City Council Agenda Packet 06-13-1983AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 13, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo.
Council Members: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Dan Blonigen and Jack
Maxwell.
1.
Call to Order.
2.
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held on
Iday 24, 1983.
3.
Citizen Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Old Business.
4.
Consideration of a Request for Reimbursement by Mr. Ed
Reilly.
S.
Consideration of a Revised Proposal to Provide Lighting
on the Mississippi River Bridge.
G.
Consideration of a Salary Request for Albert Mayor in tho
Pooition of Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent.
New Business.
7.
Consideration of an Appeal for the Granting of a Variance -
Applicant - Hal Wehmann.
8.
Consideration of an Appeal for the Granting of a Variance -
Applicant - Country Kitchen.
9.
Consideration of the 1902 Audit.
10.
Consideration of the Annual Renewal of Intoxicating Liquor
and Boer Licenses.
11.
Review bids and award contract for blacktopping of Gould
Brothor's Servico Road.
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 13, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
(Continued)
12. Consideration of a Proposal to Extend the Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant Grant Budget Period.
13. Consideration of a Proposal to Initiate a Safety Eyewear
Program.
14. Consideration of Awarding Final Payment on the Construction
of the 4th Street Warming House.
15. Prepare Plans and Specs for Sealcoating and Advertise for
Bids.
16. Consideration of a Resolution Regulating Lobbying by Cable
Communication Companios.
17. Adjourn.
C
MINUITS
REGULAR MEETING - MOIITICELLO CITY COUNCIL
May 24, 1903 - 7:30 P.M.
Members 11rosc11L: Arve Grimsme, l:cn liaus, Nrdn Nair, Dan blonigun,
Jack Maxwell.
Members Absent: None.
2. Approval of the Minutes.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held
on May 9th, 1983, as presented.
4. Consideration of a Presentation by MN/DOT Relative to Con-
struction of a New Hiqhway Bridge and Proposed Liqhtinq of
the Existing Hiqhway Bridqe.
Recently, the City of Monticello requested that the Minnesota
Department of Transportation consider repairing or replacing
the Highway 25 bridge sidewalk lighting which has not worked
fW a uwnLur Of y—t—
Mr. James Weingartz, preliminary deoiyn engineer for MN/DOT
was present at the Council Meeting and explained the State's
proposal to light, not only the sidewalk, but the entire
bridge for both pedestrians and traffic. Mr. WeinyarLz
noted that the original estimate for the installation of
10 lighting fixtures to light the traffic lanos and 5
lights for the pedestrian sidewalk was cntimated at $17,100
and ❑ince the sidewalk lighLing amounted to one-third of
the liyhL fixtures, the State propeued that Lha City of
P'ontieello pickup one-third or the cons ttuction cost er
approximately $5,700. In addition, the City of Monticello
would be responsible after construction for all power con-
sumption for the sidewalk lighting thereafter. Prior to
the meeting, MN/DOT was notified that the City was not
necessarily interested in seeing the roadway lite, but
wan only concerned about the sidewalk and felt that the
$5,700 was too costly. Mr. Weinyartz aluo noted that
Its reanalyzed the cost auuociatod with installing the 5
light fixtures for the uiduwhlk and if just the cost for
the new fixtures and matcrialu was used, the City would
lie responsible for $4,200 or api,roximately 25% of the
total lighting project cost.
_(9
Council Minutes - 5/24/63
It was basically the Council's consensus that since a new
bridge is being proposed by the State within the next 4
to 6 years, they were not in favor of the State spending
$17,000 to light the existing bridge or for the City to
spend 4 to 6 thousand dollars to light just the sidewalk.
Public works Director, John Simola, was directed by the
Council to investigate what it would cost to get the
existing lighting in operation, if possible, and to re-
port back to the Council within two weeks. :do action
was taken by the Council regarding approvii.g or dis-
approving of the lighting project at the present time,
but will be made at the next Council Meeting.
Mr. Weingartz also reviewed with tht. Council MII/D09"s
proposal for a new bridge that is now in the planning
stages. It was noted that approximately 10,000 cars
per day now use the liwy 25 bridge and the preliminary
plans are to possibly upgrade Ilwy 25 from the river to
the interstate by widening the roadway for four lane
traffic. A number of alternatives have been studied
in regard to the new bridge alignment which would
probably be located directly adjacent to the existing
atneture. 1
It was also noted by Mr. Waingartz that since Hwy 25 J
is a State constitutional highway, the possibility was
remote that the highway could be relocated to a different
location outside of the City limits as it would take an
act of the State legislature to change the routing of the
present Highway 25. It was noted that the tentative plane
call for informational public hearings to be held within
the next few months regarding the proposed now bridge and
that if all went wall, it would be at least 1985 or 1986
before construction could utart on the bridge which would
take two years to complete.
s. cd Reilly - Sewer Problems.
Mr. Ed Imilly, who rcuidau at 612 Cast River Street, was
prouonL at the meeting to requost rctmburuement from the
City for coat incurred in trying to locate his sower
service atub at his home. City water and sewer depart-
mont personnel marked a location olong the boulevard by
his hcme whero they thought the sewer stub should be
located and Mr. Itailly'a contractor, Schluendor Plumbing,
excavated thin location but could not find the sower pipe.
The City then raehackod the, sower and watur maps and found
an error and restaked at a now location within 25 to 3
feat of the actual sower lino pipe. Although the second
aLaking was within a few foot of the actual location,
Schluendor Plumbing still wan unable to find the aorvicu
0
Council Minutes - 5/24/83
and began digging a trench near the house in an effort to find
the sewer pipe to determine its actual location.
Mr. Reilly requested that the City reimburse him for all costs
associated with digging the first hole which also damaged two
Elm trees which will probably die in the near future. He
requested that the City remove the existing trees and pay for
the restoration of the first hole and also pay for the restora-
tion of the third excavation near the house that would not
have been necessary had the second staking been accurate.
Dir. 1L_,illy noted that he was not able to have his contractors
at the meeting and since they would Le morn familiar with the
actual work they performed, he requested that possibly
the City Council table any action on his request until the
next meeting to enable all parties to bein attendance. It
was the Council consensus to table this item until the next
meeting.
7. Consideration of Overlay on N kwood Drive (Gould Brothers
Service Road).
John Simola, Public works Director, reviewed with the Council
the completed plans and specifications for the overlaying of
Gould Brother's Service Road with a two inch overlay and ro-
graveling the shoulders. The estimated cost of this work
is $14,402. Mr. Simola noted that the plans and specifications
also included an option for using approximately 600 feet of
reinforcing fabric under the overlay in a test area to sea if
this material helps prevent the roadway from deteriorating
due to cracks and water ueepage. This additional fabric re-
inforcing material would add an additional $2,250 to the
total project tout bringing the total to S1G,652.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously
carried to approve the plans and ulvccificationa as presented
for overlaying the service road and to authorize advertising
for bids with and without Lilo option of the reinforcing
fabric.
0. Consideration of Proposed Raasoeucment o1' the 78-I mpr ovamant
Proj cc t.
A low months ago, some proiwrily owners assessed under the
1978 Improvement Project for sewer and water and street
improvements requested Lho Council to consider roaoseasing
Lhu original a wcubments ovut a longur parlod of Limo rather
than 5 years as initially aoocosed. A majority of the
prolxlrty owners wore having difficulty in mooting the largo
payments and ware becoming delinquent. The Initial petition
rMU
Council Minutes - 5/24/83
by the property owners requested that the assessments be pro-
rated over a longer period of time such as 20 years.
The City Staff along with its fiscal consultants, Springsted,
Inc., have been reviewing the assessments and preparing alterna-
tive assessment rolls using various options. A new assessment
xoll was prepared for the prope rty owner's review that amortized
the original assessment over a 20 year period of time but
would have a balloon at the end of 10 years.
The group of property owners affected by the 78-1 assessment
presented to the Council Lit, following proposal for re-
assessment:
1. Change the assessment basis to a 2U year amortization
with a 10 year balloon.
2. The pxupexty owners would agrea to pay all tack
assessmenta under cite 20 year schedule that were due
for the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 based on an
interest rate of 0%.
3. Agree to the remaining principal balance to be assessed
at 74% for the next six years.
4. Requested that the City waive all penalties of all de-
linquent assessments.
5. Agreement of all parties involved to pay assessments
in full as lots are sold and certificate of occupancy
in issued.
