City Council Agenda Packet 10-14-1981AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
October 14, 1981 - 7:30 P. M.
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo.
Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White.
Meeting to be taped.
Citizens Comments.
1. Public Hearing - Appeal of Variance Granted to Monticello Ford, Inc.
by Planning Commission Regarding Monticello Ordinance Regulating
Parking Areas.
2. Public Hearing on the Consideration of $200,000 in Industrial Develop-
ment Revenue Notes for an Office Building - Melvin C. Wolters.
3. Public Hearing on the Adoption of Assessment Rolls for 1981-1 and
1981-2 Improvement Projects.
4. Consideration of Extension of Variance for Parking Lot Curb Perimeter -
Tonotto Ruff.
5. The Quarterly Department Head Meeting.
6. Consideration of Approval of Stipulation to be Submitted to Tenth
Judicial District Court Regarding Laroon Carpet.
7. Consideration of Change Order #17 and 418 with the Paul A. Laurence
Company on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Contract.
B. Consideration of Approval of Job Description and Authority to Advor-
tiso for Superintendent of Wastewater Treatment Plant.
9. Consideration of Authorization to Prepare Specifications for Now A
Yard loader.
10. Approval of Minutoo of the Regular Meeting hold on September 28, 1981,
Unfinished Rusiness.
Now Business.
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
COUNCIL. SUPPLEMENT
1. Public Hearinq - Appeal of Variance Granted to Monticello Ford, Inc.
by Planninq Com:aission Regardinq Monticello Ordinances Requlatinq
Parkinq Areas.
PURPOSE: To consider an appeal filed by Phil White relative to the
variances granted by the Planning Commission at their September 29,
1981 meeting.
At the regular meeting of the Monticello City Council on November 7,
1977, a variance was granted to Monticello Ford for their parking lot
not to require a continuous concrete curb barrier to the south and to
the west. This was granted as a result of proposed expansion plans
by Monticello Ford, Inc. This initial variance was for two years and
since occupancy in the building did not take place until approximately
October of 1978, this variance lapsed in October of 1980.
At this time, Mr. Larry Flake, President of Monticello Ford, Inc. is
requesting a permanent variance from the concrete curb perimeter re-
quirement, Additionally, Mr. Flake is requesting a variance from the
hard surface parking requirements for a vehicle display area to the
north of the garage building. He has indicated his request is based
on the feeling that the grass area in which this display area is
maintained enhances the appearance of the trucks and other vehicles
which are displayed in this location.
At the Planning Commission meeting on September 29, 1981, Mr. Flake
also requested that he be allowed to use an area for over flow car
display that would not require hard surfacing.
After discussing the variance request, the Planning Commission unani-
mously approved of the following:
- Granting a variance eliminating the curb barrier on the south
and west sides of the existing hard surfaced area until such
time when further development takes place on the site.
- Allow the vehicle display area to the north of the existing
garage to be grass until such time when further development
of the site takes placo.
- Allow an additional area to the south of the existing hard sur-
faced area to be used as an over flow vehicle display area with-
out requiring hard surfacing or curb barrier provided the area
seeded or oodded and maintained.
Additionally, the Planning Commiusion indicated that as the area west
of the Monticello Ford sits hu devolopod that consideration for drain -
ago be reviewed in accordance with the letter from our engineering firm
that we, received in December of 1977, a copy of which is enclosed.
SIC
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
It should be pointed out that Mr. Flake indicated it was the recommenda-
tion of the engineer to allow drainage flow from Monticello Ford to the
west and south of the Monticello Ford site in accordance with the Decem-
ber 27, 1977 letter. As a result, he indicated that the curb barrier
would in effect, obstruct the flow of drainage water to the areas in-
tended. However, it should be pointed out that curb barrier could be
developed around the perimeter of the parking lot with spill ways pro-
vided every so many feet similar to our Commuter Parking Lot.
In Phil White's letter, the appeal is based on grounds that a time
limit should be placed on the variances granted. One of the concerns
of the Planning Commission was that quite frequently, a variance is
granted for a period of time and as long as the circumstances do not
change the variances continually are extended again and again. Rather
than place a time limit on this aspect, the Planning Commission felt
that it would be better to tic it into some future changes that may
warrant conformance with Monticello ordinances. This is why the
variances were granted until Monticello Ford developed more of the
particular Site in question.
One suggestion relative to allowing the over flow vehicle area to the
south of the existing parking lot not to be hard surfaced would be to
indicate how many cars this area could hold. Otherwise, it will be hard
to monitor in the future what area is being used for over flow and what
area is being used for regular display. If the council were willing to
consider to allow this area not to be hard surfaced, it may want to put
a limit of 10 to 15 vehicles on the area that is not hard surfaced. Thin
area wvuld W an a:ldiliou LO Lhu vehicle display area to the north of the
Monticello Ford building.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of the following:
- Granting a variance to oliminato the curb barrier on the south and
west sides of the existing hard surfaced area.
- Variance to allow display area to be developed to the north of the
existing building not to be hard surfaced.
- Variance to allow an area to be developed to the south of the exist-
ing hard surfaced area to be used as an aver flow parking area with-
out hard surfaced parking requirements. The council may want to con -
aider the maximum number of vehicles that could be used in this site.
It should be pointed out that it takes a 4/5's veto of the council to re -
versa the Planning Commission's decision. As a result, if the Planning
Commission roeommendations ware to be adopted and the only difference
was a time table to be indicated, this would have to be approved by 4/5'a vote
of the City Council or the variance granted by the Planning Commission
would stand.
REFERENCES: December 27, 1977 latter from John 8edalich relative to the
drainage for Monticello Ford and appeal filed by Dr. Philip White. Also
a latter from Larry Flake and a letter from Sam Peraro opposing the vari-
anca.
- 2 -
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
2. Public Hearinq on the Consideration of $200.000 in Industrial
Development Revenue Notes for an office buildinq - Melvin C.
Wolters.
PURPOSE: To consider approval of the issuance of $200,000 in Com-
mercial Development Revenue Bonds as authorized under Minnesota
Statutes 474.02 (Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act).
This request came as a result of an application filed by Mel Wol-
ters to finance construction and land acquisition cost for an
office building to be located southeast of the intersection of
Walnut and 6th Streets in Monticello immediately west of the Dairy
� (ween.
�Pr\ The proposed breakdown of the project cost is as follows:
�a(jv
Item Cost
Land Acquisition $ 37,000
a� Construction 137,000
Legal Fees 7,000
Vf Interim Financing 10,000
Financing Fees 71000
Contingencies 2,000
TOTAI. $ 200,000
It should be pointed out that the revenue notes are in effect, tax-
exempt mortgages and will be purchased most likely by two or three
institutions. According to Mel Wolter's attorney, there has been
an indication that approximately one half of the issue has already
been committed to a financial institution.
As with past issues of this nature, it should be pointed out that
these types of bonds do not became a liability of the city and it
is not in fact, legal for a city to use public monies in case a
particular company goes bankrupt. The city's tax-exempt provisions
are used as a conduit to authorize the issuance of bonds for fin-
ancing this project on a tax-exempt basis. Currently, the applicant
is preparing information in order to determine that the guidelines
that the City of Monticello has adopted relative to earnings are
being met. By Monday night's meeting, I should have the information
at hand and be ablo to tell the council if there are any exceptions
to our guidelines. Additionally, Gary Pringle has reviewed the othor
legal aspects of the issue and has indicatod the roquost is in con-
fonnanco with the lawn relating to industrial development revenue notes.
POSSIBLE ACTION, Consideration of % motion to adopt a resolution
approving of the issuance of $200,000 in industrial Development Rev-
enue Motes for a 6,000 square foot office )wilding for Mal Wolters.
REFERENCES: A copy of proposed resolution, copy of proposed appli-
cation for Municipal industrial Revenue Bond Project, and a copy of
the Affidavit of Publication.
- 3 -
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
3. Public Hearing on the Adoption of Assessment Rolls for 1961-1 and
1981-2 Improvement Projects.
PURPOSE: To consider the adoption of an assessment roll for the 1981-1
Improvement Project which consists of sewer, water, and street improve-
ments to a portion of West River street in the vicinity of the NSP
Training facility and sewer, water,. street and drainage improvements to
a portion of the Meadows Subdivision and the 1981-2 Improvement Project
which consists of a storm sewer improvement project on Cedar Street from
Lauring Lane to the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks.
The total project cost is as follows:
1981-1 1981-2 TOTAL
Total project cost $332,405.62 87,495.81 419,901.43
Portion Assessed 297,636.13 86,141.36 383,777.49
Percent Assessed 89.540 98.450 91.400
Enclosed for your reference is a copy of a September 22, 1981 letter
from John Badalich indicating how the assessments were arrived at plus
a copy of the proposed assessment roll itself.
It should be noted that the actual final assessments are about 704 of
the original estimate in the case of the Meadows and the Cedar Street storm
sewer project and approximately 944 of the original estimate in the case
of West River Street. The primary reason for the project cost being
less than the estimates was favorable bids received on the project.
These assessments are proposed to be spread over 10 years on an even
principal basis with an interest rate of 134. According to our assess-
ment ordinance, the city charges ono4half percent over the interest paid
on the bonds rounded to the nearest .25 percent which would be 13.254
since the bonds were sold at 11.614. However, State Statutes prohibit
a charge on assessments of greater than 13 percent. Additionally, I
looked .into the possibility of reducing the interest rate to lose than
13 percent, however, since the prospectus for the bonds indicated that
the city would be charging 13 percent, it is recommended that the city
not amend this particular item.
On the enclosed copy of the encasement roll, you will note that there
are several lots within the Meadows plot which aro asterisked.
indicating that the first year assessments on these would be deferrable
until 1983. Thin is in accordance with the agreement that the city of
Monticello made with Kr. Wolters to obtain an easement in exchange for
a deferral of one year for assessments on the additional lots that were
sorvod as a result of the completion of the project to Wont River Street.
- 4 -
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
Additionally, Nr. Edgar Klucas has filed an objection to the assess-
ment on his property which was $37,206.32. It is recommended that
the assessment for Nr. Klucas be considered at an adjourned hearing
which is permissible by law. Additionally, it is recommended that
the city hire an appraiser to determine the increase in market value
of this property since ultimately, it is this factor that determines
the validity of any particular assessment.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of a motion to adopt the resolution
for the assessment roll enclosed. It should be noted that the reso-
lution calls for an adjourned hearing for the Edgar Klucas parcel.
- 5 -
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
4. Consideration of Extension of variance for Parkin bot Curb Perimeter -
Tonette Ruff.
PURPOSE: At the City Council's last meeting, Tonette Ruff requested
a conditional use permit and a variance from the City of Monticello's
parking lot requirements that the parking lot proposed for her consign-
ment sales facility have a continuous concrete curb barrier. This
variance was granted for 60 days to allow occupancy until such time
when she was able to canplete this aspect of the parking lot.
Ms. Ruff is now asking that this variance be extended to July 1, 1982
for the following reasons:
- Present variance of 60 days would expiate at the end of November
and weather conditions may not permit installation of a concrete
curb barrier at that time.
- Ms. Ruff wants to make absolutely sure that the consignment sales
facility that she is operating is going to be a success and would
rather defer this expenditure until July 1, 1982,at which time she
will have a better idea of the future of the business.
it should be pointed out that Ms. Ruff has posted the necessary bond
for the present variance.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of an extension of a variance for the
concrete curb perimeter barrier for Tonatte Ruff's consignment sales
facility's parking lot until July 1, 1982.
- 6 -
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
5. The Quarterly Department Bead Meetinq.
Monday night is the first meeting for the new quarter and as a
result, there is a quarterly department head meeting.
All the following have been sent a notice:
Senior Citizens nirectorp
YMCA Detached Worker ✓
Fire Chief
Wright County Sheriff
Representative
Building Official/Civil
Defense Director
Public works Director
City Administrator
- 7 -
N I I.. . . . J470
MN.e-Nwl.red N J A
Buddy Ga �
Loren Klein - e e coAC; I*
John Simola AA,.,,—A 4.
Gary Wieber
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
6. Consideration of Approval of Stipulation to be Submitted to Tenth
Judicial District Court Regarding Larson Carpet.
PURPOSE: To consider the approval of a stipulation agreement be-
tween the City of Monticello and Ken Larson regarding Ken Larson's
use of his residence as a business for Larson Carpet and Furniture,
Inc.
In February of 1981, the City Council denied a variance to Ken Lar-
son to run a retail carpet store out of his residence on East 3rd
Street, Usts 6, 7, and 8, Block 32, Lower Monticello. Despite this
denial, Mr. Larson has continued to operate his retail carpet busi-
ness out of this location.
Since that time, our city attorney was contacted relative to the
violation of the City of Monticello's zoning ordinance. Mr. Pringle
obtained an injunction which temporarily closed down the retail
carpet business at the residence indicated above. However, since
that time, Mr. Larson did file a suit for damages in the amount of
$10,000 for violation of his constitutional rights and loss of busi-
ness and also another claim in the amount of $10,000 for selective
enforcement of the zoning ordinance by the City of Monticello. These
claims were filed after Cary Pringle had the injunction lifted against
Mr. Larson operating his business at the residence.
