Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 05-28-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL i l Tuesday, May 28, 1965 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held May 13, 1985. i 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Old Business 4. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for the Construction of the Monticolio Fire Hall. 5. Consideration of a Loaf Composting Site. Now Business 6. Consideration of Variance Request Appeal to Allow an Additional Sign to be Placed on an Existing Building Site - Applicant, Davo Poterson's Ford. 7. Consideration of Preliminary Plan and Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, John Kornevlch. B. Consideration of Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bide for Sealeooting Project. 9. Consideration of Repairs to the Existing Water Towor. 10. Consideration Of Removing the Concrete Planters from Broadway and Returning Ownership to the Monticello Rotary Club. 11. Consideration of Ratification of Mayoral Appointment(a) to HRA. 12. Consideration of Bills for the Month of May. 13. Adjournment. NOTE: THE COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY DUE TO MEMORIAL DAY ON MONDAY. n With the expiration of the original tan year agreement between the Township and the City regarding annexation. some recent discussions have taken place between the Mayor and the Chairman of the Town Board concerning the future course of the en- tities involving the Orderly Annexation Area. The OAA area is continually seeing development occur. primarily residential, and it wag felt that the city is rapidly approaching the tints where a decision should be sada concerning the annexation of this area into the city to provide for orderly development that would be suitable with the city's Comprehensive Plans. -1- MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL May 13, 1985 - 7:30 P. M. Members present: Mayor Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held April 22. 1985. 4. Consideration of Awarding Contract for City Hall Roof Repair Proiect. Two bids were received and opened on Thursday. May 9, on the city hall roof replacement project. The bids for the complete replacement of the city hall roof were as follows: Patton Roofing Company, Inc. $43.385.00 Fullerton Lumber Co. of Mpls. $36,160.00 �.� The original estimate for the roof repair was estimated to cost between $24.000 to $28,000, and as a result of the high bids, it was the recommendation of the Building Inspector that the city reject the two bids received and review alternatives such as ra-bidding or the city becoming the general contractor and bidding for labor only. Motion was tmado by Blonlgen, seconded by Bill Fair and unanimously carried to reject all bids received on the city hall roof replacement project and to direct the building Inspector to roview alternative actions available to the city. S. Consideration of Authorising the Mayor to Aeproach the Town Board Concor nin% Certain Annexation, and Orderina Professional i Consultants to Commence Annexation Investigation. With the expiration of the original tan year agreement between the Township and the City regarding annexation. some recent discussions have taken place between the Mayor and the Chairman of the Town Board concerning the future course of the en- tities involving the Orderly Annexation Area. The OAA area is continually seeing development occur. primarily residential, and it wag felt that the city is rapidly approaching the tints where a decision should be sada concerning the annexation of this area into the city to provide for orderly development that would be suitable with the city's Comprehensive Plans. -1- Council Minutes - May 13, 1985 Additionally, the city is reviewing the possibility of constructing a water reservoir which is currently being proposed to be located in the OAA area and as a result _ the time for considering annexation appears imminent. Mayor Crimsmo and Councilman Blonigen felt that with the existing development that is occurring in the OAA area, the city should begin discussions on annexation of this area to help control and regulate residential lot sizes, etc. in order to provide for future utility expansion. Mr. John Sandberg, partner in the Tyler East residential sub -division in the OAA area and also majority owner of the Halliger tree farm property adjacent to the city limits. submitted a letter to the council indicating support for annexation. After further discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the Mayor to approach the Town Board concerning annexation of the OAA area into the city and also authorize the city's professional consultants consisting of city engineer and city planner to begin the analysis of the area to be con- sidered for annexation. r' 6. Consideration of Change Order 03 on the County Road 75 Protect. As part of the County Road 75 project, approximately 19 man holes were to be removed during construction and re -act in concrete. In order to facilitate easier readjustment of man hole covers at a later date, it was recommended by the Public Works Director that the city install new adjustable man hole castings to replace the old castings which were set in concrete. The cost of the castings is approximately $200 each which the city would purchase separately, but an additional change order would be requir6 for $75 installation for each man hole with Buffalo Bituminous, the contractor. Motion was made by Maxwoll, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to approve change order 13 on the County Road 75 project with Buffalo Bituminous in the amount of $1,623.00 for the estimated 19 man holo coatings to be installed. 7. Consideration of Force Main on Chestnut Street from 3rd Street through Broadway. During the major 77-3 Street Project, Chestnut Street between River Street and Broadway was left unfinished to allow for the future construction of a 10" force main that would connect I the lift station with the anticipated Interceptor sewer line south of Broadway. Because of the current Broadway re -paving project, It was recommended by the Public Warks Director that the the city consider installing that segment of force main 0 Council Minutes - 5/13/85 under Broadway at the present time while the street is torn up to eliminate cutting up the pavement at a later date. The Public Works Director has negotiated a price from La Tour Construction of Maple Lake to install the force main at a Lprice of $4,860.00 for equipment and labor. The city would purchase the necessary pipe and fittings at a cost of ap- proximately $4,900.00 making the total project $9,487.00. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to authorize entering into a contract with LaTour Construction of Maple Lake to install the small section of force main under Broadway in the amount of $4,860.00 and to authorize the purchase of materials necessary estimated at $4,924.00. 8. Consideration of Authorizing Increasing Payment to Corrow Sanitation to Off -Set New Landfill Taxes. Representatives of Corrow Sanitation, the city's garbage contract hauler, approached the council requesting a rate increase to off -set the cost of the newly enacted land fill tax which Wright County recently imposed at 90C per cubic yard of municipal refuse. In addition to the 90C per yard tax, Corrow Sanitation requested an additional 60C per cubic yard becnuse of increased land fill dumping charges that have occurred over the past year and one half. The average monthly cubic yards hauled from the city of Monticello to the land fills was estimated at 720, which would result in 1 a total monthly increase of $1,080. Mr Although the estimated 720 cubic yards a month was accumulated by using past records, considerable discussion was hold by the council concerning future monthly records that would establish a more accurate monthly total, especially since the city to considering establishing a compost site which may eliminate some yardage from leaves, etc. It woo noted by the City Administrator that the agenda item before the council was intended to deal strictly with increased cost imposed by Wright County as a tax which was only 90C per cubic yard, and suggested that if additional increases were to be considered, a complete renegotiation of the contract would be preferroblo. Although various methods were discussed regarding how to accurately determine Corrow, Sanitation's increase in cost, it was the general consensus of the Council the $1,080 a month increase would be granted for a six month period of time which would enable the council at that time to review records to Indicate whether the Increnae granted was excessive or not. As a result, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair and unanimously carried to grant Corrow Sanitation an Increase of $1,080 or $1.50 per estimated cubic yard hauled per month for a six month period of time at which' time the records will bo reviewed in regard to tonnage hauled and pouslble ronegotintiong of their existing contract with the D city. -7- Council Minutes - 5113/85 - 9. Consideration of Authorizing the Acquisition of a New Photocopying Machine for City Rall. Recently, the city staff has been evaluating two copy machines from area vendors which included a Savin 7035 and a Ricoh 5070. The Savin photo copier is supplied by Marco Business Products of St. Cloud and the Ricoh machine is supplied by Metro Sales of Minneapolis. The machines are similar in design and capabilities and actually the Savin is made by Ricoh. The cost comparison was presented to the council on both machines under three options which included outright purchase, a three year lease at which time the city would own the machine for one dollar extra and one year rental agreements. Cost -wise, the machines were very close In price, with the Ricoh machine being cheaper to rent, but if purchased, the Sevin would be slightly cheaper with an annual maintenance agreement than the Ricoh model. Due to the relatively short life span of copying machines, the city normally in the past has only gotten three to four years use out of these machines before major problems arise. It is recommended by the staff that the city consider renting the Ricoh machine from Metro Sales at a monthly cost of $430.79. which would include all the supplies necessary. Outright purchaso of the Ricoh machine with a maintenance agreement would total $9,838.00 versus the Savin purchase price with maintenance agreement of $9,796.00. Since the post practice has been for the city hall copy machine to be shifted to other various departments. such as public works, wastewater treatment plant or senior eititens center nfter large volume copying Is no longer economical, it was the council's consensus they should continue to purchase outright a new copying machine, thus allowing for future filtering of the machines to other departments with lesser usage requirements. A rental agreement would not provide this option for the city. Motion made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen and unanimously carried to authorize purchase of a Savin 7035 copy machine from Marco Business Products at a coat of $9,046.31 with a maintenance agreement totaling approximately $750.00 annually. 