Discussion wan held by the Council on whether the City should
consider waiving the existing penalties on delinquent payments
fur the past three years and it was recommended that as an
alternative, the CiLy would agrcu to add Lho delinquent
penalties to Lite unpaid principal balance that would be spread over
the remaining six yearn of the asseaaments. In addition, it
was recommended that Lite property ownero be rosponsible for
all costs incurred in preparing new asuusrment rolln and con-
sulting foes incurred to date. Those additional charges would
also be prorated amonquL Lite ptopm'tyuwnuru and added to their
assoosmont balancon. In linitt. of theca comornmisos, the
interest rata on the ansesancitLu lur Ute nest e;ix yearn would
remain of GSe interest as originally avtifiert.
A majority of the property owners have indicated a willingness
to partieipsto in thu rcaanuusmoitt proposed, and as a result,
a motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously
carriod to authorize tho reaseaaamont of the 78-1 Improvement
project to all property owners affected under the following
conditional
D
Council Minutes - 5/24/83
1. The assessment roll would be based on a 20 year
amortization schedule with a balloon after 10
years. Only the amount of the first 10 years
including interest will be certified to the
County Auditor for collection with the balloon
payment to be guaranteed to the City by execution
of individual contracts with the property owners.
2. The property owners must bring current all back
assessments that would be due under the 20 year
amortization schedule for the years 1980, 1981
1982 and 1983.
3. The in tcrest rate on the future asuessments will
be at the current 650 rate.
4. The current penalties on delinquencies will be
added to the principal balance owing for each
property owner and amortized over the remaining
6 years.
S. All expenses incurred by the City to accomplish
....., r .. ...,.,.
,
-c.and add..1o
L
remaining principal balanceand amortized over the
next G years.
6. All current and future asscusmonts will be paid in
full within 120 days of when lots aro sold. Special
cases may be proposed to the City Council for their
review.
9. Approval of Bills for Month of May.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Maxwell and unani-
mously carried to approve the bills for the month of May
as presented. See Exhibit 11.
NOTE: From this time on, Council Member Maus was not in
attondance .
10. domination for Leaque of Minneuota Cities hoard of Directors.
City Mminiatrator, Tan iiideth, informed the Council that he
has been nuni.nated for Lhu position on Lho Board of
Directors for the W ague of Minnesota Cities.
Council Minutes - 5/24/83
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus and unanimously
carried to approve of the City Administrator's participation
en the Board of Directors for the League of Minnesota Cities
if Mr. Eidem should be elected.
11. Consideration of Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent
Position.
City Administrator noted that it was the Staff's recommendation
that Mr. Albert Mayer, present lead operator at the Waste-
water Treatment Plant, be promoted to Wastewater Treatment
Plant Superintendent to fill the position of Mr. Jim Miller,
who will be resigning effective Juno 3, 1983.
A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen and
unanimously carried to promote Mr. Alburt Meyer to the
position of wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent
effective June 15th, 1983, with Mr. Meyer heing under a
G month probation period for the position. It was noted
that prior to Mr. Meyer's starting date, the Council will
be reviewing and setting tlie salary for the position.
Meeting Adjourned.
hick wolfatollo
Asoiutant Administrator
6-o
J
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
4. Consideration of a Request for Reimbursement by Ed Reilly. ME).
For this item I refer you back to the original information issued
to you with your last agenda. Since the last meeting, the Staff
has discussed this item a little more, and I have talked with
other City Administrators as to how their City would handle such
a claim. Elk River has indicated that line locations is purely
a service and the City accepts no obligation regardless of the
age of, maps or the quality of the maps used. It is their
position that the location and repair of a service line is the
sole obligation of the property owner and the City participates
only to make it a little easier. Bob Middaugh, their City
Administrator, indicated that Elk River would even be
reluctant to pay for the first one in spite of it being a 10
foot error. They take the position of "We tried, we missed,
sorry". This position is also held by the Cities of Buffalo,
Cokato, Delano and a few metro communities that I talked to.
They are also of the impression that 3 feet from center is
mor. Own adeyu.Lu Cur iax:a Liuy. GL: ,L.J, Ui L L1,1e muuno a
six foot gap (3 foot on either side of the line) that the
digger may have to search through, but they all think that
any digger would have to open a hole of that size for lo-
cating the line anyway. It ceema apparent the Cities, by and
large, take the position that we may not be able to be
dead center on location but we are providing you with the
best location that we can based on our information and we
hope that holps. One City indicated that to avoid just this
type of misunderstanding, they no longer do field locations:
they simply provide a copy of the section of the map and wish
them good luck. I don't think we want to get to that position,
but I think it is important we stroso that our location
efforts on bohalf of any property owner/digger is voluntary
and that we accept no obligation.
In a related matter, John Simola pointed out to me that the
digger, when looking for the lino at the second stake, wan
digging in a parallel alignment as if he were directly above
the pipe. All cities and public works directors that I hove talked
to (and this includes John) say that the accepted practice
for digging would be to dig across the lino, thus compensating
for any margin of error. We find that it is somewhat peculiar
that he would dig in a parallel configuration.
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
Basically,then, the Staff position has not changed. John is
still comfortable with the recommendation made in your pre-
ceding agenda supplement to compensate for a certain amount
of the major error that damaged the trees. we do not think
it would be wise to accept responsibility for the second
staking, and especially not for the digging further up in
the yard. The digging efforts in the yard is well beyond
the scope of any responsibility the City might be willing to
assume.
ALTErNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Honor the requests by Nr. Reilly for substantial
reimbursement - this would set a precedent that
could indeed become costly to the City or could
cause us to get out of the service of assisting
locations entirely.
2. Accept the Staff recommendation to reimburse in
part. This primarily is a good faith effort to
accomsodato the shade trees and the fact that the
tirst staking was really a substantial error in
locating. It is more an expression of apology
for the inconvenience rather than fulfulling of
a legal obligation.
3. Deny the entire request. As near as I can tell,
this would primarily create a bad public relations
image, but would not involve us in any legal matter.
Our line location is clearly voluntary and we need
not accept any obligation for accuracy.
RF.FERF.NCES: A complete set of references were included with
your agenda supplement of last meeting.
2 -
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
5 - HWY 25 Old Bridge Lighting - (J .S.) .
This item has been continued from the May 24th Meeting. As you recall,
the State 04N/DOT) indicated they would scrap the entire lighting
project if the City did not participate 100% in the new lights for
the sidewalk. Even after the Mayor's tentative offer of $2,000, they
said "it'a"all or nothing.
At the Council's request, I researched this further and obtained an
estimate for the repair of the existing system. First, it is my
understanding that in 1929 the City entered into an agreement` with
MN/DOT to maintain the bridge lights as necessary and to pay all power 6 maintenance
costs and in the years following, entered into agreements with NSP to
provide minor maintenance such as bulb and glass replacement.
In January of 1980, the power was shut off due to missing fixtures and
bare wires. Since that time, we have been in contact with MN/DOT to
crake repairs, not knowing it was supposedly our responsibility.
During the previous week, I contacted officials at I4SP who informed me
that they were waiting for the repairs to be made prior to turning on
the power. They stated our contract with them was only for minor
maintenance, but they would offer any assistance they could in helping
locate replacement fixtures, etc. Once the major repairs were made,
NSP would resume minor maintenance.
`fes I then contacted Mr. Milton Olson and he and myself made a thorough
examination of the old lighting system. This examination indicates
the lighting system is in much better condition than the MN/DOT has
led us to believe. There has been improvements to the system as
late as 1974 including new 175W Mercury vapor lights and some new
conduit and wire. Basically, the system includes 6 sidewalk lights
and 2 down streambridge entry lights. Five (5) fixtures are in tact
and appear to need little, if any, repair. Two (2) now fixtures are
needed on the sidewalk and if noconsary, one (1) fixture and base
is needed on the south side entry. The wiring itself appears to be
in excellent shape and needs only minor repairs. The repairs are
thought to cost $2,000 or $3,000. With NSP's help and omitting the
south entry light, I would expect the cost not to exceed $2,000.
I relayed this information back to rd MuCullochwhowaa not in favor
of repairing the old lighting but continuing with rho State's
project. At first he ran reluctant to allow us access to repair
the lights. Hu stated we needed a Stato permit to.work on the bridge
lighting After he found the 1929 agroemert, he changed his mind
and tho Statu's lighting project was officially scraped.
-um t Mr. Ed McCulloch of MN/DDT is forwarding a copy of the 1929
agreement from tho Sta to's old Tilos.
- 3 -
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
t'
It is my opinion that we should put a reasonable effort forth in re-
pairing the lights. To me, a reasonable effort would be no more than
$2,000. In discussing this project with Mr. Milt Olson, we felt the
best way to approach it was to spend one day or 8 hours in physically
charging up the system and miscellaneous repair. This would cost the
City $336 and from this we could pin down the, actual costs more
precisely and determine whether or not it is cost effective to continue
with repairs.