Simply stated, Mr. Larson foals that he was operating a retail business
out of his residence for the post several years and his closing of his
downtown retail outlet did not change the scope of the business he
previously indicated he had at his residence. The City of Monticello's
position, simply put, is that previously Mr. Larson may have warehoused
some carpeting at his residence, but it was not used as a retail outlet
and certainly he has expanded the scope of his business at his residence
with the closing of his retail outlet downtown.
After much review of the issue, it is the opinion of our city attorney,
Loren Klein, and myself, along with Ken Larson and his attorney, that the
best way to resolve the matter is to submit a stipulation to the court
for their approval, a copy of which is enclosed for your reference.
Although this stipulation would allow the possibility of three additional
years of retail carpet sales to continuo at the Ken Larson residence, it
would beo pormanent solution to the problem, since the agreement would re-
quire that at the end of three years Mr. Larson shall be prohibited from
using said real estate for retail sales of any kind.
- 8 -
Council Agenda 10/14/81
It should be noted also that the stipulation agreement should be
ratified by the City of Monticello contingent upon Mr. Larson
dropping his suit against the City of Monticello.
possiBL.E ACTION: Consideration of adoption of stipulation enclosed,
with any revisions relative to the operation of a retail carpet
sales outlet at his residence by Mr. Larson contingent upon Mr. Larson
dropping his suit against the City of Monticello.
REFERENCES: A co -,y of the proposed stipulation is enclosed.
- 9 -
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
7. Consideration of Chanqe Order 017 and 018 with the Paul A. Laurence
Company on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Contract.
PURPOSE: To consider Change orders 017 and 018 with the Paul A.
laurence Company for a total addition of $5,136 for the following:
017 - Request by the Public Works Department that a by-pass of the
chlorine contact tank he installed to facilitate cleaning
and maintenance of the chlorine contact tank, additional
$4,428.
018 - "Equipment Running" light indicators be added on the main
control panel graphic display for air operated diaphragm
pumps, additional $708.
Enclosed, please find related material relative to this change
order.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of Change Order 017 and
018 for an additional $5,136 as indicated above.
REFERENCES: A copy of the change orders and details describing the
particular changes.
- 10 -
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
8. Consideration of Approval of Job Description and Authority to Adver-
tise for Super intandent of Wastewater Treatment Plant.
PURPOSE: To consider approval of job description and advertising for a
Wastewater Treatment Plant superintendent for the city's new upgraded
Treatment Plant.
At our last meeting under "Unfinished Business", the council tentative-
ly approved advertising for a wastewater Treatment Plant superintendent
in the League of Minnesota Cities magazine. The reason for this approval
prior to the item being put formally on the agenda was to allow for pub-
lication in the League of Minnesota Cities November magazine issue.
Thin item is now being placed on the formal agenda so that the council
may know the background and the reason for our advertising for such a
position.
Once our Wastewater Treatment Plant is completed, it will be necessary
to have an A Operator on board. Currently, Al Meyer, an employee of
the City of Monticello, hasa Class B license and recently passed the
Class A written test. Mr. Meyer will very shortly be taking the oral Class
A test. One option open to the city would be to promote Al Meyer to
the position of. Superintendent of the Wastewater Treatment Plant,
however, John Simola and myself recommend that we advertise the position
for the following reasons:
- Investment in the Treatment Plant requires a superintendent with
not only a good technical background but a background that will
Include supervisory skills. Mr. Al Meyer has never previously
been in a supervisory capacity other than working with some of the
summer youth employees.
- By advertising the position, thio would allow Al Mayor to apply
for the position but would at the same time allow the City Council
an opportunity to see the caliber of personnel that may be avail-
able.
- With the increased work load at the upgraded Wastewater Treatment
Plant, it will be necessary to hiro an additional individual any
way. In this fashion, it may be a question of hiring a parson at the
top end of the scale if Al Mayor is not to ba the operator or if
Al Mayor is chosen to be the A Operator and the superintendent of the
plant, then the city could hire a person at the bottom end of the
scale.
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
For your information, the approximate salary for this position would
be about $20,000 to $22,000 a year. This salary would be comparable
to salaries of our other superintendents like Walt Mack and Roger
Mack, whose earnings in 1981 will be $18,948 and $19,236 a year re-
pectively. It should be pointed out that the average salary for those
people in union will be approximately $17,200 for last year of the
current contract which terminates March 31, 1962.
It was recommended that we advertise the position now in order that the
person hired could come aboard approximately the middle of January or
the beginning of February. This would allow the individual to become
acquainted with the technical aspects of the updated Treatment Plant
and also have some input prior to the completion of the facility.
John Simola has prepared a detailed job description and is also en-
closed for your review.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adopting job description for
wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent and the authority to ad-
vertise for the position.
REFERENCES: A copy of job description is enclosed.
- 12 -
A
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
9. Consideration of Authorization to Prepare Soecifications for New
2� Yard Loader.
PURPOSE.: At our last meeting, a discussion was held relative to
the proposed acquisition of a 25 yard loader that was included in
the budget. It was decided to have more information presented on
the possibility of contracting out for a loader versus acquisition.
In reviewing the various aspects of the City of Monticello owning
it's own loader versus contracting out for these services, it is
recommended that the City of Monticello purchase a new loader.
There are advantages to contracting as there are advantages to the
city owning its own loader and the following are a few:
- Advantages of owning a loader
1. More flexibility and control.
2. Higher level of service.
3. Eliminates problem of using city's smaller loader on too
big a job causing repair and inefficiency.
- Advantages of contracting a loader.
1. Save space in maintenance building.
2. Reduces man power requirements of city.
3. sunotimeo using too big a piece of equipment than a job
calls for and is inefficient.
John Simola has prepared a report entitled "City Loader Practicality",
which is enclosed. Additionally, Rick Wolfsteller, our administrative
assistant, prepared a cost analysis of owning versus contracting. In
John Simola's report, you will note that a current 3 yard loader is
used 375 hours of which 76 is for snow removal. A reasonable aosump-
tion is that of the remaining 299 hours, at least half (150 hours) would require
a loader ouch as being proposed by John Simola, eased on a total of
226 hours, it would coot the City of Monticello $7,835 a year if it
owned the piece of equipment according to the estimates previously
prepared by John Simola on coot acquisition and the financing plan. This
compares with the cost of $8,375 if the City of Monticello contract-
ed for 226 hours.
While it can be argued that some portion of the 150 hours stated in
the above paragraph could be done by a smaller piece of equipment,
the following should he taken into eonoiderationi
Council Agenda - 10/14/81
- Additional repair since the equipment would be too small for
the job.
- Additional hours because the citys smaller loader, the Massey
Ferguson, would take longer to do the job costing more in
labor.
One additional point that should be made is that the proposed
loader is actually smaller than the city% present 3 yard loader.
Proposal by John Simola calls for a 2� loader versus a present
3 yard loader and the engine size would be 100 horse power versus
the current 140 horse power engine.
POSSIBLE ACTION: if the City Council decides to purchase a now
loader, the proper action woult' be a motion to call for the speci-
fications for a new loader to be approved by the City Council.
REFERENCES: A copy of John Simola's report entitled "City Loader
Practicality".
- 14 -
,4
.44,W Mont icellt
_S52 -2W-091 -all qtaAe4 Fo j -( I , In c
Oi
MONTICELLO, ONNESOTA 55362
PHONES: issionficelto - W .CSA T. 421 -5*%%
of J, t, I Ail. Sq),,
she toad of Lot of 1. 1,..,
'City •I* .'mWx, 110
'?�O - .-lA bru.-dway
11o, 'iii,nosota 553t)2
:%,I •A6,7v City AdMini3trator
kar
',:Par :onvcri -1.1on yeateirr4kay with Arun Grimil, i -m wr
you -iticelio 11ortl for -.1itin with thr 11j. t- I I K,I
wo I 'sWn.1 a variance for hard mir;acti ie I -t d-
M ,s. 'rho pnrpose of this re(ju,.-,..,
area parking but display arca only.
1,n•%,ri (to not use tno nrus for custsir. r .,r 1,., 1,
park I, t,it, un i for the purpose of enhancing
true. it, ao have d1uplay0j.
Many 1 Lo at nru now puLtAn:1 Craus La -ons iii d.
dipl I Live u bettor 100V to Uln I'll
Thai, `inion qAy ;ini wvu:.d roill. have
Part, 0 1.
Youl; l." t tv
Holt"
":C
tF.,
Prow.
LVV. -
Y4
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
CotisuHur,) Enrlineuts
Land Sulvovnis
December 27, 1977
Mr. Gary wieber
City Administrator
City of Monticello
215 So - Cedar St.
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Revised Site Plan for
flonticello Ford, Inc.
Dear Gary:
On Friday, December 16, 1977, Keith Nelson of my staff, and I
met with Mr. Larry Flake and Jim Thompson, his architect, re-
garding the site plan for the Monticello Ford Co. development.
This meeting was a follow-up to my letter of December 7, 1977,
regarding our review of the site plan and my comments thereto.
Following the 16th meeting, Keith again met with Mir. Larry
Flake and Jim Thompson regarding the review of the revised
grading plan based on our December 16 site visit and conversa-
tion. The revised grading plan as resubmitted now meets our
approval. This will allow drainage of the Monticello Ford
property to the west and north of the Sandberg South property
thence to the wetlands area west of this development instead
of to a proposed ponding area just south and east of the pro-
posed building which would have posed difficulties as I outlined
in my December 7th letter. In the future, the extension of
Sandberg road northward will have to be constructed at an ele-
vation to receive the drainage from Monticello !Ford and thence
convey the drainage to the wetlands area by storm sewer.
In that Larry Flake owns the property to the west of this pro-
posed development, any future platting of this property will
require that provisions be made to receive this drainage.
Thcrefo ro based on this, I would recommend that the revised
grading plan be approved and that his buildings can remain at
the some elevation as he originally indicated. Further, that the
drainage pond as originally proposed south and east of the
building site be filled and the drainage be directed to the
southwest as now proposed. The ditch area within and along side
of T.H. 025 shall not be disturbed.
:!021 East Hennepin Avenuo - Surra 238 - AlmnrapoLs, Minnesota 5,`i:113 - 6121331- R(;50 199
Mr. Gary Wieber, J
Re; Monticello Ford, Inc.
December 27, 1977
Page 2
This revised aradina plan should be presented to and filed
with the citv prior to the issuance of a building permit for
.0e construction of this building facility.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
ASSOC/I�ATESI�, I�NC�
John P. Badalich, P.E.
City Engineer
JP B/ ry
cc: Larry Flake, Monticello Ford
C
�AM1)�j /j/ ROPERTIES & CONSTRUCTION, INC.
`t-LLff I�m� eteial Buildings & Custom Homes
R MONTICELLO. MN 55364
SAMUEL J. PERARO, JR. OFFICE: 377.50
' President 7388051
MOME: 2955600
September 2, 1981
Mr. Loren D. Klein
Zoning Administrntor
city of Monticello
Yonticallo, Minnorota 55362
Dear Loren:
The following are my thoughte regarding Mr. Larry Falkete
request for vnrioncea to to covered at the September 8, 1981,
hearing.
Eoing a gunoral contractor I have always had to check with y:,L:^
office to find out the current city requirements and thon to
most those requirements on my projects. I hr,ro foun6 thous
requiremonts to be fair not only for my own pcojectu, but YC~
any othor: undortnking any building projects.
If Mr. Fl:lhots rogreot for variances in rogsr9 to auphalt navi;.;;
and curbing is booed mainly on the addition&: cosh or rroo6 n,_,
these rogl5lromonts, I guess I :suet state that I fool it's Seo
different from paying the electrician or curl nter - thoce ^t,°tL;
are simply 4-iMired into the coat of the projects
dbout two wooko are, August 11 or so, I came Into your cfflru At))
a potential sliont to review a proposed projezt with you. At that;
time you ,rade it quite clear that there ware not-tacko, 1And-
aoaping, 2.ondicap parking, adequate parking upcce, curbir� ar_d
aaphalt pr.ving requirements to be met, which I fool are run3ci,AQ#i
requiramonto.
F,hould tho cam -d ion approve Mr. Flake7o rollunst foi- varlerce
I can see otner contractora (myself included :.n the future s.
for these onno variances when they build in inll City of l:�tl;L.;Illlo.
Therefore, I auk that whoa ynu consider the upl:roval or rojo..".:ar,
of this request, that you do not see it as Jim-. a one-tir:.i IC lti(�l .,
but one t,.ut will be far-reaching.
Sincere Y,
l
ottiw795 bt 77 0 C U na-
0: P H wren.•
MONTICELLO DENTAL. GROUP o, c w
1005 Hest Boulevard
P. O. Boz 308
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
10-03-81
Dir. Cary Wleber
City Adm i it i a tra tor
Monticello, AIN
Dear Mr. Nicbcr;
1 would like to appeal the variances granted to
Monticello Ford, Inc. by the Pianninr, Comminaius
oil September 29, 1981, on the ground that n
time limit nhould be placed on these itam:i rather
thnn an open-end permanent variance.
I would like to neo thin placed oil the Council
ngenda an noon on ponniblo.
Very truly yours,
4n .; N' "' r t
Br. Philip 11. N1iitr
Ceuncllaa i. City nC
lioiiticcI Iri
�l J
CMOM2441 '
This Appllntion own b w6mined to Co,nminlomr In dupikett
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - SECURITIES DIVISION
APPLICATION
FOR APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND PROJECT
Date Ai.4'ust . 1481
To:
Minnesota Department of Commerce
Securities Division
500 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
The governing body of Monticello County of wriqht
Minnesota, hereby app!ies to the Commissioner of the State of Minnesota, Securities Division of the
Department of Commerce, for approval of this community's proposed municipal Industrial Revenue
Bond Issue, as required by Section 1, Subdivision 7, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes.
