Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 07-11-1988AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 11, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting held June 27, 1988. 3. Citizens Co=en ts/Pet it ions, Requests, and Complaints. 4. Consideration of Granting an increase in the Individual Pension for the Volunteer Firefighter Relief Association. 5. Consideration of MNDOT Proposal for Closing East River Street. 6. Consideration of Water Toner Site, Elevation, 6 Cost Comparisons. 7. Consideration of Establishing a Fee for Mobile Hames. 8. Consideration of Final Plat Approval and Developers Agreement - Heikes , Trailer Park. 9. Review of Community Survey Questions. 10. Consideration of Change Orders 11 and 12 on Streetscape Project. 11. Consideration of Change Order #1 on Water Main Supply Line Project 88-O4B 12. Consideration of Granting a One (1) Day Beer License to Lion's Club for Bridge Celebration - July 17, 1988. 13. Adjournment. MINUTES RDGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 27, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Bill Fair ,,embers Absent: ::o. -.e Note: Regular meeting of June 13, 1988 was postponed with the agenda items for that meeting combined with the meeting of June 27, 1988. 1. Consider Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting held May 23, 1988. Motion to approve minutes by Warren Smith, seconded by Dan Blonigen, motion passed unanimously. 2. Citizens Comments Requests and Complaints. Ray Dinius, resident of the Riverside Terrace Campground was in attendance to voice complaints regarding the opperation of the River Terrace Campground facility. Dinius noted that the campground facility contains 122 spaces however on certain weekends the number of campsites exceeds the 122 spaces. In addition, Dinius stated that the opperaters of the campground do not control the parties and associated noise that takes place on the weekends. Mr. Dinius noted that he has tried to work through the management of the Riverside Terrace Park and that the park managers were not responsive to his complaints. Mayor Grimsmo noted that the staff take the information under advisement and report back to council. 4. Consideration of Establishing Area Assessment Charge for Trunk Sewer and Water Projects. Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill along with City Engineer John Badalich reviewed the concept of establishing an "area assessment" as a method by which developers can participate in the financing of the extension of city trunk sewer and water services to development areas.Under this concept, developers would be required to pay a flat rate per acre for use of the trunk sewer and water line. John Badalich of OSM noted that the current average cost per acre for extension of sewer service is $1,250 per acre. The average cost per acre for extension of water service is also $1,250 per acre. Therefore, it is proposed that the City establish a corresponding area assessment fee. The discussion then led to application of the area assessment to the Evergreens development proposed by Rent Rjellberg. Assistant Administrator, O'Neill outlined a tentative proposal for utilizing the area assessment concept to finance the extension of trunk sewer and water to the Rjellberg development. It was proposed that Rjellberg ultimately pay and area assessment of $200,000 which represents 389 of the total project cost of $529,000. Of that amount it was recommended that 8103,750 be in the form of cash up front with the remainder financed as an assessment against the property. That portion not financed by Rjellberg to be recovered via future area assessments associated with future developments utilizing the sewer trunk line. Council agreed to the financing plan by consensus. Council Minutes 7/11/88 (4. Continued) After discussion, Motion by Bill Fair and seconded by Dan Blonigen to establish and area assessment charge for the purpose of recovering costs associated with extending sewer and water service to outlying areas of the community. Area assessment charges shall be paid by developers on the basis of acres developed. An area assessment will be charged for each development regardless of the actual need to extend trunk lines and regardless of the actual cost to extend trunk line. Trunk sewer area assessment shall be $1,250. Trunk water area assessment shall be $1,250. 5. Feasibility Study for Extension of Trunk Water and Sewer to "Evergreens" Development. John Badalich estimated the cost to prepare a feasibility study for the extension of trunk sewer to "The Evergreens" development at $2,000. Council member Fran Fair noted that the cost for feasibility study is to be paid by the developer. Motion by Fran Fair to approve Resolution 88-17 Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Report. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen, motion passed unanimously. 