City Council Agenda Packet 01-14-1985I
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 14, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, William Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Oath of Office for Newly Elected Officials.
3. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held December 10,
1984, and Special Meeting Held December 27, 1984.
4. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Public Hearings
5. Public Hearing - Petition for Vacation of 6th Street - Applicant,
Construction 5, Inc.
6. Variance Request Appeal - Applicant, Security Federal Savings
6 Loan Association.
Old Business
I G,7. Opening and Review of Bids and Consideration of a Resolution
Awarding the Sale of $860,000.00 General Obligation Improvement
Bonds for Fire !fall Conatruction.
8. Consideration of Change Order No. 2 for Project 84-1, County
State Aid Highway #75.
Now Business
9. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow an Apartment
Building to be Built in Excess of 12 Units - Applicant,
J000ph G. Pochlor 6 Associates.
10. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow an Addition
to be Built onto a Non -Conforming Building in a 8-3 Zone -
Applicant, Danner Trucking.
11. Consideration of Making Annual Appointments.
12. Consideration of Ronowing the Contract for Services with OSM.
13. Consideration of Maintenance Agreement with Wright County
for County State Aid Highways in Monticello.
14. Consideration of Supporting the Schools Request of Wright
County for Traffic Control at the High School.
Agenda for the Meeting of the City Council
Monday, January 14, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
CPage 2
15. Consideration of 1985 Sever Rate Increase.
16. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Execution of an
Agreement with Control Data Corporation and Other Minnesota
Coalition of Outstate Cities on a Joint Comparable worth
Study.
17. Consideration of Bills for the Month of December.
18. Adjournment.
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
2. Oath of Office for Newly Elected Officials. (T.E.)
As soon as the meeting has been called to order, I will issue
the Oath of Office to the two Council members and the Mayor.
The following is the actual oath that you will be required to
cite:
I, (name), do aolemnly swear that I shall support
the Constitution of the United States of America,
the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and
that I will faithfully and justly discharge the
duties of the office of (Mayor) or (Council member)
of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, to the beet
of my judgement and ability, so help me God.
MINUTES
L REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
December 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Mayor Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack
Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 26
and the special meeting hold December 1, 1984.
4. Consideration of a Planned Unit Development - Applicants. Jim
Powers 6 Kent Kjallber9.
City Administrator, Tom Eidam, briefly reviewed with the Council
the final plane for I-94 Plaza PUD, including drainage plane
on and utility plane. Mr. Eidem noted that the City Engineer has
recently approved the drainage plan as submitted along with
the utilities plan and that all items appear complete for final
recording. It was noted that as part of the final approval,
the developers will be required to reimburse the City approximately
517,500.00 for park dedication fees along with other related
fees incurred by the City from its consultants.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigan, and unanimously
carried to approve the final PUD for I-94 Plaza as presented
contingent upon all fees for consultants and park dedication
requirements being paid.
5. Consideration of Change Order for the 84-1, 04-2, and 84-3 Street
Improvement Projects.
A Change Order consisting of additional sidewalk work on Broadway
for $1,542.00, additional hydrant extensions and grading on
Hart Boulevard for 5959.00, and additional concrete driveway
material along with a hydrant extension on Cedar Street for
$1,339.00 was presented for approval. The total Change Order
was $3,841.40 for those throe projects.
Councilman Blonigan questioned why the Council is asked to approve
Change Orders after they are already completed and felt the
i Council should be aware of theoo items before work to started.
lJ1 City Eng
Inear, John Badalich, responded that those items were
not specifically included in the original contract, and he felt
a...1
Council Minutes - 12/10/84
7. Consideration of the Poehlor Farmers Homo Administration PrOjact.
Mr. Joe Poehler appeared before the Council requesting approval
to apply for a Farmers Homo Administration Housing Project in
.'� a portion of Outlot A of Country Club Manor. Approximately
an unreasonable delay would have resulted if the project would
J
'
have been stopped in order to get Council approval prior to
the completion of this work. Mr. Badalich indicated that usually
minor field modifications do occur on all projects and to expedite
the matter, the items are reviewed with the Public works Director
and City staff prior to any work being completed.
Motion wan made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, to approve Change
Order No. 1 in the amount of $3,841.40 to Buffalo Bituminous,
Inc., on Projects 84-1, 84-2, and 84-3. Voting in favor was
Grimsmo, Fair, Maus, Maxwell. Voting in the opposition was
Blonigen.
6. Consideration of Authorizing TKDA to Commence Architectural
and Engineering on the Fire Hall.
With the recent passage of the bond issue for a new Fire Hall,
the City Administrator has been working with the architectural
firm, TKDA, on an architectural agreement for the second phase
of the new Fire Hall construction project for architectural
drawings. A con tract has been presented by TKDA which indicates
their fee would not exceed 538,000.00 for the plana and specifications
or 7yt of the total building construction and site development
coot, whichever is leas. In addition, up to 59,000.00 in extra
services for aoil boringo, construction management, inspection,
O
would be part of the contract based on an hourly charge not
1
to exceed the $9.000.00.
In regards to the Fire Hall location, the City Administrator
noted that negotiations are currently taking place with the
property owner of four Iota in Block 12 on the site for the
Fire Hall.
It wan noted that approval of an architectural agreement for
Phase II plana and specifications would still require input
from the Fire Ha 11 Building Committee as to the exact design
and construction typo before the architect would proceed with
actual piano and apocificationa.
Motion wan made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to anter into an agreement with TKDA for Phase 1I, construction
plans and specif icatione, provided the architect dean not start
preparing plana and specifications until the City has a firm
commitment on a site location.
7. Consideration of the Poehlor Farmers Homo Administration PrOjact.
Mr. Joe Poehler appeared before the Council requesting approval
to apply for a Farmers Homo Administration Housing Project in
.'� a portion of Outlot A of Country Club Manor. Approximately
Council Minutes - 12/10/86
l two years ago, Mr. Poehler proposed a Farm Home Housing Project
on the lots behind the former Monticello Ford Garage site in
downtown Monticello. Due to the high land cost involved and
other delays caused by Farmers Home Administration, Mr. Poehler
dropped that project but now requested approval to apply for
a similar type project in Country Club Manor. Mr. Poehler noted
that a recently completed survey indicated that approximately
70-80 families in the Monticello area would qualify for the
low income housing project. Mr. Poehler also noted that he
is currently working with Marvin George, owner. of Outlet A in
Country Club Manor, to acquire approximately 15 acres for his
proposed apartment complex. Mr. George is also currently working
on roplatting Outlet A into other sites suitable for multiple
housing projects.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously
carried to grant preliminary approval for Mr. Poehlor's Farmers
Home Administration low income housing apartment complex.
8. Consideration of warranty Claim for the Variable Speed Drive
at the WWTP.
Early in 1983 during the final stages of construction of the
WWTP, there were problems developing with the raw sawago pumps
at the WWTP. The on/off cycling of the pumps were creating
problems with the flow equalization system and inhibiting proper
operation of the WWTP. At a cost of $16,800.00, the general
contractor, Paul A. Laurence Company, installed a Variable Speed
Drive oyatem to regulate the speed of the pumps. The Installation
was completed on January 6, 1986, but since that time the pump
has malfunctioned approximately 601 of the time. The 1-yaor
warranty on thio particular Variable Speed Drive is to expire
January 3, 1985, and the Public works Director, along with the
City Engineer, has recommended that the City take legal steps
to got the problem corrected. Numerous attempts over the past
year by the contractor and subcontractors has failed to remedy
the problems with the Variable Speed Drive and a final notice
has recently boon sent to the contractor giving them until January 31,
1985, to either repair or remove the item and reimburse the
City for its coot.
?ho Public works Director requested that the City Council authorize
the City Attorney to take whatever legal stops aro necessary
to protect the City's interest it a lawsuit is necoosary to
recover its coat. Since tho expiration of the warranty will
be January d, 1985, it was recommended that the City Attorney
start legal action to protect the City's rights.
�i Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonlgon, and unanimously
carried to authorize the City Attorney to take whatever legal
Jl atopo aro necessary to protect the City's Interest in getting
the Variable Speed Drive ropairod or removed and reimbursement
being made to the City.
-3 o
Council Minutes - 12/10/94
9. Consideration of Purchase of Communication Radios. J
Z*,
Civil Defense Director, Cary Anderson, noted that NSP has a
special fund set up through the State of Minnesota whereas a
pool of money is available to reimburse Civil Defense orientated
equipment and/or exercises for use in communities or counties
which have nuclear plants. As part of this program, the City
of Monticello had requested funding of approximately $3,500.00
to cover half of the cost of purchasing additional 2 -way radio
communication equipment for Civil Defense exercises. The State
of Minnesota has granted approval to this request; and as 'a
result, the Civil Defense Director and City staff have requested
approval to purchase approximately $7,000.00 in radio equipment
with the cost to the City being one-half of this amount.
After further discussion on the needs and uses of the equipment,
motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to authorize the Civil Defense Director to purchase
up to $7,000.00 worth of radio equipment, with reimbursement
of approximately one-half from State funds.
10. Consideration of Mater Systems Study for the City of Monticello.
With the increase in developments which have occurred over the
past tan years in the City of Monticello, it wan recommended
by the Public Works Department and City Engineer that a now
9 water systems study be implemented to update the previous study
completed by OSM in 1975. The primary concern for updating
the study would be to enlarge the City'a water storage capacity
and increase the pressure available to all users. Discussions
have occurred over a numbor of years of locating a ground level
storage tank on a high hill near the Monte Club, and thin study
would determine the exact location that would be beat suited
for this purpose.
City Engineer, John 9adalich, indicated that a study of this
caliber would coot approximately 97,500.00, which they aro prepared
to complete by approximately March 1, 1985.
The coat of thin study was budgeted for in 1985; and an a result,
a motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, and unanimously
carried to authorize the City Engineer to prepare an updated
water study with completion approximately March 1, 1985.
11. Consideration of Ratifying Salaried for 1985.
At a special mooting hold by the City Council on December 1,
a pool of money consisting of approximately a 5.4% dollar amount
was established for the non-union personnel. The City Administrator
was authorized to distribute the 5.4% pool amongst the salaried
'. -4-
Council Minutes - 12/10/64
t/
and hourly non-union individuals. The following is the distribution
arrived at by the City Administrator.
CLERICAL RANGE (up 5.3756)
1984 1985
Top 7.35 - 7.95 7.74 - 8.37
906 6.62 - 7.16 6.97 - 7.53
806 5.88 - 6.36 6.19 - 6.70
Lynnea Gillhom .42/HR to 8.37
Diane Jacobson .42/HR to 8.13
Marlene Hellman .42/HR to 7.80
Karen Doty .42/HR to 7.27 (906)
Rick Wolfsteller 30,878 + 1660 (5.375) - 32,538
John Simola 29,815 + 1660 (5.5) - 31,475
Gary Anderson 23,920 + 1285 (5.372) a 23,205
Allan Pelvit 17,500 + 940 (5.371) • 18,440
DEPARTMENT HEADS
Roger Mack 23,725 + 1285 (5.41) - 25,010
Walt Mack 23,444 + 1285 (5.48) • 24,729
r'
Albert Moyer 23,133 + 0 - 23,133
OTHER
Mark Irmiter 27,505 + 1480 (5.38) - 28,985
Sean Hancock 21,320 v 1145 (5.37) • 22,466
Karon Hanson 12,600 + 680 (5.4) 13,280
Tom Schumacher 5.05/HR + .32 (5.4) 6.17/HR
Clerical porconnol, Lynnoo Cillham, Marlene Hellman, and Diana
Jacobson ware present at the meeting to object to a 5.46 average
increase for the lover clerical personnel. They felt a straight
percentage range loaves them with a lover annual dollar increase
compared to higher paid personnel and felt that a larger annual
dollar amount should be given to the lover paid personnel or
they will never be able to catch up to the higher paid individuals.
Their request was for an additional 25t an hour adjustment.
Although it wan agreed and understood by the Council that a
straight percentage increase amounts to a lower annual dollar
Increase for the lover paid personnel, it is not always fair
to incroaas all personnel by an equal dollar amount, as it is
assumod each position has a certain value worth for that job;
and if a straight dollar amount is given to alk personnel, the
gap narrows between job classifications. It was noted by Councilman Maus
of
L�
A
that it was his understanding that next year the Council would
-g-
V
Council Minutes - 12/10/84
Rick Molfatalr
Assistant Administrator
be reviewing the various position classifications in general
J
`••
to see if adjustments were necessary to bring them in line with
0
current market conditions. Otherwise, it was felt that a percentage
increase is correct. It was also noted by Councilman Fair that
if additional increases were granted to the clerical staff,
it would possibly open up opposition from other personnel who
' ,would request similar increases.
Additionally, the Council discussed the salary increase for
the City Administrator. The general consensus of the Council
members was that the City Administrator's increase should be
similar to the rest of the salaried personnel at 5.41.
After further discussion, motion was made by Fair, seconded
by Maus, to ratify the salaries for non-union personnel for
the year 1985 as submitted by the City Administrator's recommendation
at approximately 5.41, with the City Administrator's salary
to be adjusted at 5.41 also. Voting in favor was Fair, Maus,
and Grimsmo. Opposed: Maxwell and Blonigen.
12. Consideration or a Motion to Cancel the Second Meeting or December.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to cancel the second regular meeting of the City Council
'
scheduled for December 24, 1984.
Bills for the Month of December.
1
13. Consideration of Partial Lint of
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus, and unanimously
carried to approve the partial listing of bills for the month
of December as presented.
Rick Molfatalr
Assistant Administrator
L, MINUTES
L7 SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELIq CITY COUNCIL
f December 27, 1984 - 5:00 P.M.
A special meeting of the City Council called by Mayor Grimsmo-
was duly held at 5:00 P.M., December 27, 1984, in the City Hall.
Members Present were: Grimomo, Maus, Blonigen. Members Absent were:
Maxwell and Fair. Also present were Public Works Director,
John Simola; City Attorney, Gary Pringle; and Administrator Eidem.
The Mayor called the meeting to order and indicated that the
sole reason for the meeting was to discuss the acquisition of
Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Block 12, Original Plat of Monticello,
as a potential site for Fire Hall construction. The Mayor asked
Public Works Director Simola to report on the calls tooting.
Mr. Simola stated that the report found that the site was primarily
loose and sandy and would require excess compaction in the area
of the building and under portions of the parking lot and driveways.
He indicated that the testing firm had recommended a stripping,
away of the top 15 to 3 feet to be replaced by higher quality
fill suitable for construction. Simola also noted that ,there
had been coma contamination discovered and that the contamination
was primarily fuel oil. He indicated that the extent of the
contamination cannot really be gauged without further tenting,
and perhaps some excavation. Simola stated that the type of
clean up that would be required from the Pollution Control Agency
cannot be determined until the extant of the contamination is
known. Ho noted that come clean up may simply be a removal
of the contaminated material and than stock piled at coma place
whore it will not leach into the subsurface. He indicated that
other processes have boon to spread polluted material under
roadways in thin layers. He noted that the worst case would
be that the contaminated material would have to be hauled to
a hazardous waste site. In his estimation, the severity of
this problem would not require the latter typo of solution.
Simola did note that the City must notify the Pollution Control
Agency, and that if we chose not to contact them at this time,
the coils tooting lab is required by state regulations to notify
PCA.
Thorn was a brief discussion of the other bulk fuel plants in
the area. It was the Council's position that the City would
report to the PCA only insofar ae it concerns the site that
the City is interested in acquiring. The Council felt that*
it wan not their position to report any other bulk plants on
the baoio of more speculation derived from the results of the
Lost. on this particular site. They agree that if the PCA responds
and initiates investigations of the other bulk plants, than
that is the PCA'o responsibility and not tho City Council'e.
-2-
Special Council Minutes - 12/27/84
The Mayor asked City Attorney Pringle to go over some of his
concerns about the transfer of the parcel. Pringle noted that
there is currently a mortgage against the property, the status
of which must be clearly determined prior to the closing of
any contract for the land. Pringle also noted that there are
outstanding assessments against the property that the current
owner, Jean Brouillard, has indicated should be City responsibility.
M.C. Pringle noted that there is a lease agreement with Jim Moores,
the operator of JM Oil, who is currently occupying the site.
Pringle noted that an agreement will have to be drafted so that
Jim Moores will legally release his right to use the land.
There was a brief discussion with respect to the City assisting
in Mr. Moores' relocation effort. Eidem commented that he had
met with Mr. Moores and indicated that the City would do whatever
it could to help him secure an alternate site for his bulk plant.
Eidem indicated that a proposal would be made to the HRA, who
may be able to investigate a land trade. Councilmember Maue
raised a question of the City purchasing some land in the industrial
park and leasing it to various bulk fuel operators. It was
Maus's opinion that regulatory control could be more closely
monitored under a City owned project and that a lease arrangement
of this sort might further facilitate the relocation of not
only the existing bulk plant, but of all bulk plants en:roaching
_
on the Downtown Commercial Business Dintrict. Eidem agreed
to investigate this procedure further. with respect to actual
relocation assistance for Mr. Moores, the Council authorized
Pringle to offer a total of B hours usage of the City's loader,
including an operator. Mr. Simola felt that the assistance
we could land would be limited to use of the loader and stated
that he was willing to provide those 8 hours.
Pringle returned the discuooion to the matter of the contamination.
tie indicated that Mr. Brouillard expected to receive his selling
price with no future obligations. Pringle Indicated that Brouillard
wished to receive the selling price and be frood from any responsibility
towards contamination clean up or other alterations that may
have to be made to the alto to make it suitable for development.
Concern was axpraaaod by all Council members as to the extent
of clean up that might be required onto the ground is opened
up. Councilmombor Blonigon felt there should be some kind of
spending limit dedicated to clean up that the City would be
responsible for, that should the extant of the clean up exceed
this particular limit, the City would have the right to go back
to the seller to recover some expense. Pringle indicated that
Mr. Brouillard simply wouldn't sign the contract under any other
condition than as stated. Pringle noted that Brouillard has
made an offer t0 the City and expressed his terms. The City
nowhes to react to that offer and choose to either accept or
rojact the conditions. Pringle atstod it was his understanding
from a meeting with Mr. Brouillard that should the City reject
the conditions at this time, the sale is off. Mayor arimsmo
-2-
There being no other business to be held in this opocial meeting,
the Mayor adjourned the meeting.
Th mao A. 2idem
City Administrator
F,
Special Council Minutes - 12/27/84
j'
turned the discussion bock to consideration of the offer and
stated that the Council was faced with the decision of finding
a site for the Fire Hall. He felt that the site in question
was a good site for Fire Hall location and that the offer was
an acceptable one in spite of the unknown factor relating to
contamination. Reiterating his position on governmental conscience
taking the lead to secure clean up of the site, he indicated
he would like to see the Council take action on this acquisition.
He felt that constant debate over every detail could jeopardize
the sale of the lend and postpone the construction of the Fire
Hall in the long run. He felt that enough time had been put
into site selection and that a suitable site had been found,
and we should investigate the final sale.
City Attorney Pringle wished to raise one more concern that
he had with reference to certain qualifications that showed
in the abstract. Pringle indicated that Mr. Brouillard had
accepted a deed when he bought the property subject to certain
limitations, and that the deed conveyed to the City would carry
those same limitations. He noted that his primary concern came
from a phrase that indicated the property was subject to certain
limitations which may not be recorded but which might be revealed
by a survey. He indicated that he didn-t anticipate any problems
from ouch a qualification to the deed, and the Council concurred.
