to explain that they appreciated the City Council meeting in special session in order to take action _before the end of the year. Ho explained that there was some concern over pending federal legislation that may place certain limitations on' the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds, and it was thair leopu Uiat any legislation that is passed will grandfather in projects that have had official action prior to the first of the year. Tho Mayor asked if there were other people present who wished to comment on the project. There were none. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Blonigen to adopt the following resolution giving preliminary approval to the proposal submitted by Key Propertios. Bee Resolution 1983-093, which is on file in the office of the City Administrator. The motion was duly seconded by Councilmember Fair. Voting in favors Grimsmo, Pair, Blonigan, Maus, and Maxwell. Voting In the opposition, None. - 1 - �.1 Special Council Minutes - 12/27/83 2. Mr. Iloward GillYaan, Mr. Joan Brouillard, and Mr. Jim Metcalf, rep- resenting the Monticello Country Club, and Mr. Jim Ridgeway, Chair- _ person of the Monticello Planning Commission, were present to sub- mit the final plat for Country View Terrace. Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, reported that the Planning Commission had met prior to the Special Council Meeting and moved the recommendation of approval of the final plat for Country View Terrace. The Mayor, noting that this plat had been discussed at length through its preparation stages, asked if there was a motion. Motion by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, to grant final approval to the final plat of Country View Terrace. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Motion by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and carried unanimously to pay Lite Lollowing L)ocember biiib. 4. There being no further business, the special meeting was adjourned. Thomas Eidem City Administrator - 2 Council Agenda - 1/9/84 4. Consideration of Authorizing OSM to be Engineer on Reconstruction Project for County Highway 75. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you know, the City of Monticello has been requesting for some time that the County upgrade County Road 75/39 through Monticello. These requests have continued since 1979 in the form of letters and appearances before the County Board. In the summer of 1981, the County, at its own expense, attempted a milling and resurfacing operation on the cast bound side of 75 from Highway 25 to the high school. In this project the County milled off 15 inches of the existing surface and replaced it with 15 inches of new bituminous. This was not entirely successful, as in the following two years approximately 80-909 of the reflective cracking has returned in this surtace. The Wright County Board has finally been receptive of our project. It is my understanding that they have placed funds into the 1984 County Budget for the project. At the October 24, 1983, Council meeting, I discussed the scope of the project with the City Council. At that meeting we discussed that the primary concern is from Otter Creek Road on the west end of town near the elementary school to the end of the divided highway on the cast end of town at the high school. We discussed at that time the County's request that i shoulder work on the west end of town to Otter Crack Road and shoulder work on the east end of town from the high school to the County Road 39 turn-off be performed. At that meeting the Council decided that they did not wish to share in the shoulder paving costs on the cast end of town. I forwarded this information to the Wright County Highway Engineer, Mr. Wayne Fingalson. In a recent meeting with Mr. Wayne Fingalson, I again discussed the scope of the project. Tile County is quite determined in regard to Lila paving of the shoulders on the cast and of town. I agree with the County that this work should be done. However, there is a question as to the CiLy benefit of paving Lhuse shoulders as we discuused at the October 24 Council meeting. There is, indeed, more benefit in Lilo repairs done in the downtown arca to the citizens of Monticello than there is to Lha shoulder work on the oast end of town. I asked Mr. Fingalson if there could be a variancu in the funding policy of 700 County and 30k City. Ile stated that any requests for funding variances on a portion of Lila project would have to be addressed to him and carried through to Lha County Board. Also at that mooting we diucuoeod the possible overlay or scalcoating of County Road 75 from Lha high uehoul to the County Road 39 turn-off. This work is needed in the near future and may be included by the County In this project. Again, our participation in this part of Lha construction is questionable and should be carefully reviewed. Council Agenda - 1/9/84 B. ALTEPUNATIVE ACTIONS: It appears at this time that the County is firmly in favor of the paving of the shoulders on the cast end of town. One alternative that may be considered is to ask for reduced City participation in this portion of the project. Current County funding policies are approximately 70% County and 309 Municipal or City funding. The City could request, for example, only participating to the amount of 10 or 159 in this area due to reduced benefit. Other alternatives that we have are in the form of engineering of the project. we have the option of the County performing the necessary preliminary