We have entered into preliminary discussions with:
FIRM MELVIN C. wovrERS
ADDRESS 2 Riv, rsidi! Circle
el.ry Mont ice IIll STATE Minnesota 55162
state or lmory . t"
51362
Anornv MI.':CA1.I' a i.ARSON Add,a, 11.0. Ron 446. Monticclln, Minn.
Name of Prop -I
This firm Is engaged primarily in (nature of business): ennnl rur ire„ _
The funds received from the sale of the Industrial Revenue Bonds will be used to (general nature of
project): arDuir:itini, Of land -Anti t -n rnnvtr„rt an ;mprrnxinul my rIJIL ,
fnot office I.111dinn
It will be loutud ul Mlillticel10, Minnesota
The total bond issue will be approximately $200,000.00 to be applied toward payment of
costs now estimated es follows:
Cost Item
Amount
Land Acquisition and Site Development
S 37 . eee.:in
Construction Contracts
117.nen_!ill
Equipment Acquisition and Installation
-n-
Architectural and Engineering Fees
-n-
Legal Fees
nn nn
Interest dunnh Construction
LOrnnn
Initial Bond firserve
-n- —
Contingencies
j _nnn nn
Bond Discount • finyncinq fens
2_ne"
Other
i -0- —
It is presently estimated that construction will begin on or about November 1 19 81
and will he eompfcted on or about _ Mach 1 19 82 . When completed, there will be
approximately ti -n j104ew jobs created by the project at an annual payroll of approximately
$ i no . nnn _ nn based upon currently prevailing wages.
The tentative term of the financing is rw—nty (201 years, commencing March ] ,
19 82,
The following exhibits are furnished with this application and are incorporated herein by refocrce.
1. An opinion of bond counsel that the proposal constitutes a project under Minnesota Stat.,
Chapter 474.02.
2. A copy of the city council resolution giving preliminary approval for the issuance of its revenue
bonds.
3. A eomprehtnsive statement by the municipality indicating how he project satisfies the public
purpose of Minnesota Stat., Chapter 474.01.
4. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue or a letter confirming the feasibility of the project
from a financial standpoint.
5. A statement, signed by the Mayor, to the effect that upon entering into the revenue agrcemm:nt,
the information required by Minn. Stat, Sec. 474.01 Subd. 8 will be submitted to the Depart
ment of Economic Development.
6. A statement signed by the Mayor, that the pro?ect does not irch de any property to bu sola or
affixed to or consumed in the production of property for sale, and does not include any huw;in1
facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence.
7. A statement sigied by the Mayor that a public hearing was condicted pursuant to (.Sinn. Stat.
474.01 Subd. 7n. The statement shall include the date, time and place of the meeting and that
all Interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views.
S. A copy of the notice of publication of the public hearing.
We, the undersulnee, are duly elected representatives of Monti ,ell a , Minnesota,
and solicit your approval of this project at your eadieat convenience so that we may carry it V) a t,na'
conclusion.
Shined by: (P,inGipal Officers!
Tilts approval tli.ill nit be deemed to be an approval by the Ct mtnissu,ner or the v, it, of ;I tI
feasibility of the prolrct or the terms of the lasso to be executed or the bonds to ba issued tlx rulur.
Ran 0 Approval,,,_.
r --
Comm.niwr of arau. r.n
#A-- iii 0008nmwt „r r:mnmaa
ORR-SCHEIEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES. INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
September 22, 1981
Honorable Mayor a City Council
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Assessments for Project 81-1 & 81-2
Gentlemen:
At the request of the City Council, we have arrived at the fol-
lowing costs based on the contract price and indirect costs which
were used in the preparation of the assessment rolls for the
above referenced project.
2021 Eosl ilenneprn Avoauo • State 238 • Minneapolis. Minnesula 55412 • 6121331- 8660
Project
Project
81-1
81-2
Estimated Final Construction Coat
(Including Change Order No. 1)
$266,264.47
$71,471.30
Estimated Total Combined Construction
Coat $337,735.77
Indirect Costs
Engineering Fee (7-1/26 of
Construction Coat
$ 19,969.84
$ 5,360.35
Inspection 6 Survey, Etc. (Est.)
23,019.08
6,180.92
Extra Engineering Fees
406.69
---
Legal Fee (Estimated)
6,817.72
1,624.39
Misc. (Street Signa)
277.25
---
Easements
51000.00
---
City Administration 6 Inspection
Coate (28 of Construction Cost)
5,325.29
1,429.43
Assessment Roll (19 of Construc-
tion Cost)
2,662.64
714.71
Contingency (19 of Construction
Cost)
2,662.64
714.71
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
$66,141.15
$16,024.51
For 81-1 $66,141.15 • $266,264.47
- 24.84049
For 81-2 $16,024.51 ♦ $ 71,471.30
■ 22.42098
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$332,405.62
$87,495.81
Total Combined Indirect Cost
--� $82,165.66
Total Combined Project Cost $419,901.43
2021 Eosl ilenneprn Avoauo • State 238 • Minneapolis. Minnesula 55412 • 6121331- 8660
September 22, 1981
Page -2-
Pro ect No. 81-1
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary Sewer Construction Cost $62,827.02
Sanitary Sewer Service Construction Cost 8.992.00
Construction Cost for Unit Assessment $53,835.02
Sanitary Sewer Construction Cost
(Unit Assessment) $53,835.02
Plus 24.848 indirect Cost 13,372.83
Sanitary Sewer Project Cost
(Unit Assessment) $67,207.85
Sanitary Sewer Service Construction Cost (6') S 830.00
Plus 24.849 Indirect Cost 206.18
Sanitary Sewer Service Project Cost (6') $1,036.18
Sanitary Sewer Service Construction Cost (4') $8,162.00
Plus 24.849 Indirect Cost 2,027.47
Sanitary Sewer Service Project Cost (41) $lu'LU9.41
$67,207.83 + 54.23 Units $1239.31/Unit Assessment
$ 1,036.18 t 2 Services . 518.09/6• Service
$10,189.47 r 28 Services a 363.91/4' Service
Water Main
Water Main Construction Cost $89,340.35
Water Main Oversiting (Ad -Valorem) $27,651.15
1' Water Services 9,886.90
2' Water Service 478.10
6' Water Service 469.30
Water Main River St. (Unit
Assessment) 26,195.40
Water Main Marvin Elwood Rd.
(Unit Assessment) 24.459.50
$89,340.35
Water Main Oversiaing (Ad Valorem) $27,851.15
Plus 24.849 Indirect Cost 6,918.34
Total Ad-Valoren Cost (City Share) $34,769.49
Water Main 1' Service Construction Cost $ 9,886.90
Pius 24.849 Indirect Cost 2,455.95
1' Water Service Project Cost OLY,342.85
September 22, 1981
Page -3-
water Main 2' Service Construction Cost $478.10
Plus 24.848 Indirect Cost 118.76
2' water Service Project Cost a
Water Main 6' Service Construction Cost $496.30
Plus 24.848 Indirect Cost 116.58
6' Water Service Cost Tgurw
Water Main Construction Cost (River St.) 826,195.40
Plus 24.846 Indirect Cost 6,507.04
Water Main Project Cost (River St.) $32,702.44
Water Main Construction Cost (Marvin Elwood Rd) $24,459.50
Plus 24.848 Indirect Cost 6,075.84
Water Main Project Coat (Marvin Elwood Rd.) $30,535.34
$12,342.85 • 46 Services $268.32/1• Service
$ 596.86 • 1 Service 596.86/2' Service
S 585.88 • 1 Service a 585.88/6' Service
$32,702.44 • 28.23 Units - 1158.43/8' Unit (River St.)
$30,535.34 • 26 Unite - 1174.44/6' Unit (Marvin Elwood Rd.)
Storm Sewer
storm Sewer Construction Cost 823,949.65
Plus 24.640 Indirect Cost 5,949.19
Storm Sever Project Cost 829,898.64
The Meadows Plat Only.
829,898.84 • 525,434 Sq. Ft. - $0.05690313/Sq. Pt.
Street Construction and Restoration
River Street
Street Construction and Restoration
Construction Cost 847,258.45
Plus 24.840 Indirect Coat 11,739.18
Street Construction 6 Restoration Project Cost vod,991.by
$58,997.63 • 2257.79 Peet - 826.1306986/Assessable Foot
Marvin Elwood Road
Street Construction 6 Restoration
Construction Cost 842,889.00
Plus 24.841 Indirect Cost 10,653.79
Street Construction 6 Restoration Project Cost 853,542.79
$53,542.79 • 2451.22 Pest - 821.6433229/Assessable Foot
September 22, 1981
V Page -4-
Asseasment Summary - Project 81-1
Sanitary Sever
$67,207.85
Sanitary Sever Services
11,225.65
Water Main (River Street)
32,702.44
Water Main (Marvin Elwood Road)
30,535.34
Water Main Services
13,525.59
Water Main Oversizing (City Share)
34,769.49
Storm Sever
29,898.84
Street Construction 6 Restoration
(River Street)
58,997.63
Street Construction i Restoration
(Marvin Elwood Road)
53,542.79
'DOTAL ASSESSED PROJECT 61-1 $332,405.62
Typical Lot Cost - Project 81-1
Lot 4, Block 1, the Meadows
Sanitary Sewer $1,239.31
Sanitary Sewer Service 363.91
water Main 1,174.44
Water Main Services(2) 536.64
Storm Sever. 686.82
Street Construction 1,856.68
TOTAL ASSESSMENT 85,857.80
Protect 81-2
Storm Sewer
Storm Sewer Construction Cost 871,471.30
Plus 22.421 Indirect Cost 16,024.51
Storm Sewer Project Cost 887,495.81
Storm sever assessments for other than single family residential
property shall be determined by multiplying the residential area
assessment per square foot, times the following factors
A. Multiple Dwelling 1.5
B. Commercial/industrial 2.0
Residential Area - 43,560 Sq. Pt. : 1.0 - 43,560 Sq. Pt.
Multiple Area - 574,880 Sq. Pt. s 1.5 - 862,320 Sq. Pt.
Commercial/Industrial - 954,022 Sq. Pt. s 2.0 - 1 `908 X044 Sq. Pt.
2,8ay,924 Sq. Pt.
(( September 22, 1981
Page -5-
$87,495.81 a 2,813,924 Sq. Pt. - 0.031O9388/Sq. Pt.
(Residential)
Multiple Area 0.03109388 z 1.5 - 0.04664082/Sq. Pt.
Commercial/Industrial Area 0.03109388 : 2.0 - 0.O6218776/Sq. Pt.
*The Assessment for the Cemetery Property is $1,345.45 and will
have to be paid by the City.
Tical Lot Cost - Project 81-2
LOt 1, Block 2, IAuring Hillside Terrace
(zoned Industrial
Storm Sewer $3,621.44
If you have any questions regarding this breakdown of costs and
proposed assessment, please contact us.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYEROM
l ASSOCCIIATE�S,�INNCC.
Jo n P. Badelich, P.E.
City Engineer
JPB/tr
J
September 25, 1981
Mr. Gary W ieber
City Administrator
City Hall
Montciello, MN 55362
IN HE: Proposed Assessment for 1931.-1 and
1981-2 Improvement Projects
Dear Sir:
I object to the proposed assessment against. my property.
I do not. request the improvements, the improvement;
provide little, if any, benefit to my property and the proposed
assessm.nt against .:.y - rnperty is excessive.
Sincerely,
Edgar Klucns
113
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
FOR 1981-1 and 1981-2 IMPROVEMENT pPwrcT
WHERE14, pursuant to proper notice duly given as r,•quired by law,
the council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the pro-
posed assessment except as noted below for the 1981-1 6 1981-2 Improve-
ment Projects, consisting of sanitary sewer, watermain,storm sewer and
bituminous streets. Areas proposed to be assessed are as follows -
1981 -1 Project
1. All property abutting West River street between the Burlington
Northern railroad tracks westerly approximately 12001 to the
North/South 4 line of Section 4, T121 N. R 25W.
2. eloctions of the "ttcadows" Subdivision plat servad by storm
sewer, sanitary sewer, water main and bituminous streets.
1981-2 Proiect.
I. Lots I thru 6, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace, and tats 1
thru B, Block 2, Lauring Hillside Terrace.
2. Lots 4 thru 7, Block 3, tats 12 thru 14, Block J, and Lots 4
thru 7, Block 15, Townsito of Monticello.
3. Part of NW% of M beginning at intersection of E. Line of
Cedar St. With S. Line of Ry R -W E. along right of way 352'
Sly. at Rt. W. to beginning, consisting of approximately 2.81
amen.
4. A tract of land in SFA of SW% description an follownt Beginning
at. NE corner of Srk of SW%, W on N line of .",,A of sW% to N right
of way line of Hwy 94. Sr along N right of way line of Hwy 94
to E. line of SEi of SWN, N on E lino of SE. of SW% to POD.
S. All of vacated Ceder Street located south of 7th St, lying be-
tween Blocks 3 and J.