10. Review of let Qunrtnr Liquor Stora Financial Statements. Mr. Mark trotter, manager of the municipal off -sale liquor store, was present and reviewed with the council the let quarter liquor financial statements for 1985. Mr. trotter noted that the sales and resulting gross profit had decreased !J slightly from 1984 tat quarter figures. A short*discuasion was held regarding the pricing policies that may have resulted In the lower groes profit pertentagee which Mr. Trott ar felt were due to increasing consumption of loss leader items. a a- ,pj Council Minutes - 5/17/85 After reviewing; the statements, the report Was accepted as presented. 11. Additional Department Head Quarterly Reports. The following department heads Were present and discussed With the council quarterly progress reports. Karen Hanson, Senior Citizen Director Mike Melstad, YMCA Coordinator Cary Anderson, Building Inspector Allen Pelvic, Economic Development Director Officer Lindell, Wright County Sheriff Dept. John Simola, Public Works Director Richard Wolfsteller, Finance Directcr After discussion With each department head, the reports were accep ted. Rick Wolfsteller Assistant Administrator Council Agenda - 5/28/85 3. Citizen Comments — Clarification of Recent Planning Commission Variances Granted to Doug Stokes. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you may recall, Mr. Doug Stokes appealed the Planning Commission -a denial of his request for a variance to allow a garage to be built within his front yard at the April 22 Council meeting. The Council reaffirmed the denial because of the setback being within 10 feet of the front property line and also because the garage was larger than 1000 sq. ft. Mr. Stokes was advised that if he wished to revise his original request, he could reapply to the Planning Commission, which he did at their May 14 meeting. Mr. Stokes presented to the Planning Commission a revised proposal still requesting that the garage be allowed in the front yard but proposed to place the garage 4 feet from the house and 27 feet from the front property line. During the Planning Commission reconsideration of his request, a compromise was reached between the applicant and the Planning Commission whereby the garage would be located 5 foot from the house and be down sized to a 26' x 38' structure which would meet the 1000 sq. ft. maximum requirement; and as a result, the front setback would be currently 32 feet according to the figures provided by Mr. Stokes. The Planning Commission, after considerable discussion, felt this would be an acceptable solution in that the front yard setback would moot the current City ordlnanca requirement of 30 feat, and the garage structure would be loss than 1000 sq. ft. The reason this item is now again being brought before the Council under the Citizens Comments is that Public works Director, John Simola, and Gary Anderson reviewed the site and took soma measurements and did not tomo up with the Gama front yard footagoo that Mr. Stokes indicated in his proposal to the Planning Commission. The variance granted for the garage according to the figures provided by Mr. Stokes indicated there was 96 fact from the front of hie house to the front property lino; but in actuality, there is only 91 foot. If the 26 foot vide garage along with a 5 foot setback from the house is granted, the setback will not be 32 foot as initially thought by the Planning Commission but approximatoly 26 or 27 foot. In an effort to eventually resolve this request, it is being brought before the Council once again. it Is still the opinion of the City staff that at least a 30 -foot minimum setback should be required if a garage is going to be allowed in the front yard because of the potential widening of County Road 39 by the County Highway Department in the near future. As you will recall, the County is proposing to acquire approximately a 12 -foot additional right of we)- which would bring the setback in the future to only 20 foot; and if now the garage is placed at only 26 or 27 foot from the front property lino, that distanco will shorten to 15 foot. It appears from the discussions John and Gary have Council Agenda - 5/28/85 had with Mr. Stokes, he has not indicated whether he will reduce the size of his garage to 21 fact or attach the garage to the house to still meet the 32 -foot setback approved by the Planning Commission. This discrepancy in Mr. Stokes' figures and in the actual footage determined by the Public Works Director did not come to the City's attention until Friday morning, and it was felt that this discrepancy should be resolved prior to Mr. Stokes actually requesting a building permit based on the Planning Commission's approval. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Alternative #1 would be to allow Mr. Stokes to build a garage according to the Planning Commission's variances granted requiring the garage to be 5 feet from the adjoining house and 32 feet setback from the property line, which would result in the garage being down sized additionally to only a 21 foot width to meet all of these requirements. 2. Alternative 02 would be to allow the garage to be placed 30 foot from the front property lino, 5 foot from the house, resulting in a 24 foot wide garage structure. 3. Alternative #3 would be to require the garage to be attached to the house, maintain the 32 -foot front yard setback distance approved by the Planning Commission, which would result in Mr. Stokes being allowed to build his 26 foot wide garage as initially granted by the Planning Commission. 4. Alternative #4 would be to reverse the Planning Commission's variances granted, including allowing a building to be placed in the front yard based on erroneous information or any compromise from the above alternates. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Relying on the information supplied by the applicant in regards to his setback distances from his property lino, it was felt by the staff that the Planning Commission had arrived at a suitable solution for Mr. Stokes' proposal with the building being setback 32 foot from the existing property lino. Now that it has boon dotorminod that there is approximately 6 foot lose front yard setback than indicated by Mr. Stokes, the staff rocommands that if the building is allowed in the front yard, it should either be attached to the house if it remains 26 foot wide to provide the minimum 32 foot cotback, or Mr. Stokae should be required to reduce the width of the garage to whatever is necessary to maintain a 32 -foot setback. Anything placed much closer than 32 foot could eventually cause problems since the City is aware of the County's plan to obtain 12 foot of additional right of way from the property owner. Additionally, it is recommended that Mr. Stokes be required to provide a Certificate of Survey that would indicate exact placement Council Agenda - 5/28/85 of the house in distance from the front property line before any building permit is issued. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Planning Commission minutes of May 14; Copy of Mr. Stokes - revised plot plan requesting a 27 foot setback; Copy of plot plan prepared by Gary Anderson indicating dimensions necessary to meet the minimum 30 foot setback, leaving 2 feet between the house and garage. C W.S.5 ; s S. i Ilf i L.'a 16 H IH loo, SiakeT l Car zz to 7-V n. CO. P14 loo, Planning Commission'lMinutes - 5/14/85 V G r _ Public Searing_- A Variance Request to Allow 1) a Garage to be Pieced in the Front Tard or -a Lot; 2) the Garage to be Placed in the Front Setback Requiremeat; 1) the Garage to be Placed Within 10 feet of Another Building; 4) the Gara90 to be Built in Excess of 1000 sq. ft. - Applicant, Douglas Stokes. Mr. Stokes was present to propose his request for the 4 variances noted above. Mr. Stokes indicated he had, from his previous request, moved the garage back to within 4 foot of his house and also within 27 feet of the front property line. Mr. Troy Chapman, current resident two properties north of Mr. Stokes' property, was present to explain to Commission members that in 1980 he was allowed to put up a garage in his front yard, and he didn't see any problem with Mr. Stokes' request to build a garage in the front of his property. Mr. Chapman also indicated he was in full support of Mr. Stokes' request for the variance and that the garage he constructed was not big enough to suit his needs. City Administrator, Thomas Sides. indicated to Pleasing Commission seeders that even though Mr. stoUs' property trusts on test County Road 19, the Mississippi River really 1s the trent part of his house. Actually. Mr. Stokes' request Is to allow a persue to be built on the rear of his property with his hoose actually treating toward the Mississippi River. • In good planning. you 60 not try to Obscure any wiilon from the Mississippi elver if at all possible. Mr. Rides did Indicate he could not support the Road for all tour variances, but he could support possibly two of the variances It Mr. Stokes would reduce his garage site to a 26' x 18' garage, which would be just under the mximm 1000 sq. ft. allowed. In doing so, he would also maintain 5 feet from the adjoining house, and he would also be within 72 toot of the front property line. This information was proposed to Mr. Stokes. He did not like to be undersized on his garage to under t000 sq. ft., but he said he could live with the proposal as submitted by Mr. Sides. Motion by Dick Martie, seconded by Rd Schaffer, to approve a variance request to 1) allow a garage to be built in the front yard of a property; and 2) to allow a garage to be placed within 5 feet of another building. Also, when the garage is constructed within 5 feet of the house, the walls within 10 feet of the property must be shoetrockod and fire rated. TMXTIONS TO_AMICANT '"ll ►O" NCCO NOT O[ vaso NtCN KOT •LANA ORAVN TO $CAL$ AMC IACD VITN TN[ REKNIT APPLICATIOri. 