engineering work and inspection or, working through the City Engineer or other consultants specializing in such restoration. The County, if the City chooses to contract r:;vaLv1y Lur Lho engineering, will reimburse the City 59 of the contract price for preliminary engineering costs and 50 for construction engineering based upon the final project cost. This is a common practice, and the City has used it before on other projects. If we are looking at a project, say, in the neighborhood of $165,000.00 (the amount estimated for budgetary purposes), the City's portion would be approximately $50,000.00. In addition, Wright County would reimburse us for a total of $16,500.00 for engineering. This information was given to me by Wayne Fingalson. t If we have the County do the engineering work, current work loads indicate they may not be able to start until April or May of this year. In addition, we would have to reimburse the County 100% for the engineering costs on the project. while these costs would be lower than eonuultants fees, Mr. Wayne Fingalson indica ten that they could be approximately 39 of the contract for cacti phase or a total of 69. We would, therefore, have to pay the County approximately $9,900.00 based upon $165,000.00 project cost. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: I have given Mr. John Badalich some preliminary information about the project so that lie may make come cost estimator for the engineering work. Me will bring this information forth at Monday night's meeting. It to the oto ff recommendation that we discuss the pro' s and eon's of having OSM perform tlla necessary ongineoring work for thio project. in addition to Lila coats, we should discuss the expertise in this typo of reconstruction. Whether Chu County performs the engineering or OSM performs Lila engineering, it is moat likely that some type of outside consultants would be utilized either to aid in the invo stigation of the street and o ub-surface or to make recommendations basad upon investigative information. - 2 - Council Agenda - 1/9/84 \ If we can reach some conclusion as to the scope of the work and who shall perform the work, it is recommended that we proceed with the feasibility study for the project. Such a feasibility study is expected to take a couple of months and preparation of plans and specifications will also take time. It would be most advantageous to have the bids for this project opened in late April or early May so that construction costs will be as low as possible. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Letter to the County Board, October 21, 1983, from the City; Minutes of the Council meeting, October 24, 1983; Letter from Mr. Wayne Fingalson to the Public Works Director, January 4, 1984. - 3 - I rleph— 7952711 Metro L.ne 3335779 C.iE� o� /i/ontice[fO 250 East Broadway Route 4, Box 83A MONTICELLO. MN 55362 October 21, 1983 Mr. Wayne Fingalson County Engineer Wright County Courthouse Buffalo, MN 55313 RE: Upgrading of County Road 75 within Monticello Gentlemen: The City of Monticello has for some time now been requesting upgrading of County Road 75 through Monticello. As you may remember, members of the staff of the City of Monticello met with the County Board in the summer of 1982 again to firm up a request for this project. The County, however, due to other priorities and lack of funds was unable to do the project in 1983. We would, therefore, again like to formally requeut that the County upgrade County Road 75 within Monticello frcnn Cheutnut Stroet on the wear end of town to the Monticello High School on the cast end of town. The City of Monticello has placed into We budget for 1984 30% of the estimated project coat. There has aloo recently been some concern over the shoulderu on the weal end of town, specifically that portion from Chestnut SLroet. to Otter Creek Road near the elementary school. we believe there 1s justification at thin time to look into the paving of the shoulderu in that area. we would also wish the County to prepare soma coat estimates as to the paving of the shoulders on the cast end of town. The City may Le interested in participation in that portion of the project also. Moose inform us of your decision so that we may prepare plans for utility repairs prior to the County Municipal project. We look forward to working with you on the design and implementation of thio project. Thank you for your consideration. Rggportful ly John Simola Public works Director City of Monticello JS/kad cc, Arvo A. Grimamo Thomas A. Eidem County Corrunpondancu File JB �, I � v OD � D Welcome to Iflonfice o 11/1 mountain ��' Council Minutes - 10/24/83 C After discussion, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the City staff to prepare an ordinance that would allow the issuance of on -sale wine licenses for a review at the next Council meeting. The ordinance amendment would establish a combination license for 3.2 beer and on -sale wine in addition to the present 3.2 on -sale beer license. 11. Consideration of County Road 75 and 39 Upgradinq. Since 1979, the City of Monticello has been requesting that Wright County upgrade County Road 75 and 39 through the City. In 1982, Wright County Board indicated that improvements to Broadway and County Road 39 might be possible in the spring of 1984. The Cuunty Frigineer, Mr. Wayne eingalson, inoicated that it would be best to again formally request this project in the form of a letter to the Wright County Board. The City would be basically requesting upgrading of that portion of the highway which ties a center median from approximately Chestnut Street on the west end of town to the high school on the cast end of town. In addition, it was the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City also request tliat some shoulder improvements including paving of the shoulders be considered by the County on the cast end of town. Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigun, and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to write a letter to the Wright County Board of Commissioners requesting their consideration of improving County Road 75 (Broadway) within the City limits. The City share of any improvements would be approximately 300 estimated at a total coat of S1G0,000.00 with the City currently Inulgeting $60,000.00 as its share in 1984. 12. Consideration of Zonino man Amendment - Blocks 32 and 17. In light of the fact that the Oakwood Block has been uuld to Security Federal, the Planning Cummiusion hold a public hearing on October 4 to consider rezoning this property from its current B-2 Zoning for residential use to s B-4 commercial zone. At the name time, the balance of the property on the library block abutting Highway 25 was also propound for rezoning to connorcial D-4. - 7 - v January 4, 1984 Mr. John Simola Public Works Director City of Monticello Route 4, Dox 83A Monticello, Hn 55362 WRIGHTCOUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Wright County Public Works Building Route No. 1- Box 97-8 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Jct. T. H. 25 and C. R. 138 Telephone (612) 682.3900 Re: Proposed Improvements to CSAH 75 in Monticello (SAP 86-675-02) Dear John: WAYNE A. FINGALSON. P.E. COUNT' HIGHWAY ENGINEER This letter will serv,3 to document the namerooa conversations we have had regarding proposed improvements to County State Aid Highway No. 75 (Broadway) in Monticello. It Will attempt to summarize the project scope and the options available regarding division of tasks as needed for the design, construction inspection, etc. As you know, the City of Monticello hag requested an improvement to CSAH 75 through lonticello for many years. Wright County has included this project in our 1984 con- struction budget. The estimated cost included for budget purposes was based on the type of construction (milling and wearing course replacement) done in 1981 on that eastbound segment of CSAH 75. As we have discussed, John, the extent of reflective cracking which has occurred on this segment means to me: that further investigative work needs to be done to help determine inplace structure. This could be done in the form of borings, material testing, etc. Your October 21. 1983 letter to me referred to the. City's con- cern over the shoulders on the west end of town, specifically that portion from Chestnut Street to Otter Creek Road near the elementary school. I wholeheartedly agree that there is justification at thin time to look into the paying of the shoulders in that area. l.iko - wise, the CSAH 75 segment from the high school eastward to CSAR 39 needs improvement in- cluding the addition of bituminous -paved shoulders. The large volume of traffic on this segment makes it nenrly impossible ro adequately maintnin the 6 -font aggregnte shoulders adjacent ti) the bituminous m-tr. This is duo Ln the fact that, no you know, the traffic has a tendency to "blow out" the aggregate shouldering materiel. F.ven though, it is hlnded on a regular basis, there exists an unsafe condition for periods of time in the form of a dropoff along the pavement as we experiences periodically on the vest end of town. It would be beneficial for many reasons to include this work as part of any improvement pro- ject to CSAII 75 in Monticello. Regarding the options available for design, plan development, etc, my nepartment, due to our heavy workload, would not be able to begin any preliminary work on this project until April or May of 1984. It would be more desirable, in the interest of time, per our discussion, that the City, consistent with the other Wright County cities, do the necessary preliminary work through their City Engineer or consultant ang ineer. Perhaps you and your staff could assist with some of this work, however, plans must be done and signed by a registered engineer. This investigative work would generate more specific quantities and (LI Mr. John Simola January 4, 1984 Page 2 cost estimates which would help us look at the extent of the proposed improvement. Wright County's cost sharing is established by our funding policy of which you have a copy. This policy includes an engineering reimbursement by the County of 5% Preliminary Engineer- ing based on contract bid price and 5% Construction Engineering based on final project coat. This policy was used by Monticello and Wright County for 1977-3 Improvement Project involv- ing CSAB's 39, 58, and 59. After the scope and funding of the project is determined, we can then decide if either City or County would handle contract administration, construction inspection, etc. Any request regarding variance from our funding policy should be addressed to me. Although included in our 1984 Municipal Construction budget, County concurrence in the specifics ..-,. ..cope of ..... P.