Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 01-23-1984AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 23, 1984 - 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 Regular Meeting Hold on January 9, 1984. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Public Hearings 4. Public Hearing - Revocation of Oakwood Drive by Wright County. 5. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone from R-1 to B-3, Applicant - City of Monticello. Old Business 6. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Called Par West, Applicant - John Sandberg. 7. Consideration of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Prepared for Meadow Oak Subdivision. Now Business 8. Consideration of Renewing Piro Department Mutual Aid Agreomente with Various Communities. 9. Consideration of Renewing the Contract with OSM. 10. One Year Review for Conditional Use Permit and &'Variance Permit - Dr. Clarence McCarty. 11. Consideration of an Amendment to our Sanitary Bower Discharge Control Ordinance, Title 14. 12. Consideration of an Amendment to the Ordinance Regulating Transient Merchants. 13. Department Head Reports. 14. Consideration of January Bills. 15. Adjournment. MINUTES L REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL January 9, 1984 - 7e30 P.M. Members Present: Arve A. GrimamO, Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held December 12, 1983, and the special meeting held Dacemt�er 1l, 1983. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions. Requests and Complaints. Barb Hallmanappeared before the Council to present a resolution requesting City support for the Monticello Handicapped Awareness Week activities scheduled for January 30 through February 5, 1984. r Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution supporting Monticallo Handicapped Awareness Week. 4. Consideration of Authorizing OSM to be Enoineer on Reconstruction Project for County Hiqhway 75. Racantly, the City of Monticello requested that the Wright County Board consider upgrading County Road 75/39 through Monticello. The Wright County Board ties finally been receptive to this project and has placed funds into the 1984 County Budget for this improvement project. As part of the project, the City of Monticello would be responsible for 30• of the improvement cost with the County picking up the balance of 70%. As part of the project, the County Engineer has indicated that they would like to see the shoulders on County Road 75 (Broadway) be paved on the west edge of Monticello from approximately Chestnut Street to Otter Creek Road near Pinewood Elementary Gchool. Also, the County is quite determined to have the shoulders paved from the high school oast to County Road 39. The City has indicated in a letter to the County Engineer a favorable response to paving of the shoulders on tees watt sedge of town from Chestnut Street to Otter Creek Road, but the City feels the paving of the east portion of Broadway shoulders from the high school to County Road 39 should be Council Minutes - 1/9/84 more of a responsibility of the County rather than a benefit to the City directly. The County would like to see the City pick up its normal share of 30% of the paving project for the shoulders, whereas the City Council feels a smaller percentage for the east edge of the City may be appropriate. One of the primary reasons why the City fools the benefit is not as great on the east end of the City is that there are only a few driveways off of County Road 75 between the high school and County Road 39 and the County's interest in paving the shoulders is more for the purpose of reducing their future maintenance cost. it was the consensus of the Council that the City would not object to the shoulders from the high school to County Road 39 being paved but would not be in favor of sharing in the cost at the 30% rate. As part of the improvement project, the County will reimburse the City 51 of the project cost for preparation of plans and specifications d an additional St cf is cenctr cticr. cc _ for ircpecticn, etc., if the City so desires to use its own consulting engineer for pre- paring the plans, etc. Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize the City Consulting Engineer to prepare a feasibility report on the improvements to County Road 75 from Chestnut Street to the Monticello Nigh School and including the paving of the shoulders on the west edge of the City from Chestnut Street to Otter Croak Road providing the public works Director informs the County Board that the City is interested in only partici- pating at the 30% rate on the shoulders on the west edge of the City and providing that the County acknowledges that this is the City's scope of the project and accepts responsibility for the cost of paving the shoulders on the east edge of Monticello. 71io feasibility report would not be started by the City's Consulting Engineer until the County Board responds to the City's scope of the project. 5. Consideration of proposal by First National Bank of Monticello to Create a Shared Drive with the Monticello Library. Cecil Pagotchnik, President of the First National Bank of Lakeville, was present at the Council mooting to inquire of the City Council as to whether or not the City would be amenable to allowing development of a shared driveway along the south line of the City's Library property abutting the railroad right-of-way. The future First National Bank of Monticello is being proposed for the property directly east of the present Public Library,and their proposed site plan has an entry and an exit on Fourth Street, but they also hope to develop an exit out onto Walnut Street. In discussing the shared driveway concept, some concerns were ex- pressed by the Council regarding the increased traffic flow that would occur adjacent to the Public Library's parking lot# and dis- cussion also concwrnsd such items as tree removals, hydr,u,L 1wlCA atiulir, Council Minutes - 1/9/84 storm sewer relocations that would result if a shared driveway was installed. Mr. Pagotchnik felt that a shared driveway concept would be beneficial to the City, as they would propose to develop 12 additional parking spaces directly cast of the Library to compensate for the lost spaceu that would be taken from the City's current parking lot for the Library. in addition, if the City ever expanded its present Library, they would have more land available to the ca -.t. Although there are many items that would have to be reviewed and discussed with the Library Board, Planning Commission, and City Council, a motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to consider the request by the First National Bank for a shared driveway concept and to authorize that the concept be researched by the appropriate personnel and consultanto and presented to all the Boards Involved before a decision would La —J. . 6. Annual Appointments. Minnesota Statutes require that at Lho first meeting of each new year, certain appointments be made by the City Council. Appointments necessary include City Depositories, official Newspaper, Health Officer , Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members, and other cowitteas such as Parking Committee, Planning Commission Members, Acting Mayor, City Attorney, Consulting Planner, Conbulting Engineer, and Library Board Members. After reviewing the particular offices and official appointment list, nation was made by Maxwell, se, -coded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to adopt the 1984 municipal appointments per the attached list. See L•'xhibit• 01. 7. Conldoration of Reculution Scttinq 1984 Sewer Usor Char,ren. As part of the. Sewer User Ordinance, which took effect January 1, 1983, the City is reyuirtd to determine sewer rates for the upcaming year bu that uscru will pay pruportionately and fairly for the operation and maintenance of the wastewater Treatment Facility and the sewer eolltction sybtrm. Based on the 1984 operating Ludgut for these facilities, Public works Uirector Juhn siva0la prepared a rate schedule for sewer user c hargos for the year 1984 which results in a small decrease in the sewer rates from 1901. The combined rate for residential, commercial, and institutional facilities decreased approximately 2.3% to 71.25 per 100 cubic feat of flow. Industrial users also are charged for their contribution consisting of DOD's and suspended solids in addition to a flow rate per 100 cubic feet. The industrial charge also allows a decrease for each category in 1904. �Io Council Minutes - 1/9/84 Motion wau made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution 1984 #1 establishing the 1984 sewer user charges as follows: Industrial Flow $0.641/100 cubic feet BOD $0.072/pound TSS $0.160/pound Residential $8.00 minimum billing per quarter for the first 500 cubic feet and $1.25 per 100 cubic feet or portion thereof over 500 cubic feet per quarter. See Resolution 1984 41. 8. Consideration of Entering an Agreement with Wright Countv for County State Aid Highway Maintenance. City of Monticello has in the past years been under a contract with the County for minor maintenance, snow plowing and sanding on various County State Aid Roads within the City of Monticello. A new County State Aid Highway Maintenance Agreement with Wright County has been prepared which includes approximately 4.759 miles of County State Aid Roads within Monticello that the City does minor maintenance on. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried LO enter into an agreement with the Wright County Highway Department for maintenance on County State Aid Highways within the City of Monticello. Seo Exhibit 12 - 84 Maintenance Agreement. 9. Consideration of proposal to Purchase a Welder. Public works Director John Sisals reviewed with the Council hi■ request to purchase a new AC/DC 250 amp welder for the Maintenance Building facility. The City has currently a small AC utility welder for minor maintenance tasks, and it was recomanded by the Public Works Director that a larger commercial type welder be purchased ao the City crew can do more extensive welding. Quote■ were obtained on three different brands with the cost ranging from $806.90 to $905.25 for a 250 &mp commercial welder. it was recommended by the Public Works Director that a Miller Dial Arc 250 welder for $905.25 be purchased, as it is identical to a welder the City already owns at the wastewater Treatment Plant. - 4 - (a . J Council Minutes - 1/9/84 Councilman Blonigen expressed concerns over the size of the L welder the Public Works Director was proposing, as he felt that the City crew would not be satisfied with th- 250 amp welder but should possibly consider a larger welder. After considerable discission by the Council, it was the consensus that the Public Works Director request the supplier to demonstrate both the 250 amp welder and a 300 amp welder in an effort to determine which model would be more suitable for the City' -s needs. After Councilman Blonigen and Public Works Director Simola have a chance to observe the demonstration of both models, a determination could be made as to which model should be purchased at that time. 10. Miseellanous Itcros. Joint Meeting of NRA and City Council. A joint meeting with the HRA and the City Council was scheduled for 600 P.M. before the next regular Council meeting scheduled for January 23, 1984. Doq Pound Discussion. City Administrator Tom Eidem reviewed with the Council some r proposed changes the City staff and public Works Department aro proposing for the City's Dog Pound Facility. S=o recommended changes including a general clean up of the pound and also numerous maintenance improvements along with additional food storage and shelving was estimated at approximately $1,200 cost. Mr. F,idcm noted that if the City plans to continuo its dog control program and the use of the pound, these recommended changes should be instituted as soon as possible. Rick Wolfaterler Assistant Administrator 5 0 Council Minutes - 1/9/84 Exhibit I MUNICIPAL APPOINTMENTS - 1984 Office 1983 Appointments L+t_r` Depositories Wright County State Bank Reappointed Security Federal Reappointed First Bank of Minneapolis Reappointed Newspaper Monticello Times Reappointed HRA Phil White Gary Wieber Jack Reeve To be determined Don Cochran N/A Vic Vokaty N/A Bud Schrupp N/A Health Officer Dr. Don Maus Reappointed OAA Rep. Arve 6rimsmo Reappointed Community Ed. Rep. Fran Fair Reappointed Acting Mayor Ken Maus Reappointed Joint Fire Board Itick Wolfstellor Reappointed Planning Commission Jim Ridgeway Roappointed Joyce Dowling Reappointed Richard Carlson Reappointed Don Cochran Rodppointed Ed Schaffer Reappointed City Attorney Gary Pringle Reappointed City Planner Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates Reappointed City Engineer OSM Postpone to 1/23 City Auditor Gruya Johnson To be determined Downtown Parking Bud Schrupp Reappointed Lloyd Lund Reappointed John Poirior Reappointed Marn Flicker Reappointed Donnie Seitz Reappointed Library Board Loren Klein Marguerite Pringle Warren Smith N/A Joel Erickoon N/A Dr. Don Maus N/A Ff Pat Schwarz N/A Council Agenda - 1/23/84 4. Public Hearing - Revocation of Oakwood Drive by Wrioht County. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND With the construction of I-94 in the early 70's, the Township Road coming into the southwestern portion of Monticello along Elm Street was severed at the highway right-of-way. The State of Minnesota then constructed a bypass or service road from this southside of I-94 and Township Road easterly to Highway 25. This street later became known as Oakwood Drive. It is my understanding that the State of Minnesota released the maintenance of this 22 foot roadway to the Township. Monticello Township maintained this stretch of road until September of 1974, at which time a portion of this road from Gould Chevrolet to Highway 25 was annexed into the City. At that time the Public Works personnel were informed that the Township personnel would no longer maintain the road such as patching cracks, sealing, mowing, or snow dnd ice rcmuval. Tiic City, tiwruiutu, L-ym, maintenance in the fall in 1974. Tile State of Minnesota released ownership of this street called Oakwood Drive to Wright County on October 31, 1975, through State Release No. 148. As far as 1 have been able to determine, no one with the City was aware that the ownership of this road had been turned over to the County. We were all under the impression that the road was turned over to us by Lila Township in Septumber of 1974. Since that time in 1974 we have performed snow and ice removal on this one-third mile section of road through nine winters. In addition, we have performed shoulder work, patching, and crack sealing, as well as mowing embankments numerous times. In the summer of 1983, we over- layed this stretch of road with 2 inches of bituminous material, which included approximately 600 lineal foot of fabric reinforcement. out catimated total cost for all of these maintenance items since September of 1974 would add up to approximately 516,000 to $17,000. The first Lima the City was informed of the ownership of this stretch of road was during a meeting with Lila Miruicsota Highway Department in the fall of 1983. During that meeting, costs were discussed for the upcoming improvement project on Highway 25. The Minnesota Highway Department representative informed us that the intersection of Highway 25 and Oakwood Drive would he funded entirely between Lha State of Minnesota and Wright County in that the State owned 50% of the connecting roadways and the County owned the other 50%. I asked Lire representative Cram MN/D01' if he could verify any of this information as for as County ownership on Lila wont aide of Highway 25. 1 received a letter from Mr. James waingartz on August 5, 1903, indicating the date when Lha ownership of this roadway was transferred to Wright County. fliC Council Agenda - 1/23/84 In the fall of 1983 1 contacted Mr. Wayne Fingalson, the Wright County Highway Engineer, and discussed this roadway with him and the upcoming project. Ile had indicated that it was the County's intention to turn back several roads which did not interconnect other County highways back to the townships and municipalities in which they lie. He informed me that they intended to do this in early 1984. 1 informed Mr. Fingalson that at the present time this roadway was only a liability to the City of Monticello and that certainly the significant cost that we would have to incur during the upgrading of Highway 25 would not be looked upon favorably by the City. Mr. Fingalson informed me that it had been the County's intention to turn over this stretch of roadway along with the property for the commuter parking lot and that the Wright County Attorney had more or less dropped the ball on seeing this transfer of ownership through. As you may remember, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, in an effort to establish park and ride lots throughout the State of Minnesota, offered us this property and a $6,000 incentive grant to establish a commuter parking lot at the location. The City accepted the $6,000 and the property and spent approximately another $30,000 on top of this and established a needed and well -used commuter parking lot facility. At this time the State of Minnesota informed us that the ownership could not be transferred directly to the City, that they would, indeed, turn it over to the County, and the County would release the Commuter lot property to us. When this transfer was to be made from the County to the City of Monticello, it came before the members of the County Board in 1981. The County saw fit to include a covenant along with the tranufor of ownership. That covenant states that if the City ceases operation of a commuter parking lot on that property, the ownership of that property then reverts back to the County. This covenant was placed upon the property solely by the County without the State of Minnesota's knowledge. Since that time, the dead has never been recorded or transferred, nor has the covenant been recorded since the County Attorney has not completed action on the transfer. I discussed this covenant with Mr. Wayne Fingalson. I informed him that the City would look more favorable upon accepting the ownership of Oakwood Drive if the covenant on the commuter lot property could be removed. Tile City does not wish to be tied into such a covenant, as in years to come this may or may not be the appropriate place for a commuter parking lot facility. Certainly the funds which the City has already expanded on the lot indicate that wu wish to keep it as such a facility for quite some times. Mr. Fingalson indicated that ho may have Dome information for us au to the release of this covenant at the January 23 public hearing. - 2 - Council Agenda - 1/23/84 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: As far as alternatives to the transfer of ownership of Oakwood Drive, I know of none at this time. I believe the County has the right to turn the street over to the City as long as it conforms to standards for County roads which currently exist. We may have same input from the City Attorney prior to this meeting regarding our rights as far as the expenditures which the City has put forth in maintaining this road over the years. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Since it appears that the City cannot block the transfer of ownership of this road, it is recommended that we attempt to have the covenant on the commuter parking lot released prior to the actual transfer c' ..., o real a..l li,ai we enter an agreement with the County to be paid for all maintenance on this road until such time that the covenants are released and that the deeds are officially recorded. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Lotter from Jim Woingartz, State of Minnesota, dated August 5, 1983; Copy of the December 14, 1983, letter from Wayne Fingalson including County Statute 163.11, Subdivision 5. MIC 'sNNESoT4 gP,16 Minnesota Department of Transportation titi 4r ��q Disvitt 3 IM TVO 301 Lam el St.. Bo .92 978 Naineld. Minnesota 56401 August 5, 1983 Mr. John Simola Public Works Director 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 In reply refer to: C.S. 8380 (I-94) Ownership of Park & Ride Lot And Adjacent Street Dear Mr. Simols: (2 18) 828.2460 As you requested, attached are portions of the Mn/DOT right of way map in the vicinity of the above mentioned area. Mn/DOT officially turned back the road in 1975 and gave a Quick Claim Deed to Wright County in 1981. If you have any questions feel free to contact tee. Sincerely. l�/A��+ James Weingart , E. District Preliminary Design Engineer Enclosure: K/W Map JW/ rj n I(.nW ...... WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS WrightCounty Public Works Building Route No. 1 - Box 97•B Bulla lo, Minnesota 55313 Jct. 7.H. 25 and C. R. 138 Telephone (612) 682-3900 December 14, 1983 To: City of Monticello From: Wayne A. Fingalson Wright County Engineer Re: County Road Revocations WAY NE A. FINGAL SON, V, E. COUNTY MIGNWAY EMGINEEA As you may already know the Wright County Board, on November 29, 1983, authorized the Wright County Highway Department to proceed with the revocation hearings for various roads throughout the County. Many of these roads were affected by new alignments and have continued to be maintained by County maintenance personnel. it is the general feeling of Wright County that these roads would be more appronriately maintained by either the township or the city in which they are located. Your township or city will be involved in the upcoming revocation hearings. we have enclosed a schedule that lists the meeting dates. We have also enclosed for your information, a copy of the Minnesota State statute which addresses the road revocation process. You will be notified by certified mail not less than 30 days prior to your respective hearing. If you have any questions please contact eit her Dave Montebello, Project Engineer, of my staff, or myself. Enclosures: Schedule of Meetincg Dates Copy of Minnesota Statute cc: Richard Norman, Executive Sec. to Board County Commissioners WAF:kmb 1 / TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR REVOCATION HEARINGS DATE 1-17-83 1-23-83 1-24-83 2-6-83 2-7-83 2-13-83 2-27-83 3-5-83 4-2-83 4-10-83 4-16-83 DAY Tuesday Monday Tuesday Monday Tuesday Monday Monday Monday Monday Tuesday Monday MEETINC LOCATION Monticello Twp. City of Monticello Rockford Township City of Clearwater French Lake Township Cokato Township Marysville Township City of Albertville Woodland Township Middleville Township City of Hanover SUBJECT ROAD Road So of I-44 Road So of Commuter Lot Parkway 46 Platted Street Old CSAH 03 (also affecting Southside Twp) Cokato Lake Access Road Old CSAH 8 Old CSAH 9 Old CSAH 37 Old CSAH 8 Parkway 03 Parkway fi5 3775 Ct It1NIV 111GIts1 A 1, 1163.11 e 117`, tiuhd ? t'unt -nis of rrsalutiun, 1 -he resolution shall contain a description the highway- In the c.,se of a newly established highway or the alteration til a n! fFhv - the Iesalutton shall also contain a description of the several tracts of land through which ilii highway passe, the names of all persons known by the .I aw ^ounly may' adopt a I, Inc the owners and o,cupants of each tract, and a description of the her! killed or unskilled, bn'Ircf it a, needed Shcrchn from each tract and the interest or estate r,Fht of way', m' ,n worn the construction or ,hr re in In be acquucd. file payment of claims of Suhd_ 3. I,ands or properties mar he acquired under provisions or chapter vagons, plows, scrapers, or ' 117. All lands or properties needed for the establishment or alteration of a the highways. The pa tal paynal highway may be acquired by purchase, gill. or eminent domain proceed- Is Is as the slate auditor with enunty togs as provided in chapter 117 and ons amendatory thereto, claimant together iubd 4. vacation. When a newly rstaldlshcd, relocated, or altered county highvs'a)' 1� np�crlyd for travel which takes the place of and serves the same pur- rd b}' SfG county engineer ,M ,p any portion of another count}' highway'. The county retard may vacate only board. It shall be cc,. p such portion of ilii other hi hN'8 h resolution. The board shall cause per g y y id correct and shall he pia tiny service of the revolution to be made upon each occupant of Land through r shall thereupon be lawful molal the vacated portions passed and shall also post notice of the resolution for e claims set forth in the which least ten days, A copy of the resolution together with proof of service and aid. Upon presentation to at o;(idavil of posting shall he filed in the county auditor's office. Within 30 days issue to the several claim- ,tree the service, any prison claiming to he damaged by the vacation may appeal system of their tespedi In the district court of the enemy for a determination of his damages by serving police of the appeal upon the county board and filing same with proof of service in the office of the creek of the drsmct court. 1 h appeal shall state the nature and the amount of damages claimed. It shall be tried in the saint manner as an I appeal from an award in eminent domain proceedings. Solid S Relocation and resersiun. The eoumv hoard, by resolution, may tis state now or hereafter rcvnke any counts hlphwav The hiahw•av shall thrreuram revett to the town in mard may provide that all wbaCtO_IU3 b+caecaroost ria� that am such revoked Ju hwav or portion thereof ced by such county In any lyypg %chin the corpolaic 1111111', of ally e,t_shall become a,5jree of su cu}- trenance of roads therein. Roads or streeu or any portion thereof to revoked and turned over to the town is, trucks, teams, wagons, of city may"Tic vat,,IkSh"T1hc lawn ur csry In Inc sante manner :1\ omit town umance of the work, may mads or civ soeels are vacared.-TFihe vacation occurs within line year after the rescleaI on Ely ilii coum�ages uccusioned by the vacation shall be paid by Is c shall transmit daily . the eel out of its road and bridge fund. No award of damages shall he made ach person working under by the town or city for such vacation without the concurrence of the county ,r kind of work perfornsed ; board, and no action brought to recover damages for the vacation shall be set. dis of without the consent of the county board. The -m these cards the county c' tled or otherwise c •m as may be approved by county board may de cid any action brought to recover damages for the vaca- tion in the same manner and to the some extent as in a proceeding to vacate a ,ayrotls shall thin be per county highway. ice. On the allowance ofis Suhd. Sa. Hearings on certain r[verdons. Before adotinga resolution forthwith issue to the sev- revokmss a county _hi b that would revert in whole or—in part to a town, iiia coun))'_Lar�l rants in payment of their shall fes a ale, lime an pin of hearing m the town where the lj3Shway is lncairA_ toga+n+der she fevorntinn. Not les} than tU da before Illi bra rigg-yjlg�or t oud,,shatl, se ve punct of the h[armg"hlVicertiifi m� aloe each tnembtt�!