Motion by Maus to acquire Lots 2, 3, 4, and S, in Block 12,
G
Original Plat of the City of Monticello, for the cum of $100,000.00,
and further, authorizing City Attorney Pringle to negotiate
and prepare a Contract for Dead addressing all City concerns
and to be executed by the Mayor end City Administrator. Motion
was duly seconded by Blonigen. voting in favor: Crimsmo. Maus,
and Blonigon. Voting in opposition: Nona. Motion passed unanimously.
There being no other business to be held in this opocial meeting,
the Mayor adjourned the meeting.
Th mao A. 2idem
City Administrator
F,
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
5. Public Hearing - Petition for Vacation of 6th Street - Applicant,
Construction 5, Inc. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the final meeting in November, Construction 5 submitted a
petition requesting the vacation of 6th Street adjacent to Block 41,
Lower Monticello. At that time, the Council directed staff
to set the hearing for January 14 and to assemble all relevant
data with respect to that request. The significant issue involved
with vacating this street is the exchange of property so that
we may extend Lauring Lane through our collective road system.
In exchange for the land dedicated to Lauring Lane extension,
staff considered the vacation of not only 6th Street, but the
dead end portions of Washington and Hennepin. In order to facilitate
this entire matter, I arranged and conducted a meeting with
the City Engineer, the Consulting Planner, the developer, and
City staff all present. Based on all of the data that was brought
up at that meeting as wall as sound land use planning, it was
decided that Construction 5 should propose a replat of that
entire corner of Lower Monticello. This would be a standard
subdivision creating lots and blocks, which would be suitable
for Construction 5-a development and which in turn would dedicate
now roadways and vacate old roadways. This seemed agreeable
to everyone; and at the meeting, we began working on rough sketches.
Th ie week, Construction 5 surveyor prepared and presented a
skotch plan for review at the vacation hearing. While we were
unable to make the Planning Commission Agenda, we did take the
item to the Planning Commission unannounced and requested their
review. By consensus of the Council, they Boo no difficulty
with the subdivision and encourage the process to go to the
preliminary plat stage.
With respect to the extension of Lauring Lana beyond Copeland
Road where It crossea the Malone property. I have mot with
Mrs. Malone and members of her family to discuss the acquisition
of a corner of their property. Mrs. Malone has indicated she
Is a willing sellar, but based on some preliminary figures,
she had concern that the square footage indicated in the appraisal
was inaccurate. we investigated that with the engineers, and
they have shown that the square footage is, in fact, vary accurate,
that only the drawing according to the scale gave tho appearance
that there was loos square footago. If the sketch plan is approved
and we anticipate going to preliminary plat, than we will go
back to Malonos to show them the exact technical data based
on the engineering findings. Of couroo, the Lauring Lana extension
is totally incomplete until the remainder of the right-of-way
can be secured from Morris Iloglund.
If the sketch plan and the subsequent plat is approved by the
Council, than the Lauring Lane extonsien will go all the way
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
to the Copeland Road, thus completing a loop system. If and
when we can extend further east has yet to be decided. We,
however, are not accepting roadway that will somehow box us
in at a later date.
With respect to the actual plat, the appropriate zoning for
the blocks will have to be determined before recording. It
is also deemed essential by staff and by Consulting Planner
that a specific restriction be placed on the number of freeway
signs throughout the entire subdivision. Staff recommendation
at this time is to allow only one pylon or sign standard upon
which four advertising placards or sign boards could be mounted.
Because the lots become extremely narrow at the freeway allowing
each lot its own side could generate a severe concentration
of signs that would be undesirable. Similarly, there is some
concern about the lack of depth in Lot 4 and what that lot might
be suitable for. The area of the lot is approximately 1 acre,
and we see no difficulty with allowing that lot to exist, but
the developer will simply have to be aware that certain restrictions
will apply should he hope to develop on that lot, those restrictions
being our standard Zoning Ordinance requirements.
The area shown as park on the plat is really intended to be
nothing more than open space. We do not propose a development
of a playground or any type of act of recreational activity
�in the arca. We would hope as the street itself is developed
that we could dig up Copeland Road and replant this area with
attractive growth. John Uban suggested that it might oven be
conceivable to have the Historical Society eruct a plaque with
a otory about the Rand Mansion or something of that nature.
Another possible use for this site would be to allow a community
welcome sign since it is visible from the freeway. At any rate,
this small parcel in intended to come into City ownership and
remain relatively undeveloped.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Grant approval to the sketch plan and direct the developer
to go to the preliminary plat stage. This ie the standard
oaquanco of subdivision, and if given thio approval will
go back to the Planning Commission for their review of the
preliminary plat.
2. Do not grant approval of the proposed sketch plan. If approval
Is not granted, the Council should provide the developer
with some direction with respect to what they would like
to sea in that particular area and their position with respect
to the petition for vacation of 6th Street.
3. Do not grant approval to the sketch plan, deny the petition
for vacation of 6th Strout. This will leave all conditions
intact as thoy currently aro.
-3•
Council Agenda - 1/16/85
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the sketch plan be granted approval and
that the developer be directed to go to the preliminary plat
stage. We think that securing the extra roadway for Lauring
Lane is significant to the street system development for the
City. We also think that a replat of the area would clear up
the entire lot and block system, thus eliminating legal descriptions
that are based on the Original Plat and a series of vacated
streets. The actual exchange of land for street right-of-way
and vacated street right-of-way has yet to be determined. The
engineers are working on the total square footage that will
change hands. While I have not told Construction 5 that it
will be an even up exchange. I have no particular difficulty
with looking at the matter in that way. An exchange that is
considered relatively even creates a vin/win situation for both
of us. Construction 5 gets buildable parcels with clean legal
descriptions based on the new subdivision, and the City receives
clear dedication of Lauring Lane right-of-way and benefits by
the elimination of the old legal descriptions in those buildable
lots. The City also eliminates all of those dead-end street rights—of-way
that currently exist.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the sketch plan; Copy of John Uban-e comments; Copy
of data from the engineer.
-4-
m !dt
A -1
G /
i
Gil
':t IES of 2
y9 PROPOSED ARAMWEArr s
14 ACRES T
J J' 0/,
W PROPOSED ComntEeGt� : 4.r Q
b -- SITE SKr
L
R 9 ACRES t, L .
J �•;L�7 ,�1, / B ACRES! t»
49
at ACRR! t
PARK'
f j ACRESS A
PROPOSED OFFICE COMPLEX
AND WAREHOUSE E9
FI r r ti
lj� •' � t a uRd � �
4t)
h
3
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
6. Variance Request Appeal - Applicant, Security Federal Savings
6 Loan Association. (G.A.)
Security Federal has asked that this item be delayed to a later
date. The only appropriate action needed is a motion to postpone
action on this appeal until Security Federal Savings 6 Loan
Association requests action be taken.
-5-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
7. Opening and Review of Bids and Consideration of a Resolution
Awarding the Sale of $860,000.00 General Obligation Improvement
Bonds for Fire Hall Construction. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Either Jerry Shannon or Ron Langsness will attend the City Council
meeting bringing with them the sealed bids on our Fire Hall
bond sale. That evening, the bids will be opened and presented
to the Council. Presuming that the bide meet minimum requirements
and present acceptable interest rates, the representative from
Springsted will recommend awarding the sale to the best bidder.
The Springsted representative will also bring with them for
Council review the official resolution authorizing the sale
of the bonds and certifying the levy that will be put into place
for the life of the bond retirement schedule. There is little
more I can tell you at this time since the entire procedure
is currently in the hands of Springsted and will not reach completion
until 7:30, Monday, January 14.
Based on the mandate of the residents in the referendum, and
presuming that the bids are acceptable, the only real alternative
is to award the sale of bonds.
There is no staff recommendation, and all supporting data will
be delivered by the Springsted representative.
-6-
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
NEW ISSUE hating: AMoody'salnvestcrs Service, tion has been lc�
In the opinion of Bond Counsel, the Bonds are exempt from taxation by the State of Minnesota
and its subdivisions and municipalities and the interest to be paid on said Bonds is not includable
in the gross income of the recipient for United States or State of ,Minnesota income tax purposes
(other than Minnesota corporate franchise taxes and bank excise taxes measured by income)
according to present federal and Minnesota laws, regulations, rulings and decisions.
$860.000
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1985A
Bonds Dated: February 1, 1985
The Bonds will mature February I as follows:
$30,000 1986 $ 45,000 1990
$35,000 1987-1988 $ 50,000 1991-1992
$40,000 1989 $100,000 1993
Interest Due: Each February 1 and August I,
commencing August I, 1985
$110,000 1994$130,000 1996
$120,000 1995 1115,000 1997
The City may elect on February I, 1993, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to prepay
Bonds due on or after February 1, 1994. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds
subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Bonds remaining unpaid which have the
latest muturity dute will be prepaid first. If only part of the Bonds having a common maturity
date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the
Registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest.
Bids must be for not less Ilion $843,660 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the
Issue, and must be accompanied by a certified or cashier's check in the amount of $8,660,
payable to the order of the City. The check of the Purchaser will be retained by the City as
liquidated damages in the event the Purchuser fails to comply with the accepted bid. The City
will deposit the check of the Purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at seltlement.
Bidders shall specify rates in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1`K. No rate for a maturity
sholl be more Ilion 1% lower than any prior rate. No rote nor the net effective rate for the
entire Issue shall exceed the rnoAimuin rate permitted by law.
The Bonds will be issued in integral multiples of $5,000, as requested by the Purchaser, will be
fully registered as to principal and interest, and will be delivered without cost to the Purchaser
within 40 days following"the date of their award.
The Bonds are offered subject to receipt of the approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven,
Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
SALF_ DATE AND TIMEt Jampelry 14, 1985 (Monday) at 7t30 P.M., Central Time
The date of this Official Statement is January 3, 1985.
Further Information may he obtained from SPRINGSTED Incorporated, Financial Advisor to the
Issuer, 800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, 612/222-4241.
-07
J
This Official Statement was prepared on behalf of the Issuer by its Financial Advisor,
SPRINGSTED Incorporated, which will be compensated for its services solely by the Issuer, which
compensation is, in part, contingent upon award of the Obligations. Unless otherwise indicated,
the information contained in this Official Statement was furnished by the Issuer and was the
most current information available as of the date of this Official Statement.
No dealer, broker, salesman or other person has been authorized by the Issuer to give any
information or to make any representations with respect to the Obligations other than as
contained in this Official Statement and, if given or made, such other information or
representations must not be relied upon as having been authorized by file Issuer. Certain
information contained herein has been obtained from sources other than records of the !ssuer and
is believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed as to completeness and is not to be construed as
a representation of the Issuer. The information and expressions of opinion herein are subject to
change without notice and neither the delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale made
hereunder shall under any circumstances create any implication that there has been no change in
the affairs of the Issuer since the date hereof.
References in this Official Statement to laws, rules, regulations, resolutions, agreements,
reports and other documents do not purport to be comprehensive or definitive. All references to
such documents are qualified in their entirety by reference to the particular document, the full
text of which may contain qualifications of and exceptions to statements made herein. Where
full texts have not been included as appendices hereto, they will be furnished on request.
This Official Statement was prepared for the information of bidders for the Obligations at public
sale being held by the Issuer. At the settlement, the successful bidder will receive the executed
Certificate of officials of the Issuer appearing on the inside back cover of this Official
Statement. Only the Arabic numbered poyes and the Appendices, if any, of this Official
Statement may be used or reproduced, In whole or In part, for distribution to investors.
HOWEVER, NO ASSURANCE CAN BE GIVEN AND NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE THAT NO
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS REOUIRED WHEN TF-[ OBLIGATIONS ARE REOFFERED BY
THE UNDERWRITERS TO INVESTORS OR THAT THIS OFFICIAL STATEMENT STATES ALL
FACTS WHICH WOULD BE MATERIAL TO AN INVESTOR PURCHASING OBLIGATIONS FROM
THE UNDERWRITERS.
RATING
An application for a rating of this Issue has been made to Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
("Moody's"), 99 Church Street, New York, New York.
If a rating is assigned, it will reflect only the opinion of Moody's. Any explanation of the
significance of the rating may be obtained only from Moody's.
There is no assurance that a rating, if assigned, will continue for any given period of time, or
that such rating will not be revised or withdrawn, if in the judgment of Moody's, circumstances
so warrant. A revision or withdrawal of the rating may have an adverse effect on the market
price of the Obligations.
J
OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING
$860,000
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1985A
Sealed bids for the Bonds will be opened by the City Council on Monday, January 14, 1985, at
7:30 P.M., Central Time, at the Monticello City Holl. Consideration for award of the Bonds will
immediately follow the opening of bids.
DETAILS OF THE BONDS
The Bonds will be dated February I, 1985 and will bear interest payable on February I and
August I of each year, commencing August I, 1985. Interest will be computed upon the basis of
a 360-doy year of twelve 30 -day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSR8. The
Bonds will be issued in integral multiples of $5,000, as requested by the Purchaser, and fully
registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of
the Registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed
the last business day prior to the interest payment date to the registered holder thereof at his
address as it appears on the books of the Registrar as of the 15th of the calendar month next
preceding the interest payment.
The Bonds will mature February I in the amounts and years as follows:
$30,000 1986 $ 45,000 1990 $110,000 1994 $130,000 1996
535,000 1987-1988 $ 50,000 1991-1992 $120,000 1995 $115,000 1997
$40,000 1989 $100,000 1993
The City may elect on February I, 1993, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to prepay
Bonds due on or after February 1, 1994. Redemption may be :n whole or in part of the Bonds
subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Bonds remaining unpaid which have the
latest maturity date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Bonds having o common maturity
date are called for prepayment the specific [aonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the
Registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest.
SECURITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full falth and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used for the
acquisition, construction and Improvement of a fire station and necessary equipment required
therein.
TYPE OF BID
A sealed bid for not less than $843,660 and accrued Interest on the total principal amount of the
Bonds shall be filed with the undersigned prior to the tune set for the opening of bids. Also
prior to the time set for bid opening, a certified or cashier's check in the amount of $8,660,
payable to the order of the City, shall have been filed with the undersigned or SPRINGSTED
Incorporated, the City's Financial Advisor. No bid will be considered for which sold check has
not been filed. The check of the Purchaser will be retained by the City as liquidated damages in
the event the Purchaser falls to comply with the accepted bid. The City will deposit the check
of the Purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement. No bid shall be
withdrawn after the time set for opening bids, unless the meeting of the City scheduled for
consideration of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of
the Bonds having been made. fates of fared by Bidders shall be In Integral multiples of 5/100 or
1 /8 of 1`i5. No rate for any maturity shall be more than I % lower than any prior rate. No rate
nor the net effective rate for the entire lima of the Bonds shall exceed the maximum rate
permitted by low. Bonds of the some maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the
Bonds to the date of maturity.
AWARD
The Bonds will be awarded to the Bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined
by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to,
the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The
City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance with
customary practice, will be cnntrolling.
The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non -substantive informalities of any bid or of
matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause,
and, (iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms
herein.
REGISTRAR
The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City
will pay for the services of the Registrar.
CUSIP NUMBERS
If the Bonds Qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds,
but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will
constitute cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The
CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid
by the Purchaser.
SETTLEMENT
Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the
Purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the Purchaser. Delivery will be
subject to receipt by the Purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes d Graven, Chartered
of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the [fonds, and of customary closing
papers, including a no -litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds
shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City,
Of its designee, not later than 1:00 P.M., Central Time of the day of settlement. Except as
compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action
of the City, or its agents, the Purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the
City by reason of the Purchaser's non-compliance with sold teens for payment.
At settlement the Purchaser will be furnished with o certificate, signed by appropriate officers
of the City, to the effect that the Official Statement did not as of the date of the Official
Statement, and does not as of the date of settlement, contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to mako the statements therein, in light
of the circumstances under which they were made, not rnislending.
OFFICIAL STATLMFNT
Underwriters may obtain a copy of the Official Statement by request to the City's financial
Advisor prior to the bid opening. The Purchaser will be provided with IS copies of the Official
Statement.
Doted November 26, 1984 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Thomas A. Eldem
Clerk -Administrator
6
SCHEDULE OF BOLD YEARS
$860,000
CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1985A
Average Maturity: 8.19 Years
Bonds Dated: February 1. 1985
Interest Due: August 1, 1985 and each February 1 and
August 1 to maturity.
Principal Due: February 1, 1986-1997 inclusive.
Redemption: Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 1994
are callable commencing February 1, 1993
and any Interest payment date thereafter
at par.
(See Official Terms of Offering.)
cicallable
-111- C7)
CUMULATIVE
UMULATIVEBOND
YEAR
PRINCIPAL
BOND YEARS
BONDYEARS
1986
$30,000
30
30
1987
$35,000
70
100
1988
$35,000
105
205
1989
$40,000
160
365
1990
$45,000
225
590
1991
$50,000
300
890
1992
$50,000
350
1,240
1993
$100,000
800
2,040
1994
$110,000 c
990
3,030
1995
$120.000 c
1,200
4,230
1996
$130,000 c
1,430
5.560
1997
$115.000 c
11380
7,040
Average Maturity: 8.19 Years
Bonds Dated: February 1. 1985
Interest Due: August 1, 1985 and each February 1 and
August 1 to maturity.
Principal Due: February 1, 1986-1997 inclusive.
Redemption: Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 1994
are callable commencing February 1, 1993
and any Interest payment date thereafter
at par.
(See Official Terms of Offering.)
cicallable
-111- C7)
1. CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
BEING RESOLUTION AWARDINGTHE SALE OF, AND
PROVIDING THE FORM, TERING, COVENANTS AND
DIRECTIONS FOR $860,000 GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIFS 1985A
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Award of Sale: Terms of Bonds.
1.01. The City of Monticello (the "Issuer") hereby awards the sale of Its
$860,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1985A (the "Bonds) to
(the "Purchaser") as the bidder offering the lowest net
interest cost by its bid to purchase the Bonds at a price of $ plus
accrued interest to the date of delivery, the Bonds to bear interest at the rates per
annum as follows
Year of Interest Year of Interest
Maturity Rate Maturity Rate
1986 % 1992 %
1987 1999
1988 1994
1989 1995
1990 1996
1991 1997
Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 960 -day year of twelve 90 -day months
and will be rounded pursuant to the rules of the MSRB. The City Administrator of
the Issuer is directed to retain the good faith check of the Purchaser pending
delivery of and payment for the Bonds, and to return the checks of the unsuccessful
bidders.
1.02. The Bonds shall be Issued as fully registered bonds in the aggregate
princlp aamount of $860,000 and shall be dated as of February 1, 1985. The Bonds
shall be In denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof not exceeding
the principal amount of a single maturity, shall be numbered from R-1 upwards and
shall bear interest at the rates sot forth above, payable August 1, 1985 and
semiannually thereafter on each February 1 and August 1, and shall mature on
February 1 in the years and amounts as f0110w31
Year Amount Yepr Amount
1986 $ 90,000 1992 50,000
1987 95,000 1999 100,000
1988 95,000 1994 110,000
198940,000 1995 110,000
1990 45,000 1996 190,000
1991 50,000 1997 115,000
1 CD
Upon original Lttuance the Bonds shall be dated and shall bear interest from
and Including;Fabruary 1, 1985, the nominal date of original issue thereof, payable
on each interest payment date until payment of the principal or redemption price
thereof shall have been made or provided for in accordance with the provisions of
this resolution, whether at maturity, upon redemption or otherwise. Bonds issued
in exchange for Bonds shall be dated as of the date of authentication thereof and
shall bear interest from the date to which interest due and payable has been paid in
full on the Bonds surrendered, except that Bonds issued upon a transfer or exchange
prior to the first Interest payment date shall be dated as of February 1, 1985. If
the stated maturity for the payment of any interest on or principal of any Bond
shall not be a Business Day, then such payment shall be made on the next
succeeding Business Day, with the same force and effect as if made on the stated
maturity, and without additional interest accruing thereon for the period after such
stated maturity. For purposes of this resolution, "Business Day" shall mean any day
other than a day on which banks located in the city in which the principal office of
the Registrar is located are authorized to be closed.