-LILC. .a.....,. rd .os estimates 5t..,. ,.! ba advertisements as State Aid review and approval of plans will have to be accomplished. I trust this information is helpful to you, John. It is my hope that we can establish a timetable with assigned responsibilities so that this project can be completed in 1984. We welcome your imput into this matter. A State Aid project number has already been assigned rn this project. Please use this number (SAP 86-675-02) on all future correspondence concerning this project. Please contact me is you have any questions on any of this. j Wayne A. Fingalson Wright County Highway ngineer cc: Basil Schillewnert, County Commissioner WAF:kmb 0A Council Agenda - 1/9/B4 5. Consideration of Proposal by First National Bank of Monticello to Create a Shared Drive with the Monticello Librarv. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Cecil Pagotchnik, President of the First National Bank of Lakeville, approached me several weeks ago when they were negotiating on the purchase of the land where the library sits. His inquiry had to do with whether or not the City would be amenable to allowing development of the driveway along the south line of our property and abutting on the railroad right-of-way. lie indicated that their proposed site plan had an entr; and rn —LL un hnurth Street, but they hoped to also develop an exit out onto Walnut. I indicated to him at that time that the proposal was not out of the question, but that they should submit to the City a proposal that would accommodate both properties. I further indicated that upon receipt of that proposal we would then send it through the appropriate channels (meaning the Planning Commission, Library Board, engineer, and staff) to try and arrive at a final determination. About two weeks ago Cecil submitted their preliminary site plan to me and asked us to start reviewing it. What I would like to achieve at this particular meeting is an indication from the Council that the shared drive concept should be pursued and sent through the appropriate channels. If the Council is receptive to the concept, though not necessarily the particular plan submitted, then I would like to get a motion to send this on to the Planning Commission and the other persons for appropriato review. To date, we have tentatively scheduled It for the Tuesday, January 10, Planning Commission meeting, and I have given a copy to John Badalich for preliminary reviuw. If the Council is opposed to such a concept, we should so state and the matter will cone to a close. If it is, however, sent on for further review, then after accumulating all of the necessary comment and data, it would come back before the Council for approval at a later meeting, probably February sometime. 1 wish to stress that staff is not prepared to answer any of your questions which may arise over apparent trouble spots or design difficulties. We have not done an in-depth review since we do not know if the Council finds the proposal to be acceptable in its general sense. Once we have had an opportunity to do a full review including a diocuasion of various alternatives, we will than submit a full report to the Council with a recommended action. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS, 1. Deny the request - this basically stops the dtivoway proposal and indicates to the bank developers that they should sock other alternative ingreaa and ogress. 2. Give authorization that the concept be researched by appropriate personnel and a report prepared - this basically says that the Ccuncupt ur notion of a shared drive has morit but that all of -a - Council Agenda - 1/9/84 the details must be researched before a final decision can be arrived at. Such an action would not in any way be giving approval to the bank to develop this drive. It would be doing nothing more than referring the proposal to the appropriate staff for research. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on a very cursory preliminary review, I think the proposal can be worked out to the benefit of both parties. Again. I state that I'm not certain of this having not done an in-depth study. I would like the Council to send this matter to staff and consultants with the direction to prepare an in-depth report. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the preliminary site plan first presented to me. - 5 - Council Agenda - 1/9/84 6. Annual Appointments. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Minnesota Statutes require that at the first meeting of the new year certain appointments be made. Past practice has been to pass a single motion adopting all appointments at the end of discussion. This strikes me as the most efficient way to do this. Hence, I am submitting to you a list of the required appointments and requesting that at the completion of discussion a single motion be passed making the appointments. A. City Depositories - In the past you have designated three official depositories, and I have submitted the same three this year. B. Official Newspaper - The Monticello Times. C. Health Officer - Historically, Dr. Maus has served as the City Health Officer. Tlie duties and service of the Health Officer have been very limited and I suggest you simply renew the appointment. D. Housinq and Redevelopment Authority - As noted at the December meeting, Phil White has resigned with four years remaining in Iiia term, and Jack Reeve has elected not to accept the re -appointment which leaves an opening for a five-year appointment. To date I have collected some names of persona who might be affective as a member of the HRA, but have not as yet been able to contact all of them. A few Of the people I have contacted have declined and said they would not be