_the tvwAl td p see rytinra. AT tfie fs�earsng t she inwni�icord and all interested persons shall he entitled to be heard and express Their views HON, REVOCATION. on the proposed revrmon of the highway h, the town Aftet the hear Itg the y he established, altered, a count; bnaid may adopt a resolution revoking the ht h..2X. The resoTTinn revoknlp thr higiiwal shall nut lit effect�e until i >i tt unty has un�pTcrtd old Any politic highway mnpal slate -aid repairs m inlpuncrnrms on the Ti hwuv t at ore ne'ccassryy tri mecI-Mc county street, or uandardTs fur n i'ionp taa Te road Tnih_emuni iii TiTi pipe Giwn ,b iiscaTecT' mry highway by resolution Subd 6 Prior aess confirmed, Any print Doum taken by any county board revoking any usumy luphway and turning over stub highway to tiny township as e town road is here y Ictopmred and conhoned, NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING The Wright County Board of Commissioners will be holding a special meeting at the Monticello City Hall on January 23, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of receiving testimony concerning the Board's proposed revocation of a portion of Oakwood Drive between the West City Limits of Monticello and T11 25. If this portion of Oakwood Drive is reovked by the Board, this portion will revert to the City of Monticello. Additional information can be obtained from the Wright County Highway Department located in the Pulbic Works Building at Buffalo, Minnesota, 55313. Telephone (612) 682-3900, ext 181. Wayne A. Fingalson County Highway Engineer Wright County, Minnesota v !r_ .� Nes+ ' 1 o Mq LTO► pN +\ C' MAP OF ,s �\ MONTICELLO NCNN[TN WRIGHT COUNTY Oro Scale • Vel oy F ,+�� _ 25 cloy [ovate a O .N.NW. LLs. aD �I,II+r �/ 7 `r t.ta Nofaao CL, I 9t 04logo LRirl'Ar y ,� A►...• 0.10 in; / ar TNOY•t .... Council Agenda - 1/23/84 5. Public Hearinq - Rezonina Request to Rezone from R-1 to B-3, Apolicant - City of Monticello. (G. A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The applicant on behalf of the City of Monticello is requesting to rezone from R-1 to B-3 the part of the East S of the Northeast 14 Section 10. On the enclosed map you will see an area which we are possibly looking at to rezone from R-1 to B-3. The initial action stems from a request from Mr. Marvin Scherer to build a storage building on his lot currently located next to the Bridgewater Telephone Company. Through previous Planning Commission and City Council action, Mr. Scherer's request was denied. At the City Council meeting the Council requested that we go through a public hearing to rezone a portion of the Northeast i. The following questions should be answered when an applicant would like to rezone a portion of land within the City. The questions are as follows: 1. Has there been any change in the development policies of the community? 2. Has there been any change in the conditions in the community such as rapid population or development change? 3. Was there a mistake made in the development of the original zoning ordinance which needs to be corrected? 4. Is the zoning ordinance up to date? 5. Does the proposed amendment conform to the Comprehensive Development Plan? G. Is their proposed use compatible with the adjacent land uses? 7. Is the proposed amendment of the land use likely to lead to a monopoly situation so as to amount to s spot zoning? B. What is tho effect of the proposed rezoning on such public utilities as sanitary sewers, water, roads, schools? 9. Will the proposed do volopment place an undue financial burdan on the local community? We should look at these nine questions before rendering a decision. In looking at the map you will notice that currently in the area proposed we do have City utility buildings, NSP building, and also tho Bridgewater Telephone cold storage building. Those utility buildings aro allowed in any zona in the City. in lookiny at tho - 4 - Council Agenda - 1/23/84 area to be rezoned, it does lend toward a possibility of Mr. Scherer's property going to commercial such as a convenience store and/or gas station as a possible commercial use for the commercial business in the application. However, due to the general traffic on the road being predominately residential, not much truck traffic, and the close proximity to an existing grocery store or stores and gas stations, the likelihood of this is not very possible. In looking at the current R-1 zoning, we look at the corner by the railroad tracks and going south we have tnree residential houses, Griefnow Sheet Metal Shop, which could be converted to a residential house, two vacant lots, and then Mr. Scherer's property. In going southeast you will notice that we have three existing homes. The predominate neighborhood there is residential. There in nothing to stop Mr. Bruce Wachter from continuing with his residential spec home development in developing the two vacant lots which remain on his property. We do, however, have one big shop building currently owned by Mr. Chuck Stumpf for which he got a variance to build this shop building in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. Ile, therefore, did have an existing home on his property, which was his principal use. Mr. Scherer just has vacant land. It looks like the predominate characteristic of the area is R-1 zoning. We indicated to Mr. Scherer a willingness to assist him with development of his land for residential use. Mr. Scherer ( indicated a willingness to look at the possibility of R-1 residential development. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the rezoning request. from R-1 to B-3. 2. Deny the rezoning request to rezone from R-1 to B-3. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City staff goes along with the Planning Commission recommendation that we deny the rezoning request from R-1 to B-3 zoning. D. SUPPORTING DAM Map of the proposed area to be rezonodj Copy of the map depicting the location of the property. _5. •� •���: :. �� A • :"-. � • - / j f g - � � 111 21 ��� IIf .'l !f f,T•.�df."�ti/l'f'. �•�/' � � � L l� L/' ---.—I _ i- / �:•:��{T "_1 �t�' if O Request to Rezone from Jt'7L"hw Lr-M '�"y:; R-1 to B-7 - City Of �; s ISA iN �.��.�i.►1Yj %4w Monticello ..r y 1 4,17e Tia,, �-' / t\ 1-1 Council Agenda - 1/23/84 6. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Called Par West, Applicant - John Sandberg. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, on Tuesday, January 10, 1984, recommended the approval of the preliminary plat called Par West. Their motion contained that the park dedication requirement be made in a cash donation. As of this date, the park dedication is the only point of contention throughout the entire plat. Briefly, the sequence of events goes something like this. Several months ago Mr. Sandberg presented a concept plan for a subdivision on this parcel. The concept was approved, and he proceeded into the preliminary plat dc6'q,n .gage. first preliminary plat that he presented had multiple dwelling zoning at opposite corners of the plat with single family housing intermixed between the two. There were several concerns that this might develop into spot zoning as well as create a traffic glut on Prairie Road. The preliminary plat was sent back to be further reviewed. At that point, Bob Roh lin, John Sandberg, Cary Anderson, and I met to go over the various possibilities. Initially, we looked at the possibility of zoning the entire parcel R-2, which would then allow townhouses as Conditional Uses. Town- houses along the golf course were of prime importance to Mr. Sandberg. Also, from the very beginning I indicated that staff would be stead- fastly opposed to accepting more power line easement as city park. I explained that we would very likely request the 10% of the cash value no that we could start developing existing park rather than taking more undeveloped land and putting us further behind in our park development. Based on our discussion that afternoon, Mr. Sandberg and Mr. Rohlin submitted a now sketch plan and preliminary plat that addressed the zoning questions and incorporated the comments made by our consultants during the first review. The application at this stage is officially a two-part application: 1) It is an application for a subdivision. 2) It also contains applications for Conditional Unca for up to 40 townhouse units within the H-2 Zone-. The entire, subdivision as it is presented is a combination of R-2 and 11-1 as is shown on the plat map itself. The proposal as it currently stands was accepted by ilia Planning Commission and recommended to tho Council for approval. This brings us to thea conflict concerning Lila park land. After considarablo discuuoion, the Planning Commission accepted Lha staff rocomendation that the City be given cash in lieu of Lila park dedication. Thoroin lies the conflict. The ordinance requires that 10% of the markot value be paid in cash. Mr. Sandberg contends that a market value is that value which is on the County hooka. My contention is that the land in worth considerably more. Mr. Sandberg would still vary much prefer to dedicate Lilo unuaablo land to the City rather than pay any amount in cash, and I auspoCt that John will again maka his entreaty that Lha Council overrule the Planning Commiusiun and accupl Llnu puwur lino land as Lhu Park dudicaLius Council Agenda - 1/23/84 requirement thereby eliminating the cash contribution. If John does make his plea, then I am requesting at this time to be given the floor when he is done to state a rebuttal to his position. In the event that the dedication of land is rejected outright, we then come down to the need to determine the cash amount. The Subdivision Ordinance stipulates that the developer will provide an appraisal. If that appraisal seems unsatisfactory, then the Council may order an independent appraisal. John has indicated that he is officially using the County Assessor's valuation, which is approximately $38,000.00, as his appraisal for determining park dedication cash requirement. It is my contention that the fair market value would be substantially higher than that amount. John has indicated what he paid for the property, and it is sub- stantially higher. He told us that he paid $115,000.00 for the entire parcel. On Friday, the 13th, John and 1 talked at length over the phone about this issue. He requested that 1 compromise and perhaps meet him halfway between the $3,800 and the $11,500 park contribution. After an hour -and -a -half on the phone, the net result was that I really saw no reason to compromise on the Ordinance. His concern was that if the Council rejects the appraisal of $38,000 and orders another appraisal, which may put it up near what lie paid for the property, then that figure being unsatisfactory to him, a third appraisal would be required, all of which would be paid for by John. lie felt that since that was the case, why couldn't we just compromise now and eliminate the appraisal process. I simply stated that I didn't ece any reason to compromise the Ordinance, that if the land has an appraised value of X. then 108 of that value should be paid to the City in lieu of land contribution. John also contends that never in the past has the City used the fair market value, but has always used the County books for determining this. My rebuttal to that is simply that the Ordinance was changed in 1981 because the City had determined it was not getting its fair share of development expense and park requirements. I stated that just because we, perhaps, didn't do things right in the past is no reason to continuo doing them wrong. This simply makes him a victim of circumstance in that lie is the first major developer to come under the policy procedures of the revised Ordinance. Ito calls it unfair treatment and worthy of tooting in court. 1 said fine, that that would be Ilia decision. Thus, we come down to this. ilio preliminary plat is recommended for approval as it is currently designed with the provision that the developer contribute 10% of the market value in lieu of land dedication. The developer lieu been asked to supply an appraisal, and hila figure lis submits is $38,000 based upon Clic estimated market value on thio County Asocoaor'a books. B. ALTEP14ATIVE ACTIONS! 1. Grant approval to the preliminary plat and accept the appraised value as submitted by Lilo developer - this will send the plat back for refinements and development into Lha final plat, which will coma before both bodies in tiro future and will require a contribution of $3,800 to Lha park fund in lieu of the land contribution. - 7 - Council Agenda - 1/23/84 ♦ _ 2. Accept the preliminary plat but reject the appraisal submitted by the developer - this would keep the procedure moving so that the final plat could be approached but would require the making of a second appraisal for the purpose of determining cash contribution. 3. Accept the preliminary plat and accept the proposed land dedication for park purposes - this would keep the entire subdivision process moving and would generate an additional 2.8 acres of power line easement park land. It would fulfill all development obligations. 4. Postpone acceptance of the preliminary plat until the park land dedication requirements have been resolved - this is mainly a leveraging tactic that could conceivably generate some cooperation from the developer. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we accept the preliminary plat as laid out but require a second appraisal on the land. While the park dedication is a problem, I see no real reason to delay the development of a sound and fairly well thought out subdivision. I would prefer to simply go with the second appraisal with the developer paying the cost of that appraisal and a copy of the appraisal being sent directly to the developer. D. SUPPORTING DAM copy of the proposed preliminary plat, Copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission. -1M (� MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION January 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Don Cochran, Richard Carlson, Ed Schaffer. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Thomas Eidem, Rick Wolfsteller, Gary Anderson. The meeting was called to order by President Jim Ridgeway at 7:35 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Special December 27, 1983, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion was made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to approve the Special December 27, 1983, meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Informational Item Proposed Sharing of Parkinq Lot for the Now First National Bank with the Monticello Public Library. Jim opened with public input for discussion on the propooed parking lot. Margo Bauer, Monticello librarian, and Mr. Warren Smith, Library Board Member, were there to present vlows of the Library. Much discusalon centered around the safety aspect of the increased traffic flow proposed around the Public Library building. Possible alterations to the Library property were also discussed with coats to be incurred by the developer. Those are as follows: now oldewalk to he installed around the remaining perimeter of the building, which doom not have sidewalk nowt exploring the possibility of a new entrance to the east side of the Library building. Planning Commission members felt this could probably be a worthwhile joint parking lot venture and returned it to City staff for their review to cane up with a recommendation for the proposed parking lot design at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commisnion meeting, February 14, 1984. 03. Public lloarinq - John Bandborq - Proliminary Plat for the Pron000d Par West Addition. Bob Rohlin iterated as to Lila aspocts of the proposed plat revisions. Public utility items have all boon addressed as par CSM recommended changes. . The proposed plat will now have two zones within it. Blocks 1 and 7 will be zoned R-1 and Blocks 3. 4, and 5 would be rezoned to q R-2 coning. Prcoidcnt Jim Ridgeway oponud it up to cumusunt Crum lhu 1; public. Mr. and Kra. Dirks were present to auk what the proposed zoning was for the area. Zoning Administrator Anderson pointed out Planning Commission Minutes - 1/10/84 to the Dirks the intent of the zoning for the areas of the proposed plat. Diane Jacobson was also present to discuss the increased traffic flow from the other additions pouring onto Prairie Road. With the increased development out there in the Meadows, something should be looked into as an alternative exit other than Prairie Road. Thomas Giroux was also present to discuss possible playground facilities for his children in the proposed development and the increased traffic to be generated from the proposed addition onto Prairie Road. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that a traffic count was conducted starting January 4 through the 8th. The average number counted was 297 cars on Prairie Road and approximately 2,352 cars accountable on County Road 75 during a 24 hour period. Zoning Administrator Anderson also indicated that two other traffic related matters should also be addressed at some point in time before the development is to Lake place. One matter is a petition to the State Highway Department to extend the 30 mile speed zone from where it ends by the elementary playground area to extend it past Prairie Road to keep the traffic at 30 m.p.h. or increase it only to 40 m.p.h. and not the 55 which is there now. Also discussed was the possibility of bituminous surfacing of the shoulders of County Road 75 at the intersection of Prairie Road and West River Street from the west and from the cast to allow traffic to flow around left and right turn traffic onto Prairie Road off County Road 75. Park dedication was also discussed. Thomas Gidem, City Administrator, indicated the City's position as definitely being opposed to the land proposed for park dedication due to the nature of the land being very low and underneath the power line. It is not suitable in the best interest of the City for park land. John Sandberg countered with the proposal that some day the power lines would not be there, therefore, necessitating a need for additional park land. Much dis- cussion centered around the land proposed for park dedication. John Sandberg made a willing offer to give the land to the City for park and oleo $5,000 for park equipment to the land. lie further indicated his willingness to give a total cash equivolent for dedication of the park land and keep the park land strictly as an outlot for proposed use at sono other time. Motion by Don Cochran to approve the presented proposed plat with accepting a cash dedication for park land for estimated cash value of $11,000. Seconded by Joyce Dowling. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Iloarinq - Rezoninq Request to Rezone part of the Root i of the Northeast i Section 10 from R-1 to 8-3 - Applicant, City of Monticello. Zoning Administrator Anderson iterated to the background in regard to Mr. Marvin Scherer, previous applicant, to allow him to build a storage building within an R-1 Zone. The intent of the City for the public hearing was to got public input from the surrounding neighbors within the affected rezoning aroa. Mr. Marvin Scherer indicated his main Intent of proposing to build the proposed storage building would be to clean up the existing old cars that he has stored at the site and put them in under cover and thus, eliminating his blight. nuisance. - 2 - U11 Council Agenda - 1/23/84 7, Consideration of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Prepared for Meadow Oak Subdivision. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On November 14 the Council adopted a resolution requiring that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared for the development of Meadow Oak Subdivision. That worksheet was prepared by McCombs -Knutson, the engineering firm serving the Meadow Oak developers. Early in December, Mr. Greg Frank of McCombs -Knutson brought me the preliminary EAW he had prepared. He and 1 reviewed it item by item and sent it back for turther revision. in additicn, I submitted one copy to OSM and one copy to Howard Dahlgren and Associates for them to list their concerns. Thr_ir comments were also submitted directly to McCombs -Knutson to be incorporated into the final draft. On Thursday, January 12, I met with Greg Frank, who brought in the revised final draft. Again we went over it item by item, and he indicated where he had addressed each and every concern that had been raised by myself, the engineer, and the planner. It being quite complete in my estimation, I thought it was now time to bring it to the Council. In order to meet the publication deadline for the EQB Monitor, I submitted a copy of the final draft to Grog Downinq at the EQB with a note indicating that consideration of the EAW would come before the Council on the 23rd and that I would provide additional information on Tuesday morning, the 24th. Mr. Downing indicated that was perfectly acceptable and, in fact, favorable since it would provide him with an opportunity to do a preliminary review before publication. This morning, Friday, the 20th, Mr. Downing of the EQB called me back to inform me that based on the projection of 536 residential units in the development, Meadow Oak falls into the category which mandates that an Environmental Impact Statement (CIS) be done. lie indicated that any residential development over 400 units in a city of the fourth class was required to preparo an EIS, and thus, the UAW that has been prepared to date should be considered to be a "ocoping" EAW. Basically, what that means is that the EAW defines the scope of the EIS that will have to be prepared. This news mcanu little or nothing to the City, but does have some affect on the developer and McCombs -Knutson, who must. prepare the EIS. Following the provisions of G MCAR Subdivioion 3.029 ct ueq, the following steps must occur: 1) Council makes a motion to accept the scoping EAW as prepared and acts a public hearing/scoping meeting for anytime after February 14. Thio hearing need not be in the evening and need not be attended by the City Council. The EQD has informed me that this public hoaring can be an administrative hearing with City utaff presiding over the hearing. It is my preference that - 9 - Council Agenda - 1/23/84 the hearing be set for Thursday, February 16, at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. 2) Copies of the scoping EAW is submitted to the EQB and to all other agencies and interested parties that are stipulated in the agency rules. 3) The EQB publishes notice of the review period and the meeting in the EQB Monitor. Publication date, January 30, 1984. 4) Legal notice of hearing and review period is published in the Monticello Times. 5) February 16, 1964, the scoping meeting/public hearing is held in the City Council Chambers. 6) February 29, 1984 - the review period closes. 7) As a result of the comment period and the scoping meeting, the scope of the EIS is determined and its preparation is authorized. 8) The prepared draft of thio EIS is submitted to the City and all agencies and parties who have participated in the scoping process. 9) A public hearing with proper notice, must be held to review the draft EIS and accept comment. 10) All commonts and concerns must be incorporated into the preparation of the final EIS. 11) The final EIS shall be distributed to the Council and again all participating parties and/or any person requesting a final EIS . 12) The City Council shall make filial determination on the adequacy of the final EIS. if thin process can begin January 23, then the final decision of adequacy uhould be able to be accomplished somewhere in mid-opring. I should note that the procean of platting and subdividing may continuo to occur at the same time 08 the EIS preparation. We may riot, however, give final approval and allow the recording of any final plat until the EIS is complete and found to be adequate. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS. 1. Do not accept tiro EAW on the grounds that it is Incomplete and has not adequately addreuued all of the questions asked in the State form. whore there aro shortcomings, tneae should be specifically addressed and referred back to the party preparing the EAW so that - 10 - Council Agenda - 1/23/84 they may answer the concerns. This action would probably delay the process by about two weeks or until the next Council meeting. 2. Accept the EAW as complete and adequate in its scoping. This would state that the data compiled is adequate to addressing the concerns in the EAW form, and would initiate the entire EIS process . In conjunction with accepting the EAW, a motion must be made to set the public hearing/scoping meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: After the review of the preliminary draft and a second review of the current EAW, I recommend that the worksheet be accepted and the distribution and review paucuss commence. D. SUPPORTING DADA: Copy of the final draft of the EAW (with Addenda), copy of the comments from OSM and Howard Dahlgren. 11 - ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON hASSOCIATES. INC. Consulling Engineers Land Surveyors January 16, 1984 Mr. Thomas Eidem, Administrator Cit_v of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Rei Revised Meadow Oak EAW Dear Tomc Your memo dated January 12, 1984, along with the revised EAW for Meadow Oak Addition, has been reviewed by my staff, and we offer the following comments. On December 22, 1983, we wrote you regarding our review of the draft copy of the EAW and our concern regarding Paragraphs No. 18, 19, 22, 23, and 28C. The revised EAW addresses these items and answers them satisfactorily, along with other parts of the EAW. Therefore, we recommend acceptance of the revised EAW. Yours very truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Wza� ohn P. 8adalich, P.E. City Engineer JPBsnlb V 2021 Cost Hennepin Avenuo • Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 612 / 331.8660 Council Agenda - 1/23/84 8. Consideration of Renewing Fire Department Mutual Aid Aqreements with Various Communities. (T. E. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Periodically, we must renew our Fire Mutual Aid Agreements with the various cities with which we cooperate. Last spring we re- vised and renewed the Mutual Aid Agicement with Clearwater. Shortly before Christmas, Willy Farnick, Fire Chief, indicated that he felt all the Mutual Aid Agreements should now be renewed. I submitted copies of the revised agreement to Becker, Big Lake, St. Michael, Elk River, Buffalo, Maple lake, and Albertville. These are the same cities with which we have had agreements up to the Present.. Each of these cities have accepted and signed their agreement and sent them back to us for final approval. The agreement with Clearwater will continue to stand as adopted last spring. All that is required is a motion to enter the Mutual Aid Agreements with these communities. The Mayor and I will then execute the documents and submit the appropriate copies for everyone files. There is no alternative action, nor staff reco=cndation on this item. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A copy of the agreement form that has been provided to each city. - 12 - FIRE DEPARTMENT MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT TRIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the date hereafter stated by and between the City of Monticello and the City of WHEREAS, the said municipalities desire to make available to each other and each of said municipalities has legal authority to send its fire -fighting equipment and personnel into other communities. NOW THEREFORE IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: That in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements, and undertakings hereinafter set forth, each of the parties hereto agree to furnish fire fighting assistance to the other when called upon by the fire chief or fire department officer in charge of the other party here- to, subject to the following conditions: 1. That road and weather conditions must be such that the fire run can be made with reasonable ❑afety to men and equipment, and the decision of the fire chief or other fire department officer in charge shall be final in cuch matters. 2. That in the event that all of the fire apparatus and all or most of the members of the fire department of the community so called upon for fire assistance by the other party hereto, are in use in said community at the time the call comes in from the other party, or by the discernment of the fire chief or other fire department officer in charge may be needed in raid :o.^unity, th- !omm,inity called upon shall be hold free and re- lieved from all liability to make said run or to respond to said call. 3. That in the event any apparatus and members of the fire depart- mant of any community engaged in fire fighting for the benefit of the party calling for assistance or in response to a call from said party, shall be needed to fight fire or for any other purpose in its own community, that apparatus and the members of the assisting fire department may and shall be recalled to its own community before completing the fire fighting for the other party, and said assisting party shall be hold free from any liability to continue fighting said fire. 4. If one or more fires occur within the limits of either of the above municipalities, or within the limits of any territory in which either municipality has contracted to furnish fire -fighting equipment and per- sonnel, and the fire -fighting equipment and/or personnel of either of the municipalities executing this contract is, in the judgement of the chief of its fire department, or in his absence, his assistant or deputy in cl,arqu of it9 fire department, insufficient to control or extinguish the fire or firer, an "emergency" sluall exist for the purpose of this agree- mcnt. S. if an emergency arises, any of the parsons who are entitled by paragraph 1 above to determine an emergency may call upon the fire depart- vw nt of the oth,+r municipality above named, which is adjacent, for assist- ance. if all the fire-£ightinq equiieaent and personnel of either of said municipalities It, enyaged In fire fightiny, the chief or other commanding officer of ilw fire dapartmunt of the other municipality whop fire- fighL.tng equipment is not engaged in firefighting shall send equipment and personnel to the empty fire station to be available for call if re- quired for any fire. It is the intention of the parties by this agree- ment to cooperate in the event of any emergency by making available necessary fire -fighting equipment and personnel from the nearest fire stations and during such an emergency to rearrange fire -fighting equip- ment of the parties ■o an to make the remaining equipment and personnel available for use in the event other fires shall occur anywhere through- out tIQ t4itity of phase municipalities. Fire Department Mutual Aid Agreement February 1, 1981 Page 12 6. Upon receipt of a call for assistance as set forth in paragraph 5, the fire department of the assisting party shall promptly dispatch at least one fire truck with the usual number of personnel to assist in fighting the fire which has caused the emergency or to render stand-by service as the case may be, provided that no fire department of the assisting party shall be obligated to send its fire equipment and/or personnel beyond its boundaries if to do so would leave such munici- pality without any fire quipment or personnel available within its limits for service at any fire which might subsequently arise therein. In extreme emergencies, however, every effort will be made to redis- tribute fire -fighting equipment and personnel so as to make it avail- able for any additional fires which might arise during the emergency. 7. The fire -fighting equipment and personnel of any fire depart- ment assisting the fire department of the other municipality in an emergency will immediately, upon arrival at the scene of the emergency, be under the commend of the officer in charge of the municipality with- in whose boundaries the emergency is situated. B. No charge will be made by any party for assistance rendered to another party under this agreement. 9. Each of the parties will maintain insurance policies coverings a. Worker's Compensation Insurance on all personnel in the amounts required by state law. b. Liability Insurance of a reasonable amount covering per- srrne) Pjvr.j.• nnA propertv damage. 10. No party to this agreement, nor any officer or amployoo of any party, shall be liable to any other party or to any person on account of failure of any party to this agreement to furnish its firefighting equip- mant and/or personnel in response to a call for assistance from any other municipality. 11. While each party in answering a call from the other party hereto shall attempt to furnish a reasonable number of firemen on each piece of equipment answering such call, the discretion of the fire chiof or other fire department officer in charge of the equipment and department of the assisting party shall be final as to the number of firemen that can be spa red. 12. That in the event one of the parties hereto recoiven one or more calls for assistance from other communities with which an agreement similar to this has been executed, the Chief of the department being called shall determine which call prasent■ a greater demand for assistance, it being further understood that property within each department' s juris- diction shall have first call on the services of its own departasnt. 11. No liability shall be incurred by a party who shall have sum- moned assistance under this agreement for damage to, or destruction of, firefighting equipment of a party rendering such assistance unless such damage or destruction shall be caused by negligent or malicious conduct of any officer or employee of the party which has summoned such assistance. le. Any party hereto may withdraw fres this agreement by thirty days notice in writing to the others. 15. A copy of this agreement shall be posted at the fire department headquarters of each party hereto. Subject to all of the above conditions, each of the parties hereto agrees to make every reasonable effort to attend fires in the other community mentioned herein when such assistance is re- quested as stated above. Fire Department Mutual Aid Agreement February 1, 1983 Page R3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said municipalities have caused this agreement to be signed in their respective corporate names by their respective duly authorized officers of authority of their respective governing bodies. CITY OF CITY OF MONTICELLO By By Mayor Mayor By By City Administrator City Administrator Dated Dated L Council Agenda - 1/23/84 9. Consideration of Rene wing the Contract with OSM. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Prior to the first of the year, John Badalich submitted to me the proposed adjustments in the annual contract for engineering services. Briefly, the adjustments to the contract are highlighted as follows: 1) The 2.25 multiplier has been reduced to 2.15 for the positions of construction observer and survey crews. 2) The hourly rates have been increased an average of 5%. 3) The hourly rates as stipulated are maximum hourly rates. That is to say, we will be charged only the stated hourly rate even if the OSM employee is paid more than this amount. 4) Transportation charges have been eliminated. 5) Other overhead items such as clerical, photocopying, word processing, have been built into the multiplier. G) The 2.25 multiplier for all positions other than those mentioned above remains the same. 7) The fee for Council meeting attendance remains at $40 per meeting, except that mileage is being eliminated. In playing around with the numbers and comparing the rates other cities are charged by their engineers, I find that this is a reasonable adjustment to the contract. in a direct comparison with one city using a different engineering firm, I find that tho other city pays a highor hourly rate for the four positions lower in the spectrum, whore we pay a higher rate for Lilo project manager and principal and project engineer. Based on a raview of 1903 invoices, a majority of the work done for Lilo benefit of Monticello is done by the Lechniclana and designers. In a very rough run-through of Lila 1983 invoices but applying 1984 contract provisions, we would have spent approximately $2,000 loan on engineering than we actually did. I must, however, qualify that statement since 1 do not have Lha actual OSM payroll figures available to me. Based on the adj ustod contract provisions, 1 am guouuinq that Lila name loval of engineering service can be provided in 1984 for approximately Lila name amount as wo paid in 1983. Obviously, if wo have OSM rondor mora service, wo will pay moro. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS. 1. Do not ronow the contract, call for bids for anginaoring oervicoa - I don't ace this as a significant alternative, but it is an alternative that. exists. - 13 - Council Agenda - 1/23/84 2. Renew the contract with USM - this would maintain the level of service that has been rendered by OSM. It will put into effect the adjustments, both upward and downward, that in most cases tends to have a noutralizing effect. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I recommend alternati7e q2. I think it is important to maintain some type of consistency with our consultants. Further, comparatively speaking we are in the same ballpark as other cities who are using other firms. U. SuvilUK3'i Lvu uAY'n: Copy of the letter from OSM introducing the contract revision, copy of the 1983 fee schedule, copy of the 1984 fee schedule. - 14 ORR•SCHEIEN-MAYERON OASSOCIATES, INC. Consulliitg Engineers Land Survevprs Mr. Thomas Eidem, Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Ret Enoineerinn Rorvirap Aero ?a t Dear Mr. Eidem: December 30, 1983 Rev. 1/9/84 Pursuant to Article 9 of the contract for engineering services between the City of Monticello and OSM, I am enclosing for your consideration the revised schedule of hourly rates for 1984. These hourly rates are applicable in 1984 for work performed on an hourly basis as set forth in the Engineering Agreement. We have made an adjustment in our multiplier for personnel engaged in field work (construction observers/inspectors and survey crows) which reflects a savings to the City. The 2.25 multiplier for these per- sonnel was reduced to 2.15 for 1984. The salaries for engineers and supporting technical staff, have increased an average of 58 over 1983, and the multiplier remains at 2.25. The hourly rates under the cate— gory using the 2.25 multiplier are the maximum hourly rates to be charged oven though the employee assigned to the project may be paid higher salary. A further savings to the City is that we have included all costs related to secretarial services, mileage charges, and printing in our overhead, so this will not appear on any billings in 1984. We look forward to 1984 and the continuance of a good working rela- tionship with the City of Monticello in providing profosstonal services as your City Engineer and Engineering Consultant. If you have any Questions, please give me a call. Yours very truly, ORR-SCNELEN-MAYERON ASSOCIATES, INC. GJo n P. Badalich, P.S. Vice President JPB:nlb Enclosure q 2021 rust Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 612/331.8660 ORR•SCHELEN' MAYERON Et ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Lend Surveyors 1984 FEE SCHEDULE Schedule of hourly salary costs to be multiplied by 2.25 to determine hourly fee. Principal $33.00 Project Manager 26.50 Project Engineer 21.50 Engineer 18.00 Engineering Designer 20.00 Engineering Technician 16.00 Engineering Technician 1 14.00 Schedule for hourly salary costs to be multiplied by 2.15 to determine hourly fee. Construction Observer $18.00 3-Man.Survey Crew 36.00 2 -Men Survey Crew 28.50 ^Salary cost' is defined as salaries (including sick leave, vacation or holiday pay applicable thereto) of personnel for time directly chargeable to the project, plus unemployment and payroll taxes, employer's contribution for social security, omployee's insurance, retirement benefits, and medical and surgical benefits. The actual salary cost is dependent upon the hourly rate of the employee assigned to the project, except that Construction Observers and Survey Crowe will be charged at the flat rate shown above. All costs, such as vehicle mileage, survey equipment and vehicles, word processing, clerical, printing and reproduction costa are included in the hourly fee. The fee for attendance at regular council meetings will he $40.00 per meeting. Statements issued monthly, will include names of porsonnol associated with the work and a summary of time spent. 