City Council Agenda Packet 09-26-1983AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 26, 1983 - 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 Held on
September 13, 1983.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Old Business
4. Public Information Meeting - Minnesota Department of Transportation,
T. H. 25 and Mississippi River Bridge.
5. Public Hearing - Consider Adoption of Tax Increment Finance District
02, Metcalf and Larson, Developers.
6. Public Hearing - 1984 Municipal Budget.
7. Public Hearing - Sherburne/Wright Counties Cable Communications
Commission Request for Proposals.
8. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the SWC4 RFP.
9. Consideration of Change Order #46.
10. Consideration of a Report Concerning Repairs to City Hall.
Now Business
11. Consideration of a Proposal by Fulfillment Systems, Inc., to
Issue Tax Exempt Mortgages Under Chapter 474 (The Industrial
Rovenuo Bond Act).
12. Consideration of Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications
for an Addition to Pump Houso 01.
13. Septembor Bills.
14. Adjournmont.
C
r MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
, September 13, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen,
Ken Maus, and Jack Maxwell.
Members Absent: None.
1.
Call to Order.
2.
Approval of the Minutes.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the meeting held August 22, 1983.
3.
Citizens Cormnents.
Mr. Joe LaFromboise of Construction 5, Inc., informed the Council
that their apartment complex being developed in Lauring Hillside
Terrace is almost completed, and they are interested in starting their
second apartment complex yet this fall. As part of the second develop-
®
ment, they requested rhnt the CnuneiI consider holding a public hearing
` I
in the near future to consider vacating that portion of Hennepin Street
lying between Lauring Lane and the railroad trucks, which abuts their
a"
property. At the present time, their development plan is being reviewed
by the City 'a consulting planner and consulting engineer; and their
comments should be available for the first regularly scheduled mceling
in October. It was the consensus of the Council to act a public
hearing for considering vacating Hennepin Street at the October 11
Council Meeting.
4.
Consideration of an Appeal From Planning Commission Applicant - Aboembly
of God, Conditional Use.
During June of 1983, the Monticello Assembly of God Church filed a
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a day care center to be
operated at their former church property on East Fourth Street. After
the item had been tabled for a number of months, the church requested
that the Planning Commission consider the Conditional Use Request at
their September meeting, but no members of the church were present to
present their request to Lila Planning Commission; and as a result, Elie
Planning Cosmission recommended that the Conditional Use Permit be
denied. The Assembly of God Church appealed the decision to the Council
meeting.
0
Council Minutes - 9(131b3
Mr. Gene Decker, representative for the church, indicated that they 1
would like to pursue the possibility of the church being allowed to
use the old facilities for a day care center. He noted that they
presently have no prospects yet to purchase the building and are looking
at options, including either running a day care center themselves or
finding a private operator.
It was the Council's consensus that before a Conditional Use Permit
for a day care center could be granted, more facts on the type of
operation, number of children involved, etc., should be available before
a decision could be made. Pastor ttordby and Mr. Decker both indicated
that the primary reason they came to the Council first was to see if
the City would be receptive to the idea of a day care center being
operated at the old church facilities before they expended too much
time and money to convert the building for this use.
Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to
table the request at this time but set a public hearing date for
October 11, 1983, at the Council to consider the Conditional Use
Request, which should allow the church sufficient time to present
their proposal.
5.. Consideration of an Appeal From Planning Commission Applicant -
Blocher Advertisinv.
Blocher Advertising Company requested an appeal of the Planning I
Commission's decision to have an outdoor advertising sign relocated J
trom Lot 9, Thomas Industrial Park, to Lot 11, Thomas Industrial Park.
Mr. Ron Hoglund, representing the present land owners of Thomas
industrial Park, noted that Blocher Advertising Company is interested
in purchasing '..,t 11 if they are allowed to put an additional billboard
sign on this lot. There is currently one existing sign on Lot 11, and
if approved, there would be two signs located on this one lot. Mr.
Hoglund noted that Blocher Advertising has indicated they would not
be interested in completing the purchase unless they would be allowed
to have both signs on their own property. Mr. Hoglund noted that the
owners of Thomas Industrial Park have been trying to sell and develop
the lots within the industrial park for a number of years and feel that
if they are not able to sell this lot to Blocher Advertising Company,
they may lose their investment in the property and have to let it go
back to the previous owner.
Mayor Crimamo acknowledged the hardship the landowners are currently faced
with but noted that the present City Zoning Ordinances clearly state that
no new signs are allowed to be erected within the city limits, and by
Council Minutes - 9/13/83
allowing this Variance Request, the City would be in violation of
its own Ordinances. It was also noted by City staff members that
Blocher Advertising Company had a few years ago asked for a similar
Variance Request to be able to take down an existing sign on Lot 9
and move it to the north side of the freeway, which was denied.
City Administrator Tom Eidem explained that the Ordinance is very
specific in that all signs are currently nonconforming; and if a
sign should be discontinued for six months, it cannot be replaced.
In addition, the Ordinance specifies that a Variance should not be
granted for strictly economic reasons; but a Variance should be granted
only because of a hardship due to the land configuration, etc., and not
as a way to circumvent the present Ordinance.
After considerable discussion on the merits of advertising signs, motion
was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen, to approve the Variance Request
allowing a new billboard sign to be erected on Lot 11, which would
replace the previous sign on Lot 9 contingent upon the distance being
at least 750 feet between structures and based on the fact that this
is not an increase in the number of signs within the city limits over
what used to be erected. Voting in favor of the Request was Maus,
Blonigen, and Crimsmo. Opposed: Fran Fair. Abstaining: Maxwell,
due to a possible conflict of interest.
6. John Sandberg Proposed Subdivision.
Mr. John Sandberg proposed a simple subdivision of a city lot to allow
for construction of two single family dwallins. The lot Mr. Sandberg
requested to subdivide was the westerly 21 2/3 feet of Lot 4 and all
of Lot 5, Block 7, Lower Monticello located on the river side of River
Street. The proposed subdivision would have a 12,000 sq. ft. lot
adjacent to River Street with the back lot neat to the river being
19,500 sq. ft., which would have access off of New Street. Although
Now Street is not currently developed as a city street, it has never
been vacated and could be used an access to the back lot. The proposed
subdivision meets all City Ordinances in relation to lot size re-
quirements, etc.
Although the proposed subdivision meets all of the City Ordinance
requirements, some concerns were expressed by the Council over how
this subdivision might affect the rest of the neighborhood properties.
It was noted that the majority of the houses along a two to three
block area along River Street are set back such further than the
30 ft. setback requirement in the City Ordinances. Approval of
the subdivision would allow a new house to be placed within 30 feet
-3-
O
Council Minutes -'9/13/83
of the front property line when a majority of the homes in the area
are act back much further.
Area resident, Don Pitt, noted that this specific neighborhood has
many well -kept older homes along the river and felt that by allowing
a newer home to be placed closer to the front property line, it
would detract from the area.
Mr. Roger Host, an area resident, indicated that twice in the past
he has asked for Variances to be able to build additions to his
house that would make his building closer to the street than what
the neighbors were and was denied the Variances because they didn't
want his house to be closer to the road than the other neighbors
within the block. lie felt that if this was the reasoning of the
Planning Commission and City Council a number of years ago, it should
also be applicable today.
Mayor Grimsmo also made part of the record letters received from
residents of the area, Larry and Cecile Muehlbauer and Don Nicolai,
who both indicated opposition to the subdivision as they felt the
additional home located close to River Street would not fit into
the neighborhood and would deter from the historic older homes in
the area.
Mr. Sandberg noted that even if the subdivision wasn't approved, City
Ordinances only require that a building be set back 30 feet from the
property line and that one house could still be built closer than �1
dome of the other homes in the area might be from the property line.
In addition, he again noted that he meets all City requirements
regarding simple subdivision■ and does not think that allowing the
subdivision would hurt the neighborhood. Due to the opposing views
expressed by neighboring residents, Mr. Sandberg suggested that the
item be tabled to allow the City Council members an opportunity to
review the site personally to get an idea how large the property is:
and to see first hand what effect the subdivision might have. As a
result, it was the consensus of the Council to review the site a6
7:00 A.M. Wednesday morning ■nd to table any action on the simple
subdivision until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting.
7. Consideration of a Variance Request Referred From Planning
Commission - Applicant, Bob Saxon.
Mr. end Mrs. Bob Saxon, owners of the property immediately adjacent
to tate east of East Bridge Park, requested a Variance of the setback
requirements for the purposes of building a new garage on their
property.
- 4 -
Mr
Council Minutes - 9/13/83
Just prior to the Variance Request from Mr. Saxon, the City of
Monticello became aware of a possible re -alignment of the new
bridge along Highway 25 that might result in the State of Minnesota
taking part of East Bridge Park for construction. Because of
this, the City staff considered the idea of acquiring the property
owned by Mr. Saxon to replace some of the property that the State
of Minnesota might be taking for the new bridge construction. The
initial concept wa S to use this land for parking only to eliminate
all vehicle traffic from the interior of East Bridge Park as it
now exists.
A public hearing on Mr. Saxon's Variance Request to build a garage
was scheduled for the Planning Commission Meeting. But prior to
the meeting, City staff members suggested to Mr. Saxon that the
City might be interested in acquiring his property. Mr. Saxon
was receptive to the idea depending on his ability to find a
suitable place to relocate to along the river. in addition, he
noted that he has spent substantial amounts of money on interior
remodeling and repair; but if the City would be interested in his
property, he would be willing to negotiate on the possible sale.
At the present time, the City is not exactly certain how much land
the State of Minnesota will be acquiring from the East Bridge Park
r because of the new bridge alignment, but a meeting has been seheduled
1 with MN/DOT at the next Council Meeting, which should hopefully
provide the City with a better understanding of the project. in
the meantime, some concerns were expressed by the Council in making
a committment to Mr. Saxon regarding the acquisition of his property
until the City actually knows what the State of Minnesota will be
taking from the park. Mr. Saxon also had reservations about completing
a new garage if the City in the near future would be interested in
acquiring his property. It was agreed by both parties that the
Variance Request for the new garage would be delayed until the
October 11, 1983, Council Meeting after which MN/WT would have
presented its proposal to the City Council.
8. Consider of Plann ink Commission Recommendation in Relation to
Reconstruction of T.H. YS.
The Planning Commission. at their last meeting, requested that the
City Council request in writing from the State of Minnesota that
a traffic count be conducted along Highway 25, especially at the
intersection of Highway 25 and Seventh Street. The Planning
Commission felt that with the development that is now occurring
along Rost Louring Lane, Lauring Lane will become a major collector
- 5 -
Council Minutes - 9/13/83
point from the southeast into the community to the northwest,
which will result in increased traffic flow at the intersection
of 25 and Seventh Street.
It was noted that before the State of Minnesota will consider
installing a traffic light at an intersection, a traffic count
has to be completed.
It was the consensus of the Council to authorize the City staff
to send a letter to MN/DOT requesting that they perform a traffic
study along Highway 25 for possible intersections that might need
traffic lights, especially the Seventh Street and Highway 25
location.