At Tom's suggestion, I have contacted Chairman Joe Corty from Big
Lake Township about sharing repair costs. I have tentatively been
placed on their June 16th agenda to discuss the matter. This would
depend upon the City Council's decision Monday night.
In a related matter Mr. Fd MuCulloch stated he would need a resolution
from the City to maintain and pay power costs on the now bridge prior
to the State incorporating the lights into the bridge design. If the
Council approves, I could approach Big Lake Township about sharing
in these costs also.
Public Works Director
John Simola
C
..34 0
CLAts;F'CAT, ION
October MA, '.939,
N,
rx. Ocarge �- 9000 1.
Ummiloolloo
I With to Ockamuore rasavas of 704 totter at
Smy -snbsr 27th, mAviet" that V* VISUP Orchid! 'd *Sttcoll*
to apasaule to the Installation of $104 ligbAs on ft We
tatop in ;01-09 at the Ni's as Ila$ ort ;!Dally Contempluted.
uwt that Few Oxnall Will 'M able U M" 4
"Ustaotm, - I—
at AM the 'bribeft States to" 0ORTMAY
9to 11A refor4c; to Installation of a clodi device 4111'a1 sill
-
Sm"USIM211 w" off as four onset 11#tS 40- Wd IiimA aft
an arood ties loadsw
ft four end I ights " 9*01t t"-
&WbA the wittre DLOS.
U reply to your Inquiry as to 17 Had 10 We watt"
I really have no W%1CQIQF Wig,-Oetttl to offer other them -,oftnpe
suasst that an four eentay 11phts Le ftl off &,Cm% It or 13 O'clock
as is custanwy to the Miss .a coot of OV OndOntOl 1410tind
eyetec*.
Tor yaw Information in this matter wtdb toi-advigo that
ees "stri-asy accepted a !%ropoolti-im &ubmittod by %be Widell many
Cowring the Lostallottam of the lijottft 4"UO on the bri46s. wd
m 4mgmm t,.4% awe sill be ar.!-n
. lated at atocat OW Imme time via%
the b ii:ince of Vid w,:r1t an Pe stracurA to flattlwd.
you for ymir eooe, *rotten in lad cottor 'A
DvP,,.,11W-1R 07 HZ(r.-,'AYD.
ftj,!JP Dower.
� �� !iesoluaion
,Ztorons the Lept.of Aiglmerys of the atnte of !_i-inosote is now cons+ructir
n now stool and ouncrete bri:Ge across the Y1salesippL :livor at :.:cnticellos
Aright County Uinnesot3.and the ease is nearing ommpletionsend
Whereas it is necessary that said bridge be properly lighted for the
convenience of the public ands
Wwreas said bridge is partly within and partly outside the limits of the
Village of Moaticello and yet constitutes a part of State Highway No.25 as the
same enters said Villagessnd
Whereas the Department of highways of the State of YLmesots has agreed to
buildsoonstruot and ersot a lighting system across seJ4 bridge,the sums to
consist of proper wiring and oramsental lamp posts with proper glass wareson
which shall be placed not more than six electric lights sone of which is to
exceed too hundred and fifty onndle power at no' aspens to the Village of
Monticello.
Now,Zherefore,be it resolved by the Village Council of the Village of
MonticellosArignt County.Misnosota,that if the Department of Highways of the
State of Minnesota o'..all erect end conatauot the said lighting system for the
purpose of properly lighting the way over and across the said bridbe and shall
properly install the neosaasry equipment and futures for said purpose,the
Village of Monticello will hereafter supply and pay for the necessary electric
:.
will 1sep up 'a'nd maintain the same as per regular Northern States Power
Ornamental Lighting Contract.
/.dopted at a session of said Oounoil hero at the Village of Monticello,
Minnesota as the 4th day of September 1929.
Peseident of Mostioell Vi go coustoil
At?att
:.Wnticollo Vilingo Recorder.
CEIVED
?`hIGNWAY
0
BOYD'S DRUG STORE
GEORGE R, BONA)
- MONTICELLO• MINN__192—
' W ILJ.17offtm,
Stato Righnay, bapt.
Saint Poul tlinaeaata.
Dear Sire-liontioollo Village Council thiol that yo -.T Was.
of night instead six lights on the low TGr1JCo is very good
and vill gladly agree to furnish the ourrest providing e
saticfaotury contract oW be r. -We wit i C. C.rownr Co.
T.e have taksi..�ha matter o" put-tixr'l clock or
errongi)G is some way to turn tha foam oon*erNIghU off
at as agreed time with the ihrer Cc and their roproaontatiw
is sure such a oontraot oan be sada but oould giro us
mothiag defisito.
What is yarn idea es to thn time that t Ness rovr
ossater lights oar be shut off each siGhtr
!oars vary trdy
C.
0
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
G. Consideration of a Salary Request for Albert Meyer in the
Position of Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent.
I met with Albert on Monday, June 6th to try and arrive at
a suitable figure to establish as the starting salary for
Wastewater Superintendent. I will do my very best to re-
construct the discussion and how the figures were arrived
at so that you know the amount was not simply plucked out
of the air. Albert's initial request was for $22,800 which
is the same -amount as Jim Miller was making in that position.
It is his position that the job was determined by the Council to
be worth that amount of money and thus, the position should
be compensated for the same amount regardless of the person
in it. I took the position that if all other things wore to
be considered equal with respect to ability around the plant,
there would still be one difference between Jim and Albert,
viz., Jim had one year more supervisory experience and
administrative experience in the plant. Thus, I proposed
the starting salary of $21,300 which was the salary
attributed to Jim in 1982 when he began the position. I
also indicated to Al that the mean salary for a Wastewater
.-_.... in .iti^__ ^f P 1--tw—n 2.500
and 5,000 was $20,592. I also pointed out to Al that Roger,
+� with a number of years of supervisory experience was at
$22,800, and that Walt, also with a number of years of
supervisory experience wan at $22,300. I said that I
thought it would be unfair to bring an untested supervisor
in at the same level as a tested supervisor. Albert did
raise the point that he thought it was unfair to pay a
lessor amount of money for a probation period. lie stated,
and I came to agree with him, that even though on probation,
he is still expected to perform satisfactory work, and in
fact, may be expected to perform beyond reasonable expectations
in order to guarantee permanent appointment at the end of six
months. If, in fact, we demand oxcellont performance, then
we should, in fact, pay for that performanco whether Lilo
status is probationary or not. If we hired an outside person
who had the demonstrated skills, he would stili be on pro-
bation but we wouldn't necessarily give him a lessor salary
for the time being. I accept that arguement and agree that
we aro hiring with the intent of it being a permanent appoint-
ment and as ouch, should compensate for that. Basically, tho
salary we award right now should be the salary that we would
recognize as acceptable rogardlose of the appointment. As a
result of that diacuasion, my figure of $21,300 increased to an
even $22,000 annually.
_4 -
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
I will try to explain how I arrived at. that figure and why I
think it is suitable for the appointment. I will work with
round figures, eliminating the cents. In 1982, Albert worked
2,258.5 hours for a total earnings of $19,210. If we view the
$19,210 as a salary rather than an hourly rate and at the
beginning of 1983, he was awarded a 7.256 cost of living
e,djustment like the others, his 1983 salary would be $20,603.
Again, this would be his 1983 salary for performing essentially
the same duties, in a non -supervisory roll, as he performed in
1982. Also, the total number of hours worked in 1982 figures
out to an average of 43.4 hours weekly. Next, I felt I had
to determine how to quantify the supervisory tasks and added
responsibilities for being the supervisor. lf, based on the
standard increase for everyone, Albert would be at $20,603,
what would be an appropriate amount to tack onto that sum to
compensate for supervision, administration and other added
rosponsiblity. Since it is virtually impossible to quantify
supervisory rolls and how they should be compensated, I
elected to work with with an approximate 45 hour week. Over
the course of the year, people in supervisory positions
generally should average 40 to 50 hours per week so I took
45 plus or minus as a middle ground to work with. I then
took Albert's 43.4 hours and added two hours, figuring that
as a supervisor he too would be expected to put in an annual
average of 45, 46 hours. Next, I figured, if he were a union
employee and was required to work those two additional hours
and was paid the going union rate for overtime, he would earn
an extra $1,400 a year approximately. That $1,400 tacked
onto the 520,600 yields a flat $22,00 per year.