911 V 2021 East l4annepin Aveni Culte 238 • Minneapolis. Minnesota 55413 . 612/ 331.8660 ORR-SCNELEN-MAYERON 0ASSOCIATEl INC Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors 1983 PEE SCHEDULE Schedule of approximate hourly salary costs to be multiplied by 2.25 to determine hourly fee. The actual salary cost is dependent upon the hourly rate of the employee assigned to the project. Principal $30.00 Project Manager 26.00 Pruject Engineer 21.00 engi neer 16.50 Engineering Designer 19.00 Engineering Technician 15.00 Construction Observer 17.50,. Project Surveyor 14.00 3 -Nan Survey Crew 34.00 2 -Man Survey Crew 27.00 Clerical 10.00 *Salary cost* to defined as salaries (including sick leave, vacation or holiday pay applicable thereto) of personnel for time directly chargeable to the project, plus unemployment and payroll taxes, employer's contribution for social security, employee's insurance, retirement benefits, and medical and surgical benefits. The actual salary cost is dependent upon the hourly rate of the employee assigned to the project. Schedule of Chargeable Direct Expenses: includes long distance tole - phone, computer, telegraph, travel, and vehicle miloaae charged at $.25 per mile. Outside work and report reproduction costs not genor- ally included in normal overhead, will be reimbursable at cost, plus lot of the direct expenses for accou ntinq and clerical charges. The foe for attendance at regular council meetings will be 840.00 per meeting plus mileage expense. Statomonte issued monthly, will include names of personnel associated with the work, a summary of time spent, and detailed description of payable expenses. 1/5/83 MSPD 2021 East Hennaptn Avenue • Sults 238 * MinnaepaJis "nnatots 55413 • 6121331-8660 Council Agenda - 1/23/84 10. One Year Review for Conditional Use Permit and a Variance Permit - Dr. Clarence McCarty. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On January 10, 1983, Dr. Clarence McCarty was granted a Conditional Use Permit to allow a retail commercial activity in an RD Zone. Dr. McCarty was also granted a one-year variance on the requirement of hard surfacing of the parking area. As a result, Dr. McCarty will be before you at Monday night's Council meeting to request an extension of his CuaGiLi­! U­� rst a_4 ,,.=_ zn cm!:�,njinn nn his hard surfacing of his parking area. On January 12, approximately 3:18 p.m., I visited with Kra. McCarty at their residence where the Conditional Use was granted. She showed me the shed where the birds are housed and also an area in the shed where the retail supplies are sold from. She indicated to me that they would like to continue their wholesale bird operation and also the retail business end of it. Predominately, most Of the sales of their birds are on the wholesale nature whereas they deliver the birds to the perspective buyer. On the retail activity and of it, they have customers who have purchased a bird or birds from them that do come to purchase some supplies. but predominatoly their nature of business is from the wholesale and of it and not the retail end of the business. She also indicated to me that they would like to continue the retail activity of their business primarily because of the clientele that they have built up with the birds which have been sold to their customers and to continue to provide as a service to them the supplies which go along with their business. I did, however, find one activity there that wasn't allowed as the Conditional Use when it was granted. They have approximately eight ferrets housed in a cage there, which they intend to liquidate within two weeks from when I was there on the 12th. If they are not gone within two weeks from the 12th, they will be removed permanently from the place of business one way or another. They would also like the Variance extended from the hard surfaced requirements of their parking Ore. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS i 1. Approve extension of the Conditional Use for anothor period of one year to operate a commorcial business in an RD Zone and also to extend the hard surface parking requirements for another period of ono year. 2. Deny the Conditional Use Request and also the variance extension request. C. STAFF RECOMM111DATIONt The staff supports the oxtonuion of the Conditional Use Request with - 15 - Council Agenda - 1/23/84 the condition that Dr. McCarty remove the ferrets from his place of business as soon as possible. We also recommend that Dr. McCarty install the hard surfaced parking as soon as possible in the spring and not be granted another Variance from the hard surfaced parking. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the minutes of the January 10, 19B3, City Council meeting. 16 Council Minutes - 1/10/83 the City. He noted that should termination proceedings be- gin, Mr. Klein would have to be paid while not being at work or performing his duties during the proceedings. lie also noted that it seems as though Mr. Klein qualifies for vet- eran's preference rightu and would be treated as such. Mr. Klein also requested, at one point, that Eidem be directed to release any information in his personnel file that his therapist may request. Klein felt that this would be essential for the doctor to make a determination relative to Klein's suitability to return to work. U. (Consideration for a Conditional Use Permit - Dr. Clarence / McCarty. Dr. Clarence McCarty, who resides at 319 West 3rd St. (lot 2, Block 37) has requested a conditional use permit to be al- lowed to establish a commercial retail activity in an R -B zone. Dr. McCarty requested the permit to be allowed to open and sell at retail a variety of birds from his pro- posed pet shop to be located at his hone. According to our zoning ordinance, a conditional use per- mit is required for a retail, commorcial activity in an R -B zone provided that certain conditions are met. Dr. McCarty currently raises birds as a hobby and is request- ing permission to occasionally hall and buy exotic birds. In addition, he proposes to occasionally sell related items such as bird cages, bulk food, etc. The proposed retail activity would take place In a separate barn typo structure that is located on the property approximately 60 feat from Iiia home. Council members discussed with Dr. McCarty whether lie was aware that city ordinances require any retail activity to provide off street parking that is hard surfaced with curb and gutter requirements. It wan noted by the Council that if the business were to exist primarily ac a whole sale business, without retail activity. a vari- anco could be granted from the hard surfacing require- ments but if a retail activity does exist, off street parking would have to provided. Dr. McCarty noted that approximately 90% of his business in in the whole sale nature, but felt that lie would still like to pursue the retail portion of the permit. Dr. McCarty also indi- cated that possibly home type of arrangement could be made with the adjacent property owner, Mrs. Darwin Straw, who operates a gift shop to use a portion of her parking lot on a sharing basis. (1r - 3 - Council Minutes - 1/10/83 The Planning Commission previously recommended that the con- ditional use permit be granted provided that: 1) the busi- ness be a family business only with only family members employed; 2) the retail activity he associated only with birds and not be open to other animals associated with a normal pet store and; 3) that off street parking be pro- vided. ro- vided. As a result of the discu::sion, a motion was made by Pair, seconded by Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve the conditional use permit for the retail activity of a bird shop (aviary) for a period of one year at which time it Wil, 1::. ec:-iewe4 t•nA A)ao to arant a one year variance from the requirement of hard surfacing of parking areas, which will also be reviewed at the end of one year. B. Consideration of Chanqo Orders 181, 82 and 63 with the Paul A. [Aurence Company. The following change orders with the Paul A. laurence Com- pany on the Wastewater Treatment Plant construction pro- ject were reviewed with the Council. Change Order 181 involved restoration of the property be- tween the now fence and Hart Boulevard along with other sodding and seeding outside the limits of the original fence line. The estimated cost was $6,468.08. In dis- cussing this change order, the Council recommended that this item be tabled for further review for more infor- mation on the cost involved in an effort to got the cost lower. Change Order 082 involves the installation of a value in the sludge lino at the bottom of the clarifiers to re- btrict the free flow of sludge that is now occurring through thu pumps and pumping. The estimated cost is $.1, 194. Change Order 083 in the amount of $3,840 is for the in- atillation of a drench t.hower and eyewash station in the immediate work arca of the lalnratory and boiler room where chemicals are ototed, mixed and timed. A motiun was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimous- ly carried to approve change orders 082 and 183 with the Paul A. laurance Company on the Wastewater Treatment con- tract in the amount of $7,034 with change order 181 being tabled at the present time for more information on cost. Council Agenda - 1/23/84 11. Consideration of an Amendment to our Sanitary Sewer Discharqo Control Ordinance, Title 14. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City of Monticello enacted a Sanitary Sewer Discharge Control Ordinance in the spring of 1983. This ordinance went into effect April 1, 1983, as a requirement of the federal and state grants for construction of our Wastewater Treatment Facility. This ordinance provides a system necessary to monitor and control sanitary sewer discharges through the use of wastewater discharge permits and discharge reports. This ordinance was passed after several months of combined effort with Wrightco, OSM, the City, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency personnel. A copy of the ordinance as Yawned was sent to the Minnesota Poilution Control Agency on April 1, 1983, for final review and comments. They completed their review at the end of October, 1983, and notified us of five minor suggested changes or amendments. On January 5, 1984, the City staff and representatives of the Corp of Engineers and OSM met with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at City Hall in Monticello. Among other things discussed were the amendments to the Sanitary Sewer Discharge Control Ordinance. At this time we also discussed some of their other questions in regard to monitoring and present Wastewater Treatment facility loadings. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: At this particular time, theca does not appear to be any alternatives to making the changes. Both the City staff and City Engineer's representative feel that these requested changes or modifications are well within reason and in no way hamper the effectiveness of the ordinance or our enforcement of it. Hero is the recommendation that we, therefore, modify the ordinance and make the following amendments: The first change is one requested by City staff and concerns a definition. Under the definition "Commercial User", we would wish to modify the last sentence which currently reads Any person discharging more than stated waste quantities shall be considered an industrial user for the purposes of this ordinance. The now sentence shall roads Any person discharging more than the stated waste quantities or whose discharge has a significant impact on the existing wastewater disposal system shall be considered an industrial user for the purposes of this ordinance. - 17- Council Agenda - 1/23/84 Change number two as requested by the MPCA is also another definition change. Under the definition "Significant Industrial User", they have requested a change in the restrictiveness of the 5% toxic pollutant requirement. We would be changing Roman Numeral IV under the "Significant Industrial User" definition. It currently reads: has in its wastes toxic pollutants as defined pursuant to Section 307 of the Act or Minnesota Statutes and rules at significant levels, i.e., greater than 58 of the total City loading. We wish to change it to read as follows: has in its wastes at the point of discharge, toxic pollutants (as defined pursuant to Section 307 of the Act of Minnesota Statutes and rules) in sufficient quantities, either singly or by interaction with other pollutants, to inhibit or disrupt any wastewater treatment process, constitute a hazard to humans or animals, or create a toxic effect in the wastewater system, or... The next recommended change is in regard to the National Categorical Pretreatment Standards, Section 14-2-2. The changes will be made in reference to the Congressional Federal Register beginning with the eighth sentence which now reads: "Consistent removal" shall be defined as in 40 CFR 403.7 (a) (1) of