1.03. All Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 1994, shall be subject to
redemption and prior payment in whole or in part In inverse order of maturity, and
by lot within a maturity on February 1, 1993, and any interest payment date
thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. Thirty
days' prior notice of redemption shall be given by mail to the Registrar and to the
registered owners of the Bonds, and notice of redemption will be published in the
manner provided, by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. Upon notice having been so
given, the Bonds or portions of Bonds therein specified shell be due and payable at
the stated redemption date and price with accrued interest to the redemption date, 1
and upon funds for such payment being held by or on behalf of the Registrar for J
such payment on the specified redemption date, interest thereon shall cease to
accrue after such redemption date.
1.04. The principal of the Bonds shall be payable at the principal office of
the Registrar appointed hereunder, upon presentation and .,,mender of the Bonds.
Payment of Interest on the Bonds, If interest on the Bonds i• -ot In default, .,,,ll be
made by check or draft maned (by first-class mail, pt;, 7c preps ., oy the
Registrar on the Interest Payment Date to the person in w .ose name t.,e Bond is
registered on the Record Date at the address of such registered owner shown on
the Bond Register of the Issuer to be kept by the Registrar, or at such other
address as is furnished to the Registrar In writing by such owner. If Interest on the
Bonds Is In default, the Registrar shall prior to making a payment of Interest
establish a Special'Record Date for such payment, which Special Record Data shall
be not more than 15 nor less than 10 days prior to the date of the proposed
payment. Such payment shall then be made by check or draft malted to the person
In whose name the Bond Is registered on the Special Record Date at the address of
such registered owner shown on the registration books or at such other address as is
furnished in writing to the Registrar by such owner. Each payment shall be made
In such coin or currency of the United States of America which at the time of
payment Is legal tender for payment of public and private debts.
Section 2. Form and Execution of the ilonds.
2.01. The Bonds shall be In substantially the following form, with the 1
necessary variations as to number, CMP Number, rate of Interest and date of a/
maturity, the blanks to be properly filled Int
2
UNITE DSTATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
WRIGHT COUNTY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
No. R -
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, SERIES 1985A
Rate Maturity Nominal Date of Oriainal issue CUSIP
February 1, 1985
The City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City'), for value received, hereby
certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to
or registered assigns, the principal sum of
dollars ($ ) on the maturity date
specified above, or, if this Bond is prepayable as stated below, on a prior date on
which it shall have been duly called for redemption, upon the presentation and
surrender hereof, and to pay to the registered owner hereof interest on such
principal sum at the interest rate specified above from the most recent Interest
payment date to which interest has been paid or provided for (provided that, if the
date hereof is the date of original issue, then from such date) on February 1 and
August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1985, until said principal sum Is paid.
Principal and the redemption price are payable in lawful money of the United
States of America at as Registrar, Transfer
Agent and Paying Agent, in Minnesota, or at the offices of
such successor agent as the issuer may designate upon 60 days notice to the
registered owners at their registered addresses (the "Registrar"). Interest shall be
paid on each February 1 and August 1 by check or draft mailed (by first-class mail,
postage prepaid) to the person In whose name this Bond is registered at the close of
business on the preceding January 15 and July 15 (whether or not a business day) at
his or her address set forth on the bond register maintained by the Registrar. Any
such interest not punctually paid or provided for will be paid to the person In whose
name this Bond is registered at the close of business on a special record date
established by the Registrar for the payment of such defaulted Interest.
The Bonds of this series maturing on or after February 1, 1894, are subject
to redemption at the option of the Issuer, in whole or In part in Inverse order of
maturity and by lot within a maturity, on February 1, 1993, and any Interest
payment date thereafter at a price equal to par plus accrued interest. Thirty days'
prior notice of redemption will be given by mail to the Registrar and to the
registered owners, and notice of redemption will be published in the manner
provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475.
This Bond is one of a series of Bondi in the aggregate principal amount of
Eight hundred Sixty'rhousand Dollars ($860,000) of like data and tenor except for
number, Interest rate, denomination, date of maturity and redemption privilege,
and is Issued for the purpose of providing funds to pay the costs of construction of
a fire station and is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the "Resolution")
duly adopted by tite City Council of the Issuer on January 14, 1985 and pursuant to
and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota,
including particularly Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475.
The Boa& of this series are payable from the Series 1985A Bond Fund of
the City (thei,'V ind Fundl. All taxable property within the City of Monticello Is
also subject to>Lhe levy of ad valorem taxes required by law to be levied and
extended if needed for this purpose, without limitation of rate or amount. The
issuance of this bond does not cause the indebtedness of the Issuer to exceed any
constitutional or statutory limitation thereon.
As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth
therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of'the -City kept for that purpose
at the principal office of the Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or
by such owner's attorney duly authorized In writing, upon surrender of this Bond
together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar, duly
executed by the registered owner or such owner's duly authorized attorney. Upon
such transfer and the payment of any tax, fee or governmental charge required to
be paid by the City or the Registrar with respect to such transfer, there will be
Issued in the name of the transferee a new Bond or Bonds of thesame aggregate
principal amount as the surrendered Bond.
The Bonds of this series are issuable only as fully registered bonds without
coupons_in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof not exceeding
the principal amount maturing in any one year. As provided in the Resolution and
subject to certain limitations therein set forth, the Bonds of this series are
exchangeable for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of this series of a
different authorized denomination, as requested by the registered owner or his duly
authorized attorney, upon surrender thereof to the Registrar.
it is hereby Certified and Recited that all acts, conditions and things
required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to
exist, to happen and to be performed in order to make this Bond a valid and binding
general obligation of the City according to its terms, have been done, do exist,
have happened and have been performed In duo form, time and manner as so
required.
This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the
Authentication Certificate hereon shall have been manually signed by a person
authorized to sign on behalf of the Registrar.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Monticello, Minnesota has caused this
Bond to be executed with the facsimile signatures of Its Mayor and its City
Administrator, all as of the Data of Original Issue specified above.
Dated:
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
By
(Facsimile)
Mayor
(SEAL)
And By
(Facsimile)
City Administrator
4
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
S. Consideration of Change Order No. 2 for Project 84-1, County
State Aid Highway #75. O .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you may recall, the City issued a stop work order to the
general contractor, Buffalo Bituminous, Inc., on October 15
for the 4 -lane portion of County Road 75 in Monticello. This
stop work order was issued as it was felt that the general contractor
could not complete even the first phase of the paving on the
4 -lana portion of County Road 75 before foul weather would set
in. During the period after October 15, the contractor continued
working on the overlay work and the shoulder work on the 2 -lane
portion of County Road 75 and the Hart Boulevard and Cedar Street
projects.
The paving was completed on the Cedar Street and Hart Boulevard
projects on Saturday, October 6, 1984. The paving on the east
and west 2 -lane portions of County Road 75 was not completed
until Tuesday. October 30, 1984. There were significant problems
with the bituminous material on the eastern portion of the 2 -lane
section of County Road 75. Approximately 135 tons of the now
bituminous wearing course will have to be milled off the west
bound lane on the east end of County Road 75 and replaced in
1985.
In tho supplementary General Conditions section of the contract
specifications for the project under Section CC -12, Prosecution
of Work, the following completion dates aro specified: "The
catch basins, utilities and bituminous pavement shall be completed
by October 15, 1984. All other work shall be completed by October 31,
1984. All work performed after the specified completion dates
shall be subject to liquidated damages." The amount of the
liquidated damages on this project is $300.00 par calendar day.
In December of 1984, the County Highway Engineer, Mr. Wayne
Fingalson; the Project Engineer, Mr. Charles Lopak; and myself
met with Mr. George McAlpine of Buffalo Bituminous, Inc., to
arrive at a schedule for completion of the work in 1985 and
to go over oomo of the disputed quantities on the project.
In discussing a now completion data for the project, Mr. McAlpine
indicated that if the atop work order had not boon issued for
the 4 -rano portion of County Road 75, ho would havo had approximately
16 days to complete that section of the project. It was mutually
agreed, however, that the project could not have boon completed
in that time frame. Wo also diocuaoed liquidated damages.
Evan though we had issued a atop work order on the 4 -luno portion
of County Road 75, Buffalo Bituminous did not complato the paving
on the 2-lano portion of County Road 75 until 15 days after
the specified October 15 completion data; and the City and County
Cwould have a right to collect 15 days liquidated damages.
-7-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
',- After much discussion, we agreed to allow Buffalo Bituminous
16 days in 1985 during the construction season to complete the
4 -lane portion of County Road 75. Bearing in mind that the
weight restrict!.ons in Wright County may not be removed until
mid-May of 1985, we agreed upon a completion date of June 15, 1985.
We have , however, in no way waived our rights to collect the
15 days liquidated damages due in 1984 and also any liquidated
damages due in 1985.
Change Order No. 2, which is enclosed for your review, changes
the completion date of the contract from October 31, 1984, to
June 15 , 1985.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. This alternative would be to approve Change Order No. 2
setting the new completion date of June 15, 1985.
2. This alternative would be not to approve Change Order No. 2
but to leave the completion date as it is. October 31, 1984.
This alternative does not take into consideration the State -a
recognized halt in a construction season from November 1
to the end of weight restrictions, and this is a State Aid
pro joct.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is t ho recommendation of the Public Worka Director that the
Council approve Change Order No. 2 as outlined in Alternate p1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy oP Change Order No. 2.
C
-B-
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
2021 E. HENNEPIN AVE. r SUITE 238
MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. 55413
CHANGE ORDER NO.2
................
S _0_ RE; Cl.ty„of ,Monticello
Pro]. 84-1. 84-2. 84-3
.Buffalo.AituMIT)Ov.e..IP.S................ Contractor
P.O. Box 126
................................................
.Buffola..14?..55713........... I ................
Dear Sir (s)
Under your contract dated .. August .13...... 18.84. with
CS.ty.of. ftritir0i19..l4innesota Owner for Street......
Conetzuction, 6,Appurtenant, Work, Projecte.,84-1,1,84-2,and 84-3
........................
we aro authorized by Out owner to hereby direct you to .coMleta .all .work .for..tbe......
PrQjcCt..Q6. PAX. Chq .TAX090. Agodl.illo. A9►4.nP0..%4. fo4Pl%4nCe. Nlth..tho. "y43IM11:41
to. complete, work. on, time clause, of. General Condition, 826. Per, the .contract
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
And to add to (deduct from) the contract. In accordance with contract and specification, the nus of
07 ........................................................ /IOD Dollars
There will be an extension of ....---...... days for completion.
The date of completion of contract was 10-31. 18 .84. and now will be .G-15..... to . 95..
A,nou1e of original contract Total Addition* Total Deduction. Contract b Duo
$611,083.50 I 53,841.40 I -0- I $614.924.90
Approved .......................... 10.... Resileetfu0y submitteda
........................................r
f ORA-SCHELEN-MAYERON
Approved .......................... 10.... A ASSOCIATES, INC.
/
........... Fw �:A . ... .
••••••••••• CanlrlttM
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow an Apartment
Building to be Built in Excess of 12 Units - Applicant, Joseph G.
Poehler 6 Associates. (T.E.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On December 10, 1984, the City Council unanimously adopted a
motion granting preliminary approval for a proposed 24 -unit
apartment house complex which would be financed to the Farmers
Home Administration and which would be available to families
with low and moderate incomes. At that meeting, we discussed
the tentative proposed location as being in Marvin Georgo-s
Outlet A. At the January 8, 1985, regular Planning Commission
meeting, the specific request for a conditional use to allow
more than 12 unite was presented. A public hearing was held
with several residents from that area in attendance. Two major
issues came to the surface.
The first issue dealt with the opposition by the neighbors to
the proposed apartment house. Some comments were made that
such a development would lower the value of their property.
Ono audience participant indicated that Mr. George had presented
a different picture of future development than what was, in
fact, being proposed. Some parties indicated that low income
families would generate a less than desirable neighborhood.
A bit of a controversy did develop over some of the statements
that were made, but I believe that portion of the issue has
boon resolved. The not result of the public hearing was that
the residents in the adjoining single family zone were adamantly
opposed to the development of apartment dwellings in the R-3
Zone adjacent to the freeway.
The second issue that arose is of a legal naturo and had to
do with the action taken by the Planning Commission. After
the public hearing was closed and the question of allowing 12
additional unite on an apartment house was discussed among the
Commission members, Commission member Schaffer made a motion
to deny the request for a conditional use, said motion was seconded
by Carlson. At that point. I raised my hand with a point of
order. I indicated to the Commission that if they intended
to deny a conditional use, they would have to stipulate a rationale
or justification for such denial. I attempted to stress that
a conditional use is considered to be a permitted or an allowable
use provided that certain reasonable conditions ars mot. Those
conditions can be assigned by ordinance or at the discretion
of the Planning Commission with the intent to lesson the impact
Of the particular use. After soma discussion, Mr. Schaffer
reaffirmed his motion stating that the request for 12 additional
multiple unite was denied based on the Commission -a desire to
not grant 12 additional units. I again emphasized that without
-9-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
providing a rationale or justification, the Commission's decision
could be ruled to be arbitrary and capricious, and the City
would be open to litigation. The real essence of the matter
is that if a developer requests a conditional use and complies
with all conditions attached to that use, the City must grant
a permit. After the meeting had ended, there was an informal
discussion amongst the Planning Commission members and staff.
While still being distressed over the comment made by a member
of the audience with respect to the quality of residents in
low income housing. I attempted to explain the legal impact
of ruling on any conditional use, not just the conditional use
before them. A rather vigorous debate followed relating to
the extent of discretion that may be exercised when reviewing
conditional uses. The matter remained unresolved and is being
directed to the City Council for their action.
The morning after the Planning Commission, I contacted John
Uban immediately for clarification on conditional uses. I have
also met with the City Attorney requesting that he rule on the
role and function of conditional uses. Both Uban and Pringle
agree that a conditional use under Minnesota law is deemed to
be a permitted use provided that the special conditions intended
to lesson the impact of that use arc complied with. That Is
to say, if conditions that are attached to a use which is determined
to be special, than the permit must be granted. Consequently,
based on the rulings of Dahlgren and Pringle, the Planning Commission
acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and their motion carries
no substance.
This then brings the issue of a conditional use to the City
Council. It strikes me that it is absolutely essential, in
order to avoid litigation, that the City Council not affirm
the ruling of the Planning Commission. What can be done, however,
is that action on the granting of a conditional use be postponed
until ouch time as the proposed subdivision has boon completed
by Mr. George. In the very early planning stages of this project,
Mr. George indicated that he intended to have a preliminary
plat ready to be presented for the January meeting of the Planning
Commission. Staff indicated that would be acceptable and based
on the preliminary plat, we could also consider the conditional
use for the multiple dwelling. As it turns out, Mr. George
woo not available to present a preliminary plat, and the apartment
house developer was loft proposing a development that did not
have a specific site defined. It was, in fact, designed to
moot all land use criteria as stipulated in the zoning ordinance,
but the site in question had not boon opocifically determined
an to location. The Councillo position then could be ouch that
before we can provide adequate review with respect to the typos
and extent of conditions that may be attached to ouch a project,
we must coo specifically which lot is proposed for development.
-10-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
Hence, the rational thing to do at this time is to not deny
the conditional use, but rather to postpone any action until
the Marvin George plat has received at least preliminary approval
and maybe final approval. Realistically, only after the entire
subdivision has been reviewed in terms of quality, traffic,
density, etc., can a legitimate judgement be made with respect
to this apartment house project.
I think it would be legitimate for the Council to ask the question
why should a project be presented prior to the plat being presented.
Utilizing what happened with the Powers and Kjellberg PUD where
Wendy's was granted total approval without a lot designated,
we decided to let Mr. Poehler go ahead and appear as scheduled
oven though Mr. George was not ready to appear. Ordinarily,
staff has never allowed a particular project to come before
either body prior to the approval of the general development
concept (excluding the Wendy's hamburger stand).
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Grant approval to the conditional use requesting 12 additional
units - While this could be done legally, I think it would
be inappropriate considering the fact that we have not seen
the overall plat proposal. By granting approval without
being able to review the overall plat and development prospects
of that plat, the opposing residents may have grounds for
legitimate action against the City.
2. Deny the conditional use - Without a sound rationale or
astablishmont of specific conditions with which the developer
cannot comply, denial would becomo arbitrary and capricious.
Such a decision would open the City to litigation from the
developer. As the City Attorney notes, a finding of fact
must be mado with respect to any denial, and ouch a finding
cannot be made at this time.
3. Postpone action until the completion of the Marvin George
plat - I think this is the most reasonable and beat protects
tho City. I think it can be easily demonstrated that the
City cannot evaluate the impact of a specific development
outside of a general context of overall development, and
that general concept of overall development is lacking at
this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends action as laid out in Item 3.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of December 10 Council mooting minutes (attached at front
of your agenda packet in the minutes section); Copy of comments
from John Uban; Copy of statement from City Attorney Pringle;
Minutes of the January 8 Planning Commiaoion meeting.
Consul6no Planners One Groveland Terraoe (6121377-3536
MinneaDdis
Minnesota 55403
Howard Dshlyen Assodates / Incorporated
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 9 January 1985
TO: Tom Eidem, City Administrator
City of Monticello
FROM: C. John Uban, Principal Planner
RE: The Process and Considerations of a Conditional Use Permit
1. As defined in the Monticello Zoning Ordinance 10-2-2, a conditional
use is defined as follows:
Conditional User A use, which because of special problems
of control and uses, requires reasonable but special, unusual
and extraordinary limitations peculiar to the use for the
protection of the public welfare and the integrity of the
municipal land use plan.
A conditional use permit is defined ass
A permit issued by the Council in accordance with procedures
specified in this Ordinance, as a flexibility device to
enable the Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use or
conditions surrounding it after consideration of adjacent uses
and their functions and the spacial problems which the proposed
use presents.
Further into the Monticello Ordinance 10-22-3, in talking about the
purpose of a conditional use permit, it is stated that the City shall
have a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability
of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health
and safety.
2. Generally in Minnesota the conditional use process is one in which
the use itself is considered a permitted use with reasonable conditions
attached. The conditions then must respond to the special problems
or conditions surrounding a particular use. Typically, these
considerations have been in the form of traffic, parking, screening,
height of buildings, setbacks, trash handling, signs, and other
objective and reasonable considerations. It is then the charge of
the Planning Commission and City Council to analyze the proposed use
�9
MEMORANDUM 9 January 1985
RE: Special Use Permits Page 2
on a particular piece of property and determine at what point the use J
becomes suitable in light of the general welfare, public health, and
safety. These then form the conditions of that approval. This then
adds a degree of control over the use more than what is existing in
the typical ordinance. This control is similar to that of a PUD in
which a variety of special considerations are provided for before the
use is approved. A denial of the use can only be made with the
realization that the conditions necessary to make the use reasonable
cannot be met.
3. Comments on conditional use permits (special use permits in nature)
in the American Planning Law, Land Use, and Police Power publication
by Norman Williams, Jr.:
"Most special -permit arrangements are designed to deal with
two different kinds of problems:
a. site selection within a district: and
b. the adjustement to the individual site.