10... f4IL0i N0l. 61,4410[ TNL t81LOVTnO iM/OtblATiONt LOCATION of ♦RD►O7C0 CONSTRUCTION ANO Cxt$TINO 1M/ROVCMtM7s. 7NOV 041LDIN0 71T[ AMC 7CTO/CR OINCHSIONa, $NOV CASNCNT7, rINISN CONTOURS OR ORAINAOC. '"IRai ?LOOS CLCYA1/909. 714991 CL[YATION ANO OCVCR CLTTATIAN♦ .SNOv LOCATION O/ VATCR. ACVC.. MAL. WO 'ClL CIAICAL 7[RY ICC LINCO. ONOV LOGATION7 O/ fURr" ►INR. !►[CIrY TN[ 4SC O/ CA.04 OUILOINO ,NO ACM NA.10R TONT ION TN[RCOt. INOICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE EACH r,RAPH S)UARE EQUALS IOTA" IIY 10-.0" m µtrortc�s .,i1���;• PERMIT Wall lEGAL:••�: '• N.00R ADDITION ',CSCRIPYION AOT''' 50. ET. Ot 31TE ARCA 44, n. Of ARCA OCCUPIED BY BUILOiNO TMXTIONS TO_AMICANT '"ll ►O" NCCO NOT O[ vaso NtCN KOT •LANA ORAVN TO $CAL$ AMC IACD VITN TN[ REKNIT APPLICATIOri. 10... f4IL0i N0l. 61,4410[ TNL t81LOVTnO iM/OtblATiONt LOCATION of ♦RD►O7C0 CONSTRUCTION ANO Cxt$TINO 1M/ROVCMtM7s. 7NOV 041LDIN0 71T[ AMC 7CTO/CR OINCHSIONa, $NOV CASNCNT7, rINISN CONTOURS OR ORAINAOC. '"IRai ?LOOS CLCYA1/909. 714991 CL[YATION ANO OCVCR CLTTATIAN♦ .SNOv LOCATION O/ VATCR. ACVC.. MAL. WO 'ClL CIAICAL 7[RY ICC LINCO. ONOV LOGATION7 O/ fURr" ►INR. !►[CIrY TN[ 4SC O/ CA.04 OUILOINO ,NO ACM NA.10R TONT ION TN[RCOt. INOICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE EACH r,RAPH S)UARE EQUALS IOTA" IIY 10-.0" i/WI ttrlllT tMi IAO CNOMIM OORit.YnWA �iO sR1Mw tO titt AtnNgNM i1U6 tlort RN.,.n NM.t Aro tn.t ti rnxryrs w n .w ry �.,....n lotlMUNlIry tAAtw7L ., ,. �TOtftT4tR"t7t'DU1RTr . .... ,...0'Oa 'NC1'0C6CRT'CTITC" toot•.Gto.o.000GO.GAGGotN7CTGofoGOO.000tGO As* .toG.flo{ 60a@..ftea As.*$.tGoo.f.G 0 G. l.. tl tlf!l G.oG too/Goof!, ITOA wtT uu wLT !lN[O APIOVEO OT WE. • 1 4-� 9 m C ■ i/WI ttrlllT tMi IAO CNOMIM OORit.YnWA �iO sR1Mw tO titt AtnNgNM i1U6 tlort RN.,.n NM.t Aro tn.t ti rnxryrs w n .w ry �.,....n lotlMUNlIry tAAtw7L ., ,. �TOtftT4tR"t7t'DU1RTr . .... ,...0'Oa 'NC1'0C6CRT'CTITC" toot•.Gto.o.000GO.GAGGotN7CTGofoGOO.000tGO As* .toG.flo{ 60a@..ftea As.*$.tGoo.f.G 0 G. l.. tl tlf!l G.oG too/Goof!, ITOA wtT uu wLT !lN[O APIOVEO OT WE. • 1 4-� 9 Council Agenda - 5/28/85 4. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Bid and P.wardinq Contract for the Construction of the Monticello Fire Hall. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On Tuesday, May 21, 1985, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, we opened five bids for the construction of the Fire Hall. TKDA indicated that more than 20 firms picked up copies of plans and specifications, and that as of the Monday prior to the bid opening, 12 firms indicated they would be submitting bids. At the actual bid opening time, there were five bidders. At the insistence of the Fire Hall Building Committee, the bid form included certain additional information. The bidder had to state who would be the subcontractors selected for mechanical, plumbing, and electrical work. The bidder also had to submit a list of names of local potential subcontractors who they had at least made contact with regarding the job. We could not, under free enterprise laws, require that a bidder use a local subcontractor, but we were able to ensure that local contractors' were contacted with respect to the job. All bidders met the requirement of contacting local potential subcontractors. The summary of the bide is as follows: (Actual bid shoots are included under supporting documentation.) Fullerton Lumber Company $456,900.00 Paterson Construction $475,000.00 Torwiescho Construction, Inc. 5499,450.00 W. Gohman Construction Co. $525,180.00 Groat River Construction, Inc. $607,500.00 As you can sea, Fullerton Lumber Company appears to be the lowest responsible bidder. At the conclusion of the bid opening, all information was returned to the offices of TKDA to do a detailed investigation. Debra Lonsky, the project architect , requested the datailod statement of quantities in order to evaluate accuracy of projections. She further requostod a complete rasumo on the suporintandant who would be assigned to the job. She requested a list of throo other buildings Fullerton Lumbar had crocted in this approximate price range and the project architects for those jobs. She intends to have the complete investigation done by Tuesday night so that a dotormination of responsible bidder can be made. At this point, wo do not anticipate any severe problems with them being the lowest responsible bidder. Ono final nor -0: We originally anticipated building construction to be in the $490,000.00 range, and that figure escalated as the Building Committee made alterations and changes and additions to the proposal. The last estieato of the architect was projected to be approximately $515,000.00. This bid figure does not, however, reflect the underground drainage and landscape work which is being undortakon by the City, nor tho carpeting and certain other amonitieo which will be bid ooparatoly by the City. I anticipate we will still be substantially undor lthe architoctla estimate even when wo have provided our own in-houso 00 co a. an Council Agenda - 5/28/85 l B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 'l 1. Adopt the resolution accepting the bid and authorize the execution of a contract. 2. Make a finding and determination that the lowest bidder is not the lowest responsible bidder, and adopt a resolution accepting the next lowest bidder and authorize the execution of a contract - The determining factor in responsible bidder is crucial. The Council must be able to state clear and distinct rationale why the lowest bidder is not also the lowest responsible bidder. The investigation of lowest bidder's credentials must turn up that data. we do not really anticipate that kind of a challenge. 3. Reject all bids and re -advertise - This does not seem realistic since we have, in fact, come in under the budget projection and seem to have reasonable bids based on all our preliminary expectations. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the bid be accepted and the contract authorized, providing that the investigation does not turn up anything unusual. Contract execution may take as long as two weeks, but certainly no more than that, and we can anticipate conrtruction being underway within 21 days. The lowest bidder at this point has stipulated in its bid that the structure will be substantially complete within 240 calendar days (8 months). D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the bid tabulation shoot; Copy of the individual bidding shoots; Copy of the resolution. -2- MONTICELLO FIRE STATION Monticello. Minnesota I 1 )Bid Date: 21 -May -85 3:00r AgGAndg , �utiateu►tla Blid ' , CONTRACTOR Received 2 Base Sid Alternate Complete 1Setwity Ramarkd: gel's Construction Co.. Inc. Fullerton lumber Company xx N. Gohman Construction Co. xx Gopher State Contractors, Inc. Great River Construction Inc. xx flew Creations Industries, Inc. Peters Construction Peterson Construction xx Cy Reinert Construction, Inc. Jim Schlei f Hone S Commerical Bldc lerwissche Construction, Inc. xx Veit Construction, Inc. TABULATION OF 456,900.00 Bono 240 5% 525,180.00 pons 240 5% 1 607,500.00 Nona 240 5• 475,000.00 Nona 199,450.00 Non* j BIDS 240 A 150 I 5% i ! I 1 " ti:J COMMISSION NUMBER 8281 .TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, , ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATFn RESOLUTION 1985 6 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A BID AND AUTHORIZING THE ENTERING OF A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MORTICELIq FIRE STATION WHEREAS, pursuant to an Advertisement for Bids for the construction of the Monticello Fire Hall, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law, and the following bids wore received complying with the advertisement: Fullerton Lumber Company $456,900.00 Petorson Construction $475,000.00 Terwissche Construction, Inc. $499,450.00 W. Gohman Construction Co. $525,180.00 Great River Construction, Inc. $607,500.00 and; WHEREAS, it appears that Fullerton Lumber Company of Buftalo is the lowest responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA: 1. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with Fullerton Lumber Company of Buffalo, Minnesota, in the name of the City of Monticello, Minnesota for the construction of the Monticello Fire Hall according to the plans and opocificationo therefor approved by the City Council and on file In the office of the City Administrator. 2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has boon signed. Adopted by the City Council this 28th day of May, 1905. Arvo A. Grimemo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidom City Administrator 0 Council Agenda - 5/28/85 C5. Consideration of Leaf Composting Site. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Earlier this year, I discussed with the City Council the possibility of a City owned leaf composting facility. This facility would be used for composting leaf and grass clippings so that they may be taken out of the waste stream which goes to our landfills. In addition, the compost material, after a period of 18-24 months, would be utilized on City projects and by reaidents as well. At that time, the Council consensus was for the Public Works Director to proceed along the linea of preparing drawings and cost estimates for the site and also to begin working on the pick up and/or delivery of materials to the site. During the last meeting, it was noted that Corrow Sanitation indicated that leaves and grass clippings could amount up to 208 of the waste stream for the City of Monticello. I feel this figure may be somewhat inflated and realistically, we could hope to remove lees than 108 from the waste stream with a well-run leaf and grass clipping compost program. Mr. Corrow indicates that we have about 8,640 cubic yards of refuse each year from the City of Monticello. It is my opinion that a compost facility with the capacity of 700 cubic yards per year, or approximately 88 of our waste stream, would be more than adequate for the City of Monticello. The facility would need enough storage for a three pile system, or a capacity for three years of storage. As discussed oarlior, we have selected a piece of property at the City material storage site off West River Street for the proposed loaf compost site. The western portion of our dump site has a 66 foot public road right of way and is bordered on the west by a donso growth of evergreens. We originally anticipated utilizing a central gravel access road with pilau on both aides. After taking measurements at the site, it appoara that we would only be able to use a ono aide access. With the configuration shown on the anclosod drawing, we would be utilizing a strip of City property approximately 80' x 400', and a piece of County property approximately 80' x 173'. We would have to relocate some existing fencing at the site and install come of the City's salvaged fencing from other projects. In addition, we would need to place about 4 inches of Class V on the roadway to provide an all weathor surface for our access in the early spring and late fall. This accoou road would also Incorporate a turn around or cul-de-sac at the north and for turning around trailers and ouch. Our expected costs for Class V, signing, and fencing aro approximately 31 200.00. utilizing salvaged materials whore possible. In addition, it would take approximately five or six days of City manpower to complete the project. At this Limo, we request the Council's formal Cacceptance of the site selection and roquast that the City request QED Council Agenda - 5/28/85 a lease of a portion of the County park, 173' x 80% for the purposes of operating a leaf compoeting facility. Upon acceptance or approval by the County, we will begin further work in the area of transportation of the leaves to the site. Work could begin in August on the site so that it would be ready for the first fall pick up. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Alternative #1 would be to build the leaf composting site as proposed using a portion of the City property and a portion of the County park property. 2. Alternative #2 would be to select an alternate site someplace in the City for the composting facility. 3. Alternative 13 would be not to construct a leaf composting facility and continue hauling the leaves to the landfill. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that we proceed as outlined in Alternative 41. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map of proposed leaf compost site. -4- n O n � T ri OU �r Lr t:1 Yr -� C / r3Ort \ / o el 70A CUbrC YA ROS } 1 700 CUBIC Y4F05� l 700 CUr IC YAFOS �.-` f*--GRAVEI ACCESS ROAO�h ` I! U) '< \..i y l n -{ _n C n 0 u � v Council Agenda - 5/28/85 `l.. 6. Consideration of Variance Request Appeal to Allow an Additional Sign to be Placed on an Existing Building Site - Applicant, Dave Peterson's Ford. (G.A.) C) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Dave Paterson, owner of Dave Peterson's Ford, is proposing to place an additional pylon sign on his property. The location for the proposed pylon sign would be immediately to the right, approximately 10-15 feet north, of the main driveway entrance. On November 7, 1977, a public hearing was held and a variance was granted to allow two pylon signs on the proposed now Monticello Ford building site. Mr. Peterson is proposing the additional sign to display the "Ford Truck" sign. Mr. Peterson is proposing the amount of signage that other Ford dealerships have in the area. The proposed now pylon sign would be very close in size to the existing Monticello Ford Mercury pylon sign. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow an additional pylon sign to be constructed on an existing building site. 2. Deny the variance request to allow an additional pylon sign to be placed on an existing building site. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends denial of the variance request for the following reasons: 1) City staff, Planning Commission, and City Council have gone to groat lengths to establish the sign ordinance. By allowing additional pylon signs or additional sign footage merely makes the ordinance more non -conforming. 2) We would, however, suggest that we go with one pylon sign to accommodate his existing Monticello Ford pylon sign and incorporate into it hie Used Car pylon sign and his proposed Truck pylon oign. A combination of all three signs on one pylon would seem more appropriate then allowing three separate pylon signs. 3) We could also look at some type of variance for additional square footage of the pylon sign should those three signs be incorporated into one. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed location of the variance request; Copy of the site plan showing the location of the proposed now Truck pylon sign. -5- I C44 WAY LIM -RA MO. 94 r �� �ti � ice, -�'• t' / r �••� �• / Planning Commission Minutes - 5/14/85 6. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow an Additional Sign to be Placed on Existing Buildinq Site - Applicant, Dave Paterson Ford. A axle—n from Dave Peterson Ford was present to propose an additional pylon sign request. He indicated they currently have a leased sign from ford Motor Corporation which indicates the Ford Mercury dealarehl.p, and they also have an additional pylon sign which has "Used Aurowblles• on it. He in requesting an additional pylon sign on which to put `Ford Trucks.- The dealership before Mr. Paterson bought it was granted a variance for an additional pylon sign. Conmisalon members questioned no to why the signs could not be incorporated into one sign, and the gentleman indicated that the main Ford Mercury sign Is owned by Ford Corporation and will not allow any other signs to be attached. The gentleman indicated other dealerships around which do have two or more pylon signs, and he in not asking for any more than what the other dealerships have. A major pert of their business is the visual signage, and they would like to attract people from east and wast on the freeway. Motion by Dick Marti$, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to deny the variance request to allow an additional pylon sign. Motion carried unanimously, with Joyce Dowling absent. 0 Council Agenda - 5/28/85 7. Consideration of Preliminary Plan and Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, John Kornovich. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. John Kornovich is proposing to replat the existing unplatted land adjacent immediately west of the existing Northern States Power building, which is adjacent to our City Maintenance Shop. In replatting this land, he is proposing a Planned Unit Development which would consist of 3.94 acres. He is proposing to build five buildings, of which four will be 12 -unit buildings and one will be an 8 -unit building. All buildings will consist of one 2 -bedroom handicapped unit, with the remaining units in each building being 2 -bedroom units. On the concept plan you will note the proposed locations of the five apartment building sites with the garage spaces and the open parking areas. Each apartment building unit contains the minimum number of garage spaces with the minimum number of open parking spaces as required by ordinance. City staff has reviewed the entire concept plan which has been submitted. Enclosed you will find further detailed information on each of the apartment unite and how they are run. This is explained in the enclosed packet as part of their concept stage requirement. We will be receiving by Tuesday night a copy of a newly proposed concept plan request in which they are reducing the total number of unite to 48 total unite, which will consist of four 12 -unit buildings. The reason for the now proposal is to allow more green area around the buildings to facilitate more openness within the development. City staff will be reviewing those on Tuesday, and any comments will be brought up at the meeting Tuesday night. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the preliminary plan and the concept plan request for a Planned Unit Development. 2. Deny the preliminary plan and the concept plan request for a Planned Unit Development. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan and the concept plan for a Planned Unit Development. City staff has reviewed the entire preliminary plan and concept plan of this proposed Planned Unit Development. Wo have found everything to be in order for the concept stage and have already made suggestive comments to them on what we would like to sea for a proposed development stage should they got to that point. We will be reviewing the now proposal from the dovolopors down scaling of the project from 56 unite to 48 units and will got that information to you on Tuesday night. CD. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed preliminary plan and concept plan; Copy of the site plan showing location; Copy of the report from Dahlgran, Shardlow and Uban, Inc.; Copy of report from OSM; Copy of minutes of the Monticello Planning Commission. -6- I ' I CONCEPT PLAN KAW PA I � / •��� � .\ w u M w�� rw.. r�r u r� r...�. rr 1—IIT - COUNTt Mt`J- 39 ••s� w _ RUYBCR I ' I I I I ••��' wuhAlWM-mvratrn.Ota I I I ..o m ran.,,os 00 I `� l CONCEPT PLAN NUMM 39 � � � -�. �..+�... 