NOW WERFFORC, Bn IT RESOLVED By THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MILLNC uTi:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attactvd hereto and made= a
part heroof , JR hereby accepted and shallconstituts the special assessment
against the lands namod therein, and each tract of land therein included is
hereby fous:d to Le henafited by the proposed lmprovemonr, in the amount of
the assessment levied against it except for the asssrasont against parcel
0155500-04140: owned by Edgar Klucas. In accordance with Minnesota Statut,,t:
429.061, Suhiivision 1, the asseaument against this parcel shall be consider -
ad at an adjourned hearing. Publication and mailing to property ownur to
said adjourned hearing shall be at least two weeks p,ri,,r to hearing.
- I -
v
2. The shall ho, L. e
,payahlo-,In equal, annual in-:itallmeni x -
tending over a period of ten (10) years, the first of "the installment:;
to be payable in 1982 and shall bear interest at the z'a'te of Ij per cent
annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment
t rosolution. To
the first installment shall be added interest on the i:,.ntirc as-ess-ment
from the date of this resolution until December 31, I5182. To each sul-
Sequent inntallment when due shall be added interest for One year on all
unpaid installments.
3. The owiter -:)f any property so assessed may, at any time prior to
certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of:
the asses--Tient on such property, with interest accrued to the date of
payment, to the c i ty arca surer, except that no interest. shit I be charqed
if the onf.sro aarcs-mucnt is paid within 30 days from rhe adoption of chin_
resolution, and he ma,,,, at, any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurur
the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest
accrued to December 31 of the year in which such par—nt is iaad,). Such
payment must be made before November 15 or interest wLIL be charged
through Dncember 31 of the next succeeding year.
4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assess-
ment to the county auditor to he extended on the proper tax lists of the
County, and such asunnziments shall be collected and paid over in the ramal
--- manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the City Council this -14th day of October, l -)6i',
ATT9M,
Gary Vilobar, City Adminintrator
2
3
Arve A.,,CrIm=,,, rtiyor
9/21/81
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PROJECT 8 1 -2
ASSESSMENT ROLL
LAURING HILLSIDE TERRACE
Parcel No. Total Assessment
15 5029- 001010
Hillside Properties
2591.36
V
0
2798.45
9/21/81
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PROJECT 8 1 -2
ASSESSMENT ROLL
LAURING HILLSIDE TERRACE
Parcel No. Total Assessment
15 5029- 001010
Hillside Properties
2591.36
155029-001020
c/o lieinert Homes
2798.45
155029-001030
"
1016.12
155029-001031
1747.35
155029-00104D
leoy tauring
5303.24
155029-001050
Sandra lauring
3785.09
155029-001060
Stephen :curing
3654.17
155029-002010
Stephen lauring
3821.44
155029-002020
iloylauring
3951.72
155029-002030
Arve Crimsmo
6450.11
155029-002040
Arve Grim --mo
7229.26
155029-002050
(Paul Elurer, John Cries s !lank
7486.66
155029-002060
stahlmann
7896.73
155029-002070
1
691.1.92
155029-002680
6680.52
Monticello Original
Plat
155010-003040
W. T. Murphy 6 scotwood Motel
3662.24
155010-075120
V.F.W. Club
1296.99
Riggs Addition
to Lower Monticello
15 5 019-0 1 504 0
wilbur F_ck
1354.45
Section 11, T.
121, R. 25
155500-113407
V.F.W. Club
2586.45
15 5 500-1 14201
Wilbur Eck
5917.09
TOTAI. PROJECT ASSESSMENT $86,141.36
Section 4, T. 121, R. 7.5
Parcel ND. Total Ass, ssT�nL
155500-041200 N.: .I' 65,8":8.28
155500-041_'•00 Seeiele.t. 19,7.33.38
155000-041301 Alano Society 7,3`)1.7.3
155500-041407. VdgZIr Kluc:as 37,206. 32
ioTAL PRoj!ii!r ASSGSShIf $297,43G.13
,3
er '
9/21/81
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PROJECT 81-1
ASSESSMENT ROLL
THE MEADOWS
Parcel No. Total Ansessment
"155035-001010
6773.48
'155035-001020
5857.80
'155035-001030
5857.80
'155035-001040
5857.60
"155035-001050
5857.80
'155035-001060
5857.80
`155035-001070
5857.80
'155035-001080
5857.80
155035-001090
5857.80
155035-001100
5857.80
155035-001110
5857.30
155035-001120
5943.96
15 50 35-001130
6581.86
155035-001140
5968.86
155035-002010
6538.64
`155035-002C20
6275.83
"155035-002030
819.92
'155035-002040
717.04
'155035-002050
697.40
'155035-002060
734.39
'155035-002070
724.83
'155035-002080
711.35
'155035-002090
733.03
"155035-002100
759.66
'155035-002110
924.85
"155035-003010
6380.47
'155035-003020
734.73
'155035-003030
697.12
'155035-003040
685.85
'155035-003050
782.25
'155035-003090
6352.;9
155035-004100
5998.51
155035-004110
5977.17
155035-004120
6788.80
155035-004130
6568.80
155035-0041.10
5880.45
155035-004150
5729.55
155035-00501()
5704.68
155035-005020
$703.25
The Moadows Annon mentiwera all sent to Moi Wolters.
•Prop000d for ill year deferral - lot year collectible - 1983
QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE
MONTICELLO FIRE DEPARTMENT
President - Greg Dahlheimer
Vice President - Doug Pitt
Secretary - Lee Trunnell
Treasurer - Willard Anderson
Chief -- Willard Farnick Joint Committeeman - Lee Trunnell
Assistant Chief - George Liefert Training Officer - Gene Jensen
1st Captain - David Kranz Asit. Traininil Officer - Ted Farnum
2nd Captain - Gordon Link
The following is a quarterly report of the Monticello Fire Department from July 1, 1981
thru Sept. 30, 1981.
There were 20 personal assists by the Chief and/or Assistant Chief.
There were 12 fires which required 181 man hours. The averag.: attendance at a fire
was 14.
During the past three month period there were 4 training sos:.ions which required 80 man
hours. Tile average attendance at these training sessions was ?0.
Jerry Wein went to a Nevada Test Site for a 10 -day Racliatiou Energy Response Cour SU
The department toured the NSP Plant on Monday, September 211th.
bik
J
Sincerely.
David B. Kranz �-
Reporter v
=C
1STATE OF, MINNESOTA-,' --
COUNTY OF WRlelli CEtIT11 .IUUICI;t'Is iii STO'V1'
City or Mont icc.l'li�; M"i,nooso[a
l_
.MunlcipaCdepor-:Iaon. 1oc_ated
in aright^Count;v_.
Piainti e . =-
Kenneth Larsen, doing; liusiness as
Larsen Carpet, :aid
Larsen Carpet r. Farnitudo, Inc.,,
Defendants.
_________________________________________•._
WHEREAS, •cuit has been commenced as above entitled; .,od
WHEREAS, it: is the desire of the parties'hercin u, nriicnbly SrLtlr .111, 1.,11—
arising under s:,id suit; and
NOW, THFHM'ORE, it is hereby Stipulated and nµreed b•' .mJ ber.wcoa lh, p.,rti.t•,
herein the fol lowiiig. r.o•wit:
1. That Us,'' ilrl cuJauCs shall he grnntnd by p(niut II Liner (S) anuu.,l 1.nn-
ditional use permits Lo runduct retail carpet Sales from hi- property ;,1 701 1C,.shfng Len
Street, Monticello. tiinoesotn 55762.
2. .':dt th.• rPLd11 CarP,tt axles may be c,)nducted r,.•Lvrr4 th. huur'I yr
and 5:00 p.m. Moodily L1. rou}th Saturday. that 'then• shall 1..• a.• hu•..i u.••, i,Pnd o, L 41, -
Sundays. •, .. -
7'. That parkAntt Loi the antd retail rnrpot busine:.•, •{Ball ho limiced po ,it
offies parkinct:
-4; That -unr ..,dverttsing sign may be plarrd on the Auld property and •,hull I -,-
limited to the size of eighteen 118)usqunre feet. The said sign shall riot etcocd
dight (8) feet in height it' free standing.
$. That the .uurunl conditional use pormits wlII h, c,•vl,•vrd by Ih.• pl,kill l;l
'and if the CoildiLionn are not being met by Lill, d'Pivndants. Ibon Lit,- t,.,id uprv'nlnn
conditional uuk, permit will not be granted and no lurthur rrtnil •,nlra or Liv I,fud
or display of 1 Irpetinl; or furniture of any hind will be ,rlluwcd nlL,•r' that.
6. That. alter III() three. (3) yuors of conditional 1.,P p.•rmlts eMplrr, t4r
s
defendantsshall be prohibited' from using the S+iid re.:1 v^:L:.La' or ;11IOsinlL till
said real estate to be u�t!d for retail sales of any kind •.r Ic>t display w .W' -
pets or furniture of any kind. e
Dated: ., 1981. Dated:
City of Monticello, Plaintiff
By:
Cary Wirher, City Administrator
Cary L. Pringle
Attorney for Plaintill'
207 South Walnut SL.
Monticello. MN 55362
I vtt
Larsen Carp"ts and Larsen Carp•!t e.
Furniture. life.. Defenddnt:.
KenneLh I...rSeii. individu..11o .nd
as I'rt•;.idtv.L of Lartien C.. ryt.•t
FurniLurc. Inc.
Kenneth M. '11,, lke:
Attorney fat Uelendants
711 East Brnadway
Monticello. MN 55362
T
CKM CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
arlmnat twalatfe!
,.ra $..Ivan
ORR S1'H71.1.t. M MRON A ASSOCIATES• WC.
p1— 0•• O, .hpdt cowls h t—e hwc
pit a", nI.M.,w •VI $un! I».,nwl. Why$, Mw a$.1Ia 11, aeao l.,r, i$ar.a
,t,acTor Paul A. L,tu]'w11r-t• Co_ Change o,de, too. 17
•ddrns P. 0. Sox 1267 10„000 Vwv. 55 West Rett Hodtt. $0.56
Minneamlis. MN. 55440 Proler to. 2748.01
--:Ia IMo1IOVnntic 1]0. Minnesota EPA C+nni rt,C270855-03
i•, arcoroanca with the tams of your contract daied November 20
1590 .itn
City of Monticello owne, for W.W.T.P Upqradinq IS Appt. work:
• , a•e nwroAy raduesteo to cw iy ri,,, the tot 10.1.g o-an7a fra the contract
pian$ —C smut ice• ions:
C.^.crlptton and Justification: . Refer to Field Modic 0 56 tcttachad)
_hie r ity nf Mmrttirr-0 lcS._has r ,nn111'`r,t ed_Llr']tnaac
why
Of •.kL3_.Gl.c].clL3.71t._COIIL 1f: l:__._
_.. t]lIy hn inatallr•r;_uj 1•-hrilitnt,, rinnninn ind maint
nn'h-r. of fh,� c-hltly_yL1j-»M_
.r.•,t art tank_
'• ,•a0.n of Costs th Is Ohnnge Oras,
o
g R'IATrrec!la ter i a 1
Prot It A O.wrhnnd
Total AdoIwo,
Qod.rt
j1,581.00
52,269.00
$578.00
$4,428.00
n,,,t of Orlginai Contract: 1_4�,704,000.00
lcr.t (,nn•rach
"sr t, .0Thru C.O. 016
TOfai Addition
Total Deduct
(
Thr. Tt.t$ C.O. t)7
4,740,745.07
$4,428,00
'4 745 17 7
,'pt,al Contingencies 01) 1141,:00.00
calf arninin
t”. C.O. t.0
Ada This C.O.
1
1Mturt Thea C.O.
,
Cant I -.r. rin;
)'74,454.93
$4,428.00
"100,026.9.1
.. • •ill be an arctentlon of 0 days for cdeplellon.
,,. dn•w of tna canplat ion or Contract wns,Q ,,j�., IP�antl nor Witt nr• ,j: 28
c•I+h byots�signed
Cent iicf,�pr {4{4 yr^�� �n tn$ ,� '� br
,tc;wnnwatl Or Y��TVLkz freta Sionatl tR�a'hTi
tnglaw
.: h•u. ec Ur
011114, 519-64
()SM
ORR•SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES. INC.
rorfsu/riig Engineers Division of Kidde Consultants. Inc.
t and Surveyors
5 e PT. 30, 1 9 8)
PA�� A. �AU2EN G� lob AAOPJTI CELLO W wTP
P.0. r3ox 12da7 OSM COMM. NO. 0409-V)*6.*)
10000 HIGHWAY 55 WF -Sr
AWrJEA1?0L-1S, Ai Q. S9440 MoNTIGEL.Lo MPJ•
Local.on
TEtLR`f <:hrzuPJ0TNE2 Engineer C-IMIZAID Is. COCZ1ZICIC
Gr,it-unen: Wear a sending .ou Atrachea ✓ Sewatelp _ BY Mevenger_�/ the follow iry iteen:
I ;:noo O,aw,ngt 17 SpecdiWbom L% Change 0ntw U Intpection Repu,t
Prel. Reports 0 Contracts 0 Memorandum
NO SHOP DRAWING DESCRIPTION
0121
tS NUMBER
Co 021iZINA4- LoP►61' C.NANcre ORDEfL # 1-]
.e .— trantm,ited As ehec, ea:
E—orlon, Taken n Note Ma,t,ngs " "I' gnu llu•
`r^Iected 0 Comments Attached i A•, P'n, co
It••.nn and Resubmit 0 Review and Comment � nr S,graiw•,
Lm rt,. PLP—ASM EXCGUTP— ALL 51X (Eo) COPIES -0 SEND
ALL SIX (C-) TO C=7ARY WIEi3rG: AT CITY or -
AA V
fAAV T 1 GeLL O.