9. Consideration of a Request for a Public Hearinx for Tax Increment
Financing.
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority is currently
considering a Tax Increment Financing Assistance Program for a
new split foyer office building being proposed on the corner of
Broadway and Locust Street. The proposal has been brought forth
by Metcalf and Larson, who have indicated they could not construct
the size of building they desired and be able to meet the parking
requirements of the City unless additional land can be acquired
for parking.
The [IRA is proposing to purchase the property and house owned by
Mr. David Capps, which lies directly north of the proposed office
building site. The intention at this time is to place tax exempt
securities with the Wright County State Bank in order to make the
acquisition with the loan being repayed from the tax increments
resulting from the new office building being built.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to act a public hearing for September 26, 1983, for the Tax Increment
Financing proposal.
10. Consideration of Amending the Ordinance Regulating Sewer Houk -up
Charger.
Two major changes were recommended by the City staff to the current
City Urdinances regarding sewer hook-up charger to commercial,
industrial, and public facilities. The first recommended change
involves collecting additional hook-up charges when additions ore
added to present commercial, institutional, or public buildings.
The second change in the Urdinance is a clarification of a unit
- 6 -
9
Council Minutes - 9/13/83
- 7 -
0
and parameter to be used for billing purposes. Currently, the
Ordinances list a type of facility and parameter that may be
charged for this type of building. it is impossible to list
`
every type of facility and parameter that may be encountered;
and it appears through researching past practices, there seems
to be a counmon denominator based on maximum flow. it was
recommended that the Ordinance be amended to indicate that if
a facility is not specifically listed in the Ordinance, one
unit charge for the hook-up fee will be based on every 250
gallons of maximum flow per day.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the Ordinance Amendment, which would provide
for additional charges to public and commercial buildings that
have additions constructed and also clarifies the parameter for
determining sewer connection fee based on maximum flow per day.
See Ordinance Amendment 1983, 4126.
Rick Wolfateller;/
Assistant Administrator
- 7 -
0
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
4. Public Information Meeting - Minnesota Department of Transportation,
T. H. 25 and Mississippi River Bridge. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE 6 BACKGROUND:
At the Council's suggestion I have set up this meeting with
representatives of the Pre -design Department for the Minnesota
Highway Department. This will be an informational meeting with
the City of Monticello conducting and MN/DOT only presenting the
proposed plans and ideas for the upgrading of Highway 25 and the
bridge, such as a consultant would do.
Mr. Jim weingartz of the Minnesota Department of Transportation
will be making the presentation. I have discussed with him the
City's concerns brought out in previous meetings. Some of these
concerns are the opening of the River Street intersection, the
access to those business places between River Street and Broadway,
the traffic signals at the intersection of Seventh and Highway 25,
and the Mall entrance.
The following is a list of possible questions that the City Council
may ask of MN/DOT:
1. Can the River Street intersection be opened and if
no, what does such an opening entail and what is
the cost to the tax payers?
2. Is the divided median the only type of traffic
control that will work in Monticello?
3. Why cannot the medians be opened at midblock to
allow traffic in and out of alleys or business
entrances?
4. [low will the property settlement take place for
the right of way needed in East Bridge Park?
5. How will the new bridge be constructed whore it
conflicts with the old bridge?
6. What will be done with the embankment or the site
of the old bridge?
7. How is the cost shared on the upgrading of Highway 25?
Specific questions here may be such things as curb
and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, intersections,
utility repair such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer,
and water main, traffic signals, etc.
S. will there be provisions made for pedestrian traffic
over the I-94 overpass?
9. Will the now bridge be lighted in any way it the
City does not wish to contribute toward operation
maintenance? In addition, will the now bridge have
a sidewalk on it for pedestrian traffic?
- 1 -
Council Agenda - 9/26-83
10. Since after the completion of this project there
will be absolutely no place to put snow on the
boulevards, is the Stato prepared to take care of
all snow plowing and snow removal along this route
through town and in an expedient manner?
11. After the installation of the traffic signals
through town, which it appears may be at least
three sets, who will maintain those traffic
signals?
These are intended only to be a few questions that the Council may
want to ask. I am sure that each Council member has questions of
his or her own that they may wish to ask.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Since this is an informational meeting for the Council, the Council
is expected to interject their thoughts or ideas into the pre-
limir.ary design of the upgrading o£ the Highway system and the
bridge. In suggesting alternatives; that the Council may have in
mind, they should bear in mind that all of this construction is
looking toward the future of Monticello and handling the flow of
traffic both north south and east west through Monticello for years
to came.
One alternative that may be brought up is what if the City does not
like the project whatsoever, what if they feel it is a detriment to
the City of Monticello and will not participate in any way, shape,
or form in the project? This is a question that you may ask of
Mr. Jim Waingarta. He may or may not have an answer for you. But
I have discussed this with him.
One of the other alternatives that may be suggested or discussed is
alternative methods of financing our share of the program. Is it
normal to assess those costs back to adjacent property owners or
ad valorem taxes, or are there some other grants available from the
State itself to cover a portion of these other costs?
C. STAFF REOOMMENDATION:
It would be the staff's recommendation that enough information tames
forth from thin meeting that MN/DOT is actually given soma direction
for design of the upgrading of Highway 25 and the bridge. I would
further recommend that if there is agreement on the design that the
Council direct the Administrator to draft a resolution supporting
W/DM" ■ design for discussion and enactment at a later Coating.
This resolution, of course, would have to contain a committment for
a cost sharing from the City of Mosrticello.
- 2 -
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. Minutes from May 24, 1983 Council Meeting.
l / _
I
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
may 24, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen,
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 hold
on May 9th, 1981, as presented.
4. Consideration of a Presentation by MN/DOT Relative to Con-
struction of a New Highway Bridge and Proposed Lighting of
the Existing Highway Bridge.
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
for a number of years.
Mr. James weingartz, preliminary design 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. waingartz
noted that the original estimate for the installation of
10 lighting fixtures to light the traffic lanes and 5
lights for the pedestrian sidewalk was estimated at $11,100
and since the sidewalk lighting amounted to one-third of
the light fix tures, the State proposed that the City of
ronticello pickup one-third of the construction cost or
approximately $5,700. In addition, the City of Monticello
would be responsible after construction for all power con-
uumption for the sidewalk lighting thereafter. Prior to
tlte 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. waingartz also noted that
he reanalyzed the coat associated with installing the 5
light fixtures for the sidewalk and if just the coot for
the now fixtures and materials was usod, the City would
be responsible for $4,200 or approxima toly 25% of the
total lighting project cost.
Council Minutes - 5/24/83
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
rpend 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. No action
was taken by the Council regarding approving 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 the Council MN/DOT'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 Hwy 25 bridge and the preliminary
plans are to possibly upgrade Hwy 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 now bridge alignment which would
probably be located directly adjacent to the existing
structure.
It was also noted by Mr. Weingartz that since Hwy 25
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 plans
call for informational public hearings to be held within
the next few months, regarding the proposed new bridge and
that if all went well, it would be at least 1965 or 1986
before construction could Htart on the bridge which would
take two years to cos4slete.
5 Fd Reilly - Sewer Problemi..
Hr. Ed Willy, who resider. at 612 I:alt River Street, was
present at the meeting to request reimbursement from the
City for cost incurred in trying to locate his sewer
service stub at his home. City water and sewer depart-
ment personnel marked a location along the boulevard by
his hero where they thought the sewer stub should be
located and Mr. Reilly@ contractor, Schluender Plumbing,
excavated this location but could not find the sewer pipe.
The City then rechecked the sewer and water maps and found
an error and restakod at a new location within 2% to 3
feet of the actual sewer line pipe. Although the second
staking was within a few feat of the actual location,
fchluender Plumbing still was unable to find the service
�J
Council Agenda — 9/26/83
5. Public Hearinq - Consider Adoption of Tax Increment Finance
District 012. Metcalf and Larson, Developers. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the September 13 Meeting you sot a Public Hearing for the
review of this proposal for Monday, September 26, 1983. The
Metcalf and Larson Proposal and Tax Increment District 02
(originally numbered as 3) was given formal approval by the
HRA on Tuesday morning, September 13, 1983. At the September 13
Meeting I distributed copies to you of the final adopted plan.
Since distribution there have been some minor number changes,
but nothing that changes the plan significantly. On the 14th
I distributed a copy of the plan to the School District and to
the County Auditor. On Tuesday, September 20, I presented the
plan to the County Board at their regular meetings and they passed
a notion giving approval to the District, and indicated that a
letter so stating would arrive before the end of the week. I have
not yet heard from the School District as to whether o: not they
will sign off early. If they do not, we must wait 30 days from
the time it was submitted to them before we may certify the
District with the County Auditor.
The plan itself indicates which parcels will be included in the
District, but it should be remembered that the project is concerned
solely with the property owned by Capps and the vacant lot owned
by Metcalf and Larson. Once, however, the District is in place
we may do other projects within that District without the need for
additional public hearings and, because it is in the District, we
will continue to generate increased tax increment. A simple summary
of the project in question is that the HRA will plata tax exempt
securities with Wright County State Bank in the amount of $12,000.00.
With those funds, the HRA will purchase the Capps property and
demolish the house that site there. That land will then be sold to
Metcalf and Larson for $10-12,000.00, who will then construct their
now split foyer office building with hard surfaced and curbed parking
lot as required. The tax increment generated from the now building
will pay off the bonds for the HM over a period of 12 years.
The one possible complication that may arise relates to the fact
that the City owns a 20 -foot strip of land so that the Post Office
parking lot can be connected with Locust Street. Because we own it,
we, of course, have liability for it. It is one possibility that we
give the Post Office an easement over that land, which will guarantee
the access that they apparently require to the back part of their
property. Once the easement is thus recorded, we would then transfer
- 4 .
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
the property to Metcalf and Larson thereby removing the property
from the tax exempt property status and putting it back into taxable
property status and making it a part of the overall District. Before
a final determination can be made with respect to this strip of
property, I feel it is necessary that I go back and research the
matter further as to why it was given to the City in the first place.
Metcalf and Larson have indicated they have no objections to getting
the land with an easement over it. If the easement and deed transfer
solution is impossible, the other alternative we have considered would
be to swap 20 feet for 20 feet and basically re -align the rear Post
office access so that it would not run directly through the Metcalf
and Larson parking lot.
B. ALTERt7ATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Lb not adopt a resolution giving approval to the Tax
Increment District.
This would have a not effect of either cancelling the
Metcalf and Larson project or substantially reducing
it in size or placing a burden on the Planning Commission
to address a very difficult parking problem. It would
also put the Council at odds with their HRA. The HRA
has made the necessary findings of fact and have proceeded
hav5cd on thone findings and have determined that this is
a workable project and will provide public benefit.
2. Adopt the resolution and the District.
This would provide authorization that the District be
certified with the County Auditor and will facilitate
the closing and transactions as soon as the school sign
off letter is received. The sooner we can complete
certification, the sooner the developers will begin
construction. That the proposed building be considered
complete by the and of December is crucial to the fulfill-
ment of the Tax Increment Plan.