First, under such arrangements as it is possible to see to it
that certain specific types of uses are not scattered around
through the district, but aro placed only on cites where they
will be useful, and not detrimental. Second, the board's power
to impose conditions makes is possible to minimize the unfavorable
impact upon the immediate vicinity. Special pormit arrangements
arc thus concerned primarily with (a) location, and (b) layout."
4. In reviewing case law involving special and conditional uses the
national trends appear to be vague and give no real direction as to
the appropriate theory and method of constructing and issuing
conditional uses. It is our opinion that the City Council does have
discretionary powers in issuing conditional use permits and our belief
is that in Minnesota the sense of reasonable conditions has prevailed
determining whether or not the permits are issued.
One test might be in looking at the proposed use and the zoning
district in which it is proposed - is there a hatter cite for the
use, and/or is there a bottor site plan that will moot the conditions
expressed in the Ordinance:
5. Without in depth research of case law in Minnesota, a specific test
of the conditional use before you cannot be made. I believe it would
be helpful to the City to establish more detailed guidolinca in which
to addrano future conditional urea so that proponents may have a
clearer understanding of the conditions and standards required by the
City.
UPJ
MEMO TO TOM E1DEM
Question:
Upon a petition for a conditional use, can the petition be denied without
a reason or reasons being given for the denial.
Answer:
No.
Argument:
When a conditional use permit is requested, the planning commission mast
give valid reasons for not allowing the permit. To just vote no and give
no reasons for the dental is conduct termed arbitrary and capricious. Such
arbitrary and capricious conduct is not allowed by the Courts.
If the aggrieved petitioner goes to Court after having his conditional
use permit denied without valid reasons bring given, he will certainly prevail
and the Court will either remand the matter for rehearing or simply order
LhaL Lhr permit be issued. The aggrieved party might very well qualify for
damages also.
Whenever a conditional use permit is denied, valid reasons must be given
for the dental. These reasons must be land use reasons.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/8/85
3. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Reguest to Allow an Apartment
Building to be Built in Excess of 12 Units - Applicant, Joseph G.
Poehler 6 Associates.
Mr. Joe Poehlor was present with his proposal to build a 24 -unit
low to moderate income subsidized houaing apartment building.
Mr. Poehler's apartment building would be a 2 -story building,
16 one-bodroom units and B two-bedroom unite. The one -bedroom
unite would consist of 616 sq. ft., and the two-bedroom units
would be composed of 716 sq. ft. of zoom area.
Tom £idem, City Administrator, explained to Planning Cc,=isaion
members the background of the proposed new plat, that being
Mr. Marvin George of Marvin George Builders, currant owner of
the Outlot A, Country Club Manor Addition in the City of Monticello.
Mr. George will be coming in at the next Planning Commission
• meeting with his proposal to subdivide the 12 plus acres in
Outlet A.
Planning Commiasion Chairman, Jim Ridgeway, questioned the building
setbacks without a proposed lot. Zoning Administrator Anderson
countered that Mr. Poohlor's original project was proposed to
be built on the land in Outlet A adjacent to County Road 39
and Country Club Road. With the initis l!plans as submitted.
the proposed 24 -unit apartment building would moot the minimum
cutbacks an required in R-3 Zoning. Planning Commission Chairman.
Jim Ridgeway, opened the meeting up for any Input from the public.
Tracy Salzwedol, resident of Country Ciub Manor -Addition, questioned
the parking lot location in proportion to the apartment building.
Mr. Poohie r answered the parking lot would be Immediately east
of the proposed apartment building. Mir. isms, Mater, also a current
resident in Country'Club Manor, questioned the type of housing
and the increased amount of traffic by such typo of now development.
citing the increased traffic and with this typo of housing,
generally lover income people, would brieg increased amount
of theft and vandalism to the eros in question. Mr. Tom Hitchcock,
also a resident of Country Club Manor, questioned as the typo
of housing and the devaluation of their residential homes in
the areas property valuations. Mr. Poehlor replied that the
typo of housing would be low to modorate,income subsidized housing
and that the apartment building itself ie of the nature of a
woll-constructed apartment building, that being permanent type
oiding is, being Installed with some ar.terior brick involved
also, that the buildings, by federal government guidelines,
aro of the nature of a bettor quality type of construction and
appearance than have boon in previous years. Tracy Salzwedal
I
I
Planning Commission Minutes'- 1/8/85
questioned the amount of rent. When he was currently renting,
5225.00 vas the minimum that a rental unit could ba Lound Por
and that with the lo -or rental rates for thio apartment building
how it would devalue their property values. Mr. Poehler countered
that the minimum amount of rent to be paid per month would be
$190.00. He also Indicated that that doesn't mean that any
and/or all of the proposed tenants in the building would qualify
for the minimum amount of $190.00 per month rent. Mr. Poehlor
indicated a survey that was conducted back in June of 1986 shoved
that thara vara many working people that were at entry level
working poaitiono.in their jobs with an income of $8,000.00
£0 $12,000.00 par year, with- those types of people moot likely
to rent an apartment in his building. Mr.'Deland Larson presented
to Planning Commission members a signed petition from property
owners in Country Club Manor stating their objection to Mr. Poehler'o
proposed apartment project. Mrs. Rick Haugato indicated that
Mr. Marvin George, the developer, had indicated to Country Club
Manor residents before purchasing their new homes that the area
in question, Outlot'A, vas to be for townhouse'unito only.
I i
Chairman Jim Ridgevey cloned the public hearing at this time.
Notion by Cd Schaffer, seconded by Richaid Carlson, to deny
the conditional use request for an apartment building to be
built in excess of 12 units. Voting in favor of the denial
was Richard Carlson, Ed Schaffer, Jim Ridgevey. Voting against:
None. Abstaining: Joyce Dowling.
JI
l
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
10. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow an Addition
to be Built onto a Non -Conforming Building in a B-3 Zone, Applicant,
Danner Trucking. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Robert Danner, Danner Trucking, would like to have an attached
leanto building to be built onto his existing truck garage for
use of items currently stored outside to be stored in ,this new
building addition. If allowed to put on the building addition,
Mr. Danner would thus have very little,if any,outside storage
that is not under cover other than the excess semi -trailers,
which he would not be using at this time. Mr. Danner's trucking
business is not allowed in the current zoning which exists there,
B-3 (Highway Business Zoning). Thomas Eidem and myself have
discussed with Mr. Danner the possibility of relocating into
a zone where his trucking business is an allowable use. He
has indicated interest in working with the City on a possible
relocation. However, money would be the main stumbling block
in regards to a relocation of Mr. Danner's trucking business.
If he is unable to sell hie property at a reasonable price and
obtain property in a now zone and allow a building to be built
there within a reasonable amount of money, Mr. Danner would
not go along with this. He would like to stay where he is until
L I
he can afford to build a now building on a different site.
Staff le looking at the existing situation of Mr. Danner's property
as blighted property, allowing him to build this addition merely
to clean up most, if not all, of hie outside stored items and
put them in under cover, therefore cleaning up the area considerably
from what it is now. However, the adding onto a non -conforming
building is not allowed by ordinance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow an addition
to be built onto a non -conforming building in a 0-3 Zone.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow an addition to
be built onto a non -conforming building in a 0-3 Zone.
3. Deny the conditional use request to allow an addition to
be built onto a non -conforming building in a B-3 Zone and
notify Mr. Danner that he is to remove the building addition
from hie property.
4. Take legal action against Mr. Danner to have the building
addition removed from his property.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
CCity staff taken the neutral poaition in Mr. Dannor'a conditional
-12-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
use request. We did indicate to Mr. Danner the risk he would
be taking in leaving his partially complete addition up and
that it is a non -conforming use in a B-3 Zone; and should his
conditional use not be approved, he would have to remove the
structure from his building site. By allowing the addition
to be built, we would be cleaning up the currently existing
outside stored blight around his existing building site.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed building addition.
�'J� -':r:ra , c�`./ it 1..� � r�,'I„ •�-...}' 'I ,
'• : ? f ) It { !1 ?l`f/ . t I1.,J t jeK, �, �rr � ��.''Fes.: �.
"lot a
7�1 N �+' r �q "\ f l t•i ti K 1' , , • ' •'1`.�'.-t � • + • f I.'. •I �.
� `�' 1. •""". '• �va�j' ,A' "j,�1 t�iy/ i•r'I' �•,1 IN •a
, �`� �•1J j i . . Q`��. q'o • „� ,fir ���'�1� ft �,• Jff . J/.
....3 1. i 7 �• "•..,.J •�. �. }' .l
HIGHWAY
N0. g4-
1\ r!• tfi t plw' j7�: � 1 '
avotc
F r+�
,;. �` r " Anel R pp�� Q�L y yOn • o�1f �{ •+w 1 '"!' ..
,,. _ ;rte ; Ca add�cionbU dinii' in ,••,� •• '�'+' � ..
r
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
11. Consideration of Making Annual Appointments. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Minnesota Statutes require that at the first meeting of the
new year certain appointments be made. Past practice has been
to discuss a single motion adopting all appointments at the
end of discussion. This strikes me as the most efficient manner.
Hence, I am submitting to you a list of the required appointments
and requesting that at the completion of discussion, a single
motion be passed making the appointments.
a. City Depositories
In ,the past, you have designated three official depositories.
I am suggesting a fourth be added to the list at this time.
The four will be Wright County State Bank, Security Federal
Savings 6Loan,, First National Bank of Monticello, First
Bank of Minneapolis.
b. Official Newspaper
The Monticello Times.
c. Health Officer
Historically, Dr. Maus has served as the City Health Officer.
The duties and service of the Health Officer have boon extremely
limited, and I suggest you simply renew the appointment.
d. Housing and Rodevolopment Authority
Two appointments are required for the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. Ono appointment is to fill the vacancy created
by the exit of Don Cochran. Don's remaining term expires
December 31, 1988. Ken Maus, upon leaving the City Council,
has agreed to accept the final two years of the Cochran
term. The other member whose term oxpiroa December 31 of 1984
is Bud Schrupp. Ito, too, has agreed to accept reappointment
for one more 5-yoar term, taking him through the and of
1989. All other HRA members aro in mid-term and have given
no indication of plans to vacate their office. Consequently,
there aro only two anticipated appointments, those being
Ken Maus for the balance of Don Cochran's term and Bud Schrupp'a
reappointment for a full 5-yoar term.
o. Planning Commission
This Commission also has a vacancy created by the exit of
Don Cochran. The four remaining members, Jim Ridgeway,
Ed Schaffer, Joyce Dowling, and Richard Carlson, have all
-14-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
agreed to accept a reappointment to the Commission. We
are then left with finding a fifth person. Staff has had
a number of names suggested to them, but no one has come
forth as a willing volunteer. The Mayor has also indicated
that he has spoken with various individuals in the community
who, it is my understanding, say they are considering the
appointment. Filling this vacancy at this time is not mandatory,
but it does allow the possibility for tie votes in a critical
matter. Whether or not a fifth person is found to sit on
the Planning Commission, the four names listed above should
be confirmed as reappointments for 1985. Perhaps by Council
meeting time an individual will have come forward who has
indicated a willingness to serve.
f. Representatives to Other Multi -Jurisdictional Bodies
These three appointments are simply a matter of selecting
the City representative to serve on each of the following
bodies: The Community Education Board, the Joint Fire Board,
and the OAA Board.
g. Acting Mayor
Annually, one person on the Council must be stipulated to
act as Mayor in the absence of the elected Mayor. The past
year, this role has been filled by Ken Maus.
h. Parking Committee
This Committee has not met in the last year and has soon
its function dwindle in light of exercising various zoning
restraints to parking. While wo anticipate that this Committee
can be diabandod when the final zoning ordinance amendment
is complete and adoptod, since we are Still in that process,
I would recommend retaining that Committoo as we go through
the process. Hopefully, there will be no need for this
group to moot.
i. Library Board
Thorn are two, 3 -year appointments required for the Library
Board this year. Those people aro Warren Smith and Dr. Joel
Erickson. Both individuals have agreed to accept reappointment
for another torm. The Library Board, by ordinance, requiroe
a Mayoral appointment with Council ratification.
The following appointments are not required to be mado annually
by Statute. Each of them are designated to perform services
on an as-noodod basis and may or may not bo finalized with a
-15-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
contract. in the past, you have made a practice of making these
appointments at the annual meeting.
J. City Attorney
Gary Pringle has filled this office for the City for several
years. He has agreed to accept the appointment for the
upcoming year.
k. Consulting Planner
Howard Dahlgren S Associates has been the City's Planning
Firm for a number of years as well. Again, while this need
not be a formal appointment, such an appointment can be
made at this time.
1. City Auditor
This,, again, is not a required annual appointment but can
be done on an as -needed basis. Historically, we have used
Gruys Johnson to do our audit. Anticipating that the City
may convert its accounting system to computer sometime in
1985, I think it would be beat to prepare bid specifications
for auditing for the year of 1986. Consequently, I suggest
we retain Gruya Johnson for 1985 since they have the complete
financial history of the City. I do think that it will
be wiao to consider preparing specifications after we have
automated our accounting system.
m. Consulting EnAinoor
CSM is the only firm with whom we enter a legal contract
for services. Rather than make the appointment of OSM as
the Consulting Engineer a part of this agenda item, I suggest
that all appointments be made except the Engineer and then
move directly into the next agenda Stam, which is the ratification
of proposed engineering contract. For record keeping purposes,
this provides us with two separate motions: Ono making
appointments, and a second motion authorizing the execution
of a contract for services.
The attached shoat, as supporting data, lists all of the appointments
required for thio ysar-a meeting.
-16-
C.
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
Addendum I to Annual Appointments (T.E.)
Since the preparation of the foregoing agenda supplement, one
person has emerged as a likely candidate for the Planning Commission.
Mr. Richard Martie has indicated that he would be willing to
accept an appointment. It is my understanding that Mayor Crimsmo
first contacted Sally Martie as a potential Commission member,
who indicated she would be interested. Apparently, after discussing
the potential appointment with her husband, it was decided that
Mr. Martie, having experience on the City Council, would prefer
the appointment. Mr. Martie is the only candidate for the position
who has come forth. The decision to appoint rests with the
Mayor and Council.
with respect to the Parking Committee appointments, I am suggesting
that only three members be appointed for the upcoming year.
With Mr. Poirier leaving the business community and Mr. Lund
retiring, I suspect that their contribution to the Parking Committee
would be minimal at beat. Consequently, since our goal is to
eventually regulate parking through the Zoning Ordinance rather
than by committee, I recommend that the Committee be retained
as a 3 -member board until its dissolution. The three members
currently serving are Morn Flicker, Bud Schrupp, and Dennis
Seitz.
-17-
ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS
Official Depositories:
Wright County State Bank
tat National Bank of Monticello
Security Federal Savings 6 Loan
lot Bank of Minneapolis
Official Newspaper:
Monticello Times
Planning Commission:
Jim Ridgeway
Ed Schaffer
Richard Carlson
Joyce Dowling
Richard Hartle
RRA:
Ken Maus (to fill remainder
of Cochran'a term)
Rud Sehrupp
Library Board:
Joel Erickson
Warren Smith
Parking Committoo:
Dennie Seitz
Marn Flicker
Bud Schrupp
Other Jurisdictions:
Community Education %;.'11
Fire Board 1'. . K
OAA p-C4,
Acting Mayor:
City Attorney:
Gary Pringle
Consulting Planner:
Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates
Auditor:
Gruyo Johnson 6 Associates
Health Officer:
Dr. Maus
ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS
Official Depositories:
Wright County State Bank
tat National Bank of Monticello
Security Federal Savings 6 Loan
lot Bank of Minneapolis
Official Newspaper:
Monticello Times
Planning Commission:
Jim Ridgeway
Ed Schaffer
Richard Carlson
Joyce Dowling
Richard Hartle
RRA:
Ken Maus (to fill remainder
of Cochran'a term)
Rud Sehrupp
Library Board:
Joel Erickson
Warren Smith
Parking Committoo:
Dennie Seitz
Marn Flicker
Bud Schrupp
Other Jurisdictions:
Community Education %;.'11
Fire Board 1'. . K
OAA p-C4,
Acting Mayor:
City Attorney:
Gary Pringle
Consulting Planner:
Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates
Auditor:
Gruyo Johnson 6 Associates
Health Officer:
Dr. Maus
C
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends we go with the renewal of OSM contract. I
think it is important to maintain consistency with our Consultants.
Further, comparatively speaking, we are in the same financial
area as other cities who are using different firms.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the letter from OSM introducing the contract revisions;
Copy of the 1985 fee schedule.
-19-
ORR-SC HELEN •MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting F12YI17CCIS
LanclSurvcyors
December 27, 1984
Mr. Thomas Eidem, Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Engineering Services Agreement
Dear Mr. Eidem:
Pursuant to Article 9 of the Contract for Engineering Services between the City
of Monticello and OSM. I am enclosing for your consideration a copy of the
revised schedule of hourly rates for 1985. These hourly rates are applicable in
1985 for work performed on an hourly basis as set forth in the Engineering Agree-
ment.
As you may recall, we made a change last year from a 2.25 multiplier for field
personnel to 2.15. The salaries for engineers and supporting technical staff
have increased approximately 5% over 1984, and the multiplier remains at 2.25.
Again, the hourly rates under this category are the maximum rates to be charged,
even though the employee assigned to the project may be earning a higher salary.
The hourly rate for Construction Observer and Survey Crew(s) has increased by
approximately 5.451 over 1984 to reflect salary increases this past year. The
multiplier remains at 2.15, and the rate shown is a flat rate for this category
of work.
All costs related to word processing, clerical, printing, and mileage charges are
again considered in our u verhead, and no billing will be made for these support
services in 1985.
We look forward to continuing our good working relationship in 1985 with the City
of Monticello in providing professional services as your city engineer and
engineering consultant. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
ASSOCIATES, INC.
�L�
John P,
Vice President
JPB:nlb
EnclosureQfT
2021 fast Hannepin Avenue • Suite 238 Minnoapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 612 / 331. 8660
ORR•SCHEIEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors 1985 FEE SCHEDULE
Schedule of hourly salary costs to he multiplied by 2.25 to determine hourly fee.
Principal
$34.50
Project Manager
27.75
Project Engineer, Surveyor, Planner
22.50
Engineer, Surveyor, Planner
19.00
Designer
21.00
Technician
16.75
Technician 1
14.75
Schedule for hourly salary costs to be multiplied by 2.15 to determine hourly
fee.
Construction Observer $19.00
3 -Man Survey Crew 38.00
2 -Man Survey Crew 30.00
"Salary cost" is defined as salaries (including sick leave, vacation or holiday
pay applicable thereto) of personnel for time directly chargeable to the project,
plus unemployment and payroll taxes, employer's contribution for social security,
employee's insurance, retirement benefits, and medical and surgical benefits. The
actual salary cost is dependent upon the hourly rate of the employee assigned to
the project, except that Construction Observers and Survey Crews rill be charged
at the flat rate shown above.
All costs, such as vehicle mileage, survey equipment and vehicles, computer ser-
vices, word processing, clerical, printing and reproduction costs are included in
the hourly fee.
The fep, for attendance at regular council meetings will be $40.00 per meeting.
Statements issued monthly will include names of personnel associated with the
work and a summary of time spent.
�1
2021 Cost tiennepin Avonuo . Suite 238 • Minncopolis, Minnesota 55413 • 6121331-.8660
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
13. Consideration of Maintenance Agreement with Wright County for
County State Aid Highways in Monticello. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For many years now the City of Monticello has each year entered
into an agreement with Wright County to maintain certain County
State Aid Highways in Monticello. In the past few years our
amount of maintenance under the contract has been reduced to
the following:
CSAH 39 - From the Public Works Building to CSAH 75 (Broadway) -
258 of snow and ice removal.