So11M GIMeLA, CiVY or ActarceLLo
C GAV4 WIFIRL-M. " ORR-7CHELE4MAYER0IIAASS'1CIATE3,116C.
3bNN SAOAuct4 a OSM
—%QQY Ce CLCa u1G O t M n
Ol4t 9ftwoon. Dint' ff"A opmet ev ��CJj'&nq*a
%
2021 East Hennepin Avenue a Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesore 55413 • 612/331.3660
I
.S
ORR-SCHEtEN - �IAYERQN b ASSOCIATES, SOC S. IN. C
September 24, 1981
Paul A*Laurence Co.
P.O. Box 1267
10000 Highway 55 west
.inneapolis, YNN 55440
Re: Monticello waste water Treatment Plant
Upgrading 6 Appurtenant :c.4
EPA Project No. C270855-03
Field Modification 456
Gentlemen:
Thr City of Mon.iceilo has requested that a bypass of the
chlorine contact tank be installed to facilitate cleaning and
ma.ntenance of the chlorine contact tank.
This field modification shall include the piping, valves, fit-
tings and labor necessary for construction of the bypass as shown
on the attached drawing. Valves shall have valve Loxes extending
to the ground surface at approximate elevation of 9tE.O. Entr-
ance into the effluent manhole shall be approximately one foot
above the invert.
Please submit a cost estimate for a change order for this work.
sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
a ASSOCIATES, INC.
�idrles pak
CAL/tr
cc: John Simola, City of Monticello
John Badalich, OSM
Dick Reeling, OSM Field Office
Jerry Corrick, OSM
:=r •r, _ _ Iz_ - D`�
i �¢ 1.1 � ✓ � � o
r.
c1•` i � _..........1:.._' ..•..: � \moo
. c
%' q
� (••� Tb •�LND••E
C.
Ell
o �V
- 1
w.
.o
p
] WSJ• �.
NSE rLT
"i
TRlcviwy ;�
FILTBfL �'�••
I.' $I, / Oredy nue co m No. j
A -L- Oi1R•SCNILLRN•MAY6RON COLOPJIJF— CO 'fk.T lh► L fP465
d ABBOCIATKB.INM
0@18+ m�o� �� wn �m.u.rn• u� .own n' @P,% P0.b= "r Wo. 0-2 0 zvro
••i �•� •nu•.ou•.�w •o�rnu�..uuw ••u i 9 5 oA0e1 M0,
(> IP.�%!jl •nus.r wa•s.�a.vs, IV�pr1T1 CC.�.IU WIra�CWAn 1L
`�� Tti� AT Me r IT AAwJr � FJ r (,
,J
J Paul A. Laurence Company
GENERAL CONTHaCtOnS
P.O. So, 1787
CM0 mghway 55•N,•st
hameepOha, MN SSe+O
Tarlpltbne Bt2�0a8.59,0
TLM 290730
Sept®ber 25 1Jlsl
`RECEIVED
ORR•SCuEIE:::...:r:c:;N
COMM. 0 -• •'
SES 2 8 5581
UL -1 ,
01'r-$Chelen-�Ny, vn & rUvw:. , Inc.
2021 List Henu'a}'in Aw.
Suite #238
Minneapolis, MN' 55013
Attn: Mr. Gong Icl S. r'orrick
rut: Wasteaa,rr •1'rcatm011t Upgradit4, & Appurtenant Work
Monticet It,, 1G
EPA Pm,l•:ct No. C270•,`5-03
Gentlawn:
As per Field :.tififtratfun ,756 dutd,::epttmbrr 24, 1981, P -r :ultiing th,•
b)l)ass line at the chlurinc contact ,tank, AL sulmit this fullcq+jijg prii;_
$1,5}31,)
0t•.it'Irt:ul•&•hlyl'it 1.`i:,,,,,,,,� 575,IY'r
Yours very, truty,
PAULA. LAOb-NCC% ltAU-X%Y
Is Peter Backlit
Pli;Wl
cc: Paloo-mml ic•el lo, 11 0
S,.ba.p ery at s J G.. • . (•,,.
ri.a A Laurence C'' • .w .tl obpt"tun.ty ernptota
0
00
0
()w
ORR•SCNEIEN• MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CnnsultingEngrnttm Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc.
C and Su^VVors
tn,e are trammntad et cn act ed
No E.ceptiont Taken 0 Not. '.tart,ngt
ttq-lected 0 Comments Anacned
+"r•e and Resubmit 0 Review end Comment
' A„ Recti•,•.,:
✓nr Sir; r+n� .r
PLC -Ase GxGGuT•E ALL- six (6) co pler & SL -rip
141 L S/x (6) TO CAaY W IE- St¢ AT cITT o f
MOa'rl CELL_ O
7b$44 Si,MOLA , (A" oP Abtvn c%ta.o
Y TMIQeM, • e 0AWSCNFLINMAY11110NA AS:0CIAfF3. INC.
3011y 9AOALICAOSM
JeV40f Co LAI ag . OSM ,
INC,( tltceuNti, OSM 111150CrMCl. By r►►'1 --I
7
2021 fest Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 Minneapolis. Miner,rte 5 413 • 6121.ui 5660
Darn OGT. (,o , l 5 8 l
T„ PAUL A. L-AUfLENr-E
,db MOOTICEL.L0 wWTP
P•0. 50-K 12 7
OSM Gats:+%. NO. 0(o8-Z-)'fQ.0)
10004 HIGHWAY GC- Loesr
EPA C.2.10 BsS -o3
MlK),)eAf0L Llj MIS• Ss440
/vlo4ri(e"-O R1 n7•
Location
ar,n: s�'R-aY C72UNOT NE�Z
ery;neer Ce-2,a�o 5. Co e,�icrc
Gentlemen: We are terWmg you Attached ✓ Separately _
By Messenger the tollo.mg items:
i 1 Shoo Drawings a SDec,ficuu0n1
m Change Ortfer O Inspection R.µ..rt
11 Prints 0 Rel. Reports
O Contracts 0 Memorancum
N0 SHOP DRAINING
TS NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
(O VZ161IJ41L. coplel
C14AW4E 0R0L-2 4 18
tn,e are trammntad et cn act ed
No E.ceptiont Taken 0 Not. '.tart,ngt
ttq-lected 0 Comments Anacned
+"r•e and Resubmit 0 Review end Comment
' A„ Recti•,•.,:
✓nr Sir; r+n� .r
PLC -Ase GxGGuT•E ALL- six (6) co pler & SL -rip
141 L S/x (6) TO CAaY W IE- St¢ AT cITT o f
MOa'rl CELL_ O
7b$44 Si,MOLA , (A" oP Abtvn c%ta.o
Y TMIQeM, • e 0AWSCNFLINMAY11110NA AS:0CIAfF3. INC.
3011y 9AOALICAOSM
JeV40f Co LAI ag . OSM ,
INC,( tltceuNti, OSM 111150CrMCl. By r►►'1 --I
7
2021 fest Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 Minneapolis. Miner,rte 5 413 • 6121.ui 5660
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
survc tu>neo
1•e I.arel0ef
ORR-SCMt1LNMAVCRON i ASSOCIATES, INC.
D�+iiro� 0r •roD! CUVSvtr.vTi. tNC
1 AA7r Wlat.Mlh�rftS.net]e.,..lNow
•,actor Paul A. Laurtsnce Company Charge o -der ft. 18
•ea*ase P.O. Box 1267, 10000 1iwy. 55 West iieia MMI+. Ao. 53
Minneapolis, -IN 55440 Project w, 2748.01
l•,: LOcarlon Monticello, Minnesota EPA pant f4O. C270855-03
i': eccoroance •Ith the tarns Of your contrite dated November 20 ly 80 _with
City of Monticello O.ner for W.W.T.P. Upgrading b Appt. Work
o • r•a�eDy ragvosle. to cmr'y .Ith !ha 10t10•ing Ganes tr. Q:. the contract Its— and soecirica»ons:
-r, ton and luotlttcat ton: - Refer td held Modit If 53 eAtteChed)
'rhv City of Monticello operational staff requires "e_quipment running"
linht indicators be added on the Main Control Panel Graphic Display for -
air operated diaphragm iaumps.
,...ODrn Of (',4511 thle Chen,. O'onf
•& Material Eeulaa•.nl r4 of It 6 O.ernoed tater toa Tot n� Orrlvcr
5674.00 $34.00 j ;7()8.00
,_.• of 0,191.61 Crnrtract: i 4,704, 000. OV 44
tater Contract
..
i, c? Thr. C.O. 0 17 `If 10101 Addlt lo. 1If total Deduct Thr.
c4,745,173.07 I $708.00 ( $4,745,081.07
';Ictal ;.genets. 111) 1$141,200.^0
met Pe•aintn;
In,. C.O. If 17 Aad Th le C.O. DW.et Thlo C.O. can. IA2e C1.•.
70,026.53 $708.00 I $99,318.93
."11 +III Da e1
forteAlllon of
0 Oayo for Caroiet Ion.
. dr.• of the
conoletton a, Contract vat Oct. 28 1482 and nos etli b._OCt.
28
a 82.
' .1 ty
Ost_!_:IRneO
Co, tr ctor
i,
iff1
I5 / r.
yipped
I /
.,nnnood by
1,:�
zv+ l,(..'1:L!{_/.
Do"
E Ag 1 near
.;•0.1 by
Dote yla.ed
Owner
-7 -tet-• J //1
/
ASSOCIATES. X
�. ORR•SCHEIEN•MAYERON 8
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
September 11, 1981
Paul A. Laurence Co.
P.O. Box 1267
10000 Highway 55 West
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Attention: Jerry Grundtner
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant
Upgradinga Appurtenant Work
EPA Project No. C270855-03
Field Modification 453
Gentlemen:
Shop drawing review of the Main Control Panel Graphic Display by
the City of Monticello operational staff has resulted in their
requirement for 'equipment running• l*ght indicators to be
provided for major equipment mechanisms and pumps. The current
co: •ract specifications require lights for ail such equipment
excluding the air operated diaphragm pumps (Meeh. Unit Nos. 19
thru 24, 59, 60). This field modification requires the Con-
tractor to provide running light indication for the afore-
mentioned pumps on the Main Control Panel Graphic Display. The
contractor shall provide all programming and materials necessary,
conformincl to specification section 1690.
The addition of these indicators qualifies as it change in work.
Please submit a change order request at your convenience.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
6 AefOCIATES�
Gerald S. Corrick, P.E.
Project Manager
1 GSCtnlb
cc: John P. Badalich, OSI 7 --ze-ls--
John S!mola, City of nticello
Dick R. 'ng, OSM f "fico , Monticello
2021 fast He ... ••. ✓nnu•i S•.ife 238 • Al%nno.rn: dar Alinnes•.rn 5 "'413 . (;1213 71. R"W"o
Paul A. Laurence Company
GENERAL CONhRAC10R5
/ PA. Bo. 1267
10.0U3HiQhr,ay 55 W W
Minneapolis. MN 55440
I olepnono 612/546.6911
1 La 790730
Septaober 29, 1981
Orr-Schelen-Alayeron s Assoc. , Inc.
2021 Fast Hennepin Avenue
Suis 0238
Minneapolis, AN 55413
Attn: Mr. Gerald Cbrrick
He: MStewater Trc3=10nt Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
Monticello, nLir:nesota
FPA Project No. C270855-03
Change Order R-uest No. 19
Gentlenrn:
F%EC'::f Eii
:EP70
As per your field modification 053 dated Septanber 11, 1981, for adding
"equipment rumning" light indicators to the graphic panel, we sulrit
the following price:
swil-intractor Material s labor ........ $674.00
C,enerid Contractor Overhead s Profit..; 34.00
1btal AllD.............................74-7-or _00
Please issue a change order for the above anopunt at your convlshiencc.
Sincerely yew's,
PAUL A. IAUM-4= C04PNIN
Grundtner
Projoct F.atimt:or
JC:wl
cc: Pal0o-N=1LicC:ll0
7
SubHdiary o1 6 J. G,u,m a Sons Companh
Paul A, Lau,ann Conlpanl is an 1m,al opponun,ly anlploya,
TITLE: CHIEF OPERATOR - SUPERINTENDENT 4
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT /
Job Description - manNierial uutics.
Responsihle for administration, operation, and mainunnde,ce of the entice
plant. Exercises direct authority over all plant functions and personnul
in accordance with approved policies and procedures under the direction of
of the Public Works Director. Analyte and evaluate operations and main-
tenance functions; initiates or recommends new or improved practices.
Develops plans and procedures to insure officient, economical plant
operation. Pecommends plant improvements and additions, coordinaLes d;it.a
and prepares or reviews and approves operation report:: and budget requests.
Controls expendiwrc of budgeted funds and requests approval for majur
expenditurr.s, if required. Recommends specifications for major aquilmn.nL
and material purchases. Organize and direct rretiviLi-or of plant personnel
including training programs. Naintains offective communication and working
relationships with employees, government officials and general public.