3. Racommand adoption of a Tax Increment Plan other than
that proposed.
This alternative would require a redoing of all presentations
to the School Board and County Board and would require an
additional City Council Hearing. With the District suggested
to be increased in size, the proposal would be referred back
to the LIm for findings of fact concerning the condition and
use of any structures in the expanded area so that statutory
minimum guidelines ars art. If the proposal is to reduce in
miss the District, again it would need to be referred back to
- 5 -
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
C the HRA for the same findings of fact and findings that
we meet the minimum legal requirements of a district.
Either alteration of the District would delay adoption
and certification by a minimum of 45 days, and thus
conceivably delay construction until spring.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff and the HRA recommend that the District be adopted and
certified as layed out. Staff also recommends that if legally
possible, the small City parcel be transferred in title to Metcalf
and Larson, thus placing the burden of maintenance and liability
upon those who benefit. While the latter is a separate issue, it
must be considered at the time of overall certification. I wish
to atreas that whatever is decided with respect to the City parcel,
the adoption of the District does have our support at this time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. Copy of Tax Increment Plan (which you received under
separate cover on September 13) .
2. Copy of the Resolution from the IIRA adopting the Plan.
3. Copy of the latter from Wright County giving their
approval to the proposal.
C. If it becomes available by the time thio Agenda is distributed,
I will include a copy of the latter from the School District
giving their approval.
- 6 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING TAX INCREMENT FINANCE PLAN Q2
HRA 1983 - k2
WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
has passed a resolution adopting a redevelopment plan known as
the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan, and;
WHEREAS, the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan in part, states
objectives for economic development to wit, land acquisition as an
incentive to private enterprise, and;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 273, the City' of Monticello
is authorized to establish a tax increment econcmie development
district, and;
WHEREAS, a development agreement for economic development shall be
entered into between the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment
Authority and Power's Strength and Health Club, the developer.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority for the City of Monticello:
1. The tax increment economic development finance plan relating
to tax increment district 02 be, and the same hereby is,
adopted.
2. The City Administrator transmit copies of said plan to the
City Council with a request for a public hearing, to the
Superintendent of Schools of School District 1882 and to
the County Auditor of Wright County with a request fat
comment.
3. Upon the holding of a public hearing, Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6
in Block 1 of Commercial Court and Lots 1, 2 and 3 in
Block 1 of Commercial Plaza 25 be certified to the County
Auditor of Wright County, State of Minnesota, as Monticello
tax increment district 02.
Adopted this 13th day of July, 1983.
46&�
Phi
*��
r
A
STs
Thomas A. Eido
City Administrator
O
RESOLUTION ADOPTI14C MONTICELLO DISTRICT 02
TAX INCREMENT FINANCE PLAN
RESOLUTION 1983-78
WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant
to a Resolution passed the 13th day of September, 1983, has adopted the
Monticello District 02 Tax Increment Finance Plan, (a copy of which is
attached hereto) and,
WHEREAS, the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan in part, states
objectives for redevelopment and economic development, to wit, land
acquisition as an incentive to private enterprise; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 273, the City of ttonticello
is authorized to establish a Tax Increment Redevelopment Finance Plan;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 273, a public hearing was
duly hold on September 26, 1983, at which hearing all persons interested
in making comment were allowed to comment; and,
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has submitted to the Superintendent
of School District 0882 and the Auditor of Wright County, a copy of ouch
plan as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved by the City Council of the City
of Monticello that;
1. Thu Tax Increment Redevelopment Finance Plan known an Monticello
Tax Increment District 02 Finance Plan be, and the same hereby
is adopted.
2. The City Administrator is directed to transmit a copy of said
plan to the Auditor of Wright County for certification.
Adopted this 26th day of September, 1983.
ATTEST,
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
kr,,o A. Grimsmo, Mayor
I
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
6. Public Hearinq - 1984 Municipal Budqet. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE 6 BACKGROUND:
The accompanying budget memo explains in more detail the actual
structure of the proposed budget. The function of this hearing
is to meet statutory requirements that the public be allowed to
comment on proposed expenditures and revenue for both the overall
budget as well as the specific revenue sharing budget. The
only action that need be taken at this time should be a mution
to set a special hearing for the purpose of the Council and I
and departments heads to get together in work session. Gauging
from my own experience, there will very likely not be anyone
present to eamnent on the budget. This hearing is soley to
accept comment from the public and should not turn into a work
session.
There are no alternative actions nor staff recommendations for
this item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
The only Supporting Data is the separate preliminary budget memo.
- 7 -
N4
PRELIMINARY BUDGET MEMO
You received under separate cover on Monday, the 19th, a copy of the
preliminary budget. I wanted to get those out to you as soon as
possible so you could begin your review, but I realize some things
will be unclear without an accompanying narrative. Hence, this memo.
SALARIES - Salary projections range from 51 to 6116. For budgetary
purposes I do not negotiate or pro -set salaries. I simply project
reasonable expectations. Under social security the employer's contribution
has increased from 6.76 to 7.06. Also, salary projections reflect one
new person split between public works and newer.
A side note on salaries relating to negotiations. In the past the
administrator has usually negotiated a salary increase with the employee;
then, each employee has customarily come before the Council for an
informal evaluation after which the new salary i■ not, often a figure
different than the administrator/employee agreed upon figure. After a
conversation with Ken Maus, we agreed there might be a better way. It Is
our suggestion that the Council, by resolution, simply not a percentage
increase for the next year. For example, a non-union person (clerical
or s,aintanance) who works for the University of Minnesota doesn't go
before the Regents to discuss salary increases, they simply receive a
note in their pay envelope stating what their increase will be. In
addition, the Regents allocate an amount that supervisors may issue as
merit increases at their discretion.
I suggest this method not to replace the informal evaluation conferences ,
simply to split the two functions. I thluk the conferences aro productive,
I just don't think they should be tied to salary discussions. I would
like to discuss thi b further prior to salary time.
CAPITAL OUTLAY - A substantial amount of the proposed capital outlay ham
been placed in the Revenue Sharing Fund in order to eliminato the need
to levy a greater tax. The individual proposed expenditures are listed
on a separate sheet.
REVENUE SHARIMG - One person, representing the Monticello Country Club,
attended the Revenue Sharing Proposed Use Hearing hold in August. The
Country Club requested S30,UUU.00 of Revenue Sharing money so that they
can pay off their outstanding/delinquent special assessments, thus allowing
the sale and development of the residential lots and construction of an
additional 9 -holes. While thin is a legitimate request, I have a difficult
time supporting it, for what is to prevent any other party from asking Por
Revenue Sharing money to pay their debts. I think it would be extremely
difficult to justify doing it for this organization, then denying it to
others. If, however, you elect to grant the request, this fund will
have to be adjusted; I did not list this request as a proposed use.
The Revenue Sharing Fund indicates greater expenditures than revenue.
This indicates using an unallocated balance from previous entitlements,
not deficit spending.
Lastly, with respect to Revenue Sharing, I've shown an expenditure of
$13,500 to the School District. This reflects a payment of $12,500
to the summer rec program (up $2,500) which is closer to our actual
501 participation. The remaining $1,000.00 is dedicated to the Chemical
Awareness Program. This is the same amount as last year.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - Anticipating a committment to retaining the
Position of Economic Development Director, I have inserted expenditures
for complete "personal services." Fifty percent of this is offset by
a return contribution to the City from the Business Committee and Chamber.
Thus, for the position, the City is obligated for $12,300.00. In addition,
I am proposing a $4,000 contribution to the buoiness committee. This
expense is the same as in the pant. Only the salaried position is new
expense.
P 6 2 and ASSESSING - While the assessing figure appears higher than
what we paid to the County, the combined total of the two departments
is $6,185.00 under the 1983 Budget. The salary is split between these
two departments and Civil Defense, so auseeoing appears higher when in
fact our expense is considerably less.
During the budget preparation there was discussion of the City acquiring
a vehicle for these throo departments rather than paying allowances. we
have not yet prepared a thorough enough coat analysis to present this
to you as a realistic option. It is something staff thinks we ought to
consider.
TAXES - The following chart indicates tax levy comparison between 1983
and 1984.
FUND 1983 1984 ++-
GENERAL 525,210 588,800 + 12.1%
LIBRARY 23,150 19,800 - 14.59
SIUIDE TREE 19,290 19,940 + 3.4•
OAA 600 890 + 11.2%
DEBT SERVICE $28,754 531,045 + .4%
WATER -0- 9,675
CAP. IMP. REVOLVING 109,860 100.000 - 9.0%
LCMR (Park) 20,000 -0-
TOTAL 1,277,064 1,270,150 + 3.5%
Estimated Assessed Valuation for Taxes Payable 1984 - $58,527,632.00
l Estimated Mill Rate - 21.7017
Mill Rate Increase - .723
How the tax levy reflects on individual tax bills is indicated in the
following. Keep in mind that these examples show only the City tax --
does not include County, School District, or Hospital District. Also,
the figures reflect pre -Homestead Credit Determination. Recent legisla-
tion changed both the assessed value formula (which will account for many
decreased tax bills) and the Homestead Credit formula (which will raise
the tax bill on high value property). These are beyond City control.
Example 1. - A $58,000 market value home
in 1983 paid - $238.73 (City tax only)
in 1984 will pay - $226.12 (City tax only)
Example 2. - An $80,000 market value home
in 1983 paid - $367.95 (City tax only)
in 1984 will pay - $364.58 (City tax only)
REMEMBER: Homestead CrediL has not been computed --it will have an increase
effect on Example 2.
CAPITAL OUTLAY SUMMARY
FUND DEPT
ITEM
COST
General/Election
Voting Machines
5 11500.00
General/City Hall
Office Expansion
1,000.00
General/Fire
Hose, Nozzles, Oxy Btls,
7,000.00
Air Tanks, Air Masks, Rope,
Foam, Vacuum, Float -Dock
Strainers
General/Public Works
Survey Equipment
250.00
General/Streets 6
3/4 Ton Pick-up
8,000.00
Alloys
Paint Stripper
2,800.00
1/4 Loader Pymt
3,125.00
General/Snow 6 Ice
1/4 Loader Pymt
3,125.00
General/Parking Lots
Scalcoat - Walnut St.
2,800.00
General/Shop 6 Garage
Insulate Polo Barn 6 Htr
4,000.00
Door Openers
880.00
AC -DC Welder, 30 Ton Press
1,475.00
Goneral/Parks 6 Rec.
Push Mower, String
11580.00
Trimmers, 4 Picnic Tables
Outfinld Fence - 4th St.