CSAH 58 - Walnut and 7th Street from CSAR 75 to Highway 25 -
All maintenance.
CSAR 59 - Locust and 4th Streets, from CSAH 75 to Highway 25 -
All maintenance.
CSAH 75 - From Willow Street on the west to County Road 118
on the east - snow and ice removal only.
The County reimburses us each December an amount based upon
the typos of maintenance we do and the number of road miles
calculated at the County's actual cost per mile for the previous
year. Wo, therefore, receive a chock in December of 1984 for
the work porformod in 1984 but based on County coots in 1983.
We generally receive between 54,000 and $5,000 for the above
maintenance. The County raimbureos us for all typoo of maintenance
that we do, with the exception of snow removal by hauling.
A copy of the proposed 1985 Maintenance Agreement is enclosed
for your review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Thin alternative would be to approve the Maintenance Agreement
no pr000ntod.
2. Thio alternative would be to release the maintenance back
to Wright County for all or a portion of the above referenced
streets. Thin alternative may not be feasible, as the level
of cervico, in my opinion, would drop.
3. This alternative would be to request o higher dollar amount
par mile than is currently being offered by the County.
Thin alternative, I believe, would not bo successful, as
the County aetabliahes their coots and uses those coats
to administer contracts with various townships and municipalities
throughout the County.
-20-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
I C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that you
approve the 1985 Maintenance Agreement as outlined in Alternative 01.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Maintenance Agreement.
04
1985
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS A :REEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Monticello
hereinafter referred to as the "City" and the County of Wr^'9ht hereinafter
referred to as the "County".
WHEREAS Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes, permits the County to designate
certain roads and streets within the City as County State Aid Highways, and
WHEREAS, the City has concurred in the designation of the County State Aid
Highways within its limits as identified in County Board's resolution@ of August
28, October 8, November 5, December 3, December 27, 1957 and January 7, 1958, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed to the best interest of all parties that the duties and
responsibilities of both the City and the County as to maintenance on said County
State Aid Highways to be clearly defined;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED with regard to said County State Aid Highway
maintenance:
That the City will be responsible for routine maintenance on the following
highways.
A. CSAH 39 - From City Public Works Bldg to W. Jct of CSAH 75 0.32 miles
B. CSAH 58 - From TH 25 to CSAH 75 0.465 miles
C. CSAH 59 - From Walnut Street to CSAH 75 0.234 miles
D. CSAH 75 - From Willow Street to E. Jct of CSAH 39 3.74 miles
(Includes four lane portion) TOTAL 4.759 miles
That the routine maintenance shall consist of the following for the above listed
sections.
A. (CSAH 39) - 25% of the snow and ice removal
B.6 C. (CSAH 58659) - Patching, crack -sealing, drainage maintenance, snow
and ice removal, and tree trimming 6 brush removal.
D. (CSAH 75) - Snow and ice removal
That when the City deems it desirable to remove snow by hauling, it shall do•
so at its own expense.
That the County will be responsible for all other maintenance.
That in December of 19_x_, the City shall receive payment from the County
for their work. This amount shall be based on the 1984 average annual cost per mile
for routine maintenance.on Muncipal County State Aid Highways. The average annual
coat per mile will reflect only those costs associated with the areas of routine
maintenance for which the City is responsible.
ADOPTED:
19
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution
duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council of said City on
19
City Clark
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED:
COUNTY OF Name of City
Chairman of the Board
ATTEST:
V ►IiG �lt _.. tl CPR. J
t G1ti.am [GM.
i W RM IELZGOp
1GUGae
+.tEGtCGt4
!.U"TGaD CDL
A
Gate C"n
MAP OF
IOM'ICELLO
LIGHT COUNTY
POP.3111
Score
I s �
1 a �
T �; fMMY18 •AK.
Z
1 p C 5 • •'o.
I ,
DUeo•9 ea i
u
�-e "\W
Council Agenda - 1/16/85
l 14. Consideration of Supporting the School's Recjucst of Wright County
for Traffic Control at the High School. W.S.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello School Board passed a resolution at their January 7,
1985, meeting requesting that the County make three changes
in the speed limits and signing along County Road 75 in front
of the High School. In addition, they requested that the County
install an overhead, double blinking amber light east of the
Junior High School parking lot. A copy of the resolution and
their map is enclosed for your review.
The school has made the request of Wright County to make the
proposed, changes. The City is not normally involved in requests
of this nature between the school and the County. The school
has requested our support, however, in hopes that a request
coming from two governmental bodies in Monticello may be met
more favorably by the County and/or State Traffic Engineer if
need be.
Some merit can be seen in the school's request for the speed
limit and signing changes. The High School is located in a
transition speed zone, and the proposed changes may, indeed.
have soma affect on the speed of the vehicles in that area.
!/ Their map is a little unclear as to the 1/5 mile warning sign
l� on west bound incoming County Road 75. The advance warning
sign is currently located near the Bondhus Tool Company. I
understand the request is that this sign be a 30 mph sign and
a now advanced warning sign be located 1/5 of a mile furthor
oast near the Hoglund property.
The request for the overhead, double blinking amber light may
or may not be as effective as the speed and signing changes.
The Council previously has discussed the existing flashing lights
near the Elementary School and the High School, and the past
consensus has boon that they do little to affect the traffic
flow in the area. I boliovo the school fools that an overhead
light hanging on a cable may be more noticeable than those on
the shoulder of the road. This may or may not be the case.
I do know the County has had a significant amount of problems
in kooping up the and median marker near the proposed light
location. This markor is knocked down at least five or six
times a year. It is poseiblo that soma typo of light mountod
on tho and of the median may servo a dual purp000 such as marking
a crosswalk and marking the beginning of the median for that
4 -lana portion of County Road 75. Such a light would be much
casior to maintain than one dangling 20 foot in the air.
.22-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. This alternative would be to support entirely the school's
request of the County for the four items as listed in their
proposed resolution.
2. Alternative #2 would be to support the speed limit and signing
changes but to not support the overhead, double blinking
amber light.
3. This alternative would be to support the speed limit and
signing changes and a combination median marker and crosswalk
light.
4. This alternative would be not to offer any support or ratification
of the school resolution and let the school deal with the
County on their own.
5. Endorse the request to alter speed limit regulations but leave
signing layout and design to traffic professionals.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
No strong recommendation comes from staff; however, we tend to agree
with a position similar to Y5.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed resolution and map from the Monticello Public Schools.
-23-
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Board Member Jim Herbst moved adaption of the following
resolutions:
Be it resolved that the Board of Education of Independent
School District No. 882, Monticello, Minnesota hereby
recommends that the Highway Department of Wright County
make the following adjustments in the posting of speed
limit signs on County Highway 15 past the Junior -Senior
High School.
1. That an additional 30 MPH sign be posted
between the two Junior High parking lot
driveways as indicated on the enclosed
drawing for eastbound traffic, and;
2. That the 55 MPH sign for eastbound traffic
be moved in an easterly direction to a point
immediately before Bondhus Tool Company
driveways, and;
3. That a 30 MPH sign be posted immediately
across from the 55 MPH sign west of Bondhus
Tool Company for traffic approaching Monticello
and proceeding in a westerly direction, and;
4. That an overhead double blinking amber light
be installed east of the Junior High School
parking lot.
Rationale for the proposals listed:
The enactment of the enclosed resolution will serve the purpose
of providing a safer traffic flow past the Junior -Senior High
School and Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. At the
present time, eastbound traffic has accelerated to 55 MPH by
the time it reaches the Junior High parking lot even though
this is still technically a 30 MPH speed zone. Westbound
traffic entering Monticello under present conditions does
not begin slowing down until they are in the vicinity of
Washington Street. By relocating speed zone signs as
recommended in this resolution, the Board of Education of
Monticello Public Schools feels traffic problems will be
greatly diminished in the general area of the Junior -Senior
High School.
This resolution was seconded by Jay Morrell with -the
following vote being reached:
In Favor: All
Against: None
Abstained: None
Absent: Don Doran
January 7, 1985 - Regular Meeting of the Board of Education, Monticello
Public Schools.
D
J�G7 �ot nle Ss mPN Sign
41
Gj
�°
fZir»faer p✓erhe,,41
J�
SSmPN stg�n
�i
.� o
eQPerfcexanlrt�4—
okesr n
meq•
y•Zh � 6�
14
r.
t+.bs1�;,7,�nr►
� liJo�r�r,�.LOron
3
uc dace}
41
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
15. Consideration of 1985 Sever Rate Increase. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Due to the increase in cost of operating the wastewater Treatment
Plant facility, laboratory, and the collection system, it will
be necessary to raise sever rates in 1985. The actual operation
and maintenance budget for 1984 was $236,670.00. The proposed
budget for 1985 is $255,250.00. There is a difference between
the two budgets of $18,580.00.
Of this $18,580.00, 28.78 is due to an increase in personal
services primarily through the addition of temporary salaries.
Approximately 6.89 is an increase in operating supplies. Another
38.79 is an increase in other services and charges such as utilities
and taxes. The last item, or 25.89 of the increase, is in capital
outlay. Last year capital outlay was not budgeted in the Sewer
Fund.
In preparing a sever rate data sheet, we used the formulas incorporated
into our user ordinance. We need to raise $255,250.00 for the
operation and maintenance of the WWTP. All of the credits and
excess revenues over operation and maintenance for 1984 total
$20,450.00. This is without any CETA reimbursement. Using
thosecredits, we need to raise 5234,800.00 from users of the
WWTP and collection system for 1985. Based upon all of the
available data as far as loadings to the WWTP, projections from
industry, and estimated residential and commercial usage, our
existing sower rate would only raise $219,967.00 in user fees
for 1985. This would be $14,833.00 short.
utilizing the formulas in the ordinance to make up the expected
shortfall, we come up with the following rates:
Not Change
1983 1984 1985 Change Over 2 Yearn
Flow 50.680/100 cu.ft. $0.641/100 cu.ft. $0.686 Up 7.39 Up 1.29
BOD .133/pound 0.072/pound $0.095 Up 31.99 Down 28.69
TSS .183/pound 0.160/pound $0.185 Up 15.69 Up 1.69
Combined
Rate Rea.,
Com., 6
Inst. 51.28/100 cu.ft. $1.25/100 cu.ft. $1.29/ Up 3.29 Up 0.89
100cu.ft.
The actual workshoet as to how the above figures were determined
is enclosed for your review. The combined rate for residential
and commercial and institutional users is proposed at $1.29/100 cu.ft.
for 1985. This is a very slight increase and should not put
a significant burden on any of the users. The industrial rates,
those individual rates for Flow, DOD, and TSS, fluctuate more
-24-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
significantly with changes in loading at the WWTP. Although
the industrial rates are up, the overall rate itself is significantly
lower than that of two years ago.
If we are fortunate enough to obtain some type of CETA or reimbursement
from some other government program for the part-time or seasonal
help at the WWTP for 1985, the surplus would be credited to
users in the 1986 rates.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
No alternative actions are presented, as the City's user charge
ordinance requires that we raise the amount necessary to operate
and maintain the WWTP, lab, and collection system from the users
of those facilities in a fair and equitable manner utilizing
formulas provided.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the
City set the 1985 sanitary saver rates, effective January 1, 1985,
to be as follows:
Flow
BOD
TSS
Combined
Rate (Roo,
Com., 6
Inot.)
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
$0.688/100 cu.ft. ($B minimum billing
for let 500 cu.ft.)
50.095/pound
50.185/pound
$1.29/100 cu.ft. ($8 minimum billing
for lot 500 cu.ft.)
Sower Rate Workahoot 1985 (No CETA Reimbursement).
-25-
SEWER RATE WORKSHEET 1985 (NO CETA ftEIMBURSMEM
C1. 1985 Budget for Operation 6 Maintenance.
1. Collection System
$ 34,650 13.6% Total
2. Plant 6 Lab
$220,600 66.4% Total
5255,250
3. Credits/Debits:
1985 SpecialRevenues
S 9,550
1984 excess Revenue Over
Operation 6 Maintenance
(estimated)
9 11,500
1983 Actual Excess va.
Est. Emcees
,
(16,784 - 15,824)
3 (960)
S 20,450
4. User Pees:
9255,250 0 6 M
-9 20,450 Credits
$234,600 User Poco Reg. for 1985
A. Collection System 13.6% of 9234,600 - 9 31,933
B. Plant 6 Lab 86.4% of $234,800 - 9202,867
Unit Costs
1. Plow - 100% Col Syo. Cost + 400 Plant 6 Lab,
Costs:
100% of $ 31,933 - 9 31,933
40% of 9202,867 - 9 81,147
TOTAL FLOW COSTS 9113,080
Estimated Billable /low for 1985 - 121 Million 041lons or
16,441,850 cu -It. •'
Cost - 9113,060 divided by 164,438.5 - $0.668 por.100 cu.tt.
2. BOD - 30% Plant 6 Lab Costs
30% of 9202,867 - 9 60,860
1984 Estimated Total Pounds of 000 - 640,240 lbs.
6 60,860 divided by 640,240 lbs.'- 60.095/pound
3. TSB - 300 Plant 6 Lab Costa
30% of 9202,867 - 6 60,860
1984 Estimated Total Pounds of Suspended Solids - 328,965 lbs.
C9 60,860 divided by 328,965 lbs. - 80.185 /pound
1
��
S
erer Rate Worksheet 1985 (Mo Cote Reimburement)
Paps 2
III. Industrial Loadings Estimate 1985
Ji
Wrightco 20.0 MG 225,0000 100,0000
NSP 2.4,NG 3,0000 2,0000
Bondhus Tool 0.2 MG 2500 1700
TOTALS 22.6 MG 228,2500 102,1700
Costs: 22.6 MG 0 5.688/100 cu.ft. - S20,787
228,250 lbs 0 S•095/pound - $21,684
102,170 The 0 5.185/pound - S18,901
TOTAL S61,372
IV.
Residential, Commercial 6 Institutional Loadings Estimate for
1984.
FLOW: Total Billable Flow All Users 123.0 MG
Leve get. Industrial Flow 22.6 MC
- Ree., Cm.,6 Inst. Flow 100.4 MG
100.4 1%G X .688/100 cu.ft. - S 92,347
BOD: Total BOD - 640,240
Lose get. Ind. DOD - 228,250
- Ree., Cm. 6 411,990
Inst. BOD
411,990 The X 00.095 - 5 39,139
TSB: Total TSS - 328,965
Leas get. Ind. TSS - 102,170
- Res.. Cm., 5 226,795
Inst, TSS
226,795 lbo. X $0.185 - S 41,957
TOTAL REB.. CON., S INET. COSTS: 5173,443
RATE: $173,443 divided by 100.4 14C (Total Rea., Com., 6 Inat.
Plow)
or 134,225/100 cu.ft. - 1.29 per 100 cu.ft.
RATE COMPARISON
Net Change
1983 1984 1985 Chane Over
2 Years
Flow
50.680/100 cu.ft. $0.641/100 cu.ft. $0.688 Up 7.3% Up
1.2%
BOD
.133/pound 0.072/pound 50.095 Up 31.9% Down
28.6%
TSS
.183/pound 0.160/pound $0.185 Up 15.6% Up
1.6%
Combined
Rete Res.,
]
Com., i
J
Inst.
$1.28/100 ou.tt. $1.29/100 cu.ft. $1.29/ Up 3.2% Up
0.8%
100cu.tt.
-Note. Information provided by Grog Pauses of Wrightao, Inc. On 12/17/84
1
/S,1
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
16. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement
with Control Data Corporation and Other Minnesota Coalition
of Outstate Cities on a Joint Comparable Horth Study. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Perhaps the most pressing issue to face the City in 1985 will
be the establishment of position descriptions and conformity
to the comparable worth legislation adopted in 1984 by the Minnesota
Legislature. Comparable worth basically means the value of
work measured by the skill, effort, responsibility, and working
condition normally required in the performance of that work.
The concern over comparable worth rose several years ago when
it was discovered that female dominated classes (for example,
secretarial pools) were paid substantially less than male dominated
classes that carried little or no more responsibility (for example,
custodial workers). Historically, employers tended to pay males
a higher wage under the notion that they were the primary wage
earner for a family. Females, on the other hand, were seen
as secondary wage earners and were simply paid lose money for
the tasks they performed. Other pay equity discrimination areas
when famalos would be promoted to management level but would
receive substantially less than their male counterpart in the
same or a similar job. The State Legislature in 1984 passed
Session Law, Chapter 651, to become Minnesota Statute 471.991,
which requires that all local governments and political subdivisions
establish an equitable compensation relationship among its employees.
In order to comply with the now Statute, the City of Monticello
must perform in-depth evaluations of ovary position within the
City, and must submit said report to the Commissioner of Employee
Relations by October 1, 1985. Basically, this means that we
must astablioh a numerical rating system that -oflocte on ovary
took that an employee performs under the general guideline of
their job description. The job descriptions that we have written
are not acceptablo. when each position has been numerically
rated, then the point values are totaled up to create a position
rank. Pooitiono with similar total pointe by state law should
bo receiving similar compensation. This dome not moon they
have to rac vivo identical dollars, but it does moan that pay
must be comparablo/oquitablo.
Perhaps ovo ratating the obvious, I do with to clarify the difference
between comparablo worth and competitive worth. Comparablo
worth, as I have described above, is like pay for like positions
within the boundaries of a given employer. That is to say,
if an oxacu tivo secretary has the same point value as a street
maintonanco worker, than within the boundaries of our payroll,
they should be receiving comparable wages. Compotitivo worth,
on the otho r hand, compares identical positions between two
separate omployars. An oxamplo of thio would be to compare
the wage of the City -a Executive Secretary with an oxacutivo
-26-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
secretary at eondhus Corporation. In the upcoming year, we
are not dealing with competitive worth, although this concept
will come up as we complete our position evaluations and determine
any pay scale adjustments that have to be made.
I see the process involved in complying with the comparable
worth legislation as being highly technical and extremely delicate
with respect to avoiding potential litigation. In that each
and every position within the City must be ranked and evaluated,
I also see the process as extremely time consuming in order
to meet the October deadline. As has been done in the past
for wide sweeping legislation, one organization has taken the
lead to encourage joint efforts and cooperative production of
position evaluations. The Metropolitan Area Managers Association
(MAMA) initiated discussion on comparable worth approximately
8 months ago. It was their position that it would be far more
cost efficient to engage a consultant as a joint group to prepare
the evaluations, since so many city positions are similar from
city to city. At approximately the same time, the Minnesota
Coalition of Cities was, independently of MAMA, also considering
engaging a consultant for a joint effort. The Coalition, while
deliberating on which direction to take, made contact with MAMA
to investigate the possibility of joining their, consulting effort,
and making this a truly state wide cooperative effort to comply
with State Logialation. The Coalition of Outstato Cities has
boon invited by MAMA to join the joint process. MAMA has selected
as their consultant the Control Data Corporation business advisore
to perform the individual job evaluations. The coat to the
City of Monticello would be a $3,000.00 base foe plus $25.00
par employee. Assuming we may have to rank 25 individual positions,
our total coat to participate in this program would be $3,625.00.
This translates to approximately $145.00 per employee. I find
thin number to be extremely reasonable for the typo of quality
and protection that the City would gain by doing this in a joint
effort.