Maintains accurate and precise records of all operations and maintenance j
of the plant. Makcn written reports as requested and attends all mecLings �J
as roquirol. Coordinator work ioreo with other depan mento and suporvisor::
no necessary to assist in any areas necCed. Ptaintaint: an ongoing safety
program for thu plant, its equipment and personnel.
�1
Chief Operator - Superintendent
Wastewater Troatment Plant
Page 02
Operational Duties
Takes instrument readings, evaluates test data and operates ehc necessary
equipment valves, pumps and the like as to adjust and control the entire
plant process. tikes rounds to monitor the effective operation of all
plant equipnent. Assists in the cleaning, repairing, scrviciny, and lub-
rications of equipment. Takes samples and conducts standard tests when
necessary. Performs a variety of routine_ maintenance arid custodial tanks
as required. Attmtd:. training programs as to maintain KPCA certification
and gain insite into new methods and technology. Maintains monthly reports
as required and varies work schedule of clays on and d.ryr. off due to con-
tinuous nature of operations as required. Performs other work as re-
quired and al_•u coordinates and requests lab testing. Maintains an
emergency proc,.dures plan, maintains a spare parts and tool inventory,
organizes the shop areas and maintains the vehicles as necessary. Supur-
visae assistant uporator and laborers as required for efficient plant
operations. j
Pig I�A..tl 01 lw
A. 4''�J,'f•SIIL DI1: QIa91F1CATn10t:C
Special Rt•qui r.emrut s.
Certification an an "A" Operator by the Minnesota Pollution Control Ac.•ncy.
Formal Edurat.ien.
College degree in sanitary,civil,chamicnl,or mechanie„1 engineering I:;
deairahle. Minimum high school graduate or equivalent, plus 5 to 7 y,-.
practical o.aporii:nce in trentmont plant operation and supervision cxpol i:ns,•
of at lean= 3 years.
General Re-ptirementn.
A. Rnowledga of proccauea and oquil-ment involved in w,iat owater tr'oatnu•nt ,
including basic chrmical, baetal iological, atxi biOlcxticnl prcx:uun
I1. Understanding of managerial, administrative, and accounting proctiCoo
and prorcdurun involved in ruccesuful plant oparattor..
Chief operator - Superintendent
wastewater Treatment Plant
Page #3
C. Knowledge of industrial wastes and thuir effects on treatmunt l,rocesscs
and equipment.
D. Ability to prepare or supervise preparation of clear, concise reports
and budget recommendations.
R. Ability to plan, direct, and evaluate plant operaticn and naiztenanc•_
functions.
F. Ability to establish and maintain effective communication and working
relationships.
G. Skill in the operation of equipment and tools associated with the work.
if. Knowledge of occupational hazards of the work and necessary safety
precautions.
General Educational Development
A. Reasoning
1. Apply principles of logic to define problems, collect and analyse
data, and draw valid conclusions. Ileal with a variety of eonerote
and abntract variables.
2. Tnt,.rpr-,rt ., vile va, luty of Lecln,ic„1 ir,structi„n::, in l;;ct„ owns l ,
anA nuithematical or diagrammatic form.
B. Mathematical
Perform ordinary arithmo.tical, algebraic, and gcom,tric procedures in
standard, practical applications.
C. Language
1. Write and edit operation reports.
2. evaluate and interpret engineering and other technical dat.a.
3. Catablinh and maintain crxnmunieations with rmpiny,:ra, government
officialn, and the. public.
D. Special 'vocational Preloration.
1. Conpletian of operator training course or equivalent training and
expo r leans .
2. Five to 7 years experience in wastewater troatm,•rit plant operatiun,
deposding upon ai ze and complexity of plant and uducaLlonal br,cl.ground.
J
u
Chief Operator - Superintendent
- Wastewater Treatment i>lant
Page 44
E. Aptitude.'; - Relative to General Working Population
Prefer individual with above average intelligence with high aptitudes in
verbal, numerical and form perception. In addition, higher than average
coordinalton and col -r discrimination are preferred.
F. Interests
Prefer working with people in situations involving or*lani^.ation and
supervision of varied activities.
G. Temporam-±nt
Prefer situations involving the direction, control, and planning of an
entire activity or the activity of others.
It. Physical Demands.
Mostly sedentary work, except for regular plant inctrc--ticn trips, and
routine repairs and maintenance.
1. Working Conditions.
1
Largely inside. Occasional exposure to weather, fumes, odors, duos, and
risk of Iodi,1iur
_ _ ,y -n j y. Possible cxposurro,ta toxic conditions.
CntrV Sourcon
Jp Assistant Suporintendont, OI)crationo Supervisor, Shift. Foreman, or Chief
a Chemists dr_penr}inq cur individual qualifications and sine and complexity of
plant.
° Proeression tea
Similar position in larger or more complex plant.
Nal
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
CNIEP OPERATOR - SUPERINTENDENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
As a start in the process of determining the operator for the new
plant, I first drafted a job description. Due to the complexity of the
of the plant and the time requirements which an operator will have to
devote to managing such an operation, I felt it necessary to make some
changes in the old job description.
I have separated the Wastewater Treatment Plant in the job descriL-
tion from other functions of the water and sewer departments. The chi,,r
operator superintendent would therefore have the wanttwater Treatment
Plant as his primary responsibility. This would requ re a new job de::-
cription to he written for a position of water and Wa--cowater Collection
System Superintendent. This individual (Walt Mack) wui13 be responsible
for the entire water system and only the services and collection system
for the sewer department. Ito would also handle all lccating Evrmits,
inspection:,, and cleaning services. Those are presently Walt'u ruspon-
sibilities wow, so very little would change.
To continue, it will be necessary to examine lite enclo!;C0 jt;l,
description for. the Chief Operator Superintendent Wastewater Treatm tit
Plant. On.- ran los ily cce that this position will rott*tiro a great dual
of time in managing the plant as wall as operating it. The job dr:xril-
tion is me.ett an a guide in selecting an individual f, c that lxiniriun.
This job dt•;rription can he used as a tool to rank varh.ux individual';
fut tort! -M, -ration from those at entry level to those t,ctremely well
qualified.
The Pr'q requires: that an "N' Operator be on boar., when we reach the
50% completion lrvel. We are in the process of final -Ong an estimatr
for approximately 55%. The present operator, Al Mayer, has passed lits
written exrm and is in the process of scheduling an oral exam which will
determine Itis eligibility as an "A" operator. It is my opinion that th.
city should consider Al for this position, but should also interview
others for the pnxition to get an overall picture of tie personnel ay.c.l-
able, their qualifications, salary requirements and r..tking a.cordtng t
the job det.cription.
5 ` o o
h
WWTP - Job Description'by John Simola
w O -7', 7, 1981
( Pago R2
pU
It may be advantageous to have someone there to determine the applicants
technical knowledge', however, the fact that only "A" Operators will be
considered gives a goal indication of knowledge and roferences can be
checked. I don't feel a few questions during the interview can truly
decide n Iicrsons trua technical ability. I do feel we can be looking
toward determining the individualn worth as a manager. :supervisor and
representative of the city. Certainly these qualifications are as
important as the operators technical knowledge and experience.
c
9'
cI'Cy LOADER 11HAL9'ICALITY
In order to dot,•rmine costa of snow removal, it- •wat necc::;:al:y !ia
examine city records going hack to 1968, which was tbi first year :le -
tailed tin, :rites L;1 were found. The records indicate .hat till- Cit_}' • •.re-
tracted sn•sw removal along Broadway from Lynn Street to Cedar Str,•,.e .ind
the area arou.,d the Fire Hall. This service was contracted to er+nr. :
Gullings witiI the winter of 1974 to 1975, aL which tune the ciL7 r, -jot •i
a 3 yd 130 HP AMS ^halmers, 4 wheel drive loader, t am it contntci-.t ,.,.
had his e,uilanent in the arca and performed all of tl•: snow romnval.
In thy• +-.krly numner of 1975, the city purchased til presently ,... ,
3 yd, 140 !u- International, 4 wheel drive loader for ut+ in the mite,. ;;I:
Tree Progy,'.m, ::now r,-moval, and outer various tasks. rel unLll Lhit l -111 -
chase, all mi::rollan,•our,, tank-, not contracted out w,re pertwmcd 4it!
the city cun•-,! 11)69 Xodc1 , 6o HP 7/8 yd, Winaey Farr lts,:in t -actor L.,a i, r
with bruel mnwor. This loader was traded in 1976 as ,t wan in v- r••r .,
condition ,'n -n M•inq over loaded. This loader was b, „t, braced, awl
welded tim ani time again. The replacement loader ii Lho eltyn In n ;
ly owned 1',71, - z4011 International. This loader is r. 6"1 nP, 2 wL, el
drivo load;r :with a 7/4 yd cal•aciry. Thin loader is +•utrenT-ly u',-1 ..."
light work :;ii h an miomellancous leveling, snow cleat in,, ]na,,i r;, III
ing, snow ,:I. an up, and aurn•rin,l past holes.
Gottit.j laOt to the cunlractrl snow removal, th, V--- sic itvi-if i,.:_
Involved M.t a 3 yd lua,ler airl 3 tandem attlp dump t it h,,., t+,t+ I, - ,
grader and 0,LIAtilm. and it city Lupervisor. All s!tn: c;v 1.,,11,x1 *,
present Li•t=i atvrr alto• Sntrr was Leldom removed - I r a 0i,q+,
and was mo t often ,ut acrunulat ion of ■overal storm-:. ".hit, t' -,ii :
by the avt I , I,- 1,! I , Ii --rat loin: lo•r year from 1968 t, ' 74. In
inalarr,00n, .i I - .,k e.,•„eral wr, ka (one to throe) Lc itranyr f , I .,
ramoval. !n' CoIII I,n•tcd rewire moat erten involve. me 4 r -i I
year to el, it th,• nmw fall ft,tn, an area of 14,000 t. ,Lte V-4; ,t
average of I I Lnnr fnr each operation.
1 7
A.
City Loader I?ractical,lty = john simola 4
Ociobor 1, 0--ni
pager #2
In 197;, the city,r4"movizd snow over a significant ly lartj,,r Oj-t�j
during one :' ��Ole W01'.3t willLeru on record. 1'110, cit}'!; ol +_-ratj#,u
the 3 yd and :' ritiql-, axle (lump tnlckf5. 140 ut, Cr I:CWI(I tj I..'ItIcl. "V I
available. . City cru-wti removed that, year!; snow fall I', oro an area .:uut."n
ng 26t000 -;ljuan, yards. 'Phis -iri includes Broadway Crum St fo-
Palm Street aiv] !_tw Lfirre newly constructed parking Is %n. 'rj.j+l
178 hours ll.- -ed Lo remove allow 16 times from that. i.iea for ;lit
of 11.2 hocn per olit-ration. City crew-; were dirvct(ti to rt:, v» :41"W I
qOOn as PO' Wilich.MeallL a level of --ervict. from .:". to III—,
Crews wer,,. -VI-IIII-I ns LU U:;e 0tv lr.ua number of ov I I im.. W-1 " iij : it
removal.
Since' wixit,-v, the snow r+-Moval operations 1','V-•
lized wit), i!- nil,it7l wiutern, excluding the Mot v,.-ry mild wiot—i
operation" each y nr moru, often involved approximates; •',0 hours: I;— .-_t
to remove -.tuui fr�q.j ;Ill .1ro., of -29,000 square yards (.S1'IdLn(j City Il.fIl I Pf
the Liquor it, a+,,waqe number of P times per 1.tt, and It I:n.jj 1, 1
operation.
The, 1, v,-* of i;,vJc o has continued to be high. .lith Ll.-. ad.i I I
the road Ul.,!1 In r --at ,,,!art; and an addlquna'l 6,.' curl '.,wt
atrooto lav„ :%.,it cloxier whit, more ice removal . ;.I.YW its
dumped at ?'&.-wrvoir sitt, ami the area east, 4,1 t*,-,,,, I.liquot :t I.,
In ord".1. to current coots, wt! wit I uuO h. 'Ib'Jw_- !.It
detarmihe •i -f .-vor,w., tinow removal . We will I tiu. 1„11
Celndiii0n!�j ';I" iliCh") Of SIInW with at Is-ast. A r.r.oamo I jolucitl I I.T..
nts r.
Amou , iwj j','nt,iva1 wvr an z,rca of 29,ti(lo uqu.,t, yarj!i,
If we It— vrialracted loader houlit will !, tjut
citya anti Ittv 111, 011.0 fol Li.,V,:l tim,, and twit i tl.t,
ter in I1 I ra ill -I drul hail a (I'x4l d"rendablo 1)'In - A
is prompt I I,rI.'ujI,tj•j,,, we can tvio III) ticturti for to.0 tul I, -1 -11
rushing 1w. 4 turn 1'e.109 tura LOLAI 01 76 hottet; por } t'. I,. 1 1. 1
uhauld he I. -. I + :I ,1 1,, w is thi L ,tering I..o of the In:' OZ.A
moval hit 1.1 it, 197- ttd 170 hourri fit 1975. >I
above the
I
e
City Lander Practicality - John Sl.mola
October 1, 1981
Page 93
I discussed loader contracting with Brentseon Can!truction cf tii,1
Lake and found hin current rate is $48.00. At present Ire uses hi:
loader for sone plowing and clean up in Big Lake City and Township lit
the winter, but mostly for loading sand salt. He dons ver/ little if
any snow removal and said he may be able to have his leader availatl.-
for snow r.-moval in Monticello. We also discussed sumr.er contraetir.rr
and he stated it would be very difficult to give any kind of service• it,
small minor projects unless there is a very slow seanan arul we soul,
guarantee a minimum number of hours.