2,500.00
West Bridge, Warming
3,500.00
[louse Repair
Tractor/Mower
9,000.00
Shade Tree
5 Wader Pymt
6,250.00
Replacement Trees
1,000.00
Revenue Sharing
Scalcoating
16,500.00
Park Development
15,000.00
4th 6 llillcreat (equip)
Country Club/Riteo
41 Pump House Addition
6,000.00
Central Computer
50,000.00
Drain Hydrant - Reservoir
2,000.00
Replacement Motors
2,500.00
-4-
O
FUND/DEPT ITEM COST
02 Pump Hose - Power Engine 5,000.00
Sewer Oscilloscope 800.00
C6
Liquor Cash Registers 15,000.00
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $172,585.00
THE HEARING - Monday, the 26th is the official budget hearing. We have
never had public comment in the past. No action is required. After the
hearing but prior to October 6, we should plan to hold at least one
special meeting as a budget work session (unless, of course, you are
totally satisfied with the preliminary budget). Final adoption and levy
certification must occur by the October 11 Meeting.
Thomas Eidem
City Administrator
- 5 .
0
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
7. Public Hearinq - Sherburne/Wright Counties Cable Communications
Commission Request for Proposals. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE b BACKGROUND:
The SWC4 spent considerable hours and effort, along with legal
counsel, in developing the request for proposals. It is the
Commission's opinion that the RFP is realistic and will provide
enough incentive for several companies to submit proposals. I
submitted to you under separate cover, earlier this week, a copy
of the Cable RFP. I realize that some of this may seem foreign
to you having not been part of the actual review strategy. If
anyone at all is present to comment on the RFP, which I doubt,
I would anticipate only two areas of concern. First, the school
may express some concern over the necessity of having a two-way
interactive system to facilitate classroom interaction. We think
we have addressed this issue by some language that was included
requesting the cable companies to address this issue but not to
consider it a minimum requirement. The consortium of schools that
have oxpressed their concern about this seem to be satisfied with
this provision. The second possible concern relates to the
possibility of adult entertainment or "pornography." To address
that question, we built into the RFP the necessity that "lock -out"
boxes be supplied to each customer upon request. A lock -out box
is a system whereby the patent or guardian can simply lock out
+ individual channels or perhaps the whole system if they no desire.
\ Similarly, adult entertainment would be offered on a separate service
tier and, as such, would not be available except by special sub-
scription. Thus, a user who solocts to subscribo to only the basic
service would not be confronted with the issue of whother or not
to use the system since it has adult entertainment. The main
concern in outright prohibition of adult programming is the free-
dom of tho press constitutional issue, of course. It is the Commission's
position that the "lock -out" box provides for individual soloction
and/or censorship without utilizing govornmont censorship.
The regulations for granting a cablo franchise roquiros that this
public hearing be hold. Each city represented in tho Commission
will be holding similar hearings and each governing body must adopt
a resolution to approve the RFP. The hearing, when closed, leads
directly to the next issue.
- 8 -
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
S. Consideration of a Resolution Adoptinq the SWC4 RFP. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE 6 BACKGROUND:
In the foregoing item I presented discussion on how the RFP was
arrived at and the reason for the public hearing. Upon closing
of the public hearing, the Council is required to adopt a
resolution approving the RFP so that it may be submitted back
to the Commission for issuance to the various cable companies
that may submit proposals. With respect to the work of the
Cable Commission thus far and the extent of the cable system
and the franchise ordinance that we are reviewing, I have
proposed copies of everything in my office. The volume of paper
generated through our efforts is several hundred pages, and as
such I elected not to photocopy every shoot for your individual
review. I think if you wish to got right into the detail of the
franchising ordinance structure and the decision making process,
it would be best if you stopped in and we could discuss this at
length and you could look at all of the material I have if you so
desire. In order to keep the process going so that the City can
approach cable construction by next summer, this hearing needed to
be hold and this resolution needs to be adopted.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Adopt the resolution as is.
Upon adoption I will return a copy of the resolution to
our legal counsel who, when in receipt of the resolutions
from all participating cities, will put the RFP out to
cable companies.
2. Request an amendment to the RFP.
In the event that you would like an amendment made to the
RPP, a resolution so stating should be adopted. I would
then request a meeting of the Cable Commission and relay
the amendment request to that body requesting their adoption.
If the Cable Commission was not receptive to the proposed
amendment, the RFP would stand as adopted by the Cable
Commission, and I would return to the City Council for adoption
without amendment. If the amendment provision were something
of significant concern such that adoption by the City could not
occur without the amendment, we would formally request with-
drawal from the Cable Commission. Upon formal withdrawal from
the Cable Commission, we would have the balance of our
financial contribution reimbursed, and we would or could
adopt an RFP of our satisfaction and submit to cable companies
acting as an independent agency. Our chances of being
fiC
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
successfully accepted would be limited if we tried to go on
our own.
3. Deny the resolution and the RFP and make a finding that
the City is no longer interested in cable communication
systems and thereby withdraw from the SWC4.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the amount of effort and legal counsel having been put into
the RFP, I think we have an excellent proposal for the Commission.
I recommend adoption by the City Council with a direction to transmit
immediately to legal counsel and the SWC4.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. A copy of the RFP was submitted to you earlier under
separate cover.
2. Other data relating to the entire cable franchising
process is available for youi review in my office;
a copy of the proposed resolution adopting the RFP.
- 10 -
RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR A CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO
RESOLUTION 1983-79
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has participated in the Sherburne/
Wright County Cable Communications Commission (Commission), and
WHEREAS, the Commission was delegated the responsibility to prepare
and adopt and did prepare and adopt a Request for Proposals (RPP) and a
preliminary draft franchise ordinance for a cable comnunications system
for the City of Monticello along with the Cities of Big Lake, Buffalo,
Cokato, Damsel, Delano, Elk River, Rockford, Watertown, Maple Lake,
Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, the City is the franchising authority, and
WHEREAS, Section 4.140 (D) (1) of the Official Rules of the Minnosota
Cable Communications Board requires that the franchising authority shall
adopt in a public hearing the Request for Proposals, and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published in the official
newspaper of the City of Monticello on September 8, 1983, and
WHEREAS, membore of the public have been afforded a reasonable
opportunity to be hoard.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Monticello City Council es
follows s
1. The City of Monticello adopts the RFP and receives the
draft preliminary franchise ordinance.
2. The RPP accompanied by a draft of the preliminary franchise ordinance
shall be issued by the Commission on behalf of the City of
Monticello and shall be on file in the City Administrator's office
of the City of Monticello.
3. The City of Monticello hereby delegates to the Cosmiesion the
responsibility to perform on behalf of the City all tasks incident
to the issuance of the RFP as required by tha Official Rules of
the Minnesota Cable Communications Board.
4. The City of Monticello hereby delegates to the Commission the
responsibility to perform on behalf of the City all tasks incident
to the receipt and evaluation of any proposals received by the
Commission, to culminate in the recommendation to the City by the
Commission of a cable company and s final franchise ordinance to
be considered by the City in its regular ordinance procedures.
rt
Resolution 1983-79
Page Two
Councilmember introduced the above resolution and
moved its adoption. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote
being taken, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was duly passed this 26th day of September, 1983.
ATTEST:
Thomas A. Eidam
City Administrator
Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor
City of Monticello
Counci 1 Agenda - 9/26/83
9. Consideration of Change Order 446. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This Change Order which had to do with the return activated
sludge flow control was rejected by staff and, therefore, never
executed by the Council. The amount of $2,699.00, however, did
get carried over into the total contract price noted on Change
Orders 447-49. This error was supposedly taken care of by a
credit from Palco with Change Order 450.
There is now a problem in that since Change Order 446 was never
executed, the original charge of $2,699.00 was never formally
made part of the contract. Change Order N50 (the credit) was
formally executed and Palco credited us for $2,699.00 for
which they never received authorized payment for in the first
place.
If this seems confusing, it is.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
There basically is only one alternative that will satisfy the
MPCA, Corps of Engineering, and Palco, and that is to formally
execute Change Order N46 in the amount of $2,699.00. Since thio
Change Order was cancelled by 450, the net effect will be only a
change in the amount of Palco's contract.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
it is a staff recommendation that the Council formally execute
Change Order 446.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. Copy of Change Order 446.
2. Copy of Change Order 450.
3. Letter from OSM to Palco, Soptembor 9, 1983.
...,,,..... 1.., — .
""'CONTRACT CMANt3f 4RD1R
« fa4n.Ifaa,
• Mfttasa 00J1 KKwk MAYMOM • A66001011iiL. W.
a*ate.d+ WV01 carates*•trtt erC
,oAWi .e• W .a..e •�..va sVnl s1s n+ws aW..4 r aYtaety 014M Nr Rod
MTradtar Paul A. Laurence Co. p.yr Order sae. 46
Voss P.O. Box 1267, 10000 Highway 55 West Field fladit. lb. So
Minneapolis, MN 55440 ""t ob 068-2748,01
Job LOW 1011 Monticello, Minnesota pn areal 270855-03
1r. accordewt:a With the farm o+ "W Contraet 60.0 November 20, 1080 rfth
Citv of Monticello Dmoa forWWTP Uoaradina a Appurtenant Work
fo., 0.0 h•r a!,,'r etyalt•d to etr.rt, .SFr, the fello.11V f7anaee Fror tM dortrife at&,t *If 4060f14:8t19w6:
D.ecrlpt tow .nd Just if Icallah; - Refer to flefd feadff 080 (•tt•¢hed)
Personnel staffing requirements has rendered manual operation of return
activated sludge (RAS) pumps (units 40 thru 45) infeasible. This change order
provides for the necessary hardware and software for automatic adjustment of
return flow.
814e44011. a• cos!s ?tis ?aha ha
.., b Material SE (d.Ipment f of It 0 0r0.-hood 701a1 Age I Tates 'Ded.rl
Subcontractor)
c-2 r.-II I CIn9"n le-599 00 r
QW,ml of 01161.01 Go,.tr.rt; 0 4,704,000.00
Toter Cowtrect
Lo,016,
ciroci ThrW C.O. ♦ Total Addition TataI D.duct Thr: This CO. I758.07 I S2,699.00 I -q4 A1Q,4S7-n7
o,101nei Comirfgo-cin 1))1 0141,200.00
fe! R.r•Iwlnp
:opt. Tnry C.O. 14 5 Ade Thla C.O. Dwwct Thfs C.O. Cowttago,
tiss
1$28.441.93 I $2,699.00 $25,742.93
T%or. aI I to ar Won$Ica of n dell for completion.
Trn d.,e o/ fns feet+et 10, of C4),,I,*rq has October 28',19 e2 held wW .Itf ba October 20, 198/2 .
ac tac•ae III f- tAl_ \ t i, �t� +�_•.. Da'e 110"ll 9y/� 'f 414
4srtrMCtm �� T
R•ca.Wrwtlaa bt7 r ��•4'��} \i N''r'�•�L'.
we 01 wed
Agro—.d br Oro ffdw.d
e
Dew
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
:wire• uaene
es aosmaaa
OFIR-SCHEIFN•MAYEAON A ASSOCIATES. INC.
o..�aw+o, .= Co.wh*..•ls Q.C.