To confuse matters for you just a little more, I will introduce
one more figure for comparative cake. In the above figures,
we are oay ing that approximately $1,400 is the value of
supervisory tasks and the added responsibility. However, if
absolutely nothing changed in 1983 such that Albert worked
precisely the came number of hours, but was paid according
to the current union schedule, his gross earnings would be
$20,955. if we use that figure as a starting point, and
increase to $22,000, wu aro declaring the value of the supor-
vinery roll to be worth $1,045 annually. An I noted, attempto
to quantify in terms of dollars, 11 --ho supervisory roll is
extremely difficult and generally unproductive. After playing
with numbers and formulas and figures for several hours, I
have arrived at the conclusion that $22,000 oven,annually is
suitable for the position and can be aeon an a fair payment
with respect to other supervisors.
- 5 -
H
`7
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
The final complication in this matter is that Albert does
not find the figure of $22,000 even to be acceptable. He
has formally requested to come before the Council to submit
his request for $22,860. I informed him then, and in that
case, that I would sumbit to you the number I found suitable,
but I would not formally recommend that he be granted that
number. I informed him that he will be 100ton his own to
negotiate and I will not jump into the fray, if there is
one, to defend the $22,000 level that I arrived at. He
acknowledged that and he will take his chances. In addition,
I noted to Albert that because of an apparent misunderstanding,
he did put me in a rather awkward position. I noted to him
that it was my understanding that he and I were to sit down
and discuss and hopefully arrive at a figure we both agreed
upon and as such, take it to the Council in full agreement.
After considerable discussion, I noted that he didn't seem
entirely willing to negotiate with me and would rather come
directly to the Council since there was no movement or com-
promise on his part. One added note: I do not consider
this to be any kind of an indication that Altort has a bad
attitude or anything related to that. All wage and salary
negotiations are, by definition, adversarial. The employee,
almost without exception, asks for more and the employer
offers less. This, unfortunately, seems to be the way
to act salaries in today's world. It is not common to me,
an indicator, that the work relationship is unsound.
POSSIBLE: ACTION:
I. Negotiate with Albert until a suitable figure is
arrived at.
2. Dater into no negotiations: Establish a salary
suitable to the Council and offer it to Albert
and lot him decide whether or not he wishoo to
accept.
There are no references for this item since all relevant
numbers and data are included in the above text.
_6 -
iTO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MITICELLO
In regard to the salary of the Superintendent of the
Wastewater Treatment plant, I feel that the Council has
set the value of the position, when you granted Jim
Miller $22,860.00 per year as fair compensation for
the year ,f 7983.
I will bu available at the June 13, 1983 Council
Meet i ny .
ouncil
Age
Consideration of an Anpeal for the Grantinq of Ca Variance ads - 5/13183
Applicant - Hal Wehne<3nn.
Attached below are the Planning Cl=r i nsion Agenda from
May 17, 1983 and the Stinutos u£ that meetinr; regarding
the vae'iance for Hal Wehmarm.
Pi.annin.l 0,immission Agenda - 5/17/133
'�. Public Hearinq - Variance from Minimum Square Footage Require-
ments - Hal Wohmann.
fIx. Hal Wohmann, who has built four condominiums/apartment units
on Lots 3 and 4, 5 and G, of Block 1, Holker's Hillaidt Terrace,
has requested a variance to develop the balance of the property
in that block with 3 additional four unit condominiums and one
duplex. Mr. Wehmann has indicated plan:; to acquire a small
triangular portion of property lcw,ated within the block from
Roy Lauring to square off the property into one ownership.
Previously, when Mr. Wehmann built the first four units on
Lots 3 through 5, he had been granted variances from the
minimum lot size requirements for each of the four buildings
amounting to approximately 61j♦ for each building. The proposal
so subnittod for 3 four unit condominiums and 1 duplex would
require a total land area of 57,000 square feet and the pro-
posed property including the triangular portion M. Wahmann
plans to obtain totals 54,750 square feet or approximately
4♦ short.
When previous variances were granted for the first 4 apart-
ment buildings, the Planning Commission indicated that be-
fore Mr. Wchmann developer) the balance of the property, Two
would have to address how the aituntion of square foutage
shortages would be resolved on the rem;,ueinq 4 Iota of
Block 1, Hillside Terrace. !tr. Wehmn-Wa response in July of
1982 war that of the 75 lots which were available in Block 1,
(without Mr. Lauring'e triangular priperty) his intentions
were to build only 7 four unit buildings and the half lot
which remained would be used to off set the shortagos on
the first developments. If only 7 four unit buildings were
to be built on the entire block without Mr. tauring's parcel,
there would be an overage of square footage by approximately
1,000 square foot. The planning Commission approved the pro-
vious variance request ansaming that the entire development
within thr block would meet City ordtnancen as a whole,
Mr. wehmnnn now fools that the entire block could b0 developed
better if he could acquire the parcel of land from Mr. lauring.
The additional coat of acquiring this parcel of land would
uquare off the block but Mr. Wohmann feuln it would only be
fuauiblo to acquire this property which would create 4 lots
C similar to thefirst half of the block if the property could
contain 3 four unit buildings and I duplex. in reviewing
the entire Block 1 development, the 7 tour unit buildings and
I duplex would have a squats footage requirement of 119,000
square foot according to the City ordinances but the property
only contains 109,072 ¢quare fact. This would result in the
entire- block having approximately Oyt shortage of land area
to u, e. City ordinances. - 7 -
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
Planning CpmmissiOn Agenda - 5/17/83
It would seem that if Mr. Wehmann floes not acquire the triangular
portion from Mr. During, this properly that Mr. During owns would
never be developed as it would not be considered huildable by
itself. Combining this parcel with the entire block would
provide for better locations for the balance of the buildings
, Wehmann plans to build.
Setback variances were also requested for 2 of the buildings
as proposed to allow for a 20 foot setback on 1 building
where 30 feet are required facing 1�urinq Lane and a setback
of 10 feet on the duplex where 30 feeL is normally required.
POSSIBIE ACTION: Consideration of approving or denying the
variance request from the minimum IOL size requirements for
condominium unite and setback variances as requested.
REFERENCES: Copies of the Planning Commission minutes
relating to the first two variance request in November, 1981
and July, 1982. A copy of the site plan indicating proposed
layout of buildings.
_» Council ngOnda' = 6!13!03 1
Planniriy'Comm �tufon N,nutuu - 5/17/83"
W
5.° Public Hearina - Variance from Minicab, Square Pootago
Requirements • Hal Wohmann.
Mr. Hal Hohmann, who has built four-condominiums/apartment
units on Wte 3 and 4, 5 and 6. of block 1, Holker,'s
Hillside.Terrece, has.requested,a variance to. -develop the
balance of the proporty in that block with 3 additional_
four unit condominiums and one duplex. Rir: Wahmann has
indicated plans to acquire a small triangular, porCion of
property located within the block front Roy Yauring,to
square-off'the property. 4iio,ono:ownershIlt
vrevioui ly, e: hen Mr. Piluwiii�Y lailt ijt,s Txial. four ut7l CY W1
Ipto,-'.3; through '6,;'he -tied bebn ,jkant.cd 'var.lonces from the
minimum lot;uiio:;raqulram nto fac-ra ti'of'cha;.tou;,bulldinga
amounting to•appioximately'Gert for,c.rt,-li building. The ,proposeI
as submitted,.for_ 'l' fitur_''Unit:-cOni' iuma and, 2 duplex would
;oquiro a toter land"arca 'of,S7,,d00,squ4ro10t 4ilRs1 the pro='
.posed property ineltidir�.tho'triangular portion'ID. uahmana;
,"plans to obtain totals 5d,7S0 ,square feot:,or. opstxeieately,
4% short.
Whoa previous variances were granted for the first 4 apart -
Met buildings. the Planning Coseaission indicated that be -
Coro Mr. Wohseann developed the balance of the property, hs
would have to address how the situation of square footage
shortages would be resolved on the remaining 4 lots of
!!lock 1, (tillside Terrace. Mr. Wohmann's respons4 in July of
1982 was that of the 7% lots which were available in Block 1,
(without MY. lauring's triangular pr%%orty) his intentions
were to build only 7 four unit buildings and thr half lot
which remained would be urod to off est tho shortages on
the first developments. If mly 7 four unit buildings were
to be built on the entire block wirhour Mr. RAuring's parcel,
there would it an overage of aguer., Itertarin by approxlmatoly
1,000 squad, feet. The I'lanninq Coeai_'31..n appioved tiko pro-
vAnwi vationro request achuminq the+ tIm Pe.eiro doveloixront
w then thn bi.a:k would mLet. 0, vital..