Usinq the ahovv rate of $48.00 per hour, loader cci,tracting wo, 1.1
cost us $3,649 1•cr year for snow removal with an averagr- winter. With
a winter like 1-175 at* 1979. costs could reach $8,544 for snow rcmuval
if costa i -ricin at ^40.nO per hour. (Increase due Janui.ry 1, 1982).
In a normal year our 3 yd loader seen uses of apl.roximately M
hours. Thin in dit.counting some years which reached alnost GOO. "i
this 375 1t.urr we can say 76 hours goes for snow rem,.val and thio.
leaves 29" ' uurn. Tue following is a list of tauke i :,o loader l,•11, it
1. !inv� removal.
2. 1,,1; Ling bark nnow, dump pilon and maving hest i imaw.
3. 1°Inwing alleys and piling snow.
4. S it w clean up at intersections and around tat.lrtinq
5. St(rk piling sand salt:,
6. misinq .and -salt.
7. T. nisi- heavy wet sand salt.
0. 19x11 my uut stuck trueku, scall loaders and li.dye t r irY .
9. i>illinq in and repairing disabled trucks, will loader,,, en 1
10. S re -t an.1 :ewer repair projucts.
11. p ite r Elm 1ltsuaau PrKiram.
12. 1, a tinq Cla .n V, fill material, black dirt, i,1 rip rj1..
13. :.1tirinq culvert and storm sewer wash outs.
14. Vann vnanco of i'hristmas lanterns (Light bust, stu) .
• " City loadcr Practicality - John Simols
Octolx,r 1, 18131
Page - 4
1S. Paintintl and building maintenance.
16. Park repair and construction projects.
17. Maintainl.:g d4iches and holding ponds.
18. Lifting pipe, culverts M H sections.
19. Pulling guard rail posts, sign posts and fence pouts.
20. Stock piling used black top and seal coat rock.
21. Changing flags at City Hall and Fire Barn.
22. Pulling slumps and general leveling on city property (1.ihrarl
Parking lot, Oakwood lot, site east of Liquor Store, etc).
23. 'wading and leveling street sweeping.
24. Lifting heavy equipment and machinery.
25. fhtmp site excavation and back filling.
26. Building demolition, slab and sidewalk r,nnoval.
27. loading park equipment, picnic tables, r.c.
28. civil Defense.
W-1 to illi
A. Lifting person up to tie rope high ,n trees.
73. Anchoring tree or pushing trno to f.,11 right.
C. lifting huavy sections of trees and leading cane iu It't,k:,.
3. Burying sections of trees toalarge t:i ntilizo.
The above lute num up most of the common urea the loadcr ,,
in any given year. The amount of time devoted *o ,!aeh rank verto
greatly frau year to year. To use a significan• ty ssmallor
do satiny of the:.'r caskn would be highly inefficl. nt , imliraet ical , c
some in,tancon unnnfe. Sumo of the tasks could he grcutvd intu t,...
time .cried and contracted out while others wn,ld rerult in do w ,arl
significant droi,s in the level of service to tho ectnatunity. 1t t t
possil,le to give a precire clear cut answer as I., the effect!; of r, ,v. .
a let it, loader, but it is my opinion that it he nor* disadvaita..
than ,•rc nomie advant:agos. In order to shorten hes retr,tt 1 air'
,
City Loader Pract(cality - John Simola
October 1, 1981
Page N'
state th_et it In my firm belief that to be with out this loader i::
impract.-al and if we do have this loader, it is impractical to
eontrar- out for cervices such as snow removal wh ch we can provide.
In order tv determine what typo of snow removal other cotrmur.rr,.
have, w=• contactei 12 cities. The following is a i:t of tf.u:,
muniti,• -
I. Ainiar.ialo
2. Ifig lake
3. Cokato
A. Uolaco
S. Ylk laver
i . i., t chf. fold
7. 1.3ttlo falls
f;. '•ora
Ili- Inruton
11. :'Duh Rapids
1:. flu fla10
4i t i c,•::tnmiini ties contacted, only one city , = 7,t ract t. ,
to ran( --t now urd that is Rig Lake. Big LAka di I antract
2 hour4 of !njiow zomoval last year. All of the oft., eomrunit•.
their Cwji now. During periods of heavy snow, Wt 'r Fall,i a; 1
have cev1tictv1 for additional trucks when they , •.ncr har..il, !.
load. Oio tingle community is contemplating cent.: •tlnrf .na:. s
and hs:.t lr I In their downtown nrea. Mora has a r.., rzn ; tr„•t ,i- t•
Ment at.l s into "!tra is growing, rhay find tham;ric. : chert of ..
to eoml 1-tr 0,o plowing And removal in an are6=14 t• 1 , timt I t.t .
have 1% . , apps oachvd by ,i con Con, t, ut:l lull, whoa mil . I. ,
city, rt, I hay.• , qutlntont And mon available. The, ., t h= t i
study i' , co I loft to lm t.ting on additional hull„
Al i of tio, rat ies 1 lw•reonally contacted oas Ivy 1, it
Otters t I,i t',= t Ivvt 1 of service at a Iowor cost tilt i r
removit i .7o.w tt„=nr,elve•s.
John S l: , I.% ��
i TI'. �„'/Lc✓r Wiz: y_{
'i --- '-- - —`- - - '[:Ot�jyl�/� _ �e ���{S rL L'� � t� c;+ -.P -r ?I f�� !•+ �
' I' - - -- ---=`-1yp�-- (Lr q- `I + •- t� 'a ! f , dt� o v..1i ry A
' �, - - �„_ "-`�,�,Y�. ! _ l -f � ,-k. ��,k<k-,�- A: _ ni��l73su`.✓..G!( /,o:o'b':�i�l r
_•I _�/ - _.. �.' t- 1 .-Y-f,.�.-„ - f V� �,f I � �-�I �l•1Y�iI�.f-� - `i,
S_l:^•!(IJ91 IT
.I
Gi' -$'�� x ..•e a /3,-%o!r- G (� '.1.y��! I{ -_, - � , '`tG ; �? •enc/ � _: �� , ,��
, II • - 1 • 2 Si/
f ,6,3 , ..
_ T �” %3. � � � � -� �4.t . �J:la II -u � ri•p.,�!� i'aJ l
J -- — - _-�_� __�� lig•,,:.;/ {• Ir�rr'�ia� _
I 1 I �,.
-- � �:� .k- �.'.' ��i -_'�I ,!'i 1 , ' 't ..,.�/�D.7t•%j .FMwIL �� ,� �� �., /i%--rr�s 1,�+
b,i:v)Il
0:4 0i
P/F ' �u{•"Dost+ t„
IL
_ _• _ _ vl,�'77
rI/,%I mm- 1 .;-�I 1 991.2US
) '
lyk2 `%�iiR �17V = _ :9'1V
II - fj •+� 3S,3,L� j4 1 I�rir+;•�:it. .il. �.1:% Z.p E� ]
rISf l
' ��g �1.-_�j_-_j:.i,i.}—.•!._--I'� ��.,., l�.-��. S rtPeb �,�G
S'3 i_ Sa'_X_iic. 9293 - , 5911 Ir
2.
��--- ham..:?:•,,.
- - �� - - - - --- _2S�H2W�j___.� � ��� --- -- , .yam/•
7o.0 -46L
E • �� + I •'u� L • I
`i1,1? T, J. /
i_cry',i=�77
'HVI'� ~� ,i�-,.i4.4
7.1
S�G
7'nrl7 y Gel/An,"J_ ' S/,533f�fs/Ol A % J
���4(.s♦-Pa4R = to
3:-74 -f
i
/�`�07S�:f �1yro/rR
1S;�l•�
7'19
7t'?79 -' S
z
j/ yo f 1 D M-
Jx 17
1
ydsi.x 76-c= ,r✓,?.e,
s��VF'
C` x'''°>'.
/,o—
t .
7
,,
4firk .�v.
Y��—,-
.
XXE�—e7G = �r lJ/2.yu
r
/6sti
L.dw /, �Y+�:
77y
—
4
Al 4W,
cry I",
yl 9�
"�
�, oo ,
•/, �
7o a vim. :3?.
s;'
91g1t.
Gy. 1. 'j•nc>�.
z?y
�7
/7w/
/�`�07S�:f �1yro/rR
1S;�l•�
7'19
7t'?79 -' S
COU14CIL UPDATE
October 14, 1981
PROPOSED RULE CHANGE REGARDING THE VALUATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF THE
ELECTRIC UTILITY COMPANIES.
A proposed rule change is being considered by the Department of
Revenue which would have the effect of possibly reducing the valua-
tion of the NSP Plant in Monticello by one to two percent. A hear-
ing on this matter has been scheduled for November 4, 1981 and I
have contacted the Department of Revenue requesting specific inform-
ation as to what impact the rule change would have on the valuation
on the NSP Plant in Monticello. It appears that the attempt has
been to devalue the newer plants which are in the out state areas
and to increase the value of the older plants which are in the met-
ropolitan area. Although the change does not appear to be a major
change, it is similar to one that was made in July of 1979, in which
the City of Monticello had its value reduced by approximately 1.259,
with the difference in valuation being picked up by some of the
older plants in the metropolitan area. Diane Skelly with Bass Brook
Township, the site of a United Power Electrical Utility Plant, has
been in contact with me relative to a possible meeting between rap-
reaentativee of governmental units which are hosting electrical
utility plants to oppose the rule changes. According to Ms. Skelly,
Itasca County in which Bass Brook Township is located, has gone to
the point of hiring a tax attorney who specializes in electric
utility plants plus a consultant from Baltimore in regard to this
matter. As mora 1nlprmaLiGn is received, the cnuneil will be in-
formed of this item.
MINUTES
IU4CUtAR WXTiNC - MONTICELI.O CITY CULTC) I.
September 28, 1981 - 1:30 P. M.
Member,*. Prenent: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Kenneth M.auS, Dan Bl.anir,•u,
P' it White.
Members Absent: hone.
Citizens Comments:
John. and Joan Bondhua appeared before the coup^il to discuss a
problem they are having with their driveway access to their
property as a result of the recant Wastewater Treatment Plant
contruction project. Joan Bondhus indicated that prior to the
wastewater construction project, the only access they had to thtir
driveway and garage was through the Wastewater Treatment Plant
property which led to their driveway and home. :ince the plant.
has been under construction, this existing entrance to the Wat,t,-
wattr Treatment Plant has been torn up and an a result they have
not been able to use this access to their property not to their
garage. Mrs. 8ondhus indicated that they did construct an ad,lititmtl
driveway off of 11art Blvd. to gain access to their home in the
meantime, but this road is in need of repair and ingjired an to
when the previous roadway within the Treatment Plant property will
be completed so they would have access to their old driveway.
John stmola, lubli,; Works Director, informed titan that the contract-
or hes indicated that the road would not be usable until at kart
Decembt,r 1, In81, due to construction.
Mrs. Bandhua also expressed concern over the noise, etc., that ha:;
been nt:t,-urrin,l down at the Treatment Plant project and also NOi-
caUi that the ranch from the Treatment Plant is sometimes unixar-
abie. It wan noted by the t:taff that once the Treatment Plant i
completed, the odor should not be a problem an -mare, but that
efforts will to made to try and have the contractor reduce sramo
of the odor during construction. In addition, it waa the rota,:.:,:
of the council that the city will place some C.lat.s v on the terl
rary roadway leading to the Boadhus property a d provide s,sa,t .lra,l-
inq In order that the temporary road is uieablo until t,uah t tmt .,
per -anent soluti.rn to the problem can be sougl,' .
- I -
Council Minutes - 9/28/81
1. Public Hear inc for proposed Assessments on Delinquent Accounts
Minnesota Statutes allow the Cities to place delinquent accounts
for various types of current services on special assessments Lo
be collected in the following year. Those people whose accounts
arc delinoucnt have becn notified of the puhli•: hearing and are
given an opportunity to present input if they .;o desire. Thu
following are delincprent accounts that are over. 60 days past clue
and unpaid as of the date of the m,�cting.
Gwen Bateman
Sewer/Wa Ler Hookup
$170.00
3d Rivers
Sewer/water (lookup
178.80
Ed Rivers
Sewcr/Water Hookup
195.04
Mel Wolters
Sewer/Water Hookup
192..50
John's Dir:counL
Sewer/water Charge
'_',39.4.7
woyside Inn
Sewer/Water Charge
::97.04
Tom McCauley
Sewer/Water Charge
::64.92
Fd Rivers
Sewer/Water Charge
54.00
Donna Allen
Sewer Charge
77.75
Viva Ahrahamson
Sewer' /Water Charge
107.00
1,owe.11 H:ndrickson
Sewer/Water Charge
74.50
Ronald zachrian
SCWCI'/47ater Charge
39.00
Michael Klein
Sewer/Water Charge
69.90
Di no's
Sewor Charg,:
151.Uo
Christophcr Maas
Sewer Chargo
94.00
Role:rt Olson
Sewcr/Water Charge
65.80
D"nni.s nogg
Sewcr/Water Charge
73.80
Michael Da limen
Sewer/Water Charge
71.60
T'om Sorenson
Sewor/Water Charge
80.30
Mr. Dick liolker, owner of the buildiny where .40I:11's WSCOUnt w.,•t
formerly locat Cd at, asked the council why hie •.:a::n't not.ifiecl e:u li�r
of a delinquent newer and water hill and indic.,ti•d he rlid not fuel it
was hi:: bill to lay. Mr. Holker was informed that t.lw City has no
choice but to place on assessments any dolinclu.,ni accounts hint. du.-
against tho record property owner-.