6. Consideration of Improvements to Water Storage Facilities. Mayor Grimsmo noted that this item had been discussed at the special meeting earlier in the day and that Council has decided to call for a referendum on the sale of General Obligation Bonds associated with expanding water storage capabilities of the community. Mayor Grimsmo noted that city staff is in the process of narrowing the alternatives for development of this storage facility and that the referendum on this subject is scheduled for September 13, 1988. 7. Consideration of Resolution Awarding Bids on Pumphouse, Pump and Controls for Project 88-01C. Public Work Director, Simola, recommended that the Council rejects the bids as submitted and move to rebid the project. Simla noted that the low bid exceeds the engineers estimate by 27 percent due to the high cost of electrical work. Simla went on to say that since the facility will not be on line until fall of 1988, the urgency of installing the facility has deminished. In addition, it is likely that rebidding the project will result in the city receiving a lower bid. After discussion, motion by Bill Fair to approve Resolution 88-18 Resolution Rejecting Bids and Authorizing Readvertisement for Bids for Pump and Pumphouse 03 along with appurtenant work. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen, motion passed unanimously. 8. Consideration of Resolution Awarding Bids on Interconnecting Piping for Project 88-048. Staff recommended that the City award the project to the low bidder which was La:bur Construction. Lalbur Construction submitted a bid amount of 542,370.50. After discussion, motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve Resolution 88-19, Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Contract Awarding Bid to LaTour Construction for the bid amount of $42,370.50, motion seconded by Dan Blonigen. Motion passed unanimously. Council Minutes - 7/11/88 8A. Consideration of Resolution Awarding bids on well 14 Project 88-04A. Staff reported that the city had received one bid from E.H. Renner and Sons, Inc. for the cost of installation of improvements associated with well 14. Superintendent Simla stated that the bid amount was slightly lower than the Engineer's estimates, therefore he recommended to Council that the project be awarded to E.H. Renner and Sons, Inc. despite the fact that only one bid was received. After discussion, motion made by warren Smith, seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve Resolution 88-20, Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Contract with E.H. Renner and Sons, Inc. for installation of improvements associated with well $4 at a cost of $98,883.50. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Consideration of Ordinance 1161 which Amends Numbering of Property Management Section. Motion by Bill Fair to approve the renumbering of the property management section of the Monticello City Ordinances through adoption of Ordinance 1161. . Motion seconded,by Dan Blonigen, motion passed unanimously. 11. Consideration of Ordinance Amending Liquor License Insurance Requirements. City Administrator, Wolfsteller noted that currently Minnesota Statutes require that no retail liquor license may be issued by a city until the applicant proves proof of insurance coverage of at least $50,000/100,000 for bodily injury, and $10,000 for property damage along with $50,000/100,000 for loss of means support. He went on to say that these requirements are a minimum and the City of Monticello had a policy of requiring at least $300,000 of liability coverage in the past. wolfeteller went on to note that the City had an ordinance regulating issuance of liquor licenses but does not specifically address the minimum level of liquor liability insurance required. Wolfsteller recommended that the ordinance be amended to include a section which requires that all applications for retail licenses file with the City a certificate of liability insurance in the amount not less than 8300,000 he noted that it has been council's policy in the past to require $300,000 worth of liability insurance however, this requirement has not been previously articulated in the ordinance. After discussion, motion by Bill Fair to approve Ordinance Amendment No. 162 which requires that all applications for retail liquor licenses shall file with the City a certificate of liability insurance in the mmunt not leas than $300,000. Motion seconded by warren Smith, motion passed unanimously. 