Unlike the earlier roeolution that came before the Council relating
the Coalition of Outatato Cities and their efforts to lobby
the State Legislature on Local Covornmant Aid, this is not a
lobbying effort, but rather a production effort intended to
create comparable worth job evaluations that will be in full
conformance with the law. This to an area not within the realm
of the League of Minnesota Cities. it is simply a joint powers
agreement meant to croato a top quality product at the least
amount of coat. By law, each city has to prepare its own comparable
worth study. The proposed method is simply a way for a group
of cities to combine their efforts to create one comparable
worth study that can be applicable for each of the participating
cities. It is not unlike the joint police recruitment system
utilized by the motro area communities or liko other joint municipal
airports, Gower ayatama, etc.
-27-
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution authorizing payment of $3,625.00 to
join the Minnesota Coalition of Outstate Cities and the
Metropolitan Area Managers Association in the creation of
a comparable worth study for Monticello - Again, because
this to a very technical and highly delicate matter, I think
the best results can come from a joint effort of this nature.
I further think it will be the most cost effective.
2. Do not adopt the resolution, authorize the City to begin
its own comparable worth report - Because of the technical
and delicate nature of this, I would assume that the City
will elect to engage, at least in part,a consultant to assist
as well as a labor attorney to review and assist. Not being
an attorney, I do not feel qualified to make the kind of
judgements necessary for a document that will have to withstand
potential litigation. The Coalition and MAMA have also
made it clear that there will be substantial fees for buying
or borrowing the results of their efforts by cities who
choose not to participate in the beginning. Lastly, I think
that the staff time put into trying to create this typo
of technical report would be substantial and could have
a negative impact on the regular performance of duties within
City Hall.
�I
3. Do not do o comparable worth evaluation and report - I don't
sea thin as a real alternative. Any political subdivision
not complying with the Statute will be open to litigation
from the Attorney General's Office for discriminatory employment
practices. The Statute further orders that the Commissioner
of Employee Relationo report to the State Legislature by
January 2, 1986, ovary political subdivision that has not
complied. I suspect that ouch a report could load to a
withholding of any non -complying city's Local Government
Aid and other financial assistance. Conoequently. I don't
believe that non-complionco to an alternative.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Still emphasizing the technical and delicate nature of this,
I recommend that wo adopt the resolution to join the Coalition
of Outstato Citios and MAMA to have the comparable worth study
done jointly. I think the final report will be of a much greater
quality than if we did it alone and will be for more reliable
within the court system and under State Employee Relations review.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A copy of 1984 Session Lawn, Chapter 651, Comparable worth Legislation;
Copy of a memo from MAMA to all managers and administrators
and elected officials on comparable worth; Copy of tho minutes
of the December mooting of the Minnesota Coalition of Outotato
Cities; Copy of tho resolution proposed for adoption.
-28-
Ch, 650 71A LEGISLATURE
valid and confirmed, and all obligations incurred and to be
�e
_
-_-_--»»---------------'_-----"'-'_______------------'
urred and contracts made and to be made pursuant to thong
_-__-----
--------------- -----------------------------------
actions and proceadings are valid and binding.
1
sec. S. IZ"I=TIOL DATL.I
This act is effective the day after final enact-ent.
S-
A=rvnd Tray L I964
"'• .
LOCAL GOVERN5m%T—EQL'PPABLE
CONIPF-NSA71ON HELATIO\SHIPS
CHAPTER 6S1
H.Y. No 1766
AN ACT
relating to local QQoovwernment; requiring every
political sW dieiaion t0 establish equitable
caensation relationships among its employees;
a
peraittimqq the town of oindeaere to have the powers of
a metrppmlitan area town: proposing new lav coded in
MinnesatS Statutes, Chapter 671.
IT EKW= SS TB3 {ZGISIATUM OT THE STATE Or M:NNESOTA: '�
Section 1. 1671.!911 IDETINITIONS.I
S-sbdivision 1. (Tfloa.) For the purposes of this act, the,
foilawing terms have the meanings given the=..
Sibd. 2. (BALAlr® C;A S.I 'Balanced class' ceans an?
class in which no more then SO percent of the members are male,
mril no more than 70 percent of the members are fenale.
Subd. 1. ICWAaABI3 saorla vALUL.) 'Co=parable work value',
means the value of work measured by the ski11, effort,
reepersiDility, and working conditions normally reauired in tCe
Fe rf ofme.leg of the work.
1981 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 651
Subd. a. (CLASS.) *Class- means one or more positions that
have similar duties, responsibilities, and general
Qualifications necessary to perform the duties, with comparable
selection procedures used to recruit employees, and use of the
same compensation schedule.
Subd. S. ILQUITAHLZ COMPrYSATION RELATIONSHIP.) 'Eauitable
compensation relationship' mean! that a Drimary consideration in
negotiating, establishina. recommendina, and aonrovina total
compensation is Comparable work value in relationship to other
employee positions within the political subdivision.
Subd. 6. 1rDIAI.L-DOMINATED CLASS.] 'remale-dominated class'
meant any class in which 70 percent or more of the members are
female.
Subd. 7, (MALE-DOMINATM CLASS.] 'Male-daminated class'
means env class in which 80 percent or more of the members are
male.
Subd. s. (POSITION.] 'Position' means a group of current
duties and responsibilities assigned or delegated by a
supervisor to an individual.
Sec. 2. (671.9921 (EQUITABLZ COMPT?ISATION RELATIONSHIPS.]
Subject to sections 179.61 to 179.76 but notvithstandinq
any other is. to the contrary, ever7 political subdivision of
this state shall establish equitable compensation relationships
between female -dominated, male-daainated, and balanced classes
of amolovees. In all interest arbitration held pursuant to
sections 179.61 to 179.76, the arbitrator shall fo:low the
sa'jitable compensation relationship standards established under
sections 1 to 10. This section will become effective August 1,
1967.
Citi. 651 :3rd LEGISLATURE
A. -
Sec. J. (671.9911 (CCI4PZnATjCX RSLATIMMIPS ()F
ITIt1Ab. )
SPbdlvlsiom 1. (ASSIIRARa OF RZJLSCKASLE RELATIMMSIP.) In
preparing management meactistion Positions for co=Pensation
'e
established thrOM-1 collective bargaining under chapter 179and-_:
in establishing. retomze:sdino, and evorovina compensation plans
for employees of political subdivisions not reoresented by an _i_t.ftl
exclusive reoresentative under chapter 179. the respective
"
Political s•,abdivislgn a$ the Public e=plover, as defined in'��
section 179,63. subdivision a. or. where appropriate, the
u
Hirnesota merit systep. shall assure that:
ti} crsensatign for positions in the classified civil
service. .:rclassif i eC civil service. aa,. .anacement Deer
reasonable relationship to one another:
(2) c"sensstiob for positions bear reasonable relationship-
=.-.
to similar Positions outside of that particular oolitical
f::bdivision•s employment; and
(3) cor'if Yation for positions within the !=plover's work
or--* bear reasonable relationship *--*no related Job classes and'
4==no various levels within the sa=e ccc=etianal group.
S• et. 2. (REAS5WtZ RELATIONSE.P LiF:h^ra.3 For purposes
of subdivision 1, eacpensation for positions bear 'reasonable
relationship' to one another if:
(1) the compensation for Positions which recuire coroarable
?
Ski!', effort, responsibility, workine ccnditicns, and other
relevant work related criteria is coparable; and
;
(2) the co-Pensation for Positions which recuire differinc
skill, effort, reronsibility, workinq condicions, and other
�-
relevant work related criteria is proportional to the skill,
19.44 REGULAR SPSSION Ch, 651
+'• efforts conditions, and other relevant;
a�
,cork related criteria rewired.
i
Sec. 4. (471.996) (JOB EVA131ATIOY SFSM- )
Lven political subdivision shall use a job evaluation
s7st to in order to determine the comparable work value. The
political subdivision mat usr the System of some other public
employer in the state. Sach political subdivision *hall most ,
and confer with the exclusive representatives of their employees
on the development or selection of a job evaluation system..
Sec. S. .1471.995) (REPORT_AVAILABILITT.) '
ffotvithstandinq Section 13.37, every political subdivision
shell submit a report containinq the results of the iob,
evaluation system to'the exclusive representatives of their,
amployees to be used by both parties in contract neaotiationi,.
At a minimum, the reoort'to *ach exclusive representative $hall
identify the female -dominated classes in the 7olitical
subdivision for which compensation inecuity exists, based on the
comparable work value- and all data not on individuals used tc
support these findings.
Sec. 6. (471.9961 (PRIVATE DATA.)
txceot as provided in section S. the results of any for
evaluation system established under section 4 and the reports
compiled under section S shall be considered personnel date as
defined in section 13.43, subdivision 1, and treated as private
data under section 13.41, subdivisions 4 and S, until July 31
1967. 'rhe director of mediation services is authorized to
release the Job evaluation system results and reports to labor
organizations as provided under section 13.43. subdivision 6.
Sec. 7. (471.9965) )EFFECT ON OTHER LAW-)
Uncerscoried and w•w.e..a are a. h. -n ,n enraged mat
Ch. 651 73rd LEGISL4TU'RE
Sec. J. (47I.9933 (COXpE k -los RELA-IOiim ps or
ITIOcs.s
-
Cc ivlsiaz I. (ASSURA7rQ Or RTJLiOSADLE AEL1TIO3=1P.) In
pr"arina aanaeement neootiatfon positions for casxnsation
- established tbrooab t»Slac[ly barasfnina under chapter 179•nd-`_.."
+
in establisbi�na. recaao
endino. and epravino coepensation plans
for afrplayees of Political subdivisions not represented by an
exclusive representative under chapter 179. the respective
_
political subdivision as the public e=lover. as defined in
i
section 179.63, subdivision 4. or, where appropriate. the
A
Minnesota Cerit system. *ball assure that:
-
y
(1) C32"ns4tion for Positions in the classified civil - _
.ry
ser.iee, unclassified civil service. and naaacee:ea: Dear ..
_
reasonable relotionshio to one ancther:
(t) c=Pensatioh for positions bear reasonable relationshio-
-.7
to sipiler positions outside of :hat particular Political
subdivislon's etrDloyme-..t: and
'-
(3) eo=pensation for positions within the enalover's work
r
oro* beer reasonable relationship a_onq related iob classes and°._
n.;.ahp various levels within the save ocC'petional croup.
S fid. 2. (RZASOXAS= RYJI-IOVSH:P OEF:i.^s0.) for purposes
of subdivision 1, cozroeasatien for positions bear *reasonable
relationship" to one another if:
.
111 :he cc pensation for positions which reCuire C=arabl*
sk511, @!fort, responsibility. workinc conditions, and other
relevant work related criteria is ca=oarable: and
_.
(1) the cc=pensation for positions which reeuire differing
skill. @.'fort, responsibility. workinq condiciors, and other
relevant work related criteria is proportional to the skill.
1984 REGULAR gFSSIO%' Ch, 651
s=
effort, rss2onaibi13ty, Wkinq conditions. end other relevant
? work related criteria required.
b
See. 4. (471.994) (JOD EVALUATION SYSTEM.)
toot? political Subdivision shall use a job evaluation,
system in order to determine the comparable work value. Thi
r-
7.
political Subdivision may usr the system of same other public
employer in the state. Each political subdivision shall meet,
and tonf@r with the exclusive representatives of their e=lov*ea,'
an the de.eiopment or selection of a iob evaluation system.
sac. D. .(471.99S) (rMKW AVAILABILITY.)
Motwithstandinq section 13.37, every political subdivision
shall submit a report containing the results of the job
evaluation system-to'the exclusive representatives of their,
emlovees to be used by both parties in contract negotiationi..
At a minimum. the report to each exclusive representative shall,
identify the feaala-d=inated classes in the ,Political
i'lbdivision for which compensation inecuity exists, based on the
comparable work value, and all data not on individuals used to,
support these findings.
Sec. 6. (471.9963 (PRIVATE DATA.)
tzcept as provided in section 5. the results of any iob
evaluation system established under section 4 and the revorts
covpiled under section 5 shall be considered personnel data as,
defined in section 13.43, subdivision 1. and treated as private
data under section 13.41, subdivisions 4 and S. until July 31,
1967. The director of mediation services is authorized to
release the iob evaluation system results and reports to labor
oroanizations as provided under section 13.43 subdivision 6.
Sec. 7. 1471.9965) (EFFECT ON OTHER LAW -1
undencorino and 6+41e010e are as shown in enrolled act
Ch. G51 :xrd LEGISLATURE
Motvithstandino chapter 179 or other lav to the Contrarv.
-,(t is not an unfair labor Dractice to ellocatt a saecified
amoaat.of !unds to be used solely to correct ineovitable'
co=pensotiop reletionabins. :.
Sec. e. [471.9971 (81p4As1. RIQM ACT ZXWTION. )
• Itetther the c ==Issicner of bursal+ riebts nor anv state
court shall use or consider the results of any lob evaluation
system established under section 4 and the reports compiled
• 'ra
under section. S in anv oroeeedinc or action cot=anced alleging
discrimination before Aucust 2. 1997. under chapter 363. lty
Sec. -9. (471.9976) (EDITS aaRRM.) -�;i
t;
No cause of attioa arises before Attest 1, 1987 for failt:ret�
i
to co=ply with the requirements of this act. 'a
:Set. 10. 1471.998) -(REPORT TO CO)O4 MONER.1 r'
Subdivision 1. 1WORT ON IMPLZMER 'ATION PLAN; CO)rENIS.] IM
-
every political subdivision shall report to the-coaissioner of
evployae relations by October 1. 1985, on its plan for
'�2Gen:atien of sections 4 and S. Each report shall include: .Q
(I) the title of each lob class which the political
subdivision has establfshwd; 1'
(2) the follovire infor-..atien for each class as of July 1.
1984•
(a) the ntcber of inc=.berts;
(b) the percentace of in dents who are female;
.t
(c) the cotparable work value Of the class, as determined -
under the system chosen under sect -son 4: and "
_ (d) the m£himta and =#sunt= month'_,? salary for the class:
(3) a description of the ich evaluation system used by the
political subdivision: and
1984 REGULAR SESSION _ Ch. 651
(4) a plan for establishinct equitable compensation
relationships between female -dominated and male -dominated
classes, Ineludtnq:
(a) identification of classes for which a compensation
inequity exists basad on the comparable work value!
• (b) a timetable for implementation of pay equity; end
- (c) the estimated cost of implementation.
Subd. 2. (TECUMICAL ASSISTANCE.) The commissioner of
employee relations shall, upon request of a political
subdivislon, provide technical assistance in completing the
rewired reports. -- -
Sec. 11. 1471.9991 (REPORT TO LEGIS'.d1TDRt.]
The cormissioner of employee relations shall report to the
leptslature by January 1, 1986 on the information gathered from
political subdivisions. The commissioner's report shall include
a list of political subdivisions which did not co. -fly with the
reporting requirements of this section.
Sec. 12. (TOWN OF WINDMERZ; POWERS.)
a•• The town of Windemere in Pine County may exercise the
Powers of a town provided by Minnesota- Statutes, section 369.01.
and other lays referrinq to section 369.01, extent section
340.11, subdivision 10b.
Sec. 13. (tEEtCTIVE DATE.)
Section 12 is effective, if it is approved by the electors,
Of the town at the annual town meetinq, the day after comtliance
with Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021, subdivision 3.,
Approerd May 2, 1994
DATE: November 21, 1984 RECEIVED BY
TO: All Managers, Administrators, Elected Officials N OV 2 T 1984
FROM: William Joynes I
Chairman, MAMA General Labor Relations Committee f
RE: MAMA Joint Comparable Worth Study
As many of you are aware, three months ago the Metropolitan Area Management
Association undertook a project to determine whether or not suburban cities
could jointly produce a study that would comply with comparable worth legisla-
tion enacted in the 1984 session. At that time, we asked cities to indicate
whether or not they would be willing to fund an an equal basis, our investiga-
tion into that possibility. Some 57 communities agreed to do so at a cost of
approximately $200 per city. We estimated that amount would be required to
develop our request for proposals and to screen various consulting organizations
who might wish to bid on such a joint venture.
Our desire to approach the study jointly was based on two reasons: First, the
historical effort that MAMA has made in comparing wages and fringe benefits, and
the success we have had in keeping their levels consistent in the metro area.
Secondly, we felt that it was preferable for all MAMA cities to have used a com-
mon approach in the event that future litigation occurs.
We are now at a point where a committee of managers made up of myself, Bob
Thistle from Coon Rapids, Jim Miller from Minnetonka, Jim Brimeyer from St.
Louis Park, and Jim Lacina from Woodbury, with support from Labor Relations
Associates, is recommending to the 57 cities the selection of Control Data
Corporation Business Advisors as the vendor to accomplish the job evaluation
study mandated by State law. A summary of the proposal is attached for your
information.
At a December 4, 1984 meeting of MAMA managers and administrators each of the 57
cities will be asked to indicate if they prefer to continue jointly or proceed
on their own with a separate study. To help cities make that decision, i have
attempted to provide more detailed background information on the screening pro-
cess, the rationale for the selection of CDC and the anticipated costs for the
joint approach.
SCREENING PROCESS
We began in August of this year by sending out a generally worded RFP to 18
firms locally and nationally who had done job evaluation work in the private and
public sector. We received ten responses from the initial request. After a
considerable amount of evaluation, six firms were selected to be interviewed
further. They included Haye Associates, Towers -Perrin -Forster and Crosby,
Control Data Corporation, Arthur Young and Associates, Hewitt and Associates,
Hallcrest-Graver Associates.
Those interviews were conducted in October at the League offices by the RFP com-
mittee and members of the staff of the League of Minnesota Cities. At the
conclusion of that process, three firms were felt to merit further scrutiry.
They were Hgye Associates, Towers -Perrin -Forster and Crosby, and Control Data
Corporation. it was felt that Arthur Young and Associates and Hewitt and
�b)
-2-
Associates, while providing a viable approach to job evaluation, did not present
,.system that would fully satisfy the requirements of Minnesota law. Mallcrest-
Craver was eliminated because we felt that with their staffing and current com-
mitments, a timely product might be a problem.
After that interview, the RFP committee developed a more detailed and specific
RFP. copies of, which were sent to all interested cities. The three consulting
firms were asked to make a second presentation which took place on November 6,
1484. invited to that meeting were all the representatives of organized tabor
represented in the MAMA communities, representatives from private employee asso-
ciations and any managers or administrators who wished to attend. At the
conclusion of the interview, the selection committee was unanimously in favor of
recommending the CDC system. The CDC proposal at 2345,000 was, admittedly, the
most expensive proposal we received; however. the ,unanimous feeling of the com-
mittee was that it was the one proposal that we felt would provide the best and
most legitimate results and would be the most easily maintained system over a
period of years.
RATIONALE FOR DECISION
1 would like to briefly discuss some of the thoughts of the committee regarding
the selection of CDC which 1 hope will explain why that choice was made. First
and foremost, the Control Data Corporation proposal offers to do job evaluations
on all of a given city's positions. We originally thought the cost of doing
such a study to be prohibitive. and had suggested in the RFP that an evaluation
study that included 25 benchmark jobs would be more appropriate. CDC bid that
benchmark study but added that for a nominal additional charge, it would be a J
simple task to do all of the positions in all cities. CDC Business Advisors'
computer capability takes the extension of the study to all individual positions
in each city, a relatively simple natter. The other consulting proposals did
not offer that capability.