interested in serving. I have a few names left to contact. However, I would be glad to accept more names. To data the only person who has indicated a positive attitude toward accepting an appointment is Gary Wicbor, who would like to take the appointment to fill the Phil White vacancy. Gary has indicated he would be more willing to curve the remainder of the term than to serve a full five-year term. BRA appointments are made solely by the mayor and not the Council. I think it would be beat to appoint Gary Wieber to the vacant term with the intent of appointing the fifth member before the and of January. E. Parkinq Committee - Considerable concern has boon cxprcased over Lho public parking assessments, parking lot maintenance and snow re- moval, and even parking regulations as stipulated in the zuninyi ujuisasuu. Staff has discussed Lhib at lunyLli -J . 6 . Council Agenda - 1/9/84 ` - feels that this is one of the critical issues that should be discussed in the revision of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. We feel that there should be an inter -relation between the parking requirements stipu- lated in the ordinance and the assessment or public use policy. In the event that the downtown parking matter can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, the Parking Committee may be able to be disbanded if an effective solution is worked out. For the time being, however, we should maintain this committee, and I am requesting that you re -appoint the same five members to maintain their iunctivn until a new solution is found. F. Planninq Commission - According to our ordinance, all five members of the Planning Commission need to be appointed annually. Gary Anderson has contacted the five current members and they have all indicated that they will accept re -appointment for an additional year. Those members are: Jim Ridgeway, Cd Schaffer, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, and Don Cochran. G. Representatives to other multi -jurisdictional bodies - These three are simply a matter of selecting the City reprosentative to serve on each of the following bodies: The Community Education Board, the Joint Fire Board, and the OAA Board. 11. Actinq Mayor - Annually one person on the Council must be stipulated to act as mayor in the absence of the elected mayor. The past year this rola has been filled by Ren Maus. The following three appointments are not required to be made annually by statute. City Attorney, City Planner, and Engin ear are deeignated to perform services on an as -needed basis and may or may not be finalized with a contract. In the past you have made appointmonto at the annual mooting. 1. City Atto Znoy - Cary Pringlo has filled this office for the City for several years. Ise has agreed to accept the appointment for the up- coming year. Consulting Planner - 11oward Dalilgrsn hoo boon the City's Planner for a number of years as wall. Again, while this hood not be a formal appointment, ouch an appointment can be made at Chia time. - 7 - Council Agenda - 1/9/84 K. Consultinq Engineer we enter an annual contract for engineering services with OSM. After the close of this agenda item, John Badalich submitted to me proposed changes in the contract. I did not have the time to run a cost comparison between the old and the new contract and recommend that this matter be laid over until January 23. This is not a problem since engineer is not a required annual appointment but is merely a contract negotiation which can be altered or discontinued at any time. City Auditor - This, again, is not a required annual appointment but can be done on an as -needed basis. Historically, we have used Gruys Johnson to do our audit, and that appointment could, in fact, be made at a later date. We may even wish to in- vestigate designing audit specifications and putting the work to a public bid. I recommend that this appointment not be made at this time but at a later date when we are closer to getting into the actual audit process. We may elect to use the same auditors and find that it is beneficial to do so; I simply think we should delay this appointment. M. Library Board - There is one three-year appointment that is required for this ( year. Loren Klein's term expires on 12/31/83. The library board requires a mayoral appointment with a Council ratification. While we have been unable to contact Loren, Marge Bauer, librarian, thinks that he is interested in accepting a re- appointment. Marguerite Pringle has also boon suggested as a possible appointment. She recently completed her term on the Great River Regional Library Board and thus, would have the necessary background and experience. Marguerite has also indicated a willingness to serve. - 8 - MUNICIPAL APPOINTMENTS Suggested Office 1983 1984 Depositories Wright County State Bank Reappoint Security Federal Reappoint First Bank of Minneapolis Reappoint Newspaper Monticello Times Reappoint HRA Phil White Gary Wieber Jack Rce:•e To he determined Don Cochran N/A Vic Vokaty N/A Bud Schrupp N/A OAA Reo. Arve Grimsmo Reappoint Community Ed. Rep. Fran Fair Reappoint Joint Fire Board Rick Wolfateller Reappoint Planning Commission Jim Ridgeway Reappoint Joyce Dowling Reappoint Richard Carlson Reappoint Don Cochran Reappoint Ed Schaffer Reappoint City Attorney Gary Pringle Reappoint City Planner Howard Dahlgren s Associates Reappoint City Engineer OSP: Postpone to 1/23 City Auditor Gruys Johnson To be determined Downtown Parking Bud Schrupp Reappoint Lloyd Lund Reappoint John