Council, 'Agenda - 6/13/83,
Mr. ldohmann: now fools that 'thy=',entiYC'ilnrk•'cduld.'bo dovolopcd„
Wttur ii he could icquiru.We par6W qi: land from Mi. '6iuriny_ ))
Rhe aAilti'onal cost of ac,lu,ring thi i f heel of land would �W
square off the block but Mr. Wohmann teel;, it would only ,ba.
r feasible to acquire this prupor.ry which would create 4 lots
:similar to the first half of the ilrk-k if the property conrh
l
contain 3 four unit buildings and 1 duplex. In reviewing
the entire Block 1 davelnpm:nt, the 7 lour unit buildings and
1 duplex would have a square foota3c «e{uiremont of 119,000
square feet according to the City ordinances but tho property
only contains 109,072 square feet. Thi.;; would result in the
entire block having approximately Silk shortage of land area
to moot City ordinances.
Setback variances were aluo-requasted for two of the buildings
as proposed to allow for a 2U foot autl,,ick on one building
where 30 feet was required facing lauring Lane and a setback
of 10 feet on the duplex where 30 feet is normally required.
Planning Comiosion Minutes - 5/17/83
;Tho basic consensus of the 'Plahnin9' Cemni:salon wad that the.
develdpment :was very': aesthetically l,ti aLiing: an0 woil,
(thought, cutbut the coumitttie. mcmbern,oxl{rosoad conc_orni
over, the entire devoloppen not'meotind-the minimum aquarw
'tgotagm' requir,em anti as orOinaiiy' piiinned. i+r Farroll, .
,representing "Mr. 'ttihmanw who was, not pre'cent at the malting,
noted that It wpm. Choir oiiglnal :intent, to develop the
-entire black"with only enough units to meet the minimum
'aqupie footage requirements but as the development progfosrod .
iho additionai land they aequircd bocame more, costly and'thny'
feel it is unfeasible to consider building lose -than 14
,Units more. It was noted, by Mr. Parxell that if, those 14
units 'were built in one tiui'ldiny, they would not, have any.
problems meeting the squarefootage roqutremant and actually
eFore units than 14 could be built if they were all in one
building. It was his opinion that the ,luvelopmant would
more pleasing to the neighborhood and tit- community by
staling with their original plan -to have only 4 units per
butlding maximum, rather than one largo apartment complex.
Although the Planning Commission agreed that the development
is well planned and aesthetically pleasing, a motion was
made by Dowling, seconded by Carlson and unanimously carried
to deny the variance request from minimum square footage
requirements because the original impression left with the
Planning Conssission in July 1982 was to oast the square
footage requirements on the entire development.
0
rouncil Agenda - G/13/83
Comments from 8uildinq Official, Gary Anderson Reqardinq Hal
Wehmann Variance Request.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the develop-
ment itself was very aesthetically pleasing on Phase I and
Phase II, but as an overall entire development, the Planning
Commission had some concerns. The main topic of concern
being the total amount of square footage required for place-
ment of the two units in Phase 1, minimum additional square
footage had to be acquired from the part on Phase II. Also,
on Phase Il, additional square footage had to be borrowed
from part of the proposed Phase Ili, therefore, to continue
with the proposed Phase 11I, they would be short on the
minimum amount of square footage needed. The consensus of
the Planning Commission when a variance was applied for
in Phase I and in Phase 11 that the stpiare f—Lage furrowed
from Phase I1 and the proposed Phase III would be mad., up
in the proposed Phase III project, therefore adhering to the
minimum amount of square footage required on the entire
development. Although the Planning Commission memrers
agreed that the development was well planned and to aosthati-
cally pleasing, they still felt they had to go back to the
original impression left with them in their duly, 1982
Planning Commission meeting whore the developers agreed that
they would meet the square foot requirements for tha entire
development.
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
n 8. Consideration of an Appeal for the Grantinq of a Variance -
Applicant - Country Kitchen .
Attached below are the Planning, Commission agenda and the Planning
Commission Minutes for the variance request for Country Kitchen.
C
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/17/83
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
Public Hearin - Variance Request for Separate Pvlon Siqn to
Advertise Daily Specials - Country Kitchen.
The Country Kitchen Restaurant in the Monticello Mall re-
cently decided to move their pylon sign from the north side
of the building to the south side to gain better exposure
from I-94. The pylon sign also was raised to 32 feet above
the roadway (Hwy 25) in compliance with City Ordinances.
As part of the pylon sign, the Country Kitchen has always had
a small reader board attached to the sign which allowed them
to change the wording daily to advertise their specials. In
add 21 tion, this ruadur li:.a [.7 ie ole. --1 fan uwunagua u.l
neccasarily related to the Country Kitchen, but for such things
as advertising civic events, etc.
Because the sign was raised in height when it was moved to its
now location, the roader board is currently difficult to roach
easily to unable tho employee's to change mosoagoo. As a
result, the Country Kitchen has applied for a variance to
place this advertising sign back in its former location on
the north and of tho building near the front ontranco. City
ordinances only allow for ono pylon sign per establishment
and as a result, a variance would be needed to allow Country
Kitchen to have this separato sign.
Although thio sign would be on a permanent location, it would
appear that thin roader board message sign would be similar
to other roquooto recently rocoived by McDonald's for a portable
sign to advortiso spociala. Although the Country Kitchon has
indicated tho sign in not always send for just advertising
food itemn ovailablo and is used for other purposos, thoro
appears to be littlo diffe zunco'botwoon this typo of requoot
versus a portable sign request.
POSSIBLE ACTIONi Consideration of recommending approval or
denial of variance request for a separate message board sign.
- 12 -
Council Agenda - G/13/63
J
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CCddMISSION Mi:ETI::C
May 17, 1963
3. Public Hearin - Variance Request for a Separate Pvlon Siqn -
Country Kitchen.
The Country Kitchen Restaurant in the Monticello Mall re-
cently decided to move their pylon sign from the north side
of the building to the south side to gain better exposure
from 1-94. The pylon sign also was raised to 32 feet above
the roadway (Hwy 25) in compliance with City Ordinances.
As part of the pylon sign, the Country Kitchen has always
had a small reader board attached to the sign which allowed
them to change the wording daily to advertise their specials.
In addition, this reader board is also used for messages not
necessarily related to the Country Kitchen, but for such
things as advertising civic events, etc.
He. Bryan Tschida, manager of the Country Kitchen, noted
that :hon tLe oiyn woo raisoo in height and moved to its
new location, the reader board has become very difficult
to reach easily to enable the empioyoos to change moseagoo.
Mr. Tachida requested that they be allowed to place the
reader board portion of the sign back in its former location
at the north end of the building near the front entrance.
Ile noted that Country Kitchen has always had this sign
since 1974 and he would not be asking for any additional
signs, but only to allow it to be grandfathered in in its
old location.
It was noted by the Planning Comniooion that the grand-
fathered clause would no longer apply once the sign was
moved to a now location and it was the consensus of the
committee that similar requests have boon made by other
rostauranta to allow for additional advertising signs
which have boon denied in the pant.
Comments from Ruildinq Official, Gary Anderson Raoardinq Country
Kitchen Variance Request.
Thu planning Commission noted that the grandtathor clause would
no longer apply once the sign was moved to a now location. The
Committoo'a consensus that similar requests have boon made by
other restaurants (r•Ieuonald's) for additional advertising signs
which have been denied in thu ,not. - 13 -
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
9. Consideration of the 1982 Audit Report - (R.W.)
The city auditors will be present to discuss the 1982 Audit
Report, and answer any questions you may have. While this
is a relatively short time for you to review the audit to
be prepared to go over it, I think you will find it basic-
ally self explanatory. If, at a later date, you have
additional questions concerning the audit report and the
financial operations of the City for 1982, we can certainly
invite the auditors to return for a more prolonged
discussion.
REFERENCES: A copy of tV,e 1982 Audit Report which was
previously delivered.
- 14 -
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
i_
10. Consideration of the Annual Renewal of Intoxicating Liquor
and Beer Licenses.
In the past, you have renewed the licenses listed below in a
single motion. I believe that the motion has been a contingent
motion such that licenses are approved depending upon successful
completion of the application filing of the bond, approval at
the State level, etc. During Staff meetings, we did discuss the
notion of increasing the liquor license fee this year but
according to Minnesota Statute, we must submit to the current
possessors of license, an intention to increase 30 to 60 days
prior to the application deadline which was June 1, 1983. Thus,
Lhu license fees may not be increased this year, but we should
plan for review on this matter no later than February or March
of next year. Perhaps to avoid any over sight on this particular
matter, an item for the agenda, looking at licensing fees should
be presented in the very near future and a decision made at that
time. That would provide any holder of a license with nearly a
full year advance notice that the liquor fee would be increasing.
The licenses for your consideration are as follows:
1. Intoxicating Liquor License, on -sale (Fee $3,000.00)
A) Monticello Liquor, Inc.