2011 wt a..cn..vs aur.. taa,nwws.wow w. sa.uehb vh eso r... sow 1
;ontractor Paul A. Laurence Co. Change order No. 50
hddresa P.O. Box 1267, 10000 Hwy. 55 West Field ftdlt. lie. NA
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Project wo.068-2748.01
Job location Monticello, Minnesota EPA Drell* MD. C270855-03
In mcordence with the form of your contract dated November 20, 1980 with
ity of Monticello owner forWWTP 17ogradinq 6 Appurtenant Work
.ou are hereby requested to comply with the following d•anges from the contract p tens and specifications:
escr.ptlon and Justlncetlon: - Refer to Field Isodlf 0 NA (Attached)
Credit adjustment for Chanqe Order No. 46 which was not executed.
reakdown of Costs this Change Order:
abor Equipment profit 16 Overhead Tote 1 Add Total Deduct
1$2,699.00
count of Original Contract: S 4,704.000.00
Tadal Contract
mtract Thru C.C. #49 Total Addition Total Deduct Thr Th 1. C.O. F 5 Q
4,824,690.07 1 1 $2,699.00 $4,821,991.07
-iglnol Contingencies I31I 1 141.200.00
Not Rsmaalning
in*. Thru C.O. 049 Add This C.O. Deduct This C.O. Cant l np'CIO$
$20,509.93 $2,699.00 823,208,93
iere will be an ertenalon of 0 dap for completion.
,e date of the coerle, Ion of Contreet us October 28 Ig§2 and now will be October 28 , 1g 2.
cooled by Date Sloped
Cont r set or
ccanunded by
E gInow
-plowed by
Owner
Date Signed
0 Date S.,Intl
L , I I ,`
\ / ( / I I
ORR SCHEIEN • MAYERON ft ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers , September 9, 1983
Lend Surveyors
Paul A. Laurence Co.
P.O. Bo: 1267
10,000 Highway 55 West
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
Attn: Mr. Jerry Grundtner
Re: Monticello WWTP
EPA C270855-03
C.O. 446
Gentlemen:
We have been informed by the MPCA and the Corps of Engineers that
we have not formally executed Change Order 446. As you may recall,
this change order was prepared, but never executed because an
alternate approach for RAS flow control was eventually incorpor-
ated into the project. Unfortunately, the $2,699.00 amount was
carried over into the contract change order forma for C.O. 4's 47,
48 6 49. We caught Lhis error and corrected IL by a balancing
credit in C.O. 450. Therefore, with respect to formal bookkeeping,
you have in effect provided the City a $2,699.00 credit without
actually incorporating the same dollar figure into your contract.
In order to clear this matter up, we need to formally execute C.O.
446. Please note that this change order provides for no actual
field work, nor does it change the current contract amount listed
on C.O. 497.
Please execute the six (6) provided originals and transmit all
copies to the City.
I apologize for this confusion and your inconvenience in this
matter. Please call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
I SOClATES NCO
4V4
Ge a�Corrick. P.E.
Project Manager
r
enclosure O
enclosure
cc: John P. Badalich - OSM
John Simola - City of Monticello
2021 fast Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Minneapo.'is. Minnesota 554.72 • 6121331. 8560
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
10. Consideration of a Report Concerning Repairs to City Hall. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE 6 BACKGROUND:
Since our last regularly scheduled Monticello City Council Meeting
we have contacted Mr. Herb Ketcham, Architectural Alliance, to
line up the work with the subcontractors involved in the project.
As of today's date the roof in7 subcontractor, Ettel 5 Franz, was
contacted and agreed to come up here and measure the one piece of
flashing to be re -installed and to set aside a time on their con-
struction schedule to come up to Monticello and repair our roof.
This contact originated around August 25, 1983; and upon response
to Mr. Herb Ketcham from Ettel s Franz, they indicated they would
be up here the first part of September, September 5 or 6, to measure
up the pipe and the piece of flashing and to start with the repair
work. As of today's date, no one has come up to measure up the
piece of flashing or indicated any further as to when they will be
coming up here to repair the roof.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Tom and I discussed with the City Attorney, Gary Pringle, some
possible alternative actions and possible litigation. Upon review
by Mr. Pringle, he suggested to us that we go ahead and have the
repairs made, initiating the action of getting a start on the repair
work whether or not it solves the problem. In looking at it from a
legal atandpoint, Gary mentioned two things that would hinder our
efforts toward soma type of settlement. First would he the time lapse
from original contact in March of 1980 by the previous City Administrator,
Gary Wiebor, that being the only contact with the architect and/or
the subcontractor since the initial letter oent out by Mr. Tom Eidem
earlier thia summer and also a latter from Gary wieber to the general
contractor, Herbert O. Mikkelmon Company, indicating that the repairs
had been done and the roof was not leaking anymore. Second, due to
the cost and time involved in a legal lawsuit, Gary felt the costs
would far exeoed the amount that we would got in return from the
parties involved to have the roof repaired; and we still would have
a leaking roof up until the lawuuit was settled, which may be a year
or two years from now.
P000iblo alternative actions would be:
1. To try and do as much of the repair work as can be done by our City
crowa, therefore, cutting down soma of the labor costo involved in
repairing the roof;
2. Do what is nocoseary at minimal coat to repair the leak in our roof
and wait for the roaul is of a legal suit against the companies
involvod;
3. Make the suggested repairs as rocommondod by Mr. Herb Ketcham.
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommendation would be to proceed to have two of the
suggested repairs done, one being installation of one new piece
of flashing in the vestibule area, and the second being sealing
the exposed vertical cracks in the roof, weaving in new shingles
over the existing cracks, caulking all the cracks in the exterior
brick over 1/32 of an inch, having the exterior surface prepared and
ready to be sealed with a sealer, hydrozo, work to be done by the
City. The staff recommends, very reluctantly, that we not seek
further legal action or possible legal lawsuit against the companies
involved upon the advice of legal counsel. John Simola has already
ordered some caulking to be used to caulk the existing exposed
cracks on the exterior brick and also to seal around joints or exposed
beams and some existing flashing where it meets the roof, setting up
and working out a maintenance schedule to be used in the upcoming
years on the City Hall building.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. August 22, 1983, Agenda Supplement and Minutes.
Council Agenda - 8/22/83
A. Consideration of Information FLLlating to the Condition of the
City Nall Roof. (G. A.)
Cn Friday, August 12th, 1483, at 10:00 A.M., a meeting was
called by Mr. Herb Ketchum, Architectural Alliance, the
architect for the City Hall project. Also in attendance was
a representative from the Herbert o. Nickiilson Company,
general contractor for the buildiny and two gentlemen
representing the company Ettel and Franz. They were the
roofing subcontractors on the project. Also present were
City Staff members, Tom Eidem, Rick Wolf stelle r, and Gary
Anderson. This was a meeting called by Mr. Ketchum to
look over the general context of the meeting. Mr. Ketchum
explained briefly to those in attendance the purpose of the
meeting and if we could resolve the roof leakage problem as
soon as possible. He felt that with the expertise that was
present at the meeting, some sort of conclusion to the
possible solution of our leaking problem could result from
this meeting. Tho City Staff explained to Mr. Ketchum the
approximate locations of the leaks we have had in the
building and when they occurred. The re of was also inspected
by all the members present and noted that the side entrance
to our building and the Council Chamhery roof were leaking
r and water does flow down onto tho front entrance roof.
i After inspecting the application of the flashing on the roof, it was
tho general concensus of those involved as to why the flashing
was installed that way. no main reason it was installed in
this way was to hide the top of the fla ohing so that it would
not protrude out over the top of the shingles. One possible
solution was the installation of a rain gutter to catch titre
water coming off of that portion of the Council Chamhor's roof
devertiny uome of thawater into the rain gutter onto the ground
away from the building. Also noted was the scaling or chipping
away of the brick and the erackv in the brick and also water
could be r3oing in behind the brick and down the wall and possibly
under our flashing onto our docking causing lookago problems.
The brick itself io a very soft, porus brick. Mr. Ketchum
noted that before the building was built that it was explained
to the City that this being a very soft brick, it would have
to bo troatod with sone typo of a sealant to prevent problems
with this type of a brick. In looking at the south and east
portions of the roof, wo noted that there woro cracks up the
roof line from the coves, noting that most of the cracks were
eithor in the cantor in between the bo ams or just off to tho
side of tho beam, one or two foot.
W
Council Agenda - 8/22/83
Also there were soma cracks on the south side that were directly
on top of the beams. Trying to cane up with soma sort of a
solution as to the reason why that we have vertical cracks in
the roof, one of the suggestions possibly being that we are
having or did occur some deflection in our building, that being
the area that is exposed under our roof overhang and
we have an area of approximately 7 to 75 feet. with
the abnormal amount of snow in 1978 and with a build up of ice
on the cave of the roof, posoibly that additional weight
hanging out on the eaves, we could have had some small hair
line cracks starting at Last point. The staff has no recollection
of anyone being up on the roof to note any cracks from that
in the Spring of the following year. Although we are experiencing
no leaks from these vertical cracks as of this time, the natural
wear of the shingles and the weather conditions that will be
existing could have an occurrence of leakage from these vertical
cracks. In looking at our electrical heat tape wires on the roof;, at
the highest point they are just at the interior or exterior wall
height in comparison to the roof, noting they should be extended
to at least 6 to 12 inches higher on the roof, creating a thawing
channel so the water can be relocated off the roof onto the
ground in the spring. After the roof inspection, the interior
of City 11311 was inspected noting all the various places that
have had leaks at one point in time. A short discussion followed
in the conference room and the general concensus of the
contractors involved was that Mr. Ketchum come up with his
solutions to the problems through discussion which was centered
here today at the meeting and send us a letter which direction
they intend to go in regard to fixing our roof. Mr. Ketchum
indicated they would probably like to go on a phase plan allowing
a couple of methods to alleviate the problem and if that doesn't
work go to Phase II and try another way to alleviate the problem.
Mr. Eidem indicating to the affected people present at the meeting
that this meeting was called by Mi. Ketchum and not a muting
called by the City and that if nuthing canes out of this mcotinl7
that is satisfactory to the City, a separate meeting would be
called by the City Administrator to all effected parties involved
to come up with a solution to alleviate this roof leakage problem.
That if necessary, the City would iucessitato legal action.
The meeting was dispensed at approximately 121lo with M:. Ketchum
indicating that he would gat back to me with a letter by the
August 22th Council meeting. 1 called Mr. Ketchum's office on
Tuesday, August 16th, at approximately GOO A.N. and he was out
for the day and would return cry call the next day. On August 16,
Mr. Ketchum returned may call indicating that he is in the process
of sending a letter to me by the August 22 Council meeting, in-
dicating that any hold up In the letter would be that he is waiting
for prices from the affected contractors in regard to what it would
cost to repair some of the problems in our roof. He did indicate
that in one way or another he would get a letter to me by Monday.