A motion was made by White, accouded by Fair, .uul unanimously ,arrird
to edopt the. above Anseonment roil for delinquent: accounts for collec-
tion in 1982 at an interest. rats of 81.
con:; idrrat ion of a zoning 0rdinancu Am,:ndmont to Allc,w Consiunn�:1.:.
Salm ern a ConditlunAl Une Within an 1-1 (Light Lnduntrial) !.our..
As o result of an nppl icatiun filed by Ton0to Luff to hav,! ,, Ual-
signmcnt. rales facility on Int: 1, Block 12 of th.: City of Monticello,
it. wan necesiary to consider it zoning ordinance amendment, for thin
particular use since thin property was zonLNI light industrial And
tho use as a consignment sales facility was no: ::pceif ically al l,w,•<I
in thin light industrial zone.
Council Minutor - 9/28/81
At tao Planning Commission's September 8, 1981 meeting, a zoning
ordinance amendment was recommended which would allow consignment
sale3 in an 1-1 zone based on the following conditions:
1. Consideration be given to ordinance Section 10-22-3 which
requires that making a consideration of ::uch a conditional
use be based upon the following factors:
A. Relationship to municipal comprehenriva plan.
B. The geographical area involved.
C. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate
the area in which it is proposed.
D. The character of the surrounding arca.
R. The demonr.trated need for such use.
2. Sale:, and storage are not to exceed 1,000 square, feet in area.
3. At least 80♦ of the sales shall be of consigned merchandi:.r.
4. No auctions shall take place on the preirises.
5. There shall be no outside storage.
At the public hearing h -id by the Planning Commission, there were no
objections to rhe zoning ordinance amendment and the Planning Com-
mission felt that the particular request would not be detrimental t,*
the area.
As a result, a motion was made by Fair, seeondrd by 8lonigen and
unanimourly carri,ri to adopt an ordinance amendment that would alluj
a cu:+,Ijnm,nt hales in a light industrial zone as a conditional uc.0
with the five (5) conditions liutod above. (Ste Ordinatico Amendment
9/2f'/81 M1DG) .
3. Con-idoration of a Conditional Tis,, for a Conaignmont rwlett in an 1-1
Zone - Tonette Ruff.,
In regjrd to agenda item p2, Tonet.te Ruff applied for a cunditiunal,
use premit to allow s consignment sales facility in an T-1 annr.
Ton,-tte Ruff. wai proposing to offor various it,mu of craft eh.o tiv;t
been produced by people who have consigned the:,, 3oods to her 1'„r
sale. According to Ms. Ruff, sto would charge .t fee per month la•,1
on t 1 amount of space used by the person offet Ing this gfwds tv (n r
for ronriciriment. Additiunally, site would charcu a errrain t.rrre tit i a
if the items eventually sold and she Indicated that all ltema wcn,ti
be small In nature.
- 3 -
Council Minutes - 9/28/01
Ms. Ruff also indicated that she would have no problems in meet-
ing the five conditions outlined such as no outdoor storage, or
sales, no auctions would take place and that at least R09 of the
merchandise would be consigned and nothing would be wholesaled.
It was noted by the building inspector that the parking require-
ments, etc., have been met for this type of business,, but the
curt) barrier around the driveway and parking lot have yet to be
completed.
A motion was made by White to approve the conditional use permit-
as
ermitas requested. This motion died for the lack of a second. A new
motion was then made by Pair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously
carried to approve the conditional use permit for a consignmenL
sales facility for Ms. Tonette Ruff contingent upon an adequate
bond being presented to the city for the completion of the curbiny
requirements around the parking lot to be completed within 60 days.
4. Cennideration of an Extension of a Variance for the Elimination of
a Parking Int Curb Barrier - The Attic Mini-Storaoe Buildinq.
The purpose of thin item wan to consider a request for an extension
of a variance for The Attic Mini -Storage building in Oakwood Indus-
trial Park owned by James V. Sundberg.
In 1978, the City Council approved a tee year variance for the
elimination of a curb barrier around the parking lot: t.o th,r previ,nu;
ownero,Rick Doerr and Dean fioglund. This variance expired in
September of 1980 at which time Mr. Sundberg, the new owner of Lite
building, requested an extension for one year. Mr. Sundb rg, again,
in roqueoting an extension of an additional ane year due to the fact
that he plans on building an additional storage building and it the
curb was installed, it would have to be removed when the new building
wan built. In addition, Mr. Sundborg felt that. there wan no pruble:m
with standing water and that the curb rocas not need,.d t.o control denin-
age at the present time.
The council members expressed concern over the number of years thaL
the present variance has already been granted and discussions c n-
cert,cd whether a permanent variance should be granted.
Aftur further discussion, a motion was made by Matta, secondott by
Blonigun and unanimously carried to extend the variance for th.:
elimination of the curb barrier around the parking lot until July 1,
198,1 with the understanding that the City Council would not he rocup-
tive to granting any further variances after thin date.
WIM
Council Minutes - 9/28/81
5. Public Hearing on the Proposed 1982 Budget Including Appropriation
of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds.
Federal Revenue Sharing laws require that a public hearing be hrlrl
on the appropriation of Federal Revenue Sharinq Punds and dl:.0 r,n
the city's entire budget.
au 1982, the Ci.y of Monticello is expected to roeeive $87,151.00
in Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. During the past number of yrar:;,
the city has appropriated the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds tow,ud:;
the city's share of the Wastewater Treatment Plant construction up-
dating project.
In the preliminary review of the budget at the Council's September 14,
meeting, there was concern expressed over the 1982 levy proposal In
the amount of $1,177,953 which was approximately a 12% increarr• over
the 1981 levy. After reviewing various alternatives, the city ,idmtriir.-
trator recommended that the proposed levy could be reduced to $1,141:!,828
by reductions in certain funds. The new proposed levy would result in
an increase of $55,475 or approximately 5.31 over the 1981 milt lrv1.
The majority of thio, increase or $53,607 was a ro sult of the ir.crrd:n
in the bond levy due primarily to the library bond sale.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by White, and unanimously rart u d
to adopt thu 1982 budget as proposed in the amount of $1,102,1'8 with
the appropriation of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds in the amount
$87,151 towards the City of Monticello's share o'' the Wastewater
11restment Plant upgrading.
6. Consideration of Award of Contract on Bids Re,ceivad for Library Parkk%q
Lot.
On Thursday, September 24, 1981, bids were reeaived and opened far
surfacing of the library parking lot.
Bids were received both for a concrete parking lot and also a bit-
uminous surfaced parking lot. Bids received ranged from a low of
$19,088.85 from Hardrives. Inc., for bituminous parking lot to a
high of $29,257 for bituminous surfacing. In regard to the cuneretc
alternate, thr low bid was from Winkleman Enterprises in the amr,u4,t
of $27,65.
The council members debated over whether the hituminoub surfac u,n .
which was cheapen would be the best alternmtive considerinq the lit,
span of concrete would be much greater. Some concerns of the C^m,ctl
concerning the $8,000 cost differential between concrete and lrtuml-
noup was that the library budget for construction may already la
- 5 -
Council Agenda - 9/28/81
under budgeted and as a result a motion was made by Fair, second.,!
by White to award the contract for the surfacing of the library
parking lot to flardrives, Inc., for bituminous laving in the amount
of :19,088.85. VaL:C, in favor war, Grimsmo, 1•aii, and white.
Abstaining was Blonigen and ?Esus. Maus abstained due to a possil;1,
conflict of interest in that he may lx: having :,one paving done on
his property.
7. Consideration of Approval of Fire Contract with Silver Creek. Town-
shi::. for 1982 and 1983.
On January 16, 1981, the City Council approved of a one year Fire
Contract .with the Township of Silver Creck. calli:•g for a stand by
charge of $1,000.00 plus an hour Ly fee for th,: first hour of $250
and 5150 for Tach additional hour or portion there of. Thin con-
tract was approved after much delil>cration bet•wein the Township of
Silver Creek and the Joint Fire Board of the City and Tuwnshil. ,i
Monticello. Initially, the Joint Fire Board had recommended a
stand by charge of $4,000.00 and an hourly fo. of $200.00 for the
first hour and $100.00 for each additional hour.. However, hecacs,
Of the fact that the Township of Silver Creek had already set their
budget for 1081, it was recommended that a one p-ar contract by
entored into and consideration be given at a i.tt,•r date for a Lw(,
year contract for 1982 and 1.983.
A pt oponed two year contract for the years 1982 and 1983 hag h:vn
recontly approved by the Silver Crook Township Board and a Joint
Fire Board calling for a $6,000.00 utand by el"rg,; fol' 1902 and an
$8,000.00 stand by charge for 1983 with no additional co..^.t axing
charged on a per call halls. This particular method was favored
by the Silver Creek Township Board over the abcvo mentioned 54,000
stand by fee and an hourly tee of $200 for the first hour. and $100
for each additional hour. The reason for the .annual charge vuisus
the stand by plus a per fire call charge was that. the Township
Board waa tr.yinq to atabilizr. their budget for fires from year to
year ainca thu current method Sometimes puts their fire fund in
jeopardy it they have quite a fow fires.
The Joint Fire Board h+aod on coot catimaton for the coming year:;
had propon.�l a one time ntand by charge per y,:;ir of $7,000.00 for
1982 and 1983. but the Silver Creek Township hoard indicated th,:y
only had $6,000 in their budget for 1982 and as a result a cumpi'o-
minra was reached wherehy the charge for 1982 would INS SG,000.UU
and $8,000.00 in 1983 to make up the difference.
A motion wa.r, made by Blonigon, anconded by Kirin, and unanimously
carried to giprovo the fire contract for 1982 and 1983 with
Silver Creek Tvwnnhip calling for a one time fee of 56,000.00 to
1902 and a one time fee of 58,000.00 to 1983 with no additional
cost per fire call.
Council Minutes - 9/28/81
8. Considetaticn of Chanqe Order -16 with the Paul A. I:,urence Compal".-,
on t.h,� Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Contract .
John Radalich, City Engineer, informed the council thdt due to a
change in the construction plans, a 3' by 4' personal access do,r
through the roof of each trickling filter wa:; no longer necdod
when the wal is were raised and new aluminum doors were added to
the side walls. As a result, a change order w;,s initiated rosull-
iny in a $525.00 dOCtatticrn on the contract.
Motion war; made by Fair, seconded by Pints, and unanimously au'r, ie.l
to ap prove• the Change Order 016 for a di:ctuction of 5575.00 from
the wastowatut Treatment plant construction project with the ,,,ul
A. L.nu:'r-ncc Company .
9. Approval of Rills and Minutes.
A motion was Wade by White, aeconricd by Mous, and unanimoual•;
carried to approve t:he bills for the month or Geptembcr as prutculcd
and I.he minutes or the regular met2ting hold September 14, 1981. lF.-
supplement 9/?9/A1 all.
10. Dincussi-11 on 1'osni ble httrclaso of Ilew Loader - SLroet
1 John Simola, I'u blit Works Director, questioned LLe council m.•mf.•r:.
for direction coner_rninq whether the public Work.^. Dq• rtmanL ::Lw!d
be pursuinq the lvtrchasing of a now loader during 1982 of whet.l.t,
tho city's prarcnt loader •.:ill be repaired to ,i raft ,tondo•: ?.
In regard to the possible purchase of a new l.udd,•r dot my VIK!,
quootions w..n: raised by council members conut:rning Lhe pcnsa l,iltty
of contracting out for nervieen of a loader when nece:aa17 vara::
the actual pulchase of n new luader. It was Mr. Simula's oI tt:iur
that the londm is a much ner-tled item in the public Wc'rks 1,y at: -
ment. for trey dineaac removal alonq with snow plowing and ::nc•n•
haul int, ctC., but Mt. Simola wil l bu gctLinq Cort t t,r
contractinq to private Mtaineanos for loader rental Inr the it .,I:,
needed in public Worko Department.
11. Dlgcunnion nn Patki.nq Lot Lighln at till. NOW l,iltr.u'y.
Lihrary Roru•d C!mi r•n�en, I.Oron Klein, rcyur: atoll p,!rmtsr.ion Irrcn th.•
council t.o have the conduit. for the parking lot. lighLu instal le,l
prior Lo tho runst.rUcLion of the parking lot improvement.
It wall tile, conccn:tun of the council to authori;tetho Library Cannot.—
to have the conduit fur the electrical wiring tnatallod for I ne 1 r,t-
posred light.inq plan at t.hu library parking lot only, with tho
aetu„1 discun.aion to 14- made on the lighting t.t.andardo in tho flit -lir,•.
` Moo ny adjoue•ncd.
Nick Rolfnt�llur, Masiutdnt Administrator
/
y
3 c b
L�Y jS�cf
"ur" Zrzr�-
I
C