8) Silver Fox Motel.
C) Wayside Inn.
D) Joyner's Lanes.
Intoxicating, On-ealo - Sunday (Fee $100)
A) Monticello Liquor, Inc.
0) Silver Fox Motel.
C) Wayside Inn.
D) Joyner's Lanes.
Non -intoxicating Malt Liquor, On-sala (Fee $220.00)
A) Monticello Rod and Gun Club.
0) pizza Factory.
C) Monticello Country Club.
D) Friend's Cafe (Tho Friend's Cafo is currently being
remodeled. We anticipato tho requoat for a license
for their rooponing. You may wish to doloto the
approval of the liconau at this time and await a now
application)
- 15 -
t�
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
4. Non -intoxicating Malt Liquor, Off -sale fee ($33.00).
A) Monticello Liquor, Inc.
B) Ernie's Bait Shop.
C) Wayne's Red Owl.
D) Maus Foods.
E) River Terrace Trailer Park Store.
F) Tom Thumb Superotte.
G) Wayside Inn.
H) Holiday Station.
5. Set -Up License (Fee $220.00)
A) Monticello Country Club.
B) Monticello Rod and Gun Club.
G. Club Liquor License - (Fee $220.44)
A) American Legion Club.
B) VFW Club.
A single motion approving those would road similar to "I move that
that following licenses be approved effective July 1, 1983".
REFERENCE^u: A copy of my letter to Wright County Sheriff Wolff
requesting response to whether or not there, wan an unusually high
incident rate of law enforcement problemo with any of the above
licensoca.
(l y of ITIOnliceito
O'ke ut mr
C"' Mm n'..,nw,
June 9, 1983
Mr. Darrell Wolff
Wright County Sheriff
Wright County Courthouse
Puffalo, MN. 55313
P"u Ini21 295�21it
Mnnn Ir.t21 333 5779
Dear Sheriff Wolff:
Enclosed is a list ul e5lahlislmvcnin •.:I„r.b th.: City of
Mnntir.Alo licr.n!%o frr t.h,• ,.I.c. of
intoxieatiny liquor, tx:er and set-ups. Please Ict me
know, at your earliest convenience, it any of the listed
licenses have been responuible for or ronnectcd with an
unusually high incident rate of law onl'orcement problems.
This information will be reviewed as part of tho annual
licunae renewal.
Thank you for your assistance.
_ v`- ' yours,
Thoma A. Eidem
City Administrator
TAE/mh
cc: Correspondence File
(f
250 Easl Bioadwny • Rl •1. Bot 83A • Monhceao. MN 55362
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
11. Oakwood Drive Overlay - (J.S.).
The bids on the project are due in Friday afternoon at 2:00 P.M.
This gives ample time for Staff to review the bids prior to
Monday night's meeting. We will present the aids and tabu-
lations at the meeting and make a recommendation for the
award of the contract at that time.
- 17 -
C
OAKWOOD DRIVE OVERLAY BIDS
We have tabulated the bids for the Oakwood Drive Overlay
Project. The lowest responsible bidder is Buffalo Bitumi-
nous. Their bid of $11,182 fcr the overlay is $3,220 below
my estimate. Their bid of $2,325 for the 100 lineal feet of
fabric and oil is $75.00 over my estimate. The cost of the
total project is $13,507.00
Dan brought up a good point at the previous meeting in
regard to my placing the fabric where it will receive the
most abuse. I wholeheartedly agree that this is not an
accurate test of the material, as there is no control area
in which to measure the fabrics effect. I believe the prices
aro such that we could do an additional 600 lineal feet
for $2,325 and have the last 535 lineal feet as a
control area. This would make the total project cost
$15,832 or $1,168 less than the budgeted amount of $17,000.
This therefore, is my recomvandation.
John Simola
BITUMINOUS OVERLAY AND APPURTENANT WORK
STREET IMPROVDIENT PROJECT 83-1
OAY.WOOD DRIVE
Omnn Constr. Buffalo Bitum. Aero Asphalt
Item I $1,332.50 $11,182.00 $12,142.00
Item II $2,2925.00 $ 2,325.00 $ 3,900.00
J
1
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
��✓ 12. Grant Period Budqet Extension, WWTP - W .S.).
The grant budget period for the WWTP expires July 31, 1983. This
means that any monies allowed for by the EPA/PCA relating to the
plant can not be used after that date.
The June 29, 1981 contract claim and subsequent lawsuit filed
against the City by PALCO has not been resolved. The outcome
of the Waldor vs OSM lawsuit in Hennepin County will most likely
affect the outcome of our suit. The OSM case may not come to
trial for B to 9 months and therefore would be beyond the end
of our grant budget period. It is my understanding that the
attorneys have used approximately one-half of the $23,900 allotted
by the EPA. Any legal work on our case after July 31, 1983 will
have to be paid by the City.
In addition to the lawsuit, we are attempting to final out the
job and are having some problems with liens against the project
from suppliers of electrical equipment who were not paid by
Davidson Electric. If we withhold monies from PP.LCO for these
liens beyond July 31, 1983 we would have to make full payment
ourselves.
Tt tharefore seems most lmiral to extend tt,e grant bndne_t
period long enough to settle the law suit and liens. It is
recommended that the period be extended to July 31, 1984. we
of course have to make formal application to the PCA for such
an extension.
REFERENCES: Formal application by Mayor, OSM letter to PCA
on May 31, 1983, and letter from Meagher, Greer, Markham,
Anderson, Adamson, Flaskamp and Brennan to OSM on May 17, 1983.
TOo-295.7711
by of I //on[[ceg
a 250 East Broadway
l Route 4, Box 83A
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
June 13, 1983
Mr. Duane Anderson
Division of water Quality
Grants Section
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 west County Road D2
Roseville, Minnesota 5;113
Attention: Mr. Patrick Mulloy
RE: Monticello WWTP
Step 3 Grant Amendment Request - C270855-03
Grant Budget Period Extension
Gentlemen:
The City of Monticello hereby requests a Step 3 grant Amendment
to extend the grant budget period 12 months to July 31, 1964.
This extension will provide adequate time for resolution of the
Paul A. Laurence Co./Waldul vs. CiLy of Monticello/OSM lawsuit.
The particulars of this requeut are detailed by our Consulting
Engineers, Orr-Schelen-Mayoron 6. Associates, Inc., in their
letter to t -Ir. Andoraon dated May 31, 1983.
Should you have any questions in thin 1'e9111'd, ploaso contact me
at your convenience.
Sincerely,
A.rvo A. Gr imamo
Mayor of Monticello
AAG/mh
M.- 1.- 333-5739
ccl &Lep 3 Pilo
Gerald Carrick - OSM
John 6adalich - OSM
John Simola - Public Worker Director
C
/�o(conso�[o ,'�%�onlico[lo ill (o niuunlnin���• 1 e
ORR•SCHEIEN•MAYERON B ASSOCIATES, INC.
Cnnsulnnr
L and sun•el'ors
May 31, 1983
Mr. Duane Anderson
Division of Water ()uality
Grants Section
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road S2
Roseville, MN 55113
Attn: Mr. Patrick Mulloy
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant
Upgrading and Appurtentant Wor+
EPA Project No. C270855-03
Step 3 Grant Amendment Request
Grant Budget Period Extension
Gentlemen:
We submit for your consideration a Step 3 Grant Amendment Request )
for the above referenced project.
The current grant budget period expires July 31, 1983. We are
requesting an extension to July 31, 1984 based upon the
i,nticipated time required for resolution of the June 29, 1981
contract claim and subsequent lawsuit filed against the City of
Monticello by the Contractor, the Paul A. Laurence Co. (PALCO).
The pretrial discovery period is essentially complete at this
time. A recent motion by the defendant to combine the PALCO vs.
Monticello suit together with the Weldor vs. OSM suit has
recently been denied by Wright County District Court. This
decision essentially requires an independent resolution of both
lawsuits even though the issues and evidence are the same. Por
reasons sufficiently described in the attached document by our
legal counsel Thomas L Adams of Meagher, Geer, eta)., the most
expedient step towards favorable ,resolution of the lawsuit is
Immediate action on the Waidor vs. OSM lawsuit in Hennepin
County.
We expect to file the Certificate of n,'rsdiness and Note of issue
as anon as possible which will piase the case an the calendar. A
likely waiting period in Hennepin County is 8 - 9 months. The
court proceedings will • rohahly last 2 - 3 weeks. The post -
trial motions a`-Q-� it strative work -ill require at least one
month assuring n0 ap ,t of the court eci•_: .