On August 18th, mt. Ketchum did call se and has his rough draft
letter ready and will be hand delivering it to my office this
afternoon. A brief explanation of his letter indicated to me
-2 -
(/(�
I
Council Agenda - 8/22/83
that he would like to Phase step the problem procedure to
solutions to our roof leakage problems. At this time, due to
the inability of the contractor: to get back to him at this
u mo, he does not have the prIcrs it costs to cortuct
our roof leakage problem, but will -jet diem to u.i as soon at;
he receives them. The cp�ueral runcon_u:. of the di;.cusr.irm
with the contractors involved in than: l'ruject 15 that thug
intend to do as little as pos sibl.• Lo
repair the roof leakage problem. Their
indication is that their one year warranty against workmanship
and defects has past and has been nearly 3 years since they have
had any response from the City in regard to any roof leakage
problems other than what was received in our initial letter
that was sent this past month, each one still pointing the finger
at the other indicating he is the one that is responsible and
should be fixing the problem and not his company to do the work
or any expenses involved on his part. The primary emphasis
from the contractors involved is that the brick chosen for this
project being the light weight used brick and no proper main-
tonance taken to maintain the brick when it was fully explained
to the city before awarding of the contract of the type of brick
that was being used being a light weight brick that would be
acceptable to chipping and would need more maintenance than
the usual hard typo brick that is predominatoly used in this
typo of construction. With very little documentation in our
filos regarding background as to the original bidding process
negotiations that was done previous to construction of our
building, it is very hard to substantiate facts to what
previous staff and elected officials have done prior to this
time. It is my opinion to continue to pursue whatever means
that are necessary to alleviate this roof leakage problem
onto and for all. By the proposed :iolution to the problcs
by th o affected parties involved Ix•ang a phase stop plan
would only bring us further toward•+ the colder part of the year,
henceforth, curbing all work tolated Items until our next
construction :.cation, thus liv tnj tht.•utib another winter .Ind
uprin•jwith a ruuf condition uxicllnj lw,ieally as thay era.
It would be my recommendation that we huraue thiu matter as
quickly au possible In the event that any rurrectivu meaturus
that are to be done be dona as soon as possible. If these
measures do not work that we expediate whatever action doomed
necessary to tomo up with acme monetary amount for damages. To
be presented at Monday niglit's meeting will be a letter from
Mr. Ketchum and also a rough estimate of costs projected to the
total roof replacement and possible preventive maintenance
procedures to continue for maintenance of the City Hall building.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
August 22, 1903 - 7:10 P.M.
Members Presents Arve Grimemo, Fran Fair, Dan Blanigen, Fran Fair,
Kan Maus.
Members Absents None.
2. Approval of the Minutes.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on
August 8, 1987.
4. Consideration of Information Relating to the Condition of Citv
Hall Roof.
Since the Canty Hall was completed in 1978, the City has experienced
some leakage problems on numerous occasions which have not, apparent-
ly, been rectified to date. On August 12, 1981, the City Staff
held a meeting with the representatives from the Herbert Mikkel-
eon Company, general contractor for the building, Mr. Herb Ketcham
of Architectural Alliance, the architect for the City Hall yroject,
and two gentleman representing the company, Ettel and Franz, who
wero the roofing subcontractors. The purpose of the meeting was
_. to try and resolve the roof leakage problem along with Boma other
apparent defects in the building.
After inspection of the roof, it was noted that the flashing was
installed on the roof under the shingles for appearance sake
which may not have been the beet installation. Cne possible
solution was to install a rain gutter to catch some of the
water coming off that portion of the Council Chambers roof to
divert eomo of the water directly to the ground rather than
having a large Quantity of water running off over the vestibula
or front entrance.
The group also discussed the scaling or chipping away of the
brick that has occurred on parts of the building due to excessive
water aborption and the constant build up of Ice during the
winter. it was noted by the architect that the City should have
been aware that the typo of brick used is very porus and would
absorb water and that it would have to be treated with ease
type of sealant to prevent problems with this type of brick.
Additionally, it was noted that there were cracks on part of
the roof line near the eaves in the shingles which may be the
result of excessive ice accumulation.
Council Minutes — 6/22/83
It was the architect's recommendation that minor repairs be
done in a phased project to sea how each step might solve the
leakage problem and the architect was working on obtaining
price quotes for the various improvements. It seemed apparent
from the meeting that the general consensus of the contractors
involved was that it was no longer their problem with the roof
leakage or any problem and that their warranty has expired and
it would be the City's problem. Building Inspector, Gary
Anderson, noted that he is in the process of receiving a pro-
posal fron a contractor to seal the brick with a sealant to
stop water absorption. It was also noted that while a firm
price had not been established to install additional flashing
and rain gutters to help alleviate the leakage, these
quotations should be coming in the near future.
After considerable discussion on the problems, it was the con -
census of the Council to have the work done yet this year and
try to solve the leakage problems throughout the building
regardless of what the general contractors or roofing con-
tractors agree to do,and suggested that the City Staff try to
got some sort of settlement from the contractors involved.
A motion was mads by Blonigen, seconded by Maus and unanimously
carried to consult with the City Attorney to see whether the
City has any legal recourse from the contractor, involved for
the problems end to start immediately with the repairs to the brick
and flashing, subject to the legal advice as to whether
these repairs should be done prior to reaching a settlement.
5. Consideration of Appointinq Gary Anderson as Citv Assessor.
On June 30, 1983, the City received permission from the Com-
missioner of Revenue to re-establish the office of City
Assessor. The job description has been prepared for the
position and it was the recommendation of the administrator
that the City's Building Inspector, Mr. Cary Anderson, be
appointed also as City Assessor.
A motion was made by fair, seconded by Maxwell and unanimously
carried to appoint Gary Anderson as City Assessor with a
salary adjustment effective September 1, 1983, to $23,000
annually.
G. Consideration of Final N,3,Pointment for a Secrstary in City Mail.
Mr. 'Tam ridom noted that approximately 80 applications ware
ruceived for the secretary position that was open. After
review of the Applicants, Mr. ridem recommended that Karan
Doty tw hired as the new *ecretary.
A motion was made by Bionigvn, seconded by Maxwell and unani-
mously carried to hire Kariu 1-t y as the new secretary for
r'ity tiatl.
Council Agenda,- 9/26/83
11. Consideration of a proposal by Fulfillment Systems, Inc., to
Issue Tax Exempt Mortqaqos Under Chapter 474 (The Industrial
Revenue Bond Act). (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE 6 BACKGROUND:
On August 22, 1983, the Council adopted a resolution authorizing
the submission of an application for an Urban Development Action
Grant (UDAG). That grant application was submitted on August 31
to HUD and is currently in the review process. Linda Henning,
a HUD representative, called me recently to say that our application
looked very good but that some additional information was required.
Among the various items requested she needed documentation that the
private funding would come through and that if it was to be industrial
revenue bonds or a tax exempt mortgage a resolution from the Council
would be required. Up to this point Fulfillment Systems and three
banks have negotiated the placement of a tax exempt mortgage. Briefly,
a tax exempt mortgage is authorized under the same statute as the
Industrial Revenue Bonds, MS 474, but provides a mortgage on the
property rather than the issuance of actual bond coupons. The procedure
from the City's point of view is largely the same as with IRB's, the
difference being that the tax exempt mortgage is privately placed and
the bond restrictions and bond opinion are not nearly an lengthy nor
as expensive.
HUD fully understands that the City is not interested in issuing
tax exempt mortgage notes in the absence of tho UDAG committmant.
Thus, they will accept a resolution giving "preliminary approval"
to the project. This indicates to them that the City has reviewed
the project and supports the economic development that is being
proposed. If and when the UDAG funds are officially granted, the
City would then proceed to complete the formal issuance of the tax
exempt mortgage.
While I have as much background on the FSI proposal as anyone, I am
requesting that Jack poach tomo before the Council to make his formal
presentation. Upon completion of his presentation, he will request
that the Council adopt a resolution of preliminary approval. This
resolution basically states that the Council supports the concept and
will land its name or act as the vehicle through which tax exempt mort-
gage money can be made available for his development. This resolution
doom not formally commit the City to anything at this time. As the
project proceeds, public hearings will need to be hold, all of the
financial data will have to be committed, and another resolution granting
final approval will have to be adopted. we will not proceed with any
of the other matters until we hear from HUD on the approval or denial
of the grant application.
- 14 -
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
In conjunction with the overall finance packaging, Jack will be
coming before the HRA in October to make a formal request for
tax increment financing. I have done the preliminary financial
work on that and it is a very feasible plan. Because it is
economic development and is anticipated to generate as many as
90 jobs, I do not think the HRA will deny the request. Again,
the refinement of all the details will come at a later date.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution of preliminary approval.
This resolution will then be submitted to HUD for
inclusion in our grant application packet and will
keep the project progressing. As noted above, this
resolution does not commit the City in any way
financially.
2. Do not adopt the resolution.
This would in essence stop the entire project since
the committment letters from the lending institutions
indicate that they will hold the notes only if they
are tax exempt securities. Further FSI, if they are
required to finance under a conventional method, could
not meet the financial obligations and the project would
be abandoned in Monticello.
3. There really is no possibility to amend or altar the
resolution at this time since the dollar amounts have
boon carefully figured in and anything less would stop
the project, anything more would invalidate the grant
application. Similarly, a request for a greater amount
simply would not be honored by the lending institutional
they have committed to the maximum already.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION,
It is my recommendation that the resolution be adopted in order to
keep the UDAG application proceeding.
D. SUPPORTING DATAt
1. A summary statement of the PBI project proposal indicating
location, building, number of employees, and financial
data.
2. Copy of proposed Resolution.
-__-- C i
U
URBAWDEVELOPKENT ACTION GRANT
APPLICATION SUMMARY
DEVELOPER:.
Fulfillment Systems_lnc.�
PROJECT:
Acquisition of Lots 6, 7, 6 8, Block 2
Inuring Hillside Terrace; Construct
two buildings (one office,, and production),
totalling, 52,000 sq. it.,
COST:
Land Purchase $130,000
Bldg. Construction 701,815
Capital Equipment 65,000
Fees 6 Contingencies 51,000
° Administration 8,185
TOTAL $956,000
FINANCING:
Banks via Tax Exempt
Mortgage $475,000
Corporate Equity 135,000
UDAG 243,500
Cvia,T.I.F.
102,500
TOTAL, $956;000
NEW JOBS:
110
UDAG is Presented to City
in form of a Grant. Monica aro loaned to PSI
at a,substantially'roducod,interest
roto.
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL TO A
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PRESENTED BY
FULFILLMENT SYSTEMS INC. AND
CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING
INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS
RESOLUTION 1983 -BO
WHEREAS, Fulfillment Systems, Inc., (FSI) has presented to the
City Council of Monticello an economic development proposal and further
requested the use of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, and
WHEREAS, Wright County State Bank, First State Bank of Lake Lillian
and Security State Bank of Howard Lake have submitted to the City letters
of committment for the purchase of said bonds in the amount of $475,000.00,
and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 1983, the City of Monticello did submit an
application for an Urban Development Action Grant to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for the express purpose of assisting FSI
in their proposed development, and
WHEREAS, FBI's proposal could not occur but for a coordinated financing
effort utilizing private equity, Industrial Revenue Bonds, and UDAG funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF TILE CITY OF
MONTICELLO THATs
1. The proposal submitted by FSI, and detailed in the City's
WAG application, is hereby given preliminary approval.