12. Consideration of Union Contract Ratification. After discussion, motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Pair to approve ratification of union contract as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Consideration of Annual License Renewals. Motion made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the annual license renewals of the following organizations: Council Minutes - 7/11/88 (13. Continued) r Intoxicating Liquor, On -Sale (Fee $3,300) Renewals: 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Joyner's Lanes 4. Stuart Hoglund - Comfort Inn Intoxicating Liquor, On -Sale, Sunday *(Fee $200 - set by Statue) Renewals: 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Joyner's lanes 4. VFW Club 5. American Legion Club Non -intoxicating Malt, On -sale (Fee $250) 1. Rod and Gun 2. Pizza Factory 3. Country Club Non -intoxicating Malt, On -sale, Tenporary (Fee $15/day) 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival, 2 days - $300.00 Non -intoxicating Malt, Off -sale (Fee $75.00) Renewals: 1. Monticello Liquor 2. Riverroad Plaza 3. Maus Foods 4. River Terrace 5. Tom Thumb 6. Holiday 7. Plaza Car Wash Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -sale (Pee $450) Renewal: 1. Dino's Deli Set-up License 1. Country Club 2. Rod 6 Gun Club Licensee )Pee - set by Statute) 1. VFW - $500 (membership 268) 2. American Legion - $650 (membership 580) Bingo, Temporary (Fee $20) 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival 4 Council Minutes - 7/11/88 (13. Continued) Gambling, Temporary (S20 per device) 1. Sr.. Henry's Fall Festival - $60 14. Consideration of Community Survey. Assistant City Administrator reported to Council that as requested, staff has developed three alternatives for implementation of a community survey. O'Neill went on to review the pro's and con's of each alternative. Councilman Bill Fair noted that he favored utilizing the telephone survey because the information resulting from the survey will be available in time for the 1989 budget setting session. Motion made by Bill Fair to award the community survey project to St. Cloud State University Survey at a project cost of $500. Motion seconded by Fran Fair, motion passed unanimously. 15. Consideration of Appointment to Planning Commission. It was noted by Mayor Grimsmo that the Planning Commission was unanimous in recommending Mori Malone to the Commission. After discussion, motion by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair to approve the appointment of Mori Malone to the position of Planning Commission member. Motion passed unanimously. 16. Consideration of Resolution of Awarding Bids on Streetscape Project, General 6 Electrical, Landscaping 6 Returbishing Railing. Genf Martin of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., was present to review the bids associated with the Streetscape project. Martin informed Council that the bids received by the City were favorable and that the sum of the low bid and alternates is less than the estimated project cost by over $16,000. It was the consensus of the Council that funds remaining for Streetscape project activity be placed in the contingency fund associated with the project and not be earmarked for a specific project purpose. Motion made by Bill Fair to approve Resolution 88-21, Accepting Bid and Authorizing Contract for General Site Construction and Electrical Work with Arrigoni Brothers at a base bid amount of $162,311.60 and direct construction of all alternates except for 3-1; Resolution 88-22, Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Contract with Minnetonka Iron Works for the refurbishing of the bridge railing at a base bid amount of $13,137.00; Resolution 88-23, Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Contract for Streetscape Landscaping with Minnesota Valley Landscape at a base bid amount of $26,810.00 and direct completion of all alternates associated with 1-3.; Award the lighting portion of the Streetscape project to the Cairns Group at a bid amount of $49,648.00; award tree grates and tree gaurds portion of the Streetscape project to Ironsmith, Inc. at a bid amount of $17,648. Motion seconded by Warren Smith, voting in favor of motion Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith. Opposed, Dan Blonigen. Motion passes. 17. Consideration of Preliminary Plat Request for Mobile Home Park Expansion, Don Heikes Applicant. Council Minutes - 7/11/88 (17. Continued) Staff reported that the Planning Commission had conducted a public hearing and reviewed the preliminary plat proposed and found no inconsistencies with City requirements. After discussion, motion by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Warren Smith to approve the preliminary plat submitted by Don Heikes for expansion to Westside Mobile Home Park as proposed. 18. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction of more than one Apartment Building on an Unp latted Lot, Two Apartment Buildings in Excess of the Maximum number of units Allowed, Construction of Five Apartment Buildings in Two Phases, Dave Hornig Applicant. Staff reported to Council that Planning Commission has approved the conditional uses as requested and went on to note that Farmers Home Administration is providing the financing for the Hornig Development in addition to the Senior Project. The projects are interrelated in terms of funding potential. O'Neill reported that the FHA has informed him that the funding of the downtown Senior Project is reliant on the development of the Hornig property as proposed. After discussion, motion by Fran Fair to approve the conditional use requests as submitted with the conditions as follows: 1) the developer dedicate to the city the proposed necessary easement for the proposed Seventh Street public right-of-way, on or before building permit application. 