'A9C:.:u JSP J L 1: i � r'77J
Page 2
May 31, 1983
J
we estimate project closeout of the paperwork with the agencies
will require at least one additional month after the lawsuit is
resolved. The grant budget period would therefore need to be
extended to July 31, 1984 to accomodate the anticipated timetable
described herein.
The treatment plant construction is complete (retainage still
held for various punchlist items) and operating satisfactorily.
To the best of our knowledge, all other grant conditions (i.e.,
UCS, SUO, 0 6 M, etc.) have been satisfied and the only major
outstanding work item is the lawsuit.
We trust the information submitted herewith will fulfill your
requirements for grant amendment consideration. Please call if
you have any questions or require further documentation.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
b ASSOCIATES, INC. nn
Gerald S. Corrick, P.E.
Project Manager
GSC/gm
cc: Mr. Thomas Eidem, City Administrator
Mr. John P. Badalich, OSM
Mr. John Simola, Public Works Director
We have now received an Order from Judge Carroll Larson
in Wright County District Court denying our Motion to join
Waldor Pump Company as an involuntary plaintiff in the Wright
County cation. Yvu .ill rerdll LL„L tLa 1.1VCiVIi was waJ,; ba -
cause our preference was to have the merits of this case tried
in Wright County where the City cf Manticello is located.
However, the trial of the case b(,twevn PALCO and Monticello
without the presence of Waldor and OSM w!)uld have accu^plished
very little. The issues in the tact are really raised in the
action between Waldor and OSM. That Motion has now been
denied and the Court's Order and :-:emorandun are ettacheO.
for your review.
I am now going to tako tho steps necessary to the place
the Waldor v. OSM case on the calendar and certify it as
ready. As noted above, it is that case which raises the real
issues in this matter. Once that case is tried and the issues
resolved by the Court and jury, there is little or no liklihood
that the action in Wright County between PALCO and Monticello
will proceed. For one thing, FALCO has no provable damages
in that the additional cost of the Dorr Oliver pumps has been
withheld by PALCO from its payments to weldor. Secondly, after
the legal issues have been tried between weldor and OSM I see
no practical reason for PALCO wanting to incur the time or
expense to proceed with its trial even if it did have e
separate claim. I am keenly aware of your overriding interest
to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible and there-
fore, we will push forward to get the Hennepin County case
tried. The filing of the Certificate of Readiness and Note
1 P ,rl.Owl, �•M 4•,
•
MEAOMER.GEER.MARKHAM. ANDERSON, ADAMSON.FLASKAMPBBRENNAN
u.ol. u.p,fOw
t ry L D ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.� 22501D9 CENTER -60 SOLiN EIOMTM STREET
rwDwm. •Dw
.� `. MINNEAPOi13 WINNEEOTA 55402
0•v�C•L.. ntD
PHONE E12 338-OE81
o.i.. woe•
_
May 17, 1983
",j,
ti
ioun r ,..rci
J �" _ —
•lw.rrw . coon
cwuD, wcsnw
•
irtrc•c °Dyuu.r
M •OJr � JO•Li
0 � wu.r[/i0
..
- — � I
l i Y.DE.r Y.Ilfi
irnrtv D .u,•e
"
CwnDVi w gOwi.
uO.n • ••C W
.Di,.• + Du. ,i
Mr. Gerald S. Corrick
iDK., 6 i4iOM
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
Re: waldor Pump v. OSM
Our File No. 40470
Dear Jerry:
We have now received an Order from Judge Carroll Larson
in Wright County District Court denying our Motion to join
Waldor Pump Company as an involuntary plaintiff in the Wright
County cation. Yvu .ill rerdll LL„L tLa 1.1VCiVIi was waJ,; ba -
cause our preference was to have the merits of this case tried
in Wright County where the City cf Manticello is located.
However, the trial of the case b(,twevn PALCO and Monticello
without the presence of Waldor and OSM w!)uld have accu^plished
very little. The issues in the tact are really raised in the
action between Waldor and OSM. That Motion has now been
denied and the Court's Order and :-:emorandun are ettacheO.
for your review.
I am now going to tako tho steps necessary to the place
the Waldor v. OSM case on the calendar and certify it as
ready. As noted above, it is that case which raises the real
issues in this matter. Once that case is tried and the issues
resolved by the Court and jury, there is little or no liklihood
that the action in Wright County between PALCO and Monticello
will proceed. For one thing, FALCO has no provable damages
in that the additional cost of the Dorr Oliver pumps has been
withheld by PALCO from its payments to weldor. Secondly, after
the legal issues have been tried between weldor and OSM I see
no practical reason for PALCO wanting to incur the time or
expense to proceed with its trial even if it did have e
separate claim. I am keenly aware of your overriding interest
to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible and there-
fore, we will push forward to get the Hennepin County case
tried. The filing of the Certificate of Readiness and Note
Mr. Gerald S. Corrick
Page Two
May 17, 1983
of Issue places the case on that calendar. Cases in Hennepin
County normally come up nine months after filing the Certi-
ficate of Readiness.
The Court's Order denying our Motion will have little
practical or detrimental effect on the case. There was a
slight advantage to try these issues in Wright County before
home jurors with Monticello as a defendant. Still, the real
issues are between OSM and Waldor. Both are commercial
enterprises and the issues of the case are such that we
ought to be able to draw a panel of satisfactory jurors in
Hennepin County to hear these issues.
• ..n . is �.
Enclosures
very truly yours,
Thomas L. Adams
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
13. Eye Safety Proqram - (J.S.).
1
y
Recent safety meetings have brought to light the need for an eye pro-
tection program for the employees of the City of Monticello. Currently,
the City provides and enforces the use of safety goggles for use when
grinding, welding or using small hand held tools such as a router, etc.
These items only touch upon the eye hazards employees face every day
on the job. Many of these hazards were identified by guest speakers
and our or:n superintendents during our recent safety meetinc.
The simplest, most economical, most effective form of eye safety is
the mandatory wearing of industrial strength safety glasses and frames'
in all areas where hazards to the eye are known or thought to exist.
In the area of public works there are more such hazardous areas than
not. Therefore, for us it is easier to define areas where the safety
glasses need not be worn and expect them to be worn everywhere else.
Some of the major benefits are as follows: Safer working conditions
for employees, minimizing eye injurys, lower worker's comp. rates
through less accidents, less lost time for employees, less adminis-
tration time in making claims, etc.
I am not stating that merely wearing industrial safety glasses will
stop accidents, they in themselves can not. They can limit the amount
of injury and make the individual more aware of the hazards around.
The cost of implementing ouch a program is practically nill. To pro-
vide eye glasses meeting the rigid safety standards, would cost $8.90 for
non-prescription glasses including side shields and $16.90 for pre-
acription glasses including side shields. Those prices include lenses,
frames, side shields and fitting services. Prescriptions must be
provided by the employee.
It is my recommendation that the City provide this basic protection
to all employees part time, conoonal or full time who work in and
about eye hazards and are expected to be in the City employment 30
days or more. If this protection wcro provided for, the entire
public Works Department (20 full and part time people) would cost
$232. This is not a yearly cost as the average parson replaces
glasses or changes proscriptions no lass than every 5 years.
The program would be vary simple to operate. The supplier of glaaaaa
would do all of the paper work. A simple form (sea enclosed) would
dictate the basic items supplied by the City such as baso price of
$8/$16 plus 5.90 for side shields. This form would oluo dictate what
the City would and would not allow, such ao gloss lances only or
-NOTE: Industrial strength safety lenses and frames should not be
confused with so called anfety hardened lances provided by most
optometrists. All glass lonsoa had to be hardened since the early
70'e. The Industrial safety gloosor and frames must meat or exceed
C the rigid Z87.I - 1979 OSHA standards or they offer little
protection. if they moat tho standards, the frames will be otampee..
Z87 and the lanoae will also be clearly marked.
- 20 -
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
Eye Safety program
June 7 , 1983
Page 02
allowing tints or industrial strength fashion frames. Any costs above
the base price would be paid by the: employee directly to the supplier.
The glasses can be supplied in 7 to 10 days and fitted by offices in
St. Cloud, Elk River or a specialist fitting group right at City Hall.
Under certain circumstances, the individuars own eye doctor will be
paid to fit the glasses by the supplier.
As Public works Director, I see this program as a necessary part of
our overall safety progran and whole hcartedly recommend its approval
and immediate implementation. Isn't eyesight priceless and certainly
the cost of this program is not prohibitive.