2. Pursuant to M.S. 474.01, Subdivision 76, a public hearing be
sat for 700 P.M. on the 24th day of October, 1983.
3. The City Administrator shall prepare and have published the
required public notice and shall further prepare such documents
as may be required.
The foregoing resolution was introduced by Councilmember
who moved its adoption. The motion for adoption was
duly seconded by Councilmember with the following
voting in favor thereof,
0//
o
Rceolutian 1983-80
Pagc., ,Two
and the, following votingsin the oppositioncS
Adopted this 26th flay of September, 1983.
ATTEST:
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
A.rve A. Grim —, Mayor
0
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
f�
�- 12. Consideration of Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and
Specifications for an Addition to Pump House M2.
A. REPERENCE 6 BACKGROUND:
As the City of Monticello has grown, so has the water usage.
In any given summer now, the water usage goes over a million
gallons a day. It is common to see pump usage exceeding 20
hours per day. Along with this comes an increased usage of
chlorine, fluoride, and polyphosphates. We have experimented
with the chemical injection at the wells due to an increase
in the amount of overtime necessary to keep the injection
process operating during poriods of high usage. We have switched
to larger tanks for fluoride and polyphosphates. These tanks
are located in the pump room at wells 91 and 82. We alternate
the wells Nl and 02 and run each one for a 2 -week period, then
switch to the other. Because of the larger tanks necessary to
keep up with the usage, it is becoming very difficult to clean
and maintain the system due to the crowded space. Ln addition,
the storage of the additional chemicals is becoming a problem.
Also of prima concern is the damage being done to the electrical
controls from the corrosive action of the fluoride. In pump house
Y2 last year we moved the telemetric controls to the outside of
the building. However, we are still experiencing corrosion on
the main control panel, which is still inside the pump house.
A solution to this would be to build an addition onto the building
in which to house the polyphosphate and fluoride and seal this
room off from the rest of the pump roam.
Also, with the proposed addition to pump house 02, we have given
considerable thought to the operation of the pump during electrical
outages or problems. We currently have the capability of powering
well 02 mechanically through the use of a drive shaft and tractor.
The tractor used is the 2500 Series International that the Street
Department uses. This tractor is capable of running the wall N2
to 75• capacity, which is slightly over 900 gallons per minute.
The pump when running at normal capacity pumps in excessive of
1,250 gallons a minute.
Over the past couple of years Lhers have been more and more incidences
where we have toms close to needing to power this well with the
tractor. In 1982 an automobile struck a power polo behind the too.
This knocked both of our wells out of action at approximately IsO0 A.M.
It also locked the telemetric system on the reservoir to Pump On.
The pumps in the reservoir immediately began filling the water tower,
which in short order began overflowing. This was the case by the
time our crews arrived at the ■ ite. MO was not able to sake the
repairs until approximately 5&00 A.M., at which time the reservoir
- 16 -
Council Agenda - 9/26/83
was nearly out of water.
In the summer of 1983 we have had four instances whore we came
near needing standby operation of the pump. One of the first
occasions was a wire burning off a transformer knocking out both
wells. At this particular time the reservoir was dangerously low.
Luckily the repairs only took two hours, and we were back on line.
If it had been a transformer and NSP had to go to St. Cloud to get
a transformer, it could have been a significantly longer period of
time. Another occasion in 1983 was a severe wind storm that we
had that knocked out power. At that particular time we were in
the process of getting the tractor down to the well house in the
middle of that stom when power was restored. Another occasion
in 1983 was when an automobile struck a pole behind Stella's.
This was late on a Friday night. Luckily the reservoir was full
and we were able to maintain ample water capacities. However,
the reservoir did not completely fill during the night and was
down to minimum level by early the next morning.
The fourth occasion in 1983 was when the pump for well 41 burned
up. The pump motor itself was rebuilt by Olson a Sons. Parts had
to be ordered. There were some problems with tolerancing the pump,
so it took several days before this pump was back in operation. At
this time we were down to a single pump. If we would have had a
motor failure at that particular time, we would have needed auxiliary
power. All of this leads up to extending the proposed addition to
allow room for a standby power unit to power well 42 rather than
a tractor. A gasoline powered engine with a transmission mounted
by drive shaft to well 42 would be capable of delivering full flows
from the well of 1,250 gallons per minute. Such an engine could be
purchased through Federal Surplus Property extremely reasonable.
These engines generally go for $1,000 to $1,500 now at Federal
Surplus Property. This engine could be purchased next year in 1984
or whenever one becomes available.
Enclosed with this Agenda Supplement is a drawing which I made of
the proposed addition for pump house 42. It shows the area to be
used for polyphosphates and fluoride and an area to be used for the
standby engine. This is only a rough drawing, and there are
already some possible changes to it. We feel that the room for the
standby engine could be smaller and not necessarily an B -foot
wide overhead door, possibly a 6 -foot wide door, or possibly utilising
a met of doors from the Oakwood School, which we have on hand. in
addition, as far an the electrical work in the building, it would be
very minimal. We would need approximately three or four outlets, a
couple of lights, and one heater. The City has a salvaged electric
heater from the Waste Water Treatment Plant, and we have the light
fixtures. All that would be necessary would be a minimal amount of
- 17 -
Council Agenda,,- 9/26/83
�-� electrical work to install those devices. As far as the mechanical'
goes, we gould'need only one floor drain. It may be hooked in the
way shown on the plan or possibly hooked into an existing.drain in
the other building. Any water work needed for mixing chemicals,
of course, could be done by the City.
The cost of such a building complete is estimated to be between
$9,000 and $10,000. Because of theroof structure, I believe it,
would be necessary to have an architect or engineer prepare the
working drawings and design. I will have a cost estimate for this
part of it for the meeting Monday night. As far as the specifications'
and bidding documents and contract, we could prepare those ourselves.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Alternative action in this particular case would be to either alter
the design of the proposed addition or not build the addition large
enough to house the standby engine, or to not build the addition at
all.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that we make the proposed addition
to,pumprhouse 02., It is,rocommended,that we do'downsizo,the power
engine roam slightly to add more room to the polyphosphates end
r° fluoride room. It is recommended that the Council authorize the
preparation of plane and specifications and advertise for bids to
dotormino actual costs. We would recommend that if approved,
construction take place in late October, early November.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. Map of the proposed, addition for pump house q2.
2. pages 53 and 83 from 1983 Budget.
IA
L
------ 20.6 - —+
� d
0 0
Q — a
a
w, oma
b � � • N
Cl 4" OQPen� CIOK\�1�
Roo M
FL Ooi, PLA rl
!!IIi!i'� T!iil:iiili? Il.flll!'!Ilii IIIIIIli[[' 1!IIIl111IlIii! [111!1
i -
r--.1m1.1_lI �I. n��1 Im_'1.11
—ILLLI,1J I1111L1TRI 111:.! - —•
Q � SQ,3T^ Ct*-v
PROPOS L lQ A IZ) 7iON
PIMP HOUSE 2 ��-
_
' itCVElIUi sBS(!t7l:t
1983 BUDG,.T
1 FUND NO. 241
uVrIlUr
331 U.S. Truasaty
_i4,015.Jl)
T1,:,015.u6
TOrAl, 1,TVENUE
:54,.115.00
♦�r•r••r�••••uu••a•••ar••••au•ua•uau••••ur.e•asr•aa••e•wi••.a.uvre••�a
eu•�oer
6UND [:U. 141-499
MPLNU IIV HES
•
c
Other Servicen and Chargos
39 Aid to Ckthar Govornmente (Con_linfty Cd)
lu'aw.up
10.GmoO
covit.al outlay
51 Buildinga 6 Structurca
No enlarge Cliemical. Cgpacity)
' U2 Ioprownu ntrn otlrr %qn ia11IA}.-a.,
(Sca lcoa ti ng )
3 7 Flltti . t. Y
53 Purnitura, Egullrwnt Wotora, vittiny�, b
Pira E'(1wSmontl
24. ,ij j. o
I
54 Machinory 6 Vohlolea
(loader at Plant)
9.to,.UI
i (van -Hats)
f' , cmi,il+,
74 �':�n.w_
b7`11L t:j:CLNQ1rUhk:F.
`
i
COA,t:�P.4J
{
i
SUMMARY
1993 BUDGET
CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENDITURES
Page 2
Parks b Cemetery
(3) Picnic Tables
$ 900.00
John Deere 650 Tractor (Replace 400)
7,900.00
Mover for Bolen's
750.00
Weed Eater
300.00
(1) Wood Play Structure - West Bridge Park
3,500.00
$13,250.00
Library Fund
Kitchen Unit
11500.00
8MM Projector
400.00
(2) Benches
300.00
(2) Book Returns
e00.00
(32) Chairs
1,750.00
Siko Rack t Concrete Pad
450.00
Unallocated
1,500.00
$ 6,700.00
Tree Fund
Replacement Troon
2,500.00
(i) of Loader installment
6,250.00
$ 8,750.00
*Water Fund
Replace '74 Choy van
e,000.00
Enlarge Chemical Treatment Capacity
10,000.00
Motors a Fittings
10,000.00
$28,000.00
Sower Fund
ladder in Reservoir Lift Station
2,000.00
Install emergency pump - Chestnut
Lift Station
3,500.00
Electronic Air Purifier
500.00
Parts cabinet for spare parts
450.00
Mobile Conversion for Mand Hold Radio
400.00
Computer Program for WWTP
2,000.00
*Skid loader for WwTP
9,000.00
$171550.00
'Donotos expenditures from Revenue Sharing
Fund Budget.
83 \�
SEPTEMBER - GENERAL FUND - 1983
AMOUNT
CIIECK N•
Craig Kendall - Summer help salary
268 .00
17742
Charles Walters - Summer help salary
388.00
17743
Dean Schwindel - Summer help salary
241.20
17744
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
8.00
17745
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
19.00
17746
Corrow Sanitation - August contract
4,403 .50
17747
North Star Waterworks Products - Fittings for Wrightco
966.01
17748
JAE's Precast, Inc. - Manhole for Wriglitco sewer line
727.70
17749
Gwen Bateman - Animal control - August
431 .94
177544
Monticello Township - Local Govt. Aid agreement - 2 paymts.
2,448.47
17751
Int. Conf. of Building Officials - Field inspection manual
13.00
17752
Jerry Hermes - Cleaning library
125.00
17753
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad.