A very strong argument for the selection of CDC was the extent of the data
offered as an end product. First and foremost, after the study was completed,
CDC would provide each city with an evaluation report ranking their specific
employees based on a comparable worth scale. In addition, the MAMA cities would
receive a composite benchmark study which would provide evaluations throughout
the metro area for those jobs which were similar. An example would be that a
city would be given a relative point value for the position of patrol officer
within its own organization, and would also have the data to compare that point
value to a metropolitan average and to specific patrol positions in neighboring
cities. This was felt to be a tremendous labor relation -personnel tool for all
cities and something beyond what we thought we would receive from the comparable
worth study.
Another very attractive feature of the CDC proposal was its ability to be
udated. Once the initial study was completed and in place, the system would be
atle to provide, at a very nominal cost, adjustments over the years. For
example, if a city created a new position or added responsibilities to an
existing job, a naw ouestionnaire could be filled out and submitted to CDC
outlining the tasks that position would perform. COC Business Advisors would
recompute the job evaluation rankings for that city and provide a new point
value for the position.
f
-3 -
Their estimate of what it would cost to re-evaluate a specific position or
incorporate a new one into the city, was $5 to $7 per occurrence. The other two
proposals did not offer such a capability.
Finally, a word about the conceptual framework of the CDC proposal. Their job
evaluation study is one that is referred to as a task evaluation approach as
opposed to a whole job evaluation approach which was proposed by the other two
firms. In a task evaluation, jobs are broken dam into marly small functional
tasks and those tasks are rated and a point total derived. A specific job and
its relative worth compared to other jobs in an organization is determined by
the total of its task values. In the whole job evaluation approach, the job,
not individual tasks, is rated on its relative worth in various categories.
With this method, certain jobs may have an inherent bias due to preconceived
ideas about their complexity or difficulty. An example might be an evaluation
of a bomb disposal officer. Most people's initial reaction is that the job is
worth a great deal because of the element of danger involved. When you evaluate
the job on a "whole job" basis, that danger factor tends to expand into all the
arras that you may be using to rank the worth of the job. In fact, the danger
in bomb disposal work may be present only once in a great while, and the
majority of the job may be very routine and non -dangerous. The task approach
eliminates this type of halo effect because each separate function is evaluated.
In our example, the bomb disposal officer would be given fairly high points for
certain tasks like the diffusion of a bomb, but may receive routine marks for
other tasks associated with the work he or she would perform. The net result is
to provide a more accurate point total for all jobs surveyed.
For the reasons listed above, the committee felt unanimously that the CDC propo-
sal offered
COST OF THE PROPOSAL
Many cities have called requesting to know the estimated cost per city of the
COC system prior to the December 4 meeting. At this time, it is not possible to
give exact dollar amounts. Obviously the total cost to each city will be depen-
dent to a large extent to how many cities select to cotinue with this joint
approach. Additionally, there are some other factors that will influence the
cost. There is a possibility that quite a large number of out -state cities will
wish to use the comparable worth study that MAMA has developed. We estimate
that 30 additional titles may participate. If they do choose to join us, then
the cost per city could be reduced significantly due to the economies of scale
achieved by a larger group.
We have also been contacted by the Metropolitan Airport Commission, the
Minnesota Utility Association, and the city of Thief River Falls. Wisconsin.
They have all expressed some degree of interest in participating.
While a firm dollar amount is not possible to determine at this time, i can give
you a range of the dollars we are talking about if we make some simple assump-
tions. if the 57 MAMA titles all agree to participate and the charges are based
on a formula which takes into account both a minimum value charged to each city,
and some factor for the number of employees. then the cost would likely range
from approximately $4,000 to cities the size of Osseo and Mlnnetrista, to an
�v'
.4 -
amount somewhere around 515,000 for a city the size of Bloomington. If 25 to 30
outstate cities join in the study, the cost range would be lowered to $3,500 for
small cities up to about $12,500 for a city of size of Bloomington.
CONCLUSION
We have asked, that representatives of the 57 MAMA cities attend a meeting an
December 4 at 10:00 AN at the Brooklyn Center City Hall to provide us with a
decision as to their intent to participate or not with the MAMA study. We
realize that some cities will not be able to make firm committments due to the
fact that their councils may not meet before that date. It is ay hope that with
the information provided you wilt be able to give us a good indication of what
your city intends to do. A similar meeting has been scheduled for members of
the Coalition of Outstate Cities on December 14 at 1;30 PM at the Golden Vailey
City Hall.
Those of us on the committee have spent mare hours involved in this selection
process. We believe that CDC proposal represents the best option for us to meet
the requirements of State law and will provide us with a personnel and labor
relations tool which far exceeds what we expected to obtain through this pro-
cess.
We strongly recommend that member cities join in the study.
LAI
Metropolitan Area Management Association
Compensation Study
Process Summary
The plan for development and implementation of a FOCAS (Flexible
Occupational Analysis System) job analysis and evaluation system
for 25 benchmark jobs defined by the MAMA Committee and for
subsequent evaluation of MAFIA member cities' non -benchmark jobs is
summarized below.
POCAS is a questionnaire -based job analysis and evaluation
system. POCAS has been developed to provide accurate and
comprehensive information about jobs to support effective human
resource management.
The first step in tho process is to develop questionnaires to be
used to gather information about what employees do. We will use
one questionnaire for each occupational group. The MAMA Committee
will identify one subject matter expert•and an advisory group from
each occupational group to work with Business Advisors. These
individuals will provide their job content expertise throughout
questionnaire development and job evaluation, and should be very
knowledgeable about jobs in their occupational area. Business
Advisors, together with a team of MAMA member cities' Personnel
Directors, will develop preliminary questionnaires based upon
existing job descriptions and the Business Advisors data bank of
task items. The Personnel Director team will identify and
schedule employee workshops to be conducted jointly with Business
t Advisors, to modify preliminary questionnaires. Questionnaires
L will be finalized with the advisory group for that occupational
area.
Second, Personnel Directors will schedule and conduct meetings
with employees for them to complete the questionnaire for their
occupational group. In filling out questionnaires, employees will
indicate for each task that they do or do not perform it and how
much time they spend on tasks performed relative to other tasks.
Third, Buoineas Advisors will provide data entry from the
questionnaires and provide computer-generated position
descriptions for each employee who filled out a questionnaire.
This is a listing of tasks performed with time spent percentages.
The supervisor and employee will review and verify or modify the
position description. The Personnel Director team will collect
and return all modified position descriptions to Business
Advisors. Business Advisors will provide data entry and return
revised position descriptions to the Personnel Director team for
distribution to supervisors/employees. These will serve as final
position descriptions.
0
Fourth, Business Advisors will provide average, or benchmark, job
descriptions for the 15 benchmark jobs identified by the MAMA
committee. Personnel Directors will identify employees making up
the benchmark. Subject matter experts and advisory groups will
work with Business Advisors to finalize descriptions.
The fifth step in the process, task valuing, begins at the same
time as the second. Business Advisors will work with the
Personnel Director team, subject matter experts and advisory
groups to set up the task valuing process. The Personnel Director
team will identify and schedule managers for valuing meetings.
Business Advisors will conduct valuing meetings. In valuing
tasks, managers will rate all tasks about which they are
knowledgeable, according to one factor, complexity, importance or
unfavorability. Business Advisors will review average task values
with the subject matter expert and the advisory group to finalize
values. Factor weights will be statistically computed by Business
Advisors and finalized with the subject matter expert and advisory
group.
The sixth step is to combine results of the completed
questionnaires with task values to determine job value. Business
Advisors' computer analysis will compute job value by multiplying
time spent on tasks times task value and sum the products to
produce a point total. Business Advisors will provide job values
for the twenty-five benchmark jobs to the MAMA committee.
Step seven is to collect and analyze wage and benefit data from
public and private sector labor markets. The MAMA committee will
identify available surveys and work with Business Advisors to
define appropriate markets and to determine if a specialized
salary survey is desirable. If so, Business Advisors will conduct
a specialized salary survey. Final job hierarchies will be
constructed based upon job values and market data.
The eighth step is to analyze relationships among job values,
current pay rates and market data. Business Advisors will provide
an analysis and alternative strategies for addressing pay
discrepancies.
Ninth, Business Advisors will provide individual job evaluation
pointe to the member cities.
Finally, Business Advisors will provide a report of methodology
and results and meet with the MAMA committee to present the
report.
klall2141
C/6,
6. REPORT FROM MCOOC/MAMA See information mailed 12/3 from William
COMPARABLE WORTH JOINT Joynes, Chairman, MAMA General Labor Rela-
VENTURE. tions Committee dated 11/21/84. Ken Huber,
St. Peter, representing the MCOOC Conparable
worth Committe, reported on the status of the Joint Comparable Worth
Venture with the MAMA Group and made the recommendations and fielded
questions from the MCOOC members present and the feasibility of entering
into the Joint venture for Comparable Worth. On the Comparable Worth
Committee, there were discussions by Bob Filson, Mora, Dick Salvati, New
Ulm, on utilities positions via a via the separate utility commissions and
the City Council. Motion was made to have the Resolution by Avery "Doc"
Hall, Mayor of Waseca, to adopt the MCOOC's support of a Joint Comparable
Worth venture not to exceed $1,000 per unit of government and $25.00 per
employee. Motion seconded by Earl Laufenburger, Mayor of Winona. Motion
carried unanimously by all members present. Please bring the enclosed
resolution up for consideration and adoption by your City Council and
report back to Tom Manninen, City of Little Falls, 612/632-2341 by
Wednesday, 12/19/64 by 100 p.m, whether you have taken action or when you
plan to take action.
'RESOLUTION?
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
AN AGREEKENT WITH CONTROL DATA CORPORATION
WITH OTHER MINNESOTA COALITION OF OUTSTATE CITIES
ON A JOINT COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 071.991, er, seq. as enacted by the -1984'
Session In the Minnesota Legislature requires every political subdivision
In the State of Minnesota to establish equitable compensation relationships
among Its employeees and.
WHEREAS, the S7 member cities of the Hatropofitan Area Management.
Association together with approximately 30 our—state, ritips including
members of the Minnesota Coalition of Outerate Cities have been working to
determine whether or not these cities could jointly produce a study that,
i
would comply with the Comparable Worth Legislations and,
WHEREAS, a desire, to approarh the study jointly is based on two
primary reasons: First, the efforts among cities, in their,respertive areae
made in compering wages and fringe benefits. Secondly, it; was preferable
for all cities to have used a common approach in'the eve,nt'that the _future
i
litigation occurred; land.
WHEREAS. following extensive 'review and interview', of professional'
consulting organisations located both in Minnesota and nationally the
-system proposed by Control Data corporation Business Advisors be
recommended to, atromplish,the ,-job evaluation study mandated by state Isis
and,
WHEREAS, ;t,he rationale for selection of Central Dats rorporst.ion,
includedt First, its ability to do job evaluations on all of the given
city$; positions through the use of its extensive computer facilities so
compared to the proposal to study only bench mark jobs proposed by other
consultants. Sarondly, the data offerpd as an and product will provide a
0
/ labor relationa-personnel tool for all cities beyond what was initially
anticipated from a comparable worth study. Third, the Control Data
proposal has the ability to be updated for new positions or added
responsibilities to an existing job at nominal cost; and.
WHEREAS, based on the participation by the 57 Metropolitan Area
Management Association cities and approximately 70 out -state cities, the
cost to each city will be approximately 53,000.00 per city plus
approximately $25.00 per employee. ISI, 250.00 for 50 employees).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
That the city of be authorized to participate in the
joint study with 57 metropolitan cities and approximately 30 out -state
cities including members of the Minnesota Coalition of Outstate Cities
through the FOCAS system being proposed by Control Data Corporation
Business Advisors.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Administrator are
authorized to execute agreements necessary to accomplish this objective.
Passed this day of December, 1984.
President of City Council
ATTESTr
city Administrator
Approved this day of December, 1984.
(SEAL)
9
Mayor of Said City
GENERAL FUND -- DECEMBER - 1984
AMOUNT
CHECK N
Road Machinery 4 Supplies - Truck rental - Christmas lights
300.00
19892
O. K. Hardware - Toilet tissue holder
7.19
19893
Adam'a Pest Control - Contract payment for Library
38.20
19894
MN. State Treasurer -Dep. Reg. fees
224.50
19895
Davis Electronic Service - Fire Dept. equipment repair
56.50
19896
U. of PN. - Film rental
8.00
19897
VOID
-0-
19898
Wright County State Bank - Purchase C. D.
350,000.00
19899
1st National Bank of Monticello -Purchase C. D.
300,000.00
19900
Wright County State Bank - Purchase C. D.
25,000.00
19901
Arve Grimsmo -0. A. A. Board meetings salary
90.00
19902
Mr.LeRoy Engstrom - 0. A. A. Board meetings salary
110.40
19903
Mr. Franklin Dena -
90.00
19904
Mr. Thomas Salkowski -
90.00
19905
Mr. Paul McAlpine -
36.30
19906
Marjorie Goetzke -
165.00
19907
Phillips Petroleum - Gas - Water Dept.
73.76
199U8
Share Corp. - Water cleaner - WWTP
127.28
19909
Marco Business Products - Office supplies
118.22
19910
State Treasurer - Surplus Property Fund - Misc. supplies
199.65
19911
Electronic Center, Inc. - Supplies for WWTP
33.36
19912
Brldgevater Telephone - Telephone
914.19
19913
Mtd-Central Fire Co. - Rope for Fire Dept.
304.95
19914
let Bank Mpla. - Public fund charges
16.00
19915
Joseph Johnson - Dog pound maintenance - 11/15 thru 12/15
250.00
19916
Burlington Northern R. R. - Grade crossing for Meadow Oak
3,000.00
19917
Monticello Fire Dept. - Wages thru 12/13/84
1,561.00
19918
Thomas Eldem - Car allowance - Dec.
300.00
19919
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
135.04
19920
State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
70.00
19921
State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
18.00
19922
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at Library
137.50
19923
Lynnea Gillhom - Mileage for 1984
52.00
19924
Mary Ramthun - Dog pound salary
212.50
19925
State Treasurer - FICA withholdings
2.468.47
19926
State Treasurer - PERA withholdings
1,360.26
19927
U. S. Postmaster - Postage stamps
120.00
19928
Wright County State Bank - Purchase C. D.
85,000.00
19929
Buffalo Bituminous - Payment on 84-I, 2 6 3 Projects - Final
4,200.00
19930
Tam Snikownki - O.A.A. Board meetings salary
60.00
19931
The Management Center - Reg. for T. Eidem seminar
165.00
19932
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
154.50
19933
MN. Stnte Treanurer - Dep. Reg. fees
28.00
19934
linnker's Life Inn. - Group Ins.
4,025.44
19935
A T 6 T Systems - Fire phone charges
3.59
19936
N. W. Bell Telephone - Fire phone charges
36.68
19937
Sentry Systems - Telephone lease for reservoir
90.00
19938
Corrow Snnitatton - December contract payment
4,718.50
1993Y
Fulfillment Systems, Inc. - UDAG payment
108,854.00
19940
MN. State Treasurer - Dap. Reg. fees
146.50
19941
KN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
38.00
19942
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Rag. fees
12.00
19943
IN. State Treasurer - 0. R. V. - Dep. Reg. fees
162.00
19944
\ Arvc Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
19945
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
19946
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
19947
Kan Maus - Council salary
125.00
19948
Jack MaRVall - Council salary
125.00
19949
GENERAL FUND
James Preusse - Cleaning City Hall
YMCA of Mpis. - Monthly contract payment
Wright County Sheriff Dept. - Dec. contract payment
U. of MN. - Reg. fee for seminar for Gary Anderson
Lake Country Chapter - Reg. dues for Gary Anderson
State Building Inspector - Surcharge fees - Building Dept.
Petty Cash - Reimburse petty cash
Jerry Hermes - Cleaning Library
Mary Ramthun - Mtce. at dog pound
Mr. 6 Mrs. Jean Brouillard - Partial payment of land
Mil. State Treasurer - FICA Withholdings
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
Wright County State Bank - FWT Withholdings
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT Withholdings
MN. State Treasurer - PERA Withholdings
Rick Wolfsreller -Mileage
Water Pollution Control Federation - Manual for WWTP
Equitable Life Assurance Society - Ins. premiums - reimb.
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
Joseph Johnson -Dog pound mtee. - 12/15 thru 12131
Int. Conference of Building Officials - Membership dues -
Jean Brouillard - Land purchase for fire hall
North Central Public Service - Dec. gas
Mr. Bud Hackett - Reapirs at Mtce. Bldg. - Adj. garage doors
Audio Communications - Repairs at WWTP
Burlington Northern R. R. - 2 R. R. crossing signs at Meador Oak
Gorelick Steel - 2 pieces of steel
Northstar Waterworks - Remote meter head - Water Dept.
USM - Fag. fees - Oct. 4 Nov.
Braun Eng. - Testing in various locations
Allen Pelvit - Mileage expense for Dec.
St. Cloud Appraisal - Appraisal of Hasa and Saxon properties
Flicker's T. V. - Air conditioner covers - W`TfP
Rockmount Research 6 Alloys - Cos rods and welding gloves - Mtco
Gould Bro. - Mud flaps
American Scientific Producta - Lab gear - WWTP
Neu, tunics of North America - Buttery 6 battery charger - Mtce.
John Henry Foster Mil. - Norgren muffler - silencers for WWTP
Viking Safely Products - Signs for WWTP
Scranton Cillete Comm. - Sub. renewal
Monticello Agency - Insurance bond forTum F.Idem
Int. Coof. of Building Officials - 2 sub. for Bldg. Dept.
Trueman -Welters - Sual and ring
Olnon 6 Sons Electric - Repro. and parts - all Depts.
Alhtnson, Inc. - Survey 6 drafting supplies for Mtce. Bldg.
Griefnow Sheet Metal - Repair burner at J. Johnson roe.
Mobil Oil - Gas for Fire 6 Sower Depts.
Safety Klcen - Services at Mtce. Bldg.
Conway Fire 6 Safety - 2 cell smoke cutter flashlights - Fire
Metropolitan Fire Equip. - Air compressor parts - Fire Dept.
/ -ontinentnl Safety Equip. - Mask and base assembly for Fire Dept
l aillard Farnick Mileage, expense for seminar 6 mtgs.
Gruys, Johnson - Computer charges for October
Crone Co. - Repair of depth finder - WWTP
Midwest Computer Services - Charges for Dec. - WWTP
AMOUNT
275.00
312.50
9,494.38
90.00
20.00
612.23
36.24
137.50
212.50
50,000.00
2,478.37
135.04
3.799.60
2,357.00
i. 366.26
73.38
238.00
40.00
231.00
111.00
125.00
15.00
20,000.00
4,377.55
45.00
103.00
10,594.01
25.60
92.75
11,031.63
1,504.64
56.31
750.00
14.75
62.24
13.00
306.44
1,501.21
85.31
49.96
38.00
50.00
38.40
7.87
408.16
188.99
27.50
165.77
33.00
462.00
50.37
716.20
50.75
290,00
152.04
80.32
CHECK N
19950
19951
19952
19953
19954
19955
19956
19957
19958
19959
19960
19961
19962
19963
19964
19965
19966
19967
19968
19969
19970
19971
19972
19973
19974
19975
19976
19977
19978
19979
19980
19981
19982
19983
19984
19985
19986
19987
19988
19989
19990
19991
19992
19993
19994
19995
19996
19997
19998
19999
20000
20001
20002
20003
20004
20005
ry
GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK N
Al b Julie Nelson - Sub. 11.70 20006
t Earl's Welding/Industrial Supply - Welding shield, gloves, etc.- V4TP 42.93 20007
A
Payroll for December 24.317.63
. TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR DECEMBER - 1984 $1.045.962.51
LIQUOR FUM
-; LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR DECEMBER - 1984
APIOM
CHECK
NO
Jude Candy b Tobacco - Misc. supplies
536.93
11541
Frito-Lay, Inc. - Misc. supplies
140.20
11542
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad.