1fe11e n�`lILTf aMle • - I M. CONCEPT PLAN C"Prit a APPLICANT ATTO."lly A,CYw Mi cl A AAAAA.. WRMANSOM-KOMMON, cmmcn - It aoum C. i A Concept Plan an4 prolloinary -Plan a Iqu"t for a Planned Unit DevslcPbmt- JohnIoMoviCh- C', m MEMO FROM JOHN USAN The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be single family and the area adjacent to the west and to the south are existing single family; in fact that the area is served by a single family public road, namely Kampa Circle. This road abuts the property. This particular plan beforth for the Golf Course Road apartments backs into that area and does not gain any access on Kampa Circle. it gains access only from County Highway 039. We think that the city needs to look at whether or not they want apartments in this area, and how the existing and not completed Kampa Estates is completed should portions of this property be single family so that we have a roar yard single family running into a rear yard multiple family which is the preferred situation versus having an entrance to a single family area having them share the back aide of a bunch of garages with the apartments. I think that's a basic concept program which will have to be revued. It will include additional land to the cast and what will be the eventual use of the subject property. Aftor making that decision on whether or not this area should be single family or multiple, the next question in compliance with various parte of the building ordinance. The area is zoned . I believe R-2. i know the city has been contemplating some changes, so I don't know if I have the latest Information on that which allows a certain amount of multiple, and actually maybe it's zoned R-3. I'm not sure about that. Their plan says R-3, and maybe I mis-read my own map, but it's either R-3 or R-2. The first thing, there is a vet -land - it shove a wot-lend to the north in the property - adjacent to the rail road track, wh 1ch forma a good buffer between the rail road and any future buildingo. I understand that this is not an official wet land in which case It does not have to adhere to the various outbarko and other erosion control and other measures that are talked about in the ordinance. The pian itself the shows buildings on the steep wooded slopes backing into this vet land in dutall that treatment grading the con otructlon of those buildingo should be carefully looked at to prosory o as much of the wet land system and control of erosion as much as poosiblo. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS By ordinance, accessory buildings cannot exceed 1,000 square test. and we have many that exceed over 3,000 aq. ft. which means that moat of th000 garagoo can only be clustered in a to 6 stalls depand ing On the actual size. So one of the goragon in particular should be broken up Building heights by ordinance 3 three story buildings, which I believe all of theme will be, aro allowed only by conditional use permit and must have a fire extinguishing system inside the building. This has to be noted that the conditional use permit process has to be adhorrad to { and all those requirements and reviswsby the city. Lei Also, they are proposing what appears to be all 2 bedroom apartments which by square footage on a per unit basic they are under sized so as detailed plane are made available adherence to the minimum sized unit should be viewed and a decision for any kind of variance from that should be quite specific and there should be a specific reason, low rent or something - some sort of a reason for it. PARKING AND CIRCULATION There are a variety cf things here. There really seems to be a lot of road that is not very efficiently used. The lay out of the buildings and the garage and the parking, really the whole plan should be re- viewed and tackled again, I think and a better plan certainly could be developed for this parcel. Some of the problem we found was for instance the distance between parking stalls and garages. The care backing out of the garages would pull right out into lanes of traffic that are circulating within the development searching for parking stalls. People, an they pull out of the garage, are blinded on both sides, and of course can't see until they are fully out of the garage itself. This causes safety problems both for pedestrians and cars moving in that area, so we think that there needs to more area in front of each one of the garages for the safe movement of traffic. The other thing is there are some parking stalls between garages and those people have the came problem -- not enough room for doors to open against the garage and also they will be blinded as they try to pull out from behind the garage Into traffic. The parking stalls -- some of them on the cant aide, in particular, when they are doad-ended, being that there is no through ✓) circulation within the parking system. There is soma difficulty for the last stall to back out and turn to get out of that parking area; there in no extra area for turning movement. The slopes on come of the parking areas on the north and arc steep and will cause slippery conditions when covered with ico and snow. There is no walk detailed, but in many casae It appears that care will pull over - over hang of the car will impair movement to pedestrians between building and parked care. This relationship seems to quite tight. In come areas whore parking comes together - whore front ends of parked caro aro parking against the sides of care -- this Is not a gond practice. Cars should either touch front and to front and or have enough planting area or curbing to separate them completely -- you got a lot of damage to care that way. GRADING Looks like moot of it - the whole sight - is graded without catch baeine to the north and and then just dumps off In come fashion across the atoop slopes and than into the wet land. we foul that there in a groat deal of potential for erosion and for icy opots within the development. SET -RACKS My review of the ordinance shows a not back required along the aide property, especially when it is zoned R-1 adjacent to this area for parking of 20 foot along aide yard and in soma areas it gets down to 1 to 2 foot. The relationship between the buildings should be looked at between acc0000ry garages and the units thcmoolves. It would be best if It could be arranged no that the garages had direct walks C C that led to each unit that It served which isn't the case in all respects here, so people don't have to croon through parking iota, etc. to get to their units after they park their car. We have measured the driveway and we think we will have over 500 feet of under utilized driveway that could be converted to a more attractive design or more open space and still meet the basic requirements of the ordinance. I guess the general comment would be rather than to Just put buildings in sort of an asphalt ring to try to consolidate the asphalt in one place - maybe one single parking area - with the buildings surrounding it. This may work out a little better for this kind of apartment building. Those are general commenta: I think on the concept I'll follow this up with our memo and we understand that more information will come in the future. ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors May 13. 1985 Mr. Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Concept Plan Montt Partnership Dear Gary: The concept plan for the Monti Partnership located on C.A.S.H. 39 consisting of five (5) apartment buildings has been reviewed, and I offer the following comments. The plan, as presented. Is very basic in nature with little detail provided at this time. General drainage is shown as well as basic contours. The driveways and parking areas will need to be refined at the preliminary and final stage of development to show curbing and how the drainage will be conveyed across drive- ways to the drainage swales at the north edge of the property. Storm sewers and catch basins will need looking into, and probably outlet piping from the site to the railroad ditch and existing culvert underneath the railroad. Increased runoff from the site will need to be evaluated to see what effect this may have on downstream areas. At this point, I see no problem with the concept plan as presented. and the concerns I have stated above can be properly addressed in the preliminary and final stages of plan preparation. Yours very truly. ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 8;J,?"Wp ASSOC I�ATENC . Badalich, P.E. C Vice President JPO:nIb 0 2021 1.-nsr Ncrmrydn Avrnvro - Saile 2,7.4 - M.innenpnlrs, Minneenrn 55413 • 612/ 331- 8660 `- Planning Commission Minutes - 5/14/85 3. Public Hearing - A Prelimin" Plan and a Concent Plan Request for a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, John Kornovieh. Lionel Kull and Stave Upgren. partners in Monti Partnership. were present to explain their proposal for an apartment Planned Unit A Development. They outlined their intent of development of the y property with apartment buildings, the number of unite within the buildings, and that they meat the minimum setback requirements. Questions were raised by Chairman Jim Ridgeway which addressed the driveway alignment. Zoning Administrator Anderson answered that the driveway alignment Is adjacent to the property line which separates this property from the NSP property. Fir. Ridgeway also addressed the number of unite and the square footage of each apartment unit. M.C. Lionel Kull, partner in Monti Partnership, ansvered that the total square footage of each unit would be 829 q. ft. Chairman Ridgeway then opened the meeting for public testimony. Mr. Roger Pribyl questioned It the square footage requirements oran't what they proposed an the plot, than more than likely they don't have enough quare footage to meat the minimum requirements. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that they meta than exceed the total amount of square footage required for each unit. Mr. Doug Stokes questioned if the planned Unit Development could and op with the mass problems an Jim Boyle to currently having with the Meadow Oak Development. This was just a point of Information. Mr. Roger Pribyl then questioned as to what they vera intending to do with the low area to the rear. Mr. John Kornovich. the owner of the land and builder of the apartment units, explained to Planning Commission members that they intended to fill the low area in back with excess fill taken from the lower level of each of these apartment building_atten. Mr. David Matuaka questioned if there was an area proposed for a play area for the kids that would be involved in this proposed apartment complex. Mr. Kull replied that they are proposing to have an area to the back doui.Jnatod as a play area and would develop it accordingly. Mr. Jerry Danson questioned as to the amount of aquaro yardage for the ploy area. Finance Director. Rick volfateller, a navered by indicating the amount of land area that was sat aside for the proposed play area or green area. Kra. Moody van present and questioned an to whore all of the off-street parking was going to occur and if there was going to be any fencing installed along the property lino. The developers indicated to her that they have accommodated the off-street parking as required by ordinance; and they would, if requested, put in a fenced area between their property and the adjoining Keeps Zstates properties. Mr. Roger Pribyl questioned aa to the clientele of people. The developers answered that they cannot oegragato the type of people that would be moving in there, but predominantly the people that would be living there would be the &Ingle parent family and possibly families with children. Mr. Jim Ridgeway concluded all public testimony and cavorted back to the question at hand. Motion by Richard Carlson. seconded by Dick Martis. to approve the concept plan request for a Planned Unit Development., Motion carried unanimously. with Joyce Dowling absent. Council Agenda - 5/28/85 l B. Consideration of Aj2proval of Plane and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bide for Sealcoating Project. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: C� As part of the City of Monticello -s Comprehensive Street Maintenance Program, the Public Works Department is involved in crack sealing, patching, and the scheduling of overlays and Sealcoating. The City Sealcoating program began in 1979 and has continued with approximately $28,500.00 worth of work each year. In 1986, however, we down sized the project Slightly to try the granite chip aggregate in place of the rounded pea rock. The two areae completed with this aggregate were Lauring Lane and the parking lot north of Harry's Auto Parts. Over the winter it was noted that the traffic in these areas was experiencing better traction than other parts of the City, and we found no areae where stripping of the aggregate was evident. We are, therefore, recommending this soalcoat be used again this year with a Slightly higher oil application rate. The areas to be sealcoated this year include the following: 1. Country Club Estates 2. Prairie Road and north Marvin Elwood Road. 3. West River Street from County Road 75 to 1-94. 4. Dundas Road within the Monticello Industrial Park. We had intended to do the commuter parking lot this year, but because of budget restrictions, it was dropped during preparation of the 1985 Budget. It is expected that we will do the sealcoating in the commuter parking lot in 1986. With the above areas, we expect the bids to come in in the area of 55-60c. This would put us at or slightly over the budget figure of 828,500.00, depending upon bids received. It is our intention to have the bids returned on Juno 19 for approval at the Juno 20 Council meeting. Work would not be started until after the 4th of July and would be in place and complete by August 16. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Alternative 01 would be to do the above areas as outlined with the granite chips. 2. Alternative 02 would be to switch back to using the buckshot typo of soalcoat. -7- Le `. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: C Council Agenda - 5/28/85 It is the staff recommendation that we go with the chip type of sealcoating as outlined in Alternate #1 and continue our evaluation of this type of sealcoating. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Plans and specifications are available at City Hall for your review; A copy of the areae is enclosed for your review. -e- NF - CIL clkoi - 7 I Council Agenda - 5/28/85 9. Consideration of Repairs to the Existing Water Tower. (J. S. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As we had discussed at earlier meetings and as was touched upon in the preliminary water study, the existing water tower may be in need of repairs. During the fall inspection in 1984, the Water Tower Paint and Repair Company of Iowa noted some rivets and pitting that have deteriorated to the point that it could cause leakage. They recommended repairs be done with the 1985 cleaning. I was notified on Wednesday, May 22, that the crew from Water Tower Paint and Repair Company would be in Monticello on Tuesday morning, May 28, to clean and again inspect the tank. At this time, their inspection will result in a quote or estimate of the :,ecessary repairs. I will have this quote by Tuesday evening's meeting for your consideration. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: There are definitely several alternatives in regards to the repairing of the water tower. Several alternatives hinge upon the construction time table for the now reservoir on Monte Hill. 1. Alternative #1 would be to sandblast those areae needing repairs ( and perform only enough repairs as needed to increase the longevity of the tank until the ground reservoir at the Monte Hill is completed. This would include rewaxing of the tank after the repairs and scheduled demolition of the tank at a later date. 2. Thio alternative would involve making all of the repairs to the existing tank and rewaxing it so that it may continue to be a part of the City of Monticello's water system. 3. A third alternative would be to make all of the necessary repairs to the tank and in addition apply an epoxy coating to the inside surface of the tank so that it may be taken out of service with the construction of the above ground reservoir at the Monte Hill. It would, however, remain intact at the site to be used during periods of emergency or when problems develop with the long lines loading to the Monte Hill or the above ground reservoir located there. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Depending upon costo, it appears that Alternatives M1 or 02 would fit into the City's plans more rowdily than Alternative M3. If the repairs were made as outlined in Alternative 02, than we could switch to an epoxy coating later on if, indeed, we decide to leave the tank empty but in place. Ono of tho things we would have to weigh against the coat of leaving the tank in place is the fact that it may coat $15,000 or 920,000 to remove the tank. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Please, rofor to your copy of the preliminary water study. -9- WATER TOWER REPAIRS Estimates Rased on Unit Prices To Cot By Rivets S 336.00 Seams 648.00 Up Seams 388.00 Pita 1,365.00 2,737.00 Wald Clean 500.00 3,237.00 Ext. Touch Up 1,500.00 $4,737.00 Full Weld Repair with Wax COatinq: All Seams 6 Rivets 6 Pita in Bowl $7,408.50 Clean for Wald 1,000.00 $8,408.50 Ext. Touch Up 1,500.00 $9,908.50 Pull Wold Repair with Epoxy Coatinq: Complete Repair $7,408.50 Blast 6 Paint Inside 7,808.00 $15,216.50 Ext. Touch Up 1,500.00 516,716.50 C4 Council Agenda - 5/28/85 10. Consideration of Removing the Concrete Planters from Broadway and Returning Ownership to the Monticello Rotary Club. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Approximately two weeks ago at a regular Rotary meeting, it was suggested by one Rotary member that Rotary sell the concrete planters lined up along Broadway rather than go through the headache of planting them again. They acknowledged that the City was undergoing a downtown rehabilitation study and that the effort that went into keeping the planters attractive was virtually wasted shortly after the work had been done. The Rotary member who brought it up indicated that a number of people had already expressed an interest in buying the planters and having them removed. At that point, it was interjected by yet another member that the planters were given by Rotary to the City several years ago, and that they were not the property of Rotary to sell. I indicated that I would bring the matter to the Council and felt fairly confident that whatever the final determination, we would probably see the removal of those planters this season. The conflict that areas for me is that as the City Administrator, I like to see the City get every dollar it can. If we sold all 16 planters at $25.00 each, we would gain an extra $400.00 for the General Fund. However, I am also a member of Rotary and think it would be beneficial for that club and the community services they perform to have the extra funds. Consequently, the final decision is being thrown in the lap of the City Council since I wish to disqualify myself from making the determination. We did discuss it amongst staff, and we do have one solution that seems preferential. In discussing the matter with John, we're prepared right now while the street is under construction to go out and got all 16 planters and take them over to the City property adjacent to Jones Manufacturing. Once there, we suggoat the City return ownership to the Rotary Club and lot them sell the planters for their own club funds. Some of our concerns about the City handling it had to do with aooioting the buyers loading them and the kind of time demands that would put on City otaff, as wall as the possibility that damage could be done to personal vehicles while the City was assisting, and we might be hold liable. We simply don't want that kind of liability or responsibility. The reason we're willing to relocate them all to a single area is as that the individuals who purchase the planters aren't out in the middle of Broadway trying to load them at some inopportune time. Ono other concern Is that the purchaser may rant or hire a okid loader to aooiat with the movement, and ouch a piece of equipment would or could substantially damage the brand now surface of Broadway. We fool we have better equipment to simply got them off the sidewalk and got them to a remote alto at which time we will Inform Rotary that they have 30 days to soil and have them removed from City property. Rotary, who has agreed to contribute $250.00 plus man hours to the softball field, would got back the planters they originally donated to the City and could -10- Council Agenda - 5/28/85 raise some community service funds. While it would take a little time for City staff to go load them and move them, it would free the City from the responsibility of individual loading as well as eliminate any potential liability and damage to private vehicles. We feel that forfeiting the $400.00 to Rotary is inconsequential in light of the time and protection we are giving to the City. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Direct City staff to remove all planters from public streets and situate on City property on the back of Block 51, and turn back ownership to Rotary. This, in staff opinion, is the preferred alternative for the reasons explained above. We do think that there should be a time limit for total removal from our property, perhaps 30 days. Any planters not taken after the deadline will simply be destroyed by City and hauled away. 2. Advertise the planters for sale and assist with removal. Because it's City property, we have to advertise anytime we are willing to sell public property. We could accept offers for one or more planters from any individual, and arrange for a time that our loader will put them in a private vehicle for removal. This is not particularly desirable because we assume certain liability for the individual's private vehicle, plus it could conceivably create 16 individual trips to assist the buyers. 3. Advertise for sale with the instruction that each buyer shell be responsible for their removal within a given period of time. This is loss desirable for the reasons that individuals may 1) confuse traffic patterns on Broadway (and we have enough trouble with that already), or 2) they may, in fact, damage the now road surface if they use improper equipment. 4. Retain the planters as part of the downtown. Thin perhaps is the least desirable since the planters aro not maintained vary wall on a yoar round basis. Periodically, they aro cleaned up and a fav of them aro taken care of wall by the merchants nearby, but they do not present a consistent pattern of downtown landscape. I really think it would be beneficial to the City to have them removed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As I noted above, my recommendation in somewhat tainted because I am involved with both organizationo discussing thio matter. It in largely the ponitfon of John simolo,in light of Public Worka deciniona, to simply got them off the streets and than wash our hands of the responsibility and lot Rotary have both the profit and tho obligation. I support John in his recommendation. Added to that rocommondation, we think, should be a prohibition that downtown morchanto may not be tho purchasers of the planters if cm Council Agenda - 5/28/85 they intend to leave them in front of their store. If we're going to remove any of the planters, I think it is essential to remove all of them so that we don't have an inconsistent pattern of planters being scattered unsystematically. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -12- Council Agenda - 5/28/85 11. Consideration of Ratification of Mayoral Appointment(s) to RRA. (A.P.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Last December we accepted Don Cochran's resignation when he accepted a position on the East Coast. This left his remaining 2 -year term vacant. we were fortunate to have Ken Maus appointed to fill that vacancy. During the past six months, Jack Reeve's duties with his job have taken him out of town quite often. Jack felt that it was not fair to the Authority in missing that many meetings. On February 27, 1985, Jack resigned. His remaining term expires on December 31, 1988. With the Authority searching for possible candidates to replace Jack, Vic Vokaty asked that he be replaced as well. He had wanted to step down for almost a year but had not officially resigned. As a result, we are faced with two vacancies. This term expires on December 31, 1985. At the April 4, 1985, HRA meeting, I was asked to have two possible nominations submitted to the Mayor and hopefully ratification by the June 6 meeting. At this time. I have mot with several individuals and briefly explained the HRA and the responsibilities to it. Roger Hodtko has agreed to servo on the HRA if appointed and fulfill ✓ the remainder of Jack Reeve's term. I have briefly discussed the HRA with Kermit Benson, but because the school year is ending, he would like to discuss it further during mid -Juno. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Ratify the appointment of Roger Hodtko to the HRA and fulfill Jack Roovo'e 2 -year term. 2. Do not ratify the appointment of Roger Hodtko to the HRA. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the discussion of the other HRA members at the April 4, 1985, meeting, I recommend the ratification of the Mayor's appointment (Roger Hodtko). I further recommend that upon further discussions with Kermit Bannon in regard to the HRA and its duties, the Council consider his appointment. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Nona. -13- GENERAL FUND - MAY - 1985 AMOUNT CHECK U. S. Postmaster - Stamps 280.00 20497 Security Federal Savings 6 Loan - C. D. purchase 60,000.00 '20498 Commissioner of Revenue - Ist Qtr. sales tax 225.47 '20499 Lorell 6 Ruby Hass - Purchase of residence 45,000.00 20500 Wright County Surveyors - Reimb, by Const. 5 64.00 20501 Wright County Treasurer - Taxes on Block 50, Lots 1,2,3 213.04 20502 M.N. State Treasurer - License Center - Dep. Reg. fees 250.00 20503 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 20504 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library 172.92 20505 Mary Ramthun - Animal control expense 212.50 20506 .lames Preusse - Cleaning city hall 308.35 20507 North Central Section AWWA - Reg. fee for W. Mack seminar 45.00 20508 Humane Society of Wright County - Reimb. for 13 dogs 65.00 20509 Corrow Sanitation - April contract payment 4,737.50 20510 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 18.00 20511 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 233.00 20512 KN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,460.37 20513 PERA - ins. Premiums - reimb. 18.00 20514 MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H 2,724.05 20515 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - April 2,478.00 20516 Internal Revenue Service - Payroll ded. 150.00 20517 Wright County State Bank - FWT - April 4,261.00 20518 State Capitol Credit Union - W/H from payroll 160.04 20519 Mr. Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 20520 Mr. Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 20521 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 20522 Mr. William Fair - Council salary 125.00 20523 Mr. Jack Maxwell - Council salary 125.00 20524 YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment 458.33 20525 Mrs. Joseph Johnson - Animal control payment 250.00 20526 Celeste Dahlstrom - Reimb. for mail box repair (damaged) 16.60 20527 U. S. Postmaster - Stamps 220.00 20528 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 420.00 20529 MN. State Trensurer - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 20530 Wright County State Bank - Housing 6 Redev. Project pymt. 2,256.29 20531 N. S. Slower - Utilities 9,367.86 20532 Thomas Eidem - Mileage allowance 300.00 20533 North Central Public Service - Utilities 2,166.04 20534 Mary Ramthun - Animal control expense 212.50 20535 .terry Hermes - Janitorial at Library 172.92 20536 Internal Revenue Service - Payroll ded. 150.00 20537 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll W/H 160.04 20538 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/11 1,456.80 20539 Wright County State Hank - FWT 3,069.00 20540 State Treasurer - FICA W/II 3,718.62 20541 Monticello Fire Dept. - Wages 1,566.00 20542 Tom Eidem - Travel expenses 139.55 20543 Industrial Develop. Comm. - Ticket for Ind. banquet 75.00 20544 VOID -0- 20545 MN. State Treasurer - Dap. Rog. fees 90.00 20546 MN. State Treasurer - Dop. Rog. face 711.00 20547 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Rag. fees 1:.00 20548 Audio Communications - Radio repnlr - Civil Dat. 34:.00 20549 Rick Wolfstollar - Misc. mileage 88.00 20550 Chapin Publishing Co. - Adv. for bide - Piro b Sever 185.64 20551 Wright County Press - Adv. for bide for city hall roof 190.80 20552 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. American Legion - Flags for City Hall, Library, Parke 460.35 20553 Fyle Backhoe -'W/S hookup at Par West - K. Jensen 263.00 20554 Foster Franzen Agency - Ina. Bond for Hwy. rite-of-way 30.00 2055: Fidelity Bank 6 Trust - Parking bonds of 1974 - P 6 1 17,221.73 20556 Central Eyewear - Classes - Reimb. 104.00 20557 Communication Auditors - 2 portable radios - Fire Dept. 1,431.00 20558 TKDA 6 Assoc. - Fire hall architects expense 20,807.34 20559 S.M.A. Construction - Printing 46.00 20560 Wright County Highway Dept. - Sand/gravel 961.60 20561 McCarthy Well - Well testing and inspections 129.00 20562 Seitz Hardware - Misc. supplies 204.06 20563 Water Products - Meters, valves, etc. 630.41 20564 Mobil 011 Corp. - Gas for Fire 6 Water Depts. 164.40 20565 Midwest Chemical - Nitrite test kit for WWTP 580.00 20566 National Chem Search - Supplies for WWTP 222.60 20567 MN. Bearing Co. - Equipment maintenance for WWTP 93.00 20568 EPL/MBL - Water testing for WWTP 49.00 20569 Ranger Products - Supplies for WWTP 229.95 20570 SAGA - Shrubs zipatone suppliea 27.90 20571 Schillewnert Landscaping - Grinding tree stump in Park 100.00 20572 Ruff Auto Parte - 2 wheels and rims 10.00 20573 Stokes Marine Service - Bar, chain, tractor repairs 107.15 20574 State of MN. - Division of Boiler Insp. - WWTP 35.00 20575 State Treasurer - Surplus Prop. Fund - Welder suction unit 88.00 20576 St. Cloud Rest. Supply - Supplies for City Hall 6 Parks 103.73 20577 Wright County Sheriff Dept. - Contract payment for May 9,782.08 20578 Power Process Equip. - Equip. repair at WWTP 58.90 20579 Truemon Welter - Fan for WWTP 36.94 2058( Phillips Petro. Co. - Gas - Water Dept. 40.86 20581 Coast to Coast - Supplies for all Depts. 