the "General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution". Conditional revisions of national categorical pretreatment standards may be made by the City in accordance with 403.7 (b) (2) (i -iv) of the "General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution" if requested by the industry in accordance with requirements of 403.7 (b) (1) W. This portion shall be changed to read as follows: "Consistent removal." shall be defined as in 40 CFR 403 of tho "General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution". Conditional revisions of national categorical pretreatment standards may be made by the City in accordance with 40 CFR 403 if requested by the industry, in accordance with requirements of 40 CFR 403. The next requested change is in the area of Chapter 6 under Penalties; specifically, Section 14-6-3 "Falslfvinc Information". The last three lines currently reads Method required under this ordinance, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than (6) months, or by both. These last three lines shall be changed to read, Method required under this ordinance, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor. This change is necessary to keep continuity in the penalities. The next change, or fifth change, involves permit application and the requirement to submit a compliance, schedule not only to soot EPA Pretreatment Standards, but also other applicable standards. The change comes in the form of modificatian to the permit application Appendix A. Page 6, section 2 (b), which currently reads, if your Company cannot meet the EPA Pretreatment Standards on a consistent basis, pleas* complete the following table for additional pretreatment and/or operation and maintenance (0 c M). This sentence shall be changed to rwa"l: If your Company wcu:ot meet the EPA Pretrrearownt - 1S - Council Agenda - 1/23/84 Standards or other applicable limitations on a consistent basis, please complete the following table for additional pretreatment and/or operation and maintenance (O 6 M). This new sentence shall be removed from Section 2 (b) and placed under Section 1 (d). Section 2 (a) shall be reclassified as Section 2. The sixth change is an addition to the Partial Listing of Prohibited Discharges; specifically, that dealing with temperature. Again, this is located in the Appendix, but under Appendix 8 - 2, 08. We wish to add to the existing sentence limiting high temperature discharges the following words: or having heat in amounts that will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in interference. This then concludes the proposed changes or amendments to the ordinance. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to OSM dated October 27, 1983; Letter from OSM to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated November 18, 1983; A copy of the Sanitary Sewer Discharge Control Ordinance is available at City Hall. It is not included in your ordinance packagoo. 19 ()s6w. ORR•SCNEIEN -MAYERON b ASSOCIATES INC. Consulting I'l11;Jf1L'4'f.5 Division of Kiddo Consullents, Inc. LaoXl Sw vt.-,,o,s Nowwwb,rr 18. 1983 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Divit4lon of Nater Quality 143% Wert County Road R2 Rn6YgV 41 Ia. Mr1 541 t I Attn: Randall W. rjunnette Pretreatmont Coordinator, Permits Section Rc: City of Monticello Pretreatmont Program Door Mr. Dunnettoi City ataft and OSM personnel have reviewed your letter of October 27, 19113, and concur with the MPCA that Wrightco Products, Inc. dishcharyu is n na3or contributing factor with respect to the City not being able to moot the concentration limitations contained in their discharge permit. We aro presently formulating a program of additional sampling by the City. The now data and previously obtained intonation will be used to develop limits for the discharge pormit to be issued to Wrtghtco. We anticipate completing this work in late December, 1953 and using it to also modify operational procedures at the treatment plant. In answer to your comments concerning the ordinance, we offor the toilowing: i. rtiv 5% lvvol for toxic pollutants was suggested by the City waatowater superintendent. A higher lovol such as 200 could he uned. Do you have a recommendation? 2. Thr. roteronce will ho changed. 3. Tito laity Attorney is being consulted. 4, hoct.ion 14-14-2 (9) will be moditied to require compliance scnodulau for all discharge standards applicable to industry. S. The change to Item IS, Page 2, Appendix R will be made. Tho costs associated with running the program are related, for the most part, to sampling and analysis and will be placed on the Wever bills of the respective users. It is anticipated that routine inspection and surveillance costs will he covered by the permit toes. A schedule for these fees to contained in Section 14-1-4 of the Ordi- hence. The multiplier can be changedf1 �as is necessary to keep the 2021 East Henneph) A vanuo . Suile 238 . A',eepolis Minnotota 55413 . 612/331-8660. . Page Two M PCA November 17, 1983 administrative portion of the program solvent. All permit holders will be required to do their own sampling at a frequency established In their respective permits. Presently, tho City has a portable, flow -proportional sampler and a complete and new laboratory which was funded as part of U.S. FPA Construction Grant Project C270R55-03. Perscnncl _.. ci cd w!t`h .. zte"ate_ trent=nt z -.d the etr__tmenit - rr program for the City are as-followsi Director of Public Works Superintendent of wastewater Treatment Plant oporator/Mechanic oporator/Laboratory Technician Laborer Clerical Please cell if you have further questions concerning this project. Sincerely, oRH-SCHF.LEH- MAY F.RUN i ASSOOATFS INC,r E7 ar.los A. 1'Opak, P.F. Project Fn oe CAL:nlb cci John Simola, City of Monticello 4W,9jw ', Minnesota Pollution Control Agency %;5iY OCT 2 7 1983 Mr. Charles A. Lepak, P.E. Orr-Sehelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. 202i East iiennepin Avenue Suite 238 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 Dear Mr. Lepak: RE: Monticello Pretreatment RECE)YED 0RR4MGL9 gIA11lM a ttCS9G COMoa f 9 7 V W O Qf;T 1) a 1001 CI --1-11 The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has reviewed your pretreatment program submittal of April 1, 1983, for the City of Monticello. We have the following comments and questions. The new plant has been on Line for some time and is not meeting limits. The city is claiming that the reason for this is that denitrification is taking place. While this may be part of the reason, heavy loads from Wrightco Products, Inc. also appear to be a cause. Further sampling and the setting of specific limits is appropriate. These limits should then be included in a permit for Wrightco as your draft ordinance provides. A def ailed breakdown of costs to run the program should be provided to insure that the funding mechanism provides adequate revenue to cover costs. What equipment does the city have now? What is the staffing level? An organizational chart would be helpful. Does the city intend to do all the sampling? Isn't the industry responsible for any sampling? If so, frequency of sampling should be specified. The following comments concern the ordinance: 1. Please explain the reasoning for defining a "significant industrial user" as having toxic pollutants greater then 5% of the total city loading. This may be overly restrictive if the toxic constituents are at very low levels in the city waste. 2. The specific references in 14-2.2 concerning National Categorical Pretreatment Standards should probably be changed to a more general reference of 60 CFR 403. phone. 1695 wast County Road 82. Rosavtse. Miruwsota 55112.21'85 \ RogwW Offices • Uiuth/g.aMMrdiDeapt [akesAWshal/Rochestm Ewr Orsoresvty cff~ r/ Mr. Charles A. Lepak, P.E. Page 2 OCT 2 7 1983 3. The statement concerning falsifying information (14-6-3) should probably be changed to "guilty of a misdemeanor". Legal advice should be sought on this. 4. The plant application should.require submission of a compliance schedule not only to meet EPA Pretreatment Standards but also other applicable standards. S. The orobibition on temnrratiiro fang a-2 a91, .`rind auu "or having heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in interference". Please respond to these comments and questions and submit a proposed permit for Wrightco as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please call me at (612) 296-7240. Sincerely, Randall W. Dunnette Pretreatment Coordinator Permits Section Division of Water Quality RWD:jae cc: Mr. John Simola, Public Works Director, City of Monticello Council Agenda - 1/23/84 12. Consideration of an Amendment to the Ordinan Cl; Requlatinq Transient Merchants . (T. E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND As suspected, we have received some comment regarding the transient merchant permit system from the Monticello Mall. I am sure you recall that at our November mectsng Dan spoke up concerning the daily fees that would be collected from people selling at arts, crafts, and hobby fairs. As I noted at that time, I, too, tied a concern about that but that we simply didn't know how to exclude certain people from the ordinance if, in fact, they were selling their wares. After discussing this matter with Bob Ma cnnnald, owner of the Mall, and Roger Hedtke, current President of the Mall Association, and with Gary Pringle, City Attorney, we think we may have been able to find a way to resolve thin question. Under the definitions in our zoning ordinance, a shoppinq center is a single integrated structure under single ownership that rents and/or leases space for commercial enterprise. Applying this definition to the commons area where the craft fairs act up, it is easy to interpret this as a legitimate part of the basic nature of the business, namely, a shopping mall. That in to say, the mall owner rents out both individual store space as well as open commons space for retail sales. If we assume the definition in the zoning ordinance to cover this type of operation, then it no longer falls under the transient morchant promise. Gary Pringle agrees that the notion of renting out the commons area simply falls within the legitimate definition. In my conversation with Bob MacDonald, however, he agreed that the annual permit would be fine to leave in place so that the City would have some enforcement control should the basic nature of the operation change. In the event that the temporary vendors who aro operating out of the mall develop a pattern of being unreliable or engage in unfair business practices, then Lha City need only to revoke the annual permit, thus, jeopardizing Lilo ability of Ulu mall to have any vendors in the open option. This basically requires the mall owner and the Mall Association to police their own operations. Tho only amendment that would be required to address this would be the addition of one lino to Section 3-10-2 (b) 2. B. ALTE RNATI VE ACTIONS t 1. Do not adopt the amendment - thio will leavo the ordinance as it is currently written and will require that any person conducting temporary business in Llia commons area of the mall to pay the $10 a day foe. Thin will includo those people who are involved in arts and crafts allows, antique shown, and the like. - 20 - Council Agenda - 1/23/84 2. Adopt the amendment - this will simply exclude those transient merchants who conduct their business within the confines of the commons area of any shopping mall from a required fee. The annual fee that the mall must secure will still be required under the provisions of the ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the amendment. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the page of the appropriate ordinance highlig'nLl—j L..e proposed language change. - 21- 3-10-2 3-101 _ �O 2} a. An annual pers+it which may be issued only to the owner or proprietor of a private premise such as a motel, hotel, shopping mall, banquet facility, service club, etc., wherein a transient merchant as defined in Section 3-10-1(A) may lease or otherwise occupy space to engage in said temporary business. An applicant for an annual permit must provide the City with assurances that each transient merchant engaged in business upon his/her premise meets the minimum requirements of this and all other applicable ordinance. b. The transient merchant shall operate from within a permanent .tiuot�ra u, t:.er yao6i :a. Cutdcar calor free parking 1ctz or other open space In hereby prohibited under the provisions of the annual permit. e. no holder of an annual permit shall allow in excess of 12 vandore, stands. booths or similar sales area to operate per day, without the written permission of the City Council. (8) FEWs tees shall be met and adopted by the City Council as follovat 1) Daily pormit too$. 2) Daily permit fees for a pormit issued to a transient merchant under the authority of the annual permit, said fees to be collactad by the holder of an annual permit and remitted to the City Administrator, prior to the conduct of any business, except that trancient morchante conducting their business within the confines of the commons area of any shopping mall shall not be required to remit a daily fee. 3) Annual permit fees. (Clydinancs #129 11/14/83) 3-10-3 6XEMPTiONSi The terms of this ordinance do not includo the acto of persona selling personal property at wholesale to dealers in ouch articloo, not to neweboys, nor to the acts of merchants or their employees in delivering goodo in the regular course of business. Burning contained in this ordinanco prohibits any sale required by statute or by ardor of any court, or prevents any person conducting a bona fide auction $al* pursuant to law. C/—�-) JANUARY GENERAL FUND 1984 AMOUNT, CHECK NO. MN. State Treasurer - Watercraft Receipts ' M11. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Receipts Bridgewater Telephone - Phone bill - November 1983 Void Corrow Sanitation - Garbage Contract - December 1983 Int. Conferences of Building Officials - Membership Dues A-1 Portable Welding - Repairs on grader Int. Union of Operating Eng. Local #49 - Union Wes - Dec. 1983 Monticello Ford, Inc. - Repairs on Fire Truck Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage State Capitol Credit Union - W/H thru 12/31/83 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial Services at Library MN. State Treasurer - Watercraft Receipts MN. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Recciots Wright County State Bank - Purchase of C.D. Arve Grimsmo - Council Salary Dan Blonigen - Council .Salary Fran Fair - Council Salary Jack Maxwell - Council Salary Ken Maus - Council Salary YMCA of Mpla. - Contract Payment - December 1983 James Preusee - Janitorial Services at City Hall Marge Bauer - Petty Cash Reimb. at Library Void MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H thru 12/31/83 Richard Knutson, Inc. - labor for work in park William Kearin - Fertilizer State Treasurer - Building Permit Surcharge Remittance MII. State Treasurer - Watercraft Receipts MN. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Receipts Commissioner of Revenue - State W/II Taxes for December 1983 :lorth Central Public Service - Natural Gas - December 1983 Wright County State Bank - Federal W/11 for December 1983 MN. State Treasurer - FICA Taxes for December 1983 MN. Pollution Control Agency - Seminar MN. State Treasurer - Watercraft Receipts MN. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Receipts Gwen Bateman - Animal Control Contract for December 1983 Thomas Eidem - Car Allowance for Month of January 1983 Jerry Hormus - Janitorial Services at Library SLato Treasurer - PERA W/11 thru 1/15/84 Monticello Fire Depart. - Wages thru 1/9/84 MN, State Treasurer - FICA W/H thru 1/15/84 1C14A - Subcription MN, State Treasurer - Snowmobile Receipts MN. State Treasurer - Watercraft Receipts Northern Staten Power Company - BleCtricily for December 1983 Comminsionar of Revenue - Sales Tax for water - 4th Quartos University of MN. - Registration Fee for Gary Anderson Monticello Firo Depart - Reimbursement for expenses Share Corporation - Fertilizer 6 Wood Control Northwestern Bell Telephone - Fire Phone - December 1983 Automatic Garage Door Company - Repair door at Garage 10.00 274.00 699.40 4,461.50 15.00 180.00 76.00 167.03 30.50 125.04 125.00 47.00 150.50 40,000.00 175.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 284.16 250.00 209.35 1,493.59 171.50 578.50 151.09 110.00 210.u0 2,487.00 5,793.39 3,529.70 4,529.72 45.00 27.00 233.00 640.56 300.00 137.50 1,534.00 1,294.00 2,578.57 19.95 112.UU 12.00 9,376.03 263.62 15.00 308.76 519.21 30.66 59.50 18263 182G4 18265 18266 18267 16268 18269 18270 18271 182)2 18273 18274 16275 18276 18277 16278 18279 18260 18281 18282 18283 18284 18285 18286 18287 18288 18289 18"290 18291 18292 18253 18294 18295 18296 18297 18298 16299 10300 18301 18302 18303 18304 18305 10306 18307 18308 18309 IB310 18311 10312 18313 18314 18315 JANUARY GENERAL FUND 1984 AMOUNT. Void -- Davis Electronic Service Company - Parts - Fire Department 51.50 First Bank Mpls. - Public Fund Charge 4.00 State of Minnesota - Subcription "Model Engery Code" 12.00 League of MN. Cities - Subscription Fee 150.00 Wright County Auditor's Office - Fee for mailing homestead cards 218.00 Seelye Plastics, Inc. - Supplies for WWTP 46,96 Local #49 - Union Dues for January 1984 95.00 AT e T Infomation Systems - Fire Phone Charge 3.36 Ilarry's Auto Supply - Parts and supplies 390.61 Vance's Service Center - Gas for Fire Department 9.47 Monticello Rotary Club 120.00 MN. Valley Testing Lab. - Soil Sample Testing 10.00 Seitz Our Own Hardware - Parts and snnnli- 4A1.71 Cylinder City, Inc. - Repair of grader 385.00 Granite City lion Works Company - Repair on grader 179.00 Johnson's Department Store - Clothing Purchase - WWT31 55.00 Production Specialties - Guard for sander 25.00 Monticello Printing - Printing Expense for December 1983 1,011.15 Maus Foods - Misc. Supplies 233.55 Snyder Drug - Film for Planning s Zoning Department 16.99 State Of Minnesota - Renewal Subcription 136.89 M 6 L Motor Supply Company - Tools 177.46 State Treasurer - Surplus Property Fund - Supplies 229.65 Earl Peterson Equipment - Rental of Equipment 52.50 Hoglund Bus Company - Parts 67,73 Maus Tire Service - Repairs 90.00 Phillips Petroleum Company - Gas - Water Department 56.09 Air Products Company - Supplies - WWTP 281.50 J 6 M Oil Company - Gas - Street Department 451.50 Hat ional Bushinq Company - Parts 6 Suppl ice 105.76 Gould Brothers Chev - Repairs 1,245.79 Mr. Willard Farnick - Mileage 21.50 MN. MFOA - Membership Renewal 10.00 Figs-It-Shop - Supplies 51.40 Monticello Agency, Inc. - Clerk/Trcauure r Bond - Tom Eidem 50.00 Monticello Times - Publishing 420.56 Monticello Office ProducLa. Inc. - Office Suppiies 63.08 Smith, Pringle, kayos - Legal Fees - 11/1/H3 to 12/23/83 390.00 Foster Franzen Agency, Inc. - Insurance Renewal Bond - Fire Dep. 40.00 Independent Lumber Company - Repairu for City hall X1.17 North Star Waterworks Products - Meteru 107.81 Central McGowan, InC. - Supplies 236.14 SMA Construction - Torch Repair 43.25 Suburban Gas Inc. - Gas - WWTP 7.68 Wright County Sheriff's Depart. - ContraCt Services for Dec. 19[tl 9,041.98 Lauf Brothers - Uniforms for December 1983 213.45 Howard Dahlgren Assoc. - Fees for December 1983 2,655.25 Orr Scholen Mayeron Assoc. - Engineering Fees for December 1983 1,493.84 Il.rukur'a Life - Gruup Ilualth inuurancu for December 1983 3,669.34 Senior Citizens Center - Houning Count Reimbursement by Citize nr, 75.00 Holmos 6 Graven - Professional Services - Metcalf 6 Larsen 900.00 National Life Insurance, Company - lnaura nee for Teo Eidem 100.00 Safety Kleon Company - Shop Supplies 32.00 Gruya, Johnson, L Ausoe - Computer Cost for November 1903 290.00 JANUARY GENERAL FUND 1984 Elk River Machine Company - Parts Wright Service Oil Company - Gas and oil - WWTP John Henry Foster Company - Bearings - WWTP Interstate - Detroit Diesel Allison, Inc. - Repairs at WWfP Waldor Pump 6 Equipment Company - Repairs to equipment at WWTP Gary Anderson - Mileage for January 1983 Dytron Alloys Corporation - Supplies Air Engineering and Supply - Valves - WhTP Bee Line Service - Repairs Nott Company - Supplies for Lift Station Coast to Coast - Supplies Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone for December 1983 League of Minnesota Cities - Copies of Municipal Officials Dir A - .,..cage .oa -.j .ow Feed -Rite Controls, Inc. - supplies Fidelity Bank and Trust Company - 1971 Bonds First Bank Saint Paul - 1978 G.O. BOnds Norwest Bank Minneapolis - 1980, 1981, 1979, 1977, 1976, 1980 G.O. Bonds First Bank Minneapolis - 93 and 1975 G.O. Bonds TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS PAYROLL FOR DECEMBER 1963 TOTAL CASH DISBURSL24ENTS FOR JANUARY 1984 AMOUNT 43.21 207.75 65.41 159.74 152.67 104.50 51.98 27.12 250.00 92.93 53.18 811.00 50.00 7.50 10,994.94 209,067.85 622,707.20 77,859.62 1,033,483.02 25,557.14 CHECK NO. 18371 16372 18373 18374 18375 18376 18377 18378 18379 18380 18381 18382 18363 18385 16386 18387 18388 18389 r\ LIQUOR FUND CASH DISBURSFI4ENTS - JANUARY 1984 AMOUNT CHECK NO. Midland Beverage, Inc. - Wine purchase 56.25 11027 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone for December 1983 55.70 11028 City of Monticello - Reimbursement for Postage used in 1983 108.50 11029 Ed Phillips s Sons Co. - Liquor purchase 3,037.55 11030 State Capitol Credit Union - W/H thru 12/31/83 20.00 11031 Wright County State Bank - Purchase of C.D. 55,000.00 11032 Griggs, Cooper and Company, Inc. - Liquor and wine purchase 944.11 11033 Twin City Wine Company - Liquor and wine purchase 1,040.83 11034 MN. State Treasurer - PEFtA W,/I3 thru 12/31/83 162.85 11035 V.F.W Club - Advertising 15.00 11036 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H tax for December 1983 246.00 11037 Uorth Central Public Service - Gas for December 1983 360.49 11038 Wright County State Bank - Federal W/H Tax for December 1983 385.70 11039 MN. State Treasurer - FICA Tax W/H for December 1983 462.04 11040 Ed Phillips 6 SOns Company - Liquor and wine purchase 776.20 11041 State Treasurer - PF.RA W/L1 tax thru 1/15/84 174.54 11042 MN. State Treasurer - FiC W/H thru 1/15/84 251.71 11043 NSP - Electricity for Dec:omber 1983 489.58 11044 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales Tax for December 1983 8,126.38 11045 Griggs, Cooper and Company, Inc. - Liquor purchase 2,816.05 11046 loin City Wine Company - Wine purchase 609.19 11047 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor and wine purchase 3,645.78 11048 Dick Beverage Company, Inc. - Beer and mist. purchase 2 , 274.90 11049 Saha bel Beverage Company - Beer purchase 1,573.00 11050 Grosslain Beverage, Inc. - Beer and mise. purchase 8,148.00 11051 Trustee, Industrial Fund - Banker'shealth insur. for Dec. 1983 361 .26 11052 Scott Franc - Reimbursement for PERA - deducted In error' from checl 6.48 11053 Penny Grant - Reimbursnment for PLRA - deducted in error from chocl 10.67 11054 l.aw Iinfor'ccmcnt Ycarbnok 1984 - Subcription 10.00 11055 Bridgewater Telephone - Phone Bill for December 1983 44.38 11056 Old Dutch Fuods, Inc. - Misc. supplies 150.64 11057 Mr. Gary Reitan - Guard duty at Liquor Store - x -max ev,_ 105.00 11058 Berlyn Birkholz - New Years eve guard duty at liquor store 90.00 11059 Thorpe Diatributing - Beer purchase 2,056. U5 11060 SUVe11 up Bottling Company - Misc. purchase 468. 1,0 11061 Dahlheimer Distributing Company - Beer purchasu 6,642.55 11062 Gruys, Johnson 6 Associates - Computer proccooing cost - Oct. 6 tlo,. 220. U0 11063 Service Sales Corporation - Iabe18 64.71 11064 Gronsath Directory Service - Advertising in to Lophono directory 41.40 11065 City of Monticello - Addieonal workmen's camp. premium 55.00 11066 1.10Part Trucking - Freight charges 422.42 11067 Yonak Sanitation - Garbage service - December 1983 82.50 11068 Monticello Times - Advertising for December 1903 375.44 11069 MN. Department of 1'ublie Safety - Rotailor's buyer card S.OU 11070 Metro Foods, Inc. - mine. supplies 27.97 11071 Viki.nq Coca-Cola Bottling Company - mist. purchnse 661.70 11072 Judo Candy 6 Tobacco Company - mise. purchaso 475.12 11073 I LIQUOR FM i I 1 1 I CASH DISBURSEMENTS - JANUARY 1984 11 Day Distributing Company - Beer 'and mist. purchase Coast to Coast - supplies First National Bank of Minneapolis - 1976 G.O. Bonds TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS Payroll for December 1983 TOTAL CASH DISBURSE4ENT FOR JA2.'UARY AKXTNT CEEM NO, / 115.20 11074 19.32 11075 22,815.00 11076 X126,947.56 3,664.07 $130,611.63 i 1 1 ' I � 'ERMIT DESCRIPTION '4UMBER 83-571 Finish off basement INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORI MONTH OF Deeeaber , 1983 1 P I ti AME/LOCAT ION cl AD Ficha:d Kelly/1020 Oak Lane VALUATION FFFS - PERMIT SURCHARGE PLUMBING SURCHARGE, 11500.00 $ 17.50 $ .75 .I _I i i i TOTAL REVENUE qw I I i 5 18.25- -- - - — - TOTAL NO. PERMITS 9 TOTAL VALUATION 114,085.00 TOTAL FEES 859.97 TOTAL SURCHARGES 58. a0 CURRENT Mom PERMIT NATURE Number Single Family Duplex W.ti- family Commercial Industrial Res. Garages Signs Public Buildings ALTERATION OR REPAIR Dwellings Commercial I Industrial PLUMBING All typos :ESSORY STRUCTP..^, UR Svimmin9 Poole Decks TEI4PORARY PCRMIT DEMOLITION TOTALS 1 1 10 4q 137 1 500.00 380.008.80 2.8�3.678.BQ 5.134„45-3.0_.. 17.50,y_3Q_,Q5_---_1L.Qi4..3.�_.G.,`)09..J5.1 75 _ 191.75 1 Igo -I,n F•VI-A Number to DnLe Valuation This year - L�sL year) Pi:t!•11T S�jyt<<HA13GE_ _ - . E $ $ 17.50 .75 1,500.00 l 17.50 .75 1,500.00 CITY OF MONTiCELLO Monthly Building Department Report Month of DecemberlgB3 PERMITS and USES Last This Sane Month Last Year This Year PERMITS ISSUED Monthlaovember MonthDeccmber Last Year To Date To Date RESIDENTIAL Number 4 1 4 29 60 Valuation $ 97,800.00 $ 1,500.00 E -169,508.80 $1,063,922.80 $2,498,127.90 Fees 610.65 17.50 1,414.85 5,441.29 12,870.69 Surcharges 48.90 .75 164.00 488.25 1,250.38 COMMERCIAL Number 3 1 5 28 Valuation 16,285.00 10,500.00 814,500.00 1,914,897.40 Fees 130.50 70.20 3,546.45 10,051.6G Surcharges 8.50 5.25 407.25 958.19 INUUSTRI AL Number 2 3 Valuation 983,256.00 681,000.00 Fees 3,504.62 2,268.40 Surcharges 491.50 340.50 PLUMBING Number 2 5 12 3G 1 'ee3 47.00 145.00 293.00 1,170.00 \ surcharges 1.00 2.50 3.50 24.50 OTHERS Number 1 10 Valuation- v65.00 1C,2221.).q�, Fees 548.40 Surcharges 17.50 TOTAL NO. PERMITS 9 TOTAL VALUATION 114,085.00 TOTAL FEES 859.97 TOTAL SURCHARGES 58. a0 CURRENT Mom PERMIT NATURE Number Single Family Duplex W.ti- family Commercial Industrial Res. Garages Signs Public Buildings ALTERATION OR REPAIR Dwellings Commercial I Industrial PLUMBING All typos :ESSORY STRUCTP..^, UR Svimmin9 Poole Decks TEI4PORARY PCRMIT DEMOLITION TOTALS 1 1 10 4q 137 1 500.00 380.008.80 2.8�3.678.BQ 5.134„45-3.0_.. 17.50,y_3Q_,Q5_---_1L.Qi4..3.�_.G.,`)09..J5.1 75 _ 191.75 1 Igo -I,n F•VI-A Number to DnLe Valuation This year - L�sL year) Pi:t!•11T S�jyt<<HA13GE_ _ - . E $ $ 17.50 .75 1,500.00 l 17.50 .75 1,500.00