144.04
17754
Central HN. Office of Aging - Reg. for K. lianson - seminar
6.00
17755
Paul Goettig - Screen for air conditioner at Library
2,400.00
17756
State Treasurer - Para W/H
1,391 .57
17757
Mr. Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175 .00
1775H
Mr. Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
17759
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
17760
Mr. Ken Maus - Council salary
125 .00
17761
Mr. Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
17762
James Preusso Cleaning city hall
250.00
17763
YMCA of Mpls . - Monthly contract
284 .16
17764
U. S. Postmaster - Postage
200.00
17765
MN. Pollution Control Agency - Reg. fee - seminar - Hancock
45 .00
17766
Co=iccioncr of Revenue - GWt - August
2,231 .00
17767
Wright County State Bank - FWT - August
3,373 .50
17768
State Treasurer - Social Sec. Cont. Fund - FICA - August
4,555 .22
17769
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fee
64 .00
17770
National Municipal league - Dues
10.00
17771
Petty Cash - Raimb. potty cash fund
4G .21
17772
Craig Kendall - Summer help salary
134 .00
17773
Charles Walters - Summer help salary
391.64
17774
Radisson Arrowood - MFOA conforonce dopes it
75.00
1777;
Mrs. Ed Schaffer - Inf. Center salary
159.75
17776
Mrs. Lucy Andrews - Inf. Center salary
150.75
17777
MI. State Treasurer - Dop. Rug. fees
8.00
17778
MN. State Treasurer - Dop. Reg. fees
20.00
17779
Region VII - Reg. fees for K. Hanson - seminar
15.00
17780
Wright County Stato Bank - C. D. purchasu
160,000.00
17701
North Central Public Service - Utilities
1,233.45
17782
Northern Status Power Co. - Utilities
8,197.90
17783
Jerry Hormea - Cleaning library
125.00
17784
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad.
144 .04
17705
Thomas Eidem - Mise. mileage, etc.
57 .07
17786
Marco Products - 2 adding machines, 1 element
364 .5017787
MN. Stats Treasurer - Dop. Rog. fees
19.00
17788
Bridgewater Tolophono Co. - Tolophono
822 .40
17789
Charles Walters - Summer help salary
155.20
17790
MN. Stato Treasurer - Surcharge report - 2nd qtr. - Bldg.
895.30
17791
Monticollo Firs Dept. - Payroll for August
779.00
17792
Mr. Bill Koarin Tank and stand for parks 1
75.00
17793
SMA Construction - Stool for WWTP I
21.65
17794
Monticollo Offico Products - Supplios for all nopta.
381 .65
1779,
MN. Municipal Financo Officer's Assoc. - Reg. foo - Rick I
75.00
17790
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT CHECK NO.
Walter Mack - Mileage and meals at Paynesville meeting
34.03
American Management Assoc. - Membership dues - Tom E.
110.00
Robert Nygaard - Stump removal
45.00
3 M PSG 2214 - Maintenance on copy machine at Mtce. Bldg.
71.00
MN. State Treasurer - Surplus Property Fund - Membership du: --s
25.00
Ziegler, Inc. - Repairs to street equipment
364.51
Earl F. Anderson - Signs and picnic table
497.88
Fair's Garden Center - Rocks 6 tree replacements
533.75
G 6 G Industrial Supply - Saw blades 6 vice
70.65
Garelick Steel Co. - Steel for Mtce. Dept.
157.20
Stokes Marine - Filter
1.25
Earl Peterson Equipment - 6 saw blades
39.00
Northwestern Bell - Fire phone
35.93
Newman Signs - 2 signs
67.76
Fox Valley Systems - Masking wheel kit
13.11
Goodall Rubber Co. - Parts for equipment
44.77
Grayarc - Purchase order books
46.99
Independent Lumber - Parks - 475.43 - bal. in other depts.
527.14
Maus Tire Service - Tire repair
10.00
Big Lake Lumber - Wmber
26.13
Berg's Office Supply - Display rack for city hall
42.19
Sentry Systems - lease for alarm at reservoir
90.00
Amoco - Gas
22.74
Mrs. Marjorie Bauer - Reimb. for computer class fee
92.10
Vance's Service Center - Gas for Fire Dept.
39.54
National Life Ins. - T. Eidem pension fund
85.00
Elk River Bituminous - St. supplies
96.75
Snyder Drug - Film - Planning s Zoning Dept.
16.99
Red's Mobil - Repair fire truck
38.10
Persian's Office Products - Dictaphone repair
49.65
Audio Communications - Transistor repair - Fire Dept.
25.70
Baroness Drug - Film - WWTP
19.20
United Parcel Service - Return of mdse. for Public Wks.
5.87
Allen Polvit - Mileage for UDAG
33.85
Trueman-Woltors, Inc. - Manual for Cub Cadet tractor
5.75
Maus Foods - Supplies for all Dcpts.
81.07
Ilach - Supplies for WWTP
16.67
Gould Brea. Chov. - Fire truck repair
149.19
Equitable Life Assurance - Ino. w/h for Karen 6 Matt- Aug.
40.00
Chapin Publishing - Adv. for bids - 83-1 bit. overlay
31.80
Century Labe. Inc. - Parks supplies - 289.04 6 ico molt
355.04
Sherburne County Fquip. - Parte
6.11
Earl's Welding- Drill - 195.50 E. clothes - WWTP
247.48
Harry's Auto Supply - Supplies for St., Shop, c WWTP
242.40
Monticello Fore - St. Dept. parts
107.50
Larson Carpet - Carpet for Mtco. Bldg. office
280.00
Monticello Ready Mix - Park Dept. cement
156.70
Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies for all Dopts.
120.63
American National Bank - Int./Pri.on '60 G. 0. bond
24,057.50
Al Nelson - Sub.
11.70
Phillips Petro. - Gas - Piro Dept.
23.04
Hauslauden Sales - Exterior paint for Lindberg house
75.57
Banker's Life - Group Ina.
3,426.08
Gruye, Johnson - Computer service for July
290.00
Iuof Brothers - Uniform rental
13G.50
Local 049 - Union dues
95.00
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK 9,
Monticello Printing - Env., stationery, pads, etc.
266.10
17853
Fyle's Backhoe - latrine rental at 17SP ball park
125.00
17854
MN. Fire Inc. - Parts for equipment for Fire Dept.
798.85
17655
Braun Engineering - Compaction tests 83-1 Imp.
407.20
17856
Office Adm. and Automation - Sub. - magazine
27.00
17857
Monticello Times - Renewal sub.
12.00
17858
K. R. West Co. - Filter for wocKl splitter
19.33
17859
Wright Service Oil - WWTP fuel
355.98
17860
Poirier Drug - Film
Ll.bB
17961
Willard Farnick - Mileage - general Fire Dept. business
19.25
17862
Ben Franklin - Film, markers, etc.
23.18
17863
Bryan Equipment - Belts for Mott mower
48.20
17864
MN. State Treasurer - Pera W/H
1,377.14
17865
MN. Fire Inc. - Air tanks for Fire Dept.
72.00
17866
Our Own Hardware - Mise. supplies
678.77
17867
J M Oil Co. - Gas St. 6 Parks Depts.
501.47
178r,B
The Plumbery - Repair at WWTP
14.15
17869
VWR Scientific - WWTP supplies
241.90
17870
Feed Rite Controls - Pump -$1,180 -- Chlorine, etc.
2,345.76
17871
North Star Concrete - Sewer and St. supplies
B47.56
17872
Olson 5 Sons Electric - Water and sewer Mtce. expense
1,176.72
17873
North Star Waterworks - Motors, wire, etc.
432.69
17674
Oxford Chemical - Parke suppliea
205.59
1787;
Orr Schelen Mayeron - Eng. fees - 82 Sp. Assmt.-18,879.82
19,099.71
17876
Viking Industrial Center - Supplies for lab - WWTP
517.71
17877
Class Mut - Equip. mtce . - Allis mower
183.65
17978
Lindberg 6 Sons - Paint for Parks 6 Dog Pound
104.39
17879
Mobil Oil - Gas for Fire, Water and Sewer Depts.
97.54
17880
Buffalo Bituminous - Seal coating project
30,500.36
17861
Rick Wolfsteller - Misc. mileage
25.00
17882
MN. Park Supervisor's Assoc. - Reg. fee - Roger Mack scm.
10.00
17883
Davis Electronic Service - Pager repairs - Fire Dept.
107.62
17884
Adams Pest Cuntrol - Library pest control
36.75
17885
Marco Business Products - Mtee. agreement on 2 typowritero
180.00
17886
1st Bank Mplo. - Public fund charge
4.00
17887
Bren LesOn Construction - Fill in basement at Monti. Dev.
1,050.00
17888
Gary Anderuon - Misc. mileage, etc.
129.10
17889
W. W. Grainger, Inc. - Fan blado - WWTP
153.14
17890
Smith, Pringle 6 Hayes - Legal - Adm.
400.00
17891
Wright County Sheriff - July and Aug. payments
18,083.96
17892
Equitable Life Assurance - Inc. W/11 for. Matt 6 Karen- Supt
40.00
17893
Fester Franzen Agency - Renewal of Workmen's Comp.
9,595.00
17694
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Rog. feeu
12.00
17895
Payroll for August 23,667.08
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR SEPTFMER 5347,355.06
LIQUOR FUND
DISBURSEMENTS FOR SEPTEMBEk - 1983 1 A1IGGNT CN
ECK i I NO.
Fit Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
3,523.15
State capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
20.00
Slate Treasurer - PERA W/H
139.22 '
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - AugusL
258.00
Wright County State Bank - FWT - August
437.60
State Treasurer - FICA - August
430.24 ,
Old Peoria Co. - Liquor
i 1,314.12
Twin City Wine - Liquor
1,526.13
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
7,389.01
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
5,325.28
state Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
20.00
Monticello Office Products - Supplies for store
55.95
Midland Beverage - Liquor
56.25
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2,185.66
Twin City Wine - Liquor
1,592.77
Wright County State Bank - 2 rubber deposit stamps
10.00
Granite City Cash Register - Repairs to register
104.41
Schabel Beverage - Beer
6,645.10
Municipal Liquor Stores Assoc. - Annual dues
125.00
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer
6,042.85
Dahlhcimer Dist. Co. - Beer
11,934.43
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer
566.55
Day Di2f.. r,,, - Fl-,
505.60
Grosslein Beverage - Beer
13,474.47
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdso.
927.80
I
7 Up Bottling Co. - Misc. mdse.
530.50
Mirk Irmiter - Mileage- June - 'P.! Lhru August - '83
160.00
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdae.
742.83
Old Dutch Focrls, Inc. - Misc. mdse.
252.32
Monticello Times - Adv.
51.00
Lovegren Ice - Purchase of ice
830.35
Da tco Specialty Lighting - 24 light bulbs
175.44
Northern States Poorer - Utilities
721.87
Century laboratories - Glass cleaner, spray, etc.
127.11
Maus Foals - Misc. supplies f•jr store
29.73
Yonak Sanitation - Garbage contract
82.50
Law Enforcement Guide - Adv.
25.00
Icifurt Tricking - Freight
481.98
Upton Advertising - Adv, in county map
150.00
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
78.47
Ed Phillips s Sono - Liquor
2,901.38
MN. Slate Treasurer - PERA W/11
139.89
Banker's Life Ins. - Group ins.
179.70
Footer Franzen Agency - Workmen's Comp. premium
625.00
Payroll for August 3,952.21
TOTAL. DISBURSEMH.NTS FOR SEPTEKB ER 576,882.87