Poirior Reappoint Marn Flickor Roappoint Dennis Seitz Reappoint Library Board Loren Klein — 7A OAAJ Warren Smith N/A Joel Erickson N/A Dr. Don Maus N/A Pat Schwarz N/A **Persona expressing interest in this appointment a) Marquorita Pringle b) Loren Klein A, -r,.6 NMJoR• iA A+4 s 4L„► OFtt. ofAul I- Council Agenda - 1/9/84 7. Consideration of Resolution Setting 1984 Sewer User Charges. (J.S A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Our sewer user ordinance, which took effect January 1, 1983, provides formulas for determining sewer rates so that the users will pay proportionately and fairly for the operation and maintenance of the Waste Water Treatment Facility and sewer collection system. Based upon the 1984 Budget, we need to raise $206,060 for operation and maintenance of our Waste Water Treatment Plant facility and lab and $30,610 for operation and maintenance of our sanitary sewer collection system. This is a total of $236,670. This is an increase of 13.10 over the 1983 budget of $209,290. The estimates of total operation and maintenance costs for 1983 are estimated to be $16,784 less than the user revenue generated in 1983. Our ordinance calls for this amount to be refunded to users in the form of rate reductions or adjustments the following year. This amount plus $13,450 estimated special revenues in 1984 from hook-up fees, special customers, and penalties total $30,234. Subtracting this from the amount of the 1984 budget for operation and maintenance leaves us with $206,436, which we will need to generate from user fees for 1984. In making estimates for the 1984 loadings to the Treatment Plant, it was noted that the loadings to the Waste Water Treatment Facility were above those originally estimated for 1983. Original estimates made in 1982 indicated us to havo initial plan loadings of 339 flow, 16% DOD, and 229 total suspended solids. These arc percentages of design ratings. Loadings to the Treatment Plant are currently estimated to be 459 flow, 339 BOD, and 259 total suspended solids. These figures are slightly below the estimated anticipated growth projected in 1980. At that time the estimated 1964 loadings were 599 flow, 529 BOD, and 4G9 total suspended solids. B. ALTURNM VE ACTIONS: At this particular time, it does not appear that the City has any other recourse but to follow our ordinances in relation to user charges. Federal regulations regulating user charge systema have to be followed as a condition of the City receiving its construction grant funding. Earlier attempts to fund a portion of the operation and maintenance of the Waste Water Treatment Facility and collection systems with ad valorem taxss were unsuccessful and may have jeopardized our grant monies. _ g _ Council Agenda - 1/9/84 \ We have a user charge system which is based on actual use of the waste water treatment services and cacti user pays its proportionate share of operation and maintenance costs. This is a method fair to all users. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The following is a tabulation or sewer rate worksheet for 1984 rates using the formulas as outlined in the user charge ordinance. (See supporting data) As you can see by sewer rate worksheet, there have been significant rate improvements due to the increased loadings at the Waste Water Treatment Facility over those expected. While the loadings did increase, there was not a direct one for one relationship in increased costs of operation and maintenance of the Treatment Facility. Our charges for flow, BOD, and total suspended solids have, therefore, decreased. The reduction of these rates led to an overall reduction in the combined rate for residential, commercial, and institutions of 2.38 down to $1.25 per 100 cu. ft. We still include the minimum billing of $8 .00 per quarter for the first 500 cu. ft. Our use dotermination for all user classes remains the same as it was in 1983. Residential water meter usage for the winter quarter, January through March, shall be used for computation for cacti quarter for the cnLieo year. Commercial, institutional, and governmental shall be based upon the actual water meter usage for each of the quarters. Industrial shall also be based upon the actual water usage for each of the quarters and they will continue to use the three separate billings for flow, BOD, and total suspended solids based upon actual testing. I would like to point out that the Waste Water Treatment Facility is still in its early stages of operation. At this time, we only have six monthe of what we feel is accurate information on the loadings to Lilo Waste Water Treatment Plant. In addition, we hava approximately 4-5 months of accurate information on our major industrial user, Wrightco. A you may remember, the single point dischargo and monitoring equipment for Wrightco was inatallod in late summer of this year. The projections for 1904 ware based upon all available information at this time. We fool confident that they are correct. D. SUPPORTING DATA: copy of Sewer Rate Workahoot 1984. Copy of R000lution setting 1984 sewer user charges. - 10 - t SEWER RATE WORKSiI££T 1984 1. 1984 Budget for Operation 6 Maintenance. 1. Collection System S 30,610 12.99 Total 2. Plant 6 Lab $206,060 87.19 Total $236,670 TOTAL 3. Credits: 1984 Special Revenues S 13.450 1983 Excess User Revenue Over Operation K Mainten- ance. (estimated) $ 16,764 $ 30.234 4. User Fees: $236,670 0 6 M less 30,234 Credits $206,436 User Fees Rug. For 1984 A. Collection System 12.99 of $206,436 - $ 26,630.24 B. Plant b Lab 87.19 of $206,436 - $179,805.76 II. Unit coats 1. Flow . 