John Simola
Public Works Director
21
CENTRAL EYEWEAR DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
Industrial Policy and Specifications (Safety)
Side Shields: 0.70
RequiredX _ ,,.,x,: PLr1a•[ ,—t L
ves no
N0111K."AIION FOR PICK-UP—CONTACT: FMPIOII l _ _ COMPANY .X
4 AUTHORIZATION FORMS Pa N IMPIIN'1 F/IAMII V CARIFS
MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS:
( AUTHORIZATION:
p
1g3
0A1E:•�JNIj .
DISPENSER:
LOCATION:
FIRM: T`I C)(_
ADDRESS: 2 SO
sr isrtp(i�y��J
Morv11L1z00 Mtv ss362
PHONE: \ Z
'L9 C-- 2i 11
CONTACT:R%er% 1w70\\ -S �_\���L TITLE: T4"1• \• ► AL
�Y) L
POLICY
COMPANY PAYS FOR:
COMPANIALLOWS:
'r
1) Raw Price
YES
YES NO YES NO
_ 1) Pla,lic/Poly Lens _
21 Plastic/Poly Len
_ 1d 2) Metal Frames _
J) Metal ! rdmes
_ T) fashion Frames _
4) Fashion Frames
_ 4) Photochromatics _
5) Photrichromalic Tines
_ SI Other Tints
u1 vriu•r Tuns
7) Eye Lsaminalions
l
Side Shields: 0.70
RequiredX _ ,,.,x,: PLr1a•[ ,—t L
ves no
N0111K."AIION FOR PICK-UP—CONTACT: FMPIOII l _ _ COMPANY .X
4 AUTHORIZATION FORMS Pa N IMPIIN'1 F/IAMII V CARIFS
MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS:
( AUTHORIZATION:
C,
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
14. Consideration of Awardinq Final Payment on the Construction
of the 4th Street Warming House - (J -S-) .
I have placed this item on the agenda in an attempt to get the
contractor, Jay Miller, to complete his portion of the warming
house, restrooms and storage area. He has give me at least
a dozen different completion dates, which he has meet none of.
We are currently withholding $200 on the project for completion
of masonary work. If he has not completed the work by
Monday night's Council Meeting, I would request that we hire
someone else to complete the project.
- 22 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/14/83
Mel Wolters - Proposed Amendment to the Ordinance to Allow
Flea Markets.
4TH STREET PARK BUILDING AUDITION COSTS
J. W. Miller Construction - Building $ 7,309.80
Plumbery - Plumbing 1,582.40
Olson Elec crit - Wiring 845.00
Fyle Backhoe - Sever and water hookup 1,335.00
Viking Electric - Beaters 216.95
Froedhiem — Blocks 61.64
Glidden Paint - Paint 54.40
Lindberg D ccorating - Block fill 6 primer 91.57
T0'1'AL DISBURSEMENTS $11,496.76
A
C
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
M
15. Seal Coatinq for 1983. (J.S.)
As part of our comprehensive street maintenance program, we
have budgeted ;27,800 for seal coating streets this year.
The following streets are included:
East River Street East Third Street
East 4th Street Cedar Street
Palm Street New Street
Wright Street Ramsey Street
Hennepin Street Washington Street
The staff would like approval to prepare plans and specifications
and advertise for bids to be returned June 27th. We would ask
for a completion date of August 15th.
The specs would differ little fran last year's with the exception
cf the completion date being earlier. Therefore, we ask per-
mission to prepare specs and advertise in one motion rather
than attwo separate meetings.
The total estimated amount of square yards is 69,480.
- 23-
C
V
Council Agenda - 6/13/83
16. Consideration of a Resolution Regulating Lobbying by Cable
Communication Companies.
On Wednesday, June 8th, the Sherburne/Wright County Cable
Communication's Commission (SWC4) met for the second time.
in the first meeting, we adopted our by-laws and appointed
officers. We also directed our legal counsel to prepare a
resolution and policy that would control lobbying by
representatives of cable companies. It has already been
made apparent to us at the commission that two companies
are interested in the franchise and as such, will be
competing. Representatives of those companies have requested
to be on our mailing list and so far are planning to attend
every meeting of the commission. We on the commission feel
very strongly that lobbying independently of the other
members would be a gross violation of the integrity of
the commission. Likewise, we felt that their efforts at
lobbying to other members of City Councils or City Staff
could severely jeopardize the open operation of the
commission. The example that our attorney gave us was
in Washington County where a particular cable company
promised to the Fire Chief and its department of a parti-
culac In •h
indiv.idualyhome fire alarms and a complete information
network. As a result, when it came time for the com-
mission to review the proposal submitted by the cable
company and make their selection, the Fire Chief, in question,
having solicited the full support of his City and his fire
department came out atrongly in favor of the particular
company in direct opposition to what the commission had
reviewed and selected. In order to avoid this kind of
a problem, the conmission has adopted o resolution pro-
hibiting any individual contacts by representatives of a
cable company. Mainly, we have informed them that anything
that is worth saying to an individual is worth saying to
the commiooion as a whole and the.t no individual contacts
will be allowed without jeopardizing their opportunity at
being awarded the contract. In order to promote this
honesty, each individual member of the commission is re-
turning to hio/hor City Council to request the adoption
of a similar resolution. in addition to thin resolution
I will he instructing City Staff that under no circum-
, stancoe aro they aro to provide information to any cable
company or person who identifies himself no being con-
nocted with said cable company. All information related
to the busincoo of the commission and its individual
member cities shall be dispensed through our legal counsel.
RF.PRRENCF.Si A copy of the resolution being requested for
adopti on.
- 24 -
CABLE TELEVISION LOBBYIST POLICY OF THE SHERBURNE/
WRIGHT CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO
WHEREAS, various individuals have apiroached and will in the
future approach, Commission members, City officials and City Staff
to various vested interests in the cable television franchising
process of the area; and
WHEREAS, the Commission's decision on the cable television
franchise will be enhanced by itw; receipt of information tram all
sources interested in the cable television franchisinq process; arid
WHEREAS, the Commission and the City b.11ieves it important that
its members are fully aware of the source of information received so
that they may best evaluate the expertise and motives of the in-
dividuals with whom they are communicating; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that aside from discussions in-
itiated by Individual members and staff for the purpose of answer-
ing individual questions, all ccummnication worthy of consideration
ty one individual is worthy of communication to all members at a
regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission; and
WHEREAS, in the democratic from exchange of ideas, a lobbyist
beat serves the perspective he or ohs represents by the open
expression of that perspective before the entire Commission so that
all mk mbers have the opportunity to subject that represented par-
spectiva to public scrutiny and question; and
WHEREAS, the Commission believed that in order to credit any
input it receives from individuals who arm nonmembers of the
Commission, the supplier of that information munt be identified
along with the identification of any special interest, association,
cable company or the like represented by said 1<bby.st.
THEREFORE, HC IT RESOLVE;, that the City Council of Monticello,
Minnesota adopts the following procedures,
RESOLUTION
CABLE TELEVISIOTi LOBBYIST POLICY OF THE SHERBURNE/
WRIGHT CABLE COMNICATIONS CCI;HISSLOIJ AND THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO
Pago A2
1. All individuals sharing information with Commission or City
Council members, Commission or City Staff, shall identify
themselves and any special interest, association, cable
company or the like which he or she represents.
2. To this end, and in furtherenco of thio resolution, tto
Commission hereby establishes the permanent lobbyist reg-
istration list compiled by the Secretary of Cho Comteission,
and made a permanent addendum to the Minvtts of the Com-
mission. Any individual, association, cable company or
the like who supplies or intends to supply information to
the Cornaission or its member City Councils, any part thereof,
or. any City or C,ommmission staff member shall report in
writing to the secretary of the person communicating with
the above.
3. To facilitate compliance with these procedures, it is the
intention of the City Council torp esume that a lobbyist
communicating information regarding cable television to
individual Commission or City Council members or City or
Commission staff members who is not identified for the
purpose of the permanent lobbyist registration list as to
name and affiliation, is attempting to influence the open
decision-making process of the Commission, this Council or
other member City Councils in a way which is inconsistent
and in violation of the policies of this City Council and
the Commissrun. A vim' +tion of this Iolic. or procedure,
as determined in the ►olc ,liMr 41tion of thu C.ttAi- iioi„
,.hall by legitimate and valM Iu.tifmaatuwm fJl a refusal
to consider the input of the l,dbya..t. Shwhl the Coa.-
mission in its sole liscr, tion dett mint• that the vio-
lating lobbyist repre%ents a cable television company,
Lila violation shall b,: a legitimate and valid juttifi-
cation for//the Commission to rata nd to its member
1 C+l fi /D
RESOLUTION
CABLE TELEVISION
Page #3
cities the rejection of the proposal of said company.
Dated this day of 1983.
A
%TPEST:
City Administrator
C
Mayor
O