2) that an approved landscaping plan be submitted prior to building permit application. Motion carried unanimously with Joyce Dowling absent; motion seconded by Warren Smith. Motion passed unanimously. 19. Consideration of Accepting 1987 Audit Report. Rick Borden of G ruys, Johnson, and Associates reported to City Council that the city financial position is excellent. He went on to note comments and suggestions associated with compliance to guidelines established by State Auditor Task Force. Bordan informed Council that the minutes of the meeting reflect more detail when bids are reviewed an awarded. That is situations were bids are not awarded to lowest bidder, it is essential that the minutes recap the reasons for awarding the bid to another bidder. He went on to recommend that the minutes the review of discussion is there is any disagreement between the members of the council. Bordan went on to suggest that the Council and key Staff members make public records of any potential conflict of interest that they might have associated with City business. Finally Bordan reminded the city to secure proper travel documentation for before reimbursements are made. Council member Warren Smith stated that no reimbursements should be made without proper documentation. Motion made to accept the audit report by Warren Smith, motion seconded by Fran Fair, motion passed unanimously. 20. Consideration of Sipple Subdivision Request, Daryl Fishbach and Leroy Robieeau. Motion by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith to approve the Simple Subdivision Request as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Council Minutes - 7/11/88 21. Consideration of Authorizing Study to Determine Capacity of Oakwood Industrial Park Road System. Public :.'orks Director, Simla reported that aL preseaL Lim roads in the Oakwood Industrial Park area had a designed capacity of seven tons, however their actual capacity may be nine tons or more. He noted that prior to spending significate dollars in adding to the capacity of these roads they should be checked to see their actual capacity is nine tons. The study purposed will determine the actual capacity of the Oakwood Industrial Park system and the study can be done at any time of the year, not just during the spring. Motion made to authorize the study of Oakwood Industrial Park road system and direct Braun Engineering to conduct study at a cost of $2,000. 22. Consideration of MNDO'P's Request Limiting Access to Highway 25 from East River Street. At this point of the meeting staff along with representatives of MNDOT, Dale Lungwitz of Wright County State Bank, and concerned citizens discussed problems associated with a less than desirable situation at the east approach to River Street with trunk Highway 25, problems stem from development of the new bridge. The sight distance to the south for any car using east approach to River Street from Highway 25 is much less than desirable. At present the sight distance is 135 feet and the recommended sight distance if 600 feet. James M. Labo, Resident Engineer, MNDOT was in attendance to discuss the alternatives for the City. Mr. Lebow noted that the only alternative for the City and the MNDOT would be to remove access to Highway 25 from the east approach to River Street, as the present situation is vary dangerous and closing of that street would remove liabilities for both parties. Mayor Grimsmo noted that, "the situation of poor sight lines, is an undertakers dream, and therefore must be changed." He went on to say that turning the east approach to River Street into parking would not only remove a safety hazard, but also benefit the City by creating numerous parking spaces. In addition, traffic running along River Street from the elderly home and Ellison Park will be diverted earlier to Broadway would pose a positive effect. Dale Lungwitz of Wright County State Bank concurred that the present situation is a hazard and must be corrected, and also noted access problems to his facility created by the closer of the east approach to River Street with Trunk Highway 25. Lungwitz noted that his only objection Is that if the east approach to River Street is closed, he will have three enterances and only one exist to his facility, which will cause his customers problems. Jim Lebo noted his concern that this problem wasn•t identified earlier in the project. He went on to express his apologizes that the problem was not addressed at the design stages of the project. It was suggested by a citizen that trunk Highway 25 at that point which intersects with the east approach with River Street be moved slightly to the west thereby increasing the eight distance. Jim Lebo noted that moving the roadbed as suggested