1009 Col Sys. Cost t 409 Plant 6 Lab Costs: 1009 of $ 26,630.24 - $ 26,630.24 409 of $179,805.76 • $ 71,922.30 TOTAL FLOW COSTS $ 98,552.54 Estimated Billablu Flow for 1984 - 115 Million Gallons or 15,374,332 cu. ft. R Cost - $ 98,552.54 ' 153,743 - $0.641 per 100 cu. ft. 2. 001) e 309 Plaint s Lab Costa 309 of $179,805.76 - $ 53,941.73 1984 )stimated Total Pounds of B01) - 750,600 lbu. $ 53,941.73 750,600 lbs - $0.072/pound 3. TSS • 309 Plant 6 Lab Coots 309 of $179,805.76 e 6 53,941.73 1984 Estimated Total Pounds of Suupandcd Solids - 336,500 lbs. $ 53,941.73 -r 336,500 lbs. - $0.160/pound III. Industrial Loadings Estimate 1984 FLOW BOD TSS - J Wright Co 19.0 MG 250,000# 80,000# RSP 2.4 MG 3,000# 2,000# TOTALS 21.4 MG 253,000# 82,0000 Costs: 21.4 MG @ $.641/100 cu. ft. - $18,338.77 253,000 lbs @ $.072/pound a $18,216.00 62,000 lbs @ $.160/pound - $13,120.00 TOTAL. $49,674.77 1V. Residential, Commercial 6 Institutional Wadtngs Estimate for 1964 FLOW: Total Billable Flow All Users 115.0 MG Less Eat. Industrial Flow 21.4 MG - Res., Com, 6 Inst. Flow 93.6 MG 93.6 MG X $.641/100 cu. It. e $ 80,210.70 DOD: Total BOD a 750,600 lbs. Loss Est. Ind. BOD - 253,000 1 . Res., Cam., 6 Inst. BOD 497,600 lbs. u� 497,600 lba X $0.072 e $ 35,827.20 TSS: Total TSS 336,500 Lbs. Lees Eat. Ind. TSS 82,000 e Res., Com., 6 Inst. TSS 254,500 lbs. 254,500 lbs. % $0.160 $ 40,720.00 TOTAL RES., COM., G INST. COSTS: $156,757.90 RATE: $156,757.90 t 93.6 MG (Total Rom., Com., t Inst. Flow) or 125,133.7/100 cu, ft. - $1.25 per 100 cu. ft. RATE COMPARISON 1963 1984 Change Flow $0.680/100 cu.ft. $0.641/100 cu.ft. Down 5.7% DOD .133/pound 0.072/pound Down 45.9% TSS .183/pound 0.160/pound Down 12.6% Combined Rate Ras., Com., 6 Inst.$1.28/100 cu.ft. $1.25/100 cu. ft. Down 2.3% Resolution 1984 #1 Re5OIULion ESLablishing 1984 Sever User Charges WHEREAS, user charges to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the sever collection system and the sever treatment facility are to be established annually based upon the adopted budget for said operations and maintenance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE COU14CIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO that the following rates be and the same are hereby adopted for sewer use for budyuL year 1984: Residential: Water meter usage for winter quarter January to March shall be used for computation. Billing as follows: First 0 - 500 cubic feet - $8.00 minimum billing - per quarter. Over 500 cubic feet a $1.25 per 100 cubic feel or portion thercot per quarter. Commercial, Institutional, (overnmental Actual water meter usage or measured flow for each quarter shall be used .p. for computation. Billing as follows: First 0 - 500 cubic feet - $6.00 minimum billing - po:r quarter. Over 500 cubic feet - $1.25 per 100 cubic feet or portion thereof - per quarter. Industrial: Flow $0.641/1.00 cubic feet BOD $0.072/pound TSS $0.160/pound Adopted this 9th day of January, 1984. ATTEST i Thomas A. Eldom City Administrator Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor c� Council Agenda - 1/9/84 'y 8. Consideration of Enterinq an Agreement with Wright County for County State Aid Hiqhway Maintenance. W .S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City of Monticello has in past years been under contract with the County for minor maintenance, snow plowing and sanding on various County State aid roads within the City of Monticello. The City, however, has not had a formal contract with the County since 1978. Attempts were made in late 1981 and the beginning of 1982 to make a new formal maintenance agreement between the City and the County. This, however, did not take place due to the changing of the guard, su to speak, with the leaving of Gary PJicber as City Administrator and the leaving of Larry Koenig as Wright County Engineer. We recently mat with the Wright County Highway Engineer, Mr. Wayne Fingalson, and formulated a new maintenance agreement, a copy of which is included for your review. The contract includes approximately 4 3/4 miles of two-lane roadway within the city limits of Monticello. It does not include Oakwood Drive located west of Highway 25. This particular County street is not a County State aid highway and will be included in a separate maintenance agreement. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The alternative to the City performing the work outlined in the maintenance agreement is to request that the County perform such work. it does not appear to be practical to have the County re- sponsibla for snow and ice removal on short patches of streets within town or the main downtown area. C. STAFF RECOKKENDATIO13: It is recommended that the Council approve the 1984 maintenance agree- ment with the Wright County Department of Highways. The 1983 average cost par mile for this maintenance will be determined by the County and paid in December of 1984. D. SUPPORTING DATA. uotter from Wright County Department of liighwayot 1984 maintenance agreomenti Map of streets or highways affected. M WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Wright County Public Works Building Route No. 1 • Box 97•B Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Jcf. T. M. 25 and C. R. 138 WATNE A. FINGALSON, P.E. Telephone (612) 682.3900 COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER December 23, 1983 To: Mr. Thomas A. Eidem, City Administrator From: Wayne A. Fingalsun, Wright County Engineer Subject: Maintenance Agreement Cor County State, Aid Highways Under separate cover you will be. receiving a check in the amount of $5,402.60 which represents the 1981 maintenance, expenditure reimbursement for work done by city maintenance forces on our County State Aid Highway System. According to our files we have not had a formal maintenance. ngreement between your city and Ilright County since. 