132.42 20582 Conway Fire 6 Safety Equip. - Pants, leather knees, cuffs, 1,042.40 20583 air bottle brackets, - Fire Dept. J. C. Body Shop - Repair and painting Fire Dept. Van 1,040.00 20584 Fair's Carden Center - Trees, grass seed, spray - Parks 521.01 20585 Curt's Sales - Black dirt for Parke 200.00 20586 Broadway Rental Equip. - Rental of tree spode 212.00 20587 Earl Andersen 6 Assoc. - Paint - St. Dept. 770.50 20588 Continental Safety equip. - Air tanks for Fire Dept. 1,516.00 20589 Eull Concrete Products - 8 concrete rings 92.00 20590 Bergstrom's Lawn 6 Garden - Park equipment 118.96 20591 MacQueon Equip. - Spray nozzle 19.13 20592 Hoglund Hue Co. - Parts and repairs 103.10 20593 Gordon Link - Gas 1,970.30 20594 National Bushing Co. - Supplies 406.51 20595 Harry's Auto Supply - Supplies 178.53 20596 Dick's "66" Service - 011 for WWTP 1.80 20597 Marco Business Products - Repair copy machine 6 supplies 334.78 20598 Monticello Timas - Misc. publishing and printing 676.85 20599 Monticello Offico Products - Misc. office supplies 117.54 20600 Maus Foods, Inc, - Supplies for all Depts. 111.91 20601 Burner Service 6 Combustion- Equip. repair at WWTP 545.95 20602 Na-Churl Plant Food - 200 gall. liquid fertilizer 793.70 20603 R 6 C Associates - Soap and repellent 34.50 2060' J M 011 Co. - Gas - Street Dept. 119.46 2060; Maus Tiro Service - Repairs 13.00 20606 Could Bros. Chay. - Fire Dept. repairs 52.98 20607 First Bank Mpls. - Public fund charges 16.00 20608 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK N Feed Rite Controls - Cylinder 7.50 20609 Davis Electronic - Repairs for Fire Dept. 142.09 20610 Centra Sots - WWTP supplies 62.00 20611 Central McGowan - Gas for WWTP 10.95 20612 Karen Doty - Mileage'expense !.' 11.50 20613 Gruys. Johnson 6 Assoc. - Computer services C870.00 20614 Walter Mack - Travel expense to seminar in Duluth 184.46 20615 Banker's Life - Group Ins. 4,226.12 20616 Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban - Planning fees for April 2,126.83 20617 National Life Ins. - Premium for Tom Eidem 100.00 20618 A T 6 T Information System - Fire phone charges 3.59 20619 Paul Weingarden - Legal for OAA meetings 175.00 20620 Monticello Printing - Misc. printing for all Depts. 109.17 20621 Unitog Rental Services - Uniform rental for April 153.60 20622 Orkin Exterminating - Contract payment for WWTP 106.00 20623 Local 1149 - Union dues 126.00 20624 Willard Farnick - Travel expense - North Branch. Cokato 80.25 20625 David Bitzer - Fire school - Duluth 281.78 20626 David Kranz - Fire school - Duluth 204.28 20627 Douglas Pitt - Fire school - Duluth 295.10 20628 Gene Jensen - Fire school - Duluth 217.60 20629 Woody Haalond - Fire school - Duluth 295.10 20630 James Maurice - Fire school - Duluth 295.10 20631 George Leifert - Fire school - Duluth 223.00 20632 Morn Flicker - Fire school - Duluth 295.10 20633 Jay Morrell - Fire school - Duluth 290.66 20634 Bradley Fyle - Fire school - Mankato 328.66 20635 Tom Liefert - Fire school - Mankato 66.56 20636 Bridgewater Telephone - Phone for April 878.79 20637 OSM - Eng. foes for April 8,580.67 20638 Suburban Gas - Gas purchases 204.75 20639 Marco Products - Maintenance agreement for typewriter 175.00 20640 MN. Stato Treasurer - Dap. Reg. fees 206.00 20641 Gary Andareon - Misc. milange 93.75 20642 Walter Mack - Travel expense 22.50 20643 Taylor Land Surveyors - New fire hall site survey 335.00 20644 Davie Water Equipment - 4.hydrant wronches 52.10 20645 Olson 6 Sone Electric - Repair fixtures 6 WWTP expense 826.81 20646 Payroll for April 26,247.77 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - MAY $265,700.70 LIQUOR FUND LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - MAY - 1985 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for March £d Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H - April Wright County State Bank - Fed. W/11 - April State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor Twin City Wine Co. - Wine purchase Eagle Wine Co. - Wine purchase Internal Revenue Service - Retail liquor license fee Northern Stntes Power - Utilities North Central Public Service - Utilities Griggs. Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor MN. State Treasurer - P£RA W/H Wright County State Bank - Fed. W/H State Treasurer - Social Sec. - FICA W/H Ed Phillips 6 Sona - Liquor Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - April Coast to Coast - Supplies Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone Gruys. Johnson - Computer service - April Frito-Lay, Inc. - Misc, mdse. Viking Coca Cala - Misc. mdse. Thorpe Dist. Co, - Beer Grosslein Beverage Co. - Beer Seven Up Bottling Co. - Misc. mdse. Monticello Office Products - Office supplies Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse. Dick Beverage Co. - Beer VOID Yonak Sanitation - Garbage contract Dahlhelmer Dist. Co. - Beer Monticello Times - Adv. Maus Foods - Misc. supplies Lelfert Trucking - Freight charges City of Monticello - Sewer/watur charges Jude Candy 6 Tobacco -Misc. mdse. Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repair sign 6 broken pipes on pole Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse. Griggs. Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor American Cancer Society - Donation Payroll for April TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - MAY 5,408.78 1,870.23 967.41 2,746.96 167.00 285.40 237.00 408.00 20.00 1,689.89 617.80 492.59 54.00 497.14 121.04 4,354.17 254.81 60,000.00 20.00 2,520-96 172.65 258-00 401.68 66.64 1.2 94.13 5.701.75 3.60 48.73 330.00 166.48 359.60 4,479.25 15,4 27.45 400.85 12.48 65.87 2,988.10 -0- 62.50 17,341.42 72.00 24.31 460.69 157.73 603.92 100.96 988.35 2,620.38 50.00 1,621-69 1141,036,19 CHECK 90. H743 11744 11745 11746 11747 11748 11749 11750 11751 11752 11753 11754 11755 11756 11757 11758 11759 11760 11761 11762 11763 11764 11765 11766 11767 11768 11769 11770 11771 11772 11773 11774 11775 11776 11777 11778 11779 11780 11781 11792 11783 11784 11785 11186 11787 11788 11789 11790 11791 101 0 IIiDIVIDUAL PE.PiIT ACT iVHY REPORT . MONTH OF APRIL 1 1985 J I I ) I TOTAL REVENUE I S 6,812.64 FFOG II SURCHARGE IPLUMB ING SURCHARGFI S 48.70 5 45.00 $1.00 33.05 27.00 .50 .70 4.75 .70 10.00 1.50 .70 2.00 22.80 23.00 .50 .70 30.00 i 25.00 .50 70.00 29.00 .50 12.50 23.00 .50 367.95 137.00 .50 .70 i .70 1 j 5607.45 $309.00 $4.00 i! i 1 ERMIT I DESCRIPTIC11 TP I NAME/LOCATION VALUATION LUATION I F PERMIT 85-735 Two Family Dwelling fD lKathleen Klemz/212 6 214 Kevin Longley S 97,300.00 5 424.90 Drive 65-736 Single Family D❖elling ISFIGary 6 Diane Anderson/784 Acorn Circlet 66,100,00 331.30 65-737 Basement Remodel ADlSteven Peterson/920 Meadow Oak Drive1,430.00 14.30 BS -738 Drive -up Window East Oakwood Drive 9,500.00 77.50 65-739 House Reshingle ADIDean Tinges/7 Linn Street IAD!Willia- 1,430.00 14.30 85-740 Cold Storage Building C •Ruff Auto/700 Elm Street 20,000.00 140.50 85-741 Enclose Porch Addition Malone/610 Fallon Street 3,000.00 38.50 85-742 Reside House AQ Diana Osowski/518 East River Street 1,430.00 14.30 85-743 1 Attached Garage IRG!Ralph Mack/114 Balboul Circle 4,000.00 44.50 - 85-744 1 Single Family Dwelling �SF�Quintin Lanners/310 Linn Street 45,600.00 1 263.20 - 85-745 i Patio Deck Gary Mutchler/101 Matthew Circle I 1,430.00 ( 14.30 85-746 11 Office Remodel �AG Ad Bridgewater Telephone Co./316 Pine St! 60,000,00 I 313.00 85-748 Gas Station/Convenience :C Curt 6 Anna Hoglund/1548 East County 140,000.00 403.00 Store Road 75 i 85-749 Repair Garage 'C Patrick Townsend/101 Thomas Park Dr. ' 25,000,00 170.50 85-750 18 unit Apartment Building U_' Construction 5, Inc./707.Lauring Lane, 735,900.00 2,022.75 65-751 Reshingle House 6 Garage IAD Roger Gau/1110 Cedar Street 1,430.00 14.30 85-752 Parts Room Remodel iAC Wrightco, Inc./206 West 4th St. I 1,430.00 14.30 I - TOTALS j 51,214,980.00 54,315.45 • I PLAN REVIEW i I • 85-748 Gas Station/Ccnvenience C 'Curt 6 Anna Hoglund/1548 E. County , 5 261.95 _ I Store Road 75 65-750 18 unit Apartment Buildinn • Construction 5, Inc./707 Lauring Lane: 1,314.79 TOTAL PLAN REVIEW S 1,576.74 J I I ) I TOTAL REVENUE I S 6,812.64 FFOG II SURCHARGE IPLUMB ING SURCHARGFI S 48.70 5 45.00 $1.00 33.05 27.00 .50 .70 4.75 .70 10.00 1.50 .70 2.00 22.80 23.00 .50 .70 30.00 i 25.00 .50 70.00 29.00 .50 12.50 23.00 .50 367.95 137.00 .50 .70 i .70 1 j 5607.45 $309.00 $4.00 i! i 1 j CITY OF M)NTICELI.O \" Monthly Building Department Report Month of April 1985 PFRMIIT3 end USES Leet This 'Same Month 'Last Year "This Year 1 PUIMiITS IMM Month march Month April Last Year To Date To Date RSIDENTIAL Number • 9 11 16 29 23 Valuation S 560, 190.00 S 959, 050.00 f 387 ,000.00 $1 , 510, 500.00 $1,584,170.00 Fees 2,954.70 4,511.44 2,358.55 7,867.01 7,849.94 Surcharges 279.95 479.50 193.50 745.15 791.90 OOM M RCIAL Number 2 6 2 12 10 Valuation 93,000.00 255,930.00 399,200.00 660,900.00 365,360.00 Fees 724.45 1,380.75 2,249.71 4,205.26 2,230.00 Surch arge3 46.50 127.95 199.45 330.30 182.65 IN LUSTRI AL Numbe r 1 1 Valuation 720,000.00 720,000.00 Fees 3,271.95 3,271.95 Surch arge O 360.00 360.00 PWISING Number 7 Fees 291.00 7 309.00 12 22 453.00 833.00 15 612.50 Surcharges 4.00 6.00 11.00 10.00 OTHERS Number Valu ation Fees Surcharges TOTAL NO, PERMITS 18 24 31 63 as TOTAL VALUATION 653,190.00 1,214,980.00 1,506,200.00 2,891,400.00 1,949,530.00 TOTAL FM 3,970.15 6,201.19 8,333.21 16,199.22 10,692.44 TOTAL S URCHARGES _ 33?, 45 611.45 758.95 1.446.95 984.55 WTaam HIM P��yg�jAg� Number to Dnte PMMIT NATURE Number Valuation This year LASL yenr PERMIT Singla Family 2 S 594.50 f 55.85 f 1 11,700.00 6 13 Duplex 1 424.90 48.70 97,300.00 2 1 Miopi-family 1 3,337.54 367.95 735,900.00 2 1 Commercial 3 975.95 92.50 185,000.00 4 5 Indust ft al 0 1 Res_ Garages 1 44.50 2.00 4,000.00 1 6 Signs 0 0 Pub lic Buildings 0 0 IALTElll.mON OR REFA1R Dwellings 6 110.00 5.00 10,150.06 12 8 Conanercial 3 404.80 35.45 70,930.00 6 6 Industr-1 al 0 i PWMIIlII1C All types 7 309.00 4.00 15 22 ACCESSORT STRUCTURZ9 Sw1251no Poole 0 0 Do cls 0 0 I TEMPORARY VZRKIT 0 0 OEMOL ITIOM 0 0 T(7TA13 24 6,201.19 611.45 1,214,980.00 48 63