will increase the curve which is already at 6 percent. Any increase to the sharpness of this curve should be avoided. Mayor Grimsmo noted that he would like to see better use of the private alley which serves local business in the area and the City Senior Center. Dan Blonigen noted that he agrees with Mayor Grimsmo that the alley should be better utilized. Dale Lungwitz requested that a temporary solution 7 Council Minutes - 7/11/88 (22. Continued) include moving the traffic lane to the west for a short period while solutions to the problems develope. Mayor Gri=mo noted he has no problem with the temporary solution and that in the meantime, the Department of Transportation should be working on a suggestion of development of a parking lot and replacing the east approach to River Street. Fran Fair noted that the property owners in the area should get together and work towards better utilization of the private alley which serves a number of businesses in the area. Motion made by Bill Fair to recommend that east access to River Street be permanently blocked and converted into a parking lot to be designed and built by MNDOT. MNDOT to pay all costs associated with correcting traffic pattern problems and work with local businesses to better utilized adjacent private allies. Finally, motion included request to temporarily move the traffic lane of T.H. 25 to the west slightly at the point that it intersects with River Street. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen. voting in favor of the motion Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, and Bill Fair. Opposed, Warren Smith. 23. Consideration of Gambling License Application, Monticello VFW Auxilary, Gambling License Renewal, Monticello VFW Club. Motion was made to approve gambling license application of Monticello VFW Auxilary by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair. Motion passed unanimously. Motion made by Bill Fair, seconded by warren Smith to approve gambling license renewal submitted by the Monticello VFW Club. Motion passed unanimously. 24. Consideration of Bills for June. Motion made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve payment of bills for June 1988. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, ,,"111 � Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 27, 1988 - 2:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Pair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Bill Fair Members Absent: None 1. Discuss Options for Expansion of Water Reservoir System. Mayor Grimsmo requested a report from Public Work Director John Simola. Simola reported that the City Engineer working with the Public Works Department has developed a number of options for expansion of the water reservoir system. One of the options included development of a stand pipe reservoir on the Monte Club hill property. Simola reported that the Monte Club property is no longer being considered as a site for the reservoir as one owners have indicated that they are not interested in selling their property to the City. Simola went on to say that three alternative sites do exist on the hill east of the Monte Club, all of which are located on the Shultz property. Mr. Shultz has been contacted regarding the potential of establishing a standpipe reservoir on his property. As of the time of the meeting, it is not known if Mr. Shultz is interested in selling a portion of his land for use by the city as a site for the water reservoir. John Simola along with John Badalich of OSM, discussed other options for development of additional water storage capacity for the City of Monticello. Four other areas where discussed as being viable options and are as follows: 1. Site located near Hwy 39 and 118 on Chelsea Road. Property currently owned by Mr. Boyle. 2. Property located in Meadow Oak Development. Currently reserved for park dedication. 3. Property now owned by the school district. Site proposed would be on the Middle School grounds. 4. Property located on Dundas Road near the well 14 well site. Council discussed the various options for development of the water storage facility. Mayor Grimsmo asked what the owner of an 680,000 home could expect in terms of a tax increase if the coat of the 6750,000 water storage facility expansion was placed on city taxes. Staff reported that the increase in taxes to such a home would be about 65 per year. Dan Blonigen noted the importance of the decision regarding siting of the water tower, and noted that long-term planning considerations must be taken into account when establishing the location of the facility. A discussion of the costs associated with each alternative ensued. John Simola reported that in the long run, the storage facility located on Council Minutes - 6/27/88 the ground is mach cheaper in terms of maintenance. Council member Fair suggested that each al be evaluated it ter= of ^hort tcrm cost and long term cost and that other considerations regarding each site including the ability of acquiring the site in a timely manner and impact of the location in terms of the overall system be evaluated with report coming back to Council the at next meeting. Motion by Fran Fair to begin negotiations on terms pertaining to the potential purchase of of sites noted as viable sites for placement of the water storage facility, and direct staff to develop additional information regarding each site with the information to be available with the July 11, 1988 Council Agenda. Staff to make an offer to the Monte Club that is comparable to that which is being offered to Mr. Shultz. Motion seconded by Bill Fair. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Consider Proper Elevation for Water Storage Facility. John Badalich reported that the elevation he feels is the best for the entire system is an elevation of 1,105 feet. Badalich noted that on average, the pressure generated with this elevation would be 56 pounds and would produce a flow of 4,000 gallons per minute at the Industrial Park. Badalich noted that the proposed elevation and corresponding water pressures attempts to strike a balance between the needs of the industrial users and needs of residential users. The elevation pr"posed will provide provide adequate "fire flow" serving the needs of the industrial areas, while increasing the average pressure experienced by residential users by 28 pounds, Badalich noted that the increase in water pressure may have an adverse affect on private plumbing of older residences and that significantly higher water pressure would exsist for homes along the river which would require installation of pressure reducing valves. At this point in the meeting Council and Staff discussed methods by which the problems crew ted by the high water pressure can be mitigated. It was suggested that individual homes be tested prior to putting the new system on line. It was estimated that such testing would cost $150 to $180 per home. The City Engineer was asked by Council what percentage of the homes in Monticello will experience a problem with the type of water pressure increases expected with installation of the new reservoir. Mr. Badalich and his associate, were not able to make an estimate in response to the question. Council directed City Engineer to research communities that have experienced a similiar situation and report to Council what the City can expect in terms of impact of increased water pressure on residences in Monticello, especially those with older plumbing. It was the consensus of Council that the information that Badalich will gather will be used to develop additional costs associated with development of this system which will be included in the overall bond cost. A discussion regarding the potential of developing parallel water systems insued. It was suggested that the City might develop a system for the older portion of town which would be operated at a reduced pressure and develop a system separate from the older town system which Council Minutes - 6/27/88 would operate at a higher pressure. It was noted by the engineers present that such a system may not be feasible and that long term maintenance costs of such a dual system would be exceedingly high. Council decided to continue this discussion at the July 11, 1988, meeting. Discussion to be supplemented by information to be gathered by John Badalich regarding impact of higher pressures on plumbing commonly found in older homes. 3. Consider Method of Financing Water Storage Improvement. Council reviewed the memo presented by OSM and Staff outlining the various methods by which the water storage facility can be financed. It was noted that the two most feasible methods included financing via water revenue bond which would be paid utilizing water system revenue and through payment of hook-up charges. As another alternative the project could be financed via general obligation bond which would be paid with tax funds. City Administrator Wolfsteller noted that in order to finance a water revenue band, the water rates in the City of Monticello must increase three -fold, on the other hand,utilizing a general obligation bond would require the need for a tax increase of about three quarters of one mill or about five dollars per single family hump valued at bou,uJu. it was also noted tnat general ooiigation oono issuance would require a City referendum. After discussion, motion by Bill Fair to schedule a water storage facility general obligation bond referendum question for September 13, 1988. Motion seconded by Warren Smith and passed unanimously. There being no further discussion, meeting adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator Council Agenda - 7/11/88 a• Consideration of Granting an Increase in the Individual Pension for the Volunteer Firefighter Relief Association. (R. W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Members of the Volunteer Fire Department will be attending the meeting to request that the City Council increase the retirement benefit from $17,