20.00
11543
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
4,218.07
11544
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
95.20
11545
MN. State Treasurer - FICA Withholdings
262.46
11546
MN. State Treasurer - PERA Withholdings
158.04
11547
Ed Phillips b Sons - Liquor
4,292.48
11548
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
342.54
11549
Griggs, Cooper a Co. - Liquor
3,002.00
11550
Twin City Wine - Liquor
2,559.28
11551
Quality Wine - Liquor
675.64
11552
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - November
6,335.48
11553
Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins.
364.91
11554
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
49.92
11555
City of .Monticello - Reimbursement for postage used in 1984
80.00'
11556
Ed Phillips 6 Sone - Liquor
3.991.56
11557
Twin City Wine - Liquor
806.99
11558
State Treasurer - FICA Withholdings
262.19
11559
HN. State Treasurer - PF.RA Withholdings
157.89
11560
VOID
-0-
11561
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad.
20.00
11562
Wright County State Bank - FWT Withholdings - Dec.
401.30
11563
:ommissioner of Revenue - State Withholdings - December
223.00
11564
MN. Department of Public Safety - Retailer's buyer card for liquor
12.00
11565
Twin City Wine - Liquor
520.81
11566
Ed Phillipe b Sone - Liquor
2,137.11
11567
North Central Public Service - Gas for December
321.65
11568
Northern States Power Co. - Utilities for Dec.
542.14
11569
Ed Phillipe 6 Sone - Liquor
3.707.20
11570
NCR Corporation - Maintenance for Liquor Store registers
1.619.20
11571
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
1.889.45
11572
Gronseth Directory - Adv, in Sherburne County
45.00
11573
Yonak Sanitation - Garbage contract payment
82.50
11574
Maus Foods - Supplies for otore
3.24
11575
Liefert Trucking - Freight charged for Dec.
439.84
11576
Monticello Office Products - Supplies
12.32
11577
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repair buzzer at Liquor Store
30.00
11578
Gruys. Johnson - Computer charges for Month of October
110.00
11579
Old Ditch Foods - Misc. supplies
75.13
11580
Minnesota Sheriff Assoc. - Adv.
55.00
11581
Payroll for December - 1984 3.693.67
TOTAL LIQUOR D19BURSFMENTS FOR DECEMBER $44 .295.34
t7
CINFORMATIONAL ITEM
C"
Council Agenda - 1/14/85
Consideration of Attendance at the League of Minnesota Cities
Annual Legislative Action Conference. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Each year when the State Legislature is in session, the League
of Minnesota Cities holds its Legislative Action Conference.
At that Action Conference, the member cities vote, on the adoption
of policies that had been drafted and approved by the legislative
committees and sent to the Board of Directors for review and
approval. I have attended the Action Conference every year
that I have been in municipal government, including the three
conferences since I have been here.
Several weeks ago, you should have received copies of the League
of Cities Policies that will come in for question at the Action
Conference. If, after reviewing those policies, you wish the
City of Monticello to take a particular stance, that position
should be clarified no later than the next regular Council meeting.
I must, howover, know how many members of the Council wish to
attend so that I can got us rogistared in time. If additional
members of the Council wish to attend this year, the Council
should also determine who will be the official delegate representing
the City with the privileges of costing the vote on policy adoption.
In the pant, because I was the only parson attending the conferenco,
I obviously was the voting dolegato. The only action that is
roquirod at this time can occur after the Council mooting when
I need to know who intends to attend tho conference. If none
of our olocted officials are planning to attend, than thorn
is no roal need to appoint an official dolegato since I will
be the only person present. Similarly, if you have no difficulty
with the proposed policias for tho League of Cities, I will
exercise my boot diecrotion representing the City of Monticello
in casting the vote on those policies.
Thorn aro no altarnativo actions or staff racommondationa for
this item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the League of Minnaeota Cities Policies, which were
doliverod carliar; Copy of a memo from Don Slater, Executive
Director of the League of Cities; Copy of o memo from Mary Anderson,
President of tho League of Cities, relating to the proposed
Local Government Aid formula.
-29-
LLL1111'111
1
C
league of minnesota cities
December 31, 1984
T0: Mayors, Managers and City Clerks
FROM: Mary Anderson, President
RE: Proposed LCA Formula
The Board of Directors and I are pleased to be able to share with
you a new local government aid formula that we feel all cities can
unite behind. This formula will be voted on at our Legislative
Conference on January 29.
We are all aware of the many shortcomings of the current local
government aid (LCA) formula. While many have agreed that change is
necessary it has been difficult in the past to ger agreement on what
those changes should be. I am impressed that this formula has been
reviewed through our committee process by over 40 cities and
received overwhelming endorsement. The formula was developed by e
LCA Technical Committee composed of represenrarives of many
different types of cities. They worked hard for months reviewing
stacks of computer printouts. The formula they have developed
represents much give and rake by all involved.
The derails of the formula are shared in other materials in this
mailing. The formula is fairly easy to understand. But some
important pointe need to be highlighted. The vast majority of
cities ger significant increases. 872 of all cities receive
increases of 10% or more in 1986. No city will be cur --all cities
are guaranteed a 1% increase. Only 73 of rhe 855 cities in
Mini.esora are affected by that provision. All different types of
cities are represented in that group. This is a formula which can
over a reasonable period of rime achieve a very important goal --
having all cities receive their aid on the same basic formula
without special provisions. We are impressed that this formula can
work towards that goal while providing so much additional revenue to
the vast majority of cities.
If the formula is adopted by the League membership, the Technical
Committee which initially developed this formula will continue to
meet to help guide ire course through the legislature. They will
also be addressing longrerm implementation issues such as examining
plans for getting all cities on the formula within five years. Their
expertise and knowledge is much appreciated.
(over)
I U.'A t 11VQnl4Q uo�;t'..::L. 97F7u1• r11nv43:1OGi1 55101 f61 21 227.5600
It is particularly important this year that cities work together.
As you are aware, there is tremendous pressure to cut income taxes
and reduce the overall size of the stare budget. Cities are not
high on every legislator's budget list. We must work hard together
to inform them of our needs and the importance of the property tax
relief they provide through local government aid. The division of
the legislature by party and the momentum for major changes in the
overall tax system will make our task even more challenging. If
cities approach the Legislature united and speak in one voice we
feel our chances for success Will be greatly improved. We can focus
attention on the needs of cities rather than on the differences
between them. Working together it will be easier to get increased
appropriations that, will benefit all of us.
Please share this letter and the enclosed materials with your city
councilmembers. On behalf of the board I would like to thank all of
the dedicared individuals who helped us reach this point. I look
forward to seeing many of you at the legislative conference.
I would also like to extend a special thank you to the member of the
League's LCA Technical Committee. The members of the committee are:
Bob Thistle, City Manager, Coon Rapids; Welt. Pehat, City Manager,
Robbinsdale; Duane Knutson, Mayor, fertile; Jim Ritchals, City
Administrator, Fergus Palle; Lyle Olson, Director of Administration,
Bloomington; Henry Pappone, Councilmember, Virginia (alternate --
Mac Karpen, gaecutive Directors, Range Association of Municipalities
and School Districts); Lyall Schwarakopf, City Coordinator,
Minneapolis (alternate -- Duke Addicks, Legislative Coordinator);
Big Stene, Mayor, Lindstrom.
C
league of minnesota cities
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID POLICY MAILING
LIST OF ENCLOSED MATERIALS
1. RS -1. Local Government Aid Policy Statement
2. Explanation of Proposed LGA Distribution Formula
7. Policy Framework for Formula Development
4. Explanation of Computer Rune
S. LGA Formula Printout
6. LGA Factors Printout
1I1"IIiniVCfr:7ILV'.IVCnurJC7[3i..GL. IN14.11. n'm'v'p ancit;J 5.5 '1O 1 (6121227.5600
EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED LCA DISTRIBUTION FORMULA
AID a (.53 * BMX) * (SAAVPC/CAAVPC)
Minimum aid of $25 per capita or 1% over previous year's LCA, beyond
that the maximum increase is 101. Must levy 2 mills to qualify for
stare aid.
BNX - 3 YEAR AVERAGE OF BASIC MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES
SAAVPC STATEWIDE AVERAGE ADJUSTED ASSESSED VALUE PER CAPITA
CAAVPC INDIVIDUAL CITY'S ADJUSTED ASSESSED VALUE PER CAPITA
BASIC RATIONALE
The proposed formula provides that local government aid (LGA) should
be distributed on the basis of need and capacity. Need is reflected
by population and expenditures for basic municipal services. Every
city should receive a basic amount. of LGA per capita. Beyond that
minimum amount, aid is distributed based on need (basic municipal
expenditures) adjust ed for capacity for raising funds locally
(adjusted assessed value). No cities would be cur.. Cities who
currently receive more than the formula would grant them, will get a
1% increase over the previous year's aid until the others catch up.
No city can increase more than 101 per year once they reach the $25
per capita minimum. Any incentive to spend is tempered by the select
definition of basic expenditures, the three year lag in the
expenditure data, and by curring the basic expendir.ure average in
half. The assessed value adjustment provides that cities with below
average assessed value per capita will get proportionately more LGA
while cities above average in assessed value will get less.
BASIC MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE FACTOR
The definition of basic municipal expenditures is included in the LGA
Policy Framework adopted by the League Board of Directors in August
after a public hearing. Basic municipal expenditures include: public
safety, arreere,eanitar ion (excluding garbage collection), libraries,
redevelopment, and general government and related purposes. Related
purposes includes insurance and judgements and unallocared pensions.
These represent current expenses, not capital improvements to city
property. The figures are taken from the Annual Report of the State
Auditor on Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt of Cities.
A three year rolling average of basic municipal expenditures is used
in the formula. For the 1986 LGA distribution, expenditures from
1981-83 will be used. This three year lag is necessary because the
Auditor's Office will not have completed review of the 1984 financial
reports until the fall of 1985 and 1986 LGA must. be cerr.ified in
August. On average, the basic municipal expenditures equal
approximately two third& of a city's torsi currant expenditures and
481 of their total expenditures. When the basic expenditures are cut.
in half by multiplication by .53, it means that rho proposed LGA
formula only factors in about one fourth of a city's expenditures. It
is fair that limiting this factor by its definition, the three year
lag, and the calculation of the formula will effectively limitt concern
about any incentive to spend more to receive additional LCA.
(over)
-2-
ADJUSTED ASSESSED VALUE FACTOR
An individual city's adjusted assessed value per capita is compared
to the statewide average assessed value per capita ($1,134). Cities
with below average assessed value per capita ger more aid, cities with
above average assessed value get leas. For cities near the average
of $7,134 per capita, this factor doesn't, have a great deal of
influence.
$25 PER CAPITA FLOOR
This was determined to be a basic amount of LCA that each city should
receive. 130 cities (15Z of the total) currently receive leas than
this amount, currently. The cost, of raising them to this floor is
approximately $3 million. No city is allowed to be raised above the
pure formula amount by this provision.
MAXIMUM INCREASE
After achieving $25 per capita in aid, no city is allowed to gain more
than 102 per year in additional aid.
MINIMUM LEVY
In order to qualify for any local government aid, cities would be
required to levy 2 equalized mills.
ONE PERCENT MINIMUM INCREASE
Each city would receive a minimum increase of It per year. This would
apply to those 73 cities whose current LGA amounts are over the
amount they would earn under the proposed formula.
CUTBACKS
If rho Legislature does not fund our requested appropriation for LCA,
rho following system would be implemented, All cities would still be
guaranteed $25 per capita, Beyond that all increases would be cut
back proportionately. For example, if a city now receives $100 and
would be raised to $120 under our requested appropriation. if the
Legislature provides 10% less than r.he League appropriation request,
this city's increase of $20 would be cur back IOZ . Their total aid
would be $IIB. $120 - (.10 + 20).
-3'
4- u1i C
league g of minnesota cities
POLICY FRAHEHORX FOR LGA FORMULA DEVELOPMENT
Passed by LHC Board of Directors August 7, 1984
Synopsis
A Local Government Aid formula should be a simple expression of the
Logislature',, intent. Local government aid (LGA) should be distributed
according to 1) the city's revenue raising capacity. as measured by its taxable
aseessed value; and 2)the city's need, as measured by its population and/or
households and its expenditures for basic municipal services.
Statement and Rationale
Local Government Aid is an essential property tax relief program that
provides cities with an important source of revenue to finance municipal
services. Cities rely heavily on LGA. Eliminating LGA would create extreme
property tax increases in many areas. Local government aid complements cities'
other major revenue source, the property tax. As such, LCA must be distributed
in a way which alleviates the problems inherent in reliance on the property tax
ae the major revenue source cities control. Cities vary markedly in their
ability to raise money from property taxes. There are also wide variations
among cities in their citizens' need for services and the costs of providing
those services. A complementary revenuo eource for cities is necessary
precisely because a city's ability to raise revenue from the property tax does
not necessarily coincide with the coat of the services which that city must
provide to its citizens. An LGA formula must reflect both the individual city's
need and its local revenue raising capacity.
A city's capacity to raise revenues from the property tax to easily
measured by the city's equalized assessed value, (For metro -area cities, the
aseoesed value after fiscal disparities distributions is the appropriate
figura.) An acceptabla aid formula should provide proportionally more aid to
cities with less taxable aeseseed value, other things being equal.
Need is more difficult to define and to measure. There is no single date
item which measures need equitably; rather we much rely on a combination of
factors to approximate need.
Need is clearly related to some extent to the city's number of inhabitants.
Cities provide services to people. Because some services relate more closely to
households than to individuals. the formula should reflect bath the population
and the number of households. Every city should receive a basic LGA
distribution based on its population and/or number of households.
-OVER-
1 Q3 trr�rver-a �v Ovr»ur) r: ACL'. tic. t��ur. mvli�r Jot:7 525101 1(31 23?27•SC�00
.� - --- -- — .d.
Local Government Aid Policy
Page 2
However, neither population nor the number of households completely
reflects need. Cities with similar populations and numbers of households may
be faced with quite different service needs. (Factors such as age,
construction and density of buildings, crime rates, elderly population, school
age population, climate, geographic size, population density, poverty levels,
crime rates, seasonal or daily influx of people, need to construct or replace
capital facilities, and a myriad of other factors may cause similar sized
cities' needs to differ.) Clearly, a formula cannot attempt to incorporate
measures of all of these factors; the result would necessarily be complicated
and to some extent arbitrary.
Rather, the formula should rely on the Judgment made by the persons in
the best position to evaluate a city's need: that city's council. The local
city council's Judgment as to the expenditures required in order to provide
the type and level of service needed by Its citizens should be reflected in
the formula. The formula should reflect all expenditures for basic municipal
cervices. "Basic municipal services" include public safety, streets,
sanitation, libraries, redevelopment, and general government and related
purposes. This definition is intended as a limit, to assure that a city will
not receive additional local government aid as a result of its discretionary
spending on non-essential services. So far as possible, the formula should
not be affected by the city's choice among tax levies, special assessments, or
user fees to finance basic municipal services.
To attempt to measure need by the tax levy, or by past LGA, or by a
combination of those factors is not acceptable. The past LGA distribution is
the result of several formula changes accompanied by grandfather provisions,
minimum increase guarantees, etc. The resulting distribution pattern is at
least somewhat arbitrary. And to focus on past aids and levies or levy limits
Ignores the other revenues which cities' citizens contribute so that the city
can meet their service needs.
A formula develnped in accordance with this policy would likely result in
a substantially different distribution of funds. The transition must be
handled in an orderly fashion, avoiding drastic year-to-year increases or
decreases in aid. Increases and decreases should be phased in. to avoid the
need for sudden "shock" property tax increases on one hand, and the temptation
to view increased aid as a windfall on the other.
N
•5�
EXPLANATION OF COMPUTER RUNS
�. The computer rune included in this mailing were prepared by League staff using data
supplied by the Department of Revenue and the State Auditor's Office.
Run 1 - Technical Committee LGA Formula (printed on Yellow paper) This run provides
estimates of what each city would receive in LCA under the new formula. Cities are
listed in alphabetical order. The columna are described below:
1985 LGA - This is the amount each city will receive in 1985 under the current
formula.
1986 LGA with caps - This is an estimate of what each city would receive in 1986
under the new formula. It rakes into account all of the maximums and minimums of
the proposed formula. Acrual amounts in 1986 would be somewhar different as 1984
assessed v ue darn nor currenrly available would be used. However this printour
.ill give you a fairly good idea of how your city and others will fare.
Z Change from 85 - This shows the percent increase from 1985 to 1986.
Formula Provision - This column indicates what formula provision would apply in 1986
ro that city. They are abbreviated a: follows:
FORM - on pure formula
MX10 - gets maximum increase of 10%
MNI% - gets minimum increase of 1%
PCAP - gets aid under $25 per capita provision
MXPC - $25 per capita is over pure formula amount so gets
full formula amount (same am FORM)
Pure Formula No Cape - What a city would receive under the basic formula without any
maximums or minimums.
Run 2 - Factors used in Technical Committee LGA Formula
Population 83 or 84 - Same population figures being used by the Dept. of Revenue for
calculation of 1985 LGA. 83 estimates for non -metro cities, 84 eatimares for metro
cities.
83 Adjusted Assessed Value - 83 pay 84 assessed value adjusted by sales ratio. This
is calculated by the Dept, of Revenue. The sales ratio adjustment puts all cities
ar IOOZ of marker value for assessment purposes so that no city gets sore or less
aid depending upon rhair asseasmenr practices. This is the same assessed value
figure used in calculating 85 LGA.
83 AAV per Cap - 83 Adjusted assessed value divided by population.
Basic Expend. Average 81-83 - Three year average of expenditures for basic municipal
7expenditurce as defined by the LCA Policy Framework. Data is from the annual
financial reports submitted to rhe Stare Auditor for the years 81,82, and 83. For
rhe 15-20 cities who did not report in all of those years, a one or two year average
(s used for illustrative purposes.
1985 LGA - What the city will receive in 1985 under the current formula.
$25 per capita - Population times $25
.6-
lU1 league of
g minnesota cities
MEMORANDUM December 21, 1984
TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks, Legislative Contacts
FROM: Donald Slater, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 1985 LMC/AMM LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONFERENCE
The 1985 LMC/AMM Legislative Action Conference will be hold at the
St. Paul Radisson Hotel on Kellogg Boulevard on Tuesday, January 29 -
Yednesdsy, January 70.
At this conference, LMC member cities will review and adopt 1985 LMC
City Policies. The proposed policies recommended by the LMC
Legislative Committee have been mailed to member cities for distribu--
tion. I►, is suggested that you use the January city council meeting
as an opportunity to review those policies and to determine your
participation in the conference.
1)iacussion of the proposed stare tax reforms and direction of future
atate-local fiscal relations will be among the topics highlighted
during the conference.
Please check the December and January issues of Minnesota Cities or
the form attached hero and complete registration information. Return
your form as soon as possible to be sure of raking advantage of
advance registration fees and to assure hotel accommodations.
Legislators will be sent invitations to the LMC/AMM Reception,
scheduled from 5:30-7:70 p.m., Tuesday, January 29, following the
close of the LMC Policy Adoption portion of the conference. If you
Plan to attend, please let vour legislator know that you @loser to see
him/her at the reception.
The conference agenda is printed have and in the January issue of the
' s League magasine.
1 133 urnvcr3iev evenue eosC, ac. onus, minneaoca 55101 161 2) 227.5600