1978. 1 would like to institute this process again, ` starting in 1984. I believe it is highly desirable. to have the mnintennnce duties (ICS clearly defined for both parties. For those reasons, t am enclosing two (2) copies of a maintenance agreement, which spells out the division of maintenance duties and sets forth the method and schedule of payment to which the city is entitled. If the agreement meets your satisfaction, I would ask that it he adopted by the city. The two copies of the agreement should be, returned to my office, for approval by tlir. County Board. An executed copy will then be returned for your files. t If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Ilnppy Ilolidayel cc: Richard Normnn, Executive Secretary to Wright County Board WAF:kmb 0 1984 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Albnticollo 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 street@ within the City as County State Aid Highways, and WHEREAS, the City has concurred in the designation of the County State Aid Highways 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. A. CSAH 39 - From City Public Works Bldg to W. Jet of CSAH 75 0.32 miles B. CSAR 58 - From TH 25 to CSAH 75 0.465 miles C. CSAR 59 - From Walnut Street to CSAH 75 0.234 miles D. CSAH 75 - From Willow Street to E. Jet of CSAH 39 3.74 -miles (Includes four lane portion) TOTAL 4.759 miles That the routine maintenance shall consist of the following for the above listed sections. A. (CSAR 39) - 252 of the snow and ice removal B.6 C. (CSAR 58&59) - Patching, crack -sealing, drainage maintenance, and snow and ice removal. D. (CSAH 75) - Snow and ice removal That when the City deems it desirable to remove snow by hauling, it shall do• so at its own expense. That the County will be responsible for all other maintenance. That in December of 1984 , the City shell receive payment from the County for their work. ibis amount shall be based on the 1983 average annual cost per mile for routine maintenance.on Muncipal 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 i 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 r City Clerk A. APPROVED AND ACCEPTLD: COUNTY OF Name of City Chairman of the board ATTEST: ay.. Fxerutiv SrrrPtary �� IeLLQOrL CV. [,wow .2 I euxxto QP. *,c9xrr*cdl. S. 9AJOTUD 00. MAP OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNT Y POP.3111 scole I*r,,.J,) Q .5b D s. Vail, 94 qw Council Agenda - 1/9/84 9. Consideration of Proposal to Purchase a Welder. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: We have become increasingly aware that a new welder is needed at the Public Works shop. The small AC utility welder was purchased several years ago for minor maintenance tasks. We have felt the need for a larger commercial type welder for some time. The existing welder limits the quality of welds, especially overhead welding. It also limits the type of welding electrodes we can use. In addition, the heavy use at times over the past few years has created problems with the machine. Current draw has increased while current output has diminished. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The alternatives are: 1. To do only the light welding here and transport any heavy welding to the Waste Water Treatment Plant when they have room. 2. Sub out some of the welding. 3. Purchase a commercial AC/DC welder and perform our own wolding ~ in the Public works building. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that we purchase a now commercial AC/DC welder as outlined in alternative No. 3, in preparation for this purchase, we placed $925 in the 1984 Bud got. Encl000d you will find a specification shoot which I used to obtain quoteo. The following are the quotas: Brand Name Model Supplier Coat Miller Dial Arc 250 Central McGowan $905.25 St. Cloud h Hollact Tr 250 Hobart Inc. $851.30 Minneapolis Lincoln Ideal Arc 250 Central McGowan $806.90 St. Cloud no City staff hoo a preference for the Millar machine as this is identical to tho Waste Water Treatment Plant weldor except for primary operating voltagoo. This machine at th o waste Water Treatment plant has been used oxtensivoly throughout ito range and works excellently. r D. SUPPORTING DATA: Specification shoot. - 12 - WELDER SPECIFICATIONS for The City of Monticello Public Works Department Portable Welder: Provide one (1) portable welder conforming to the following specifications: A. Welder shall be 250 ampere combination AC/DC, with electrical control. B. Unit shall be 230 volt, single phase. C. Welder shall have a dual duty cycle rating of 250 amperes, 30 volts at 301, or 200 amperes, 28 volts at 501. D. The unit shall include a high -low range selector switch for high or low AC or DC current. E. Open circuit voltages shall be 75 AC and 76 DC. _ F. Provide G feet of primary cable including all required connectors for standard 3 prong outlet. G. Provide 25 feet each of Nl lead and ground cable with 250 amp. insulated electrode holder, a 300 amp. ground clamp. II. Welder cart shall ride on four B" diameter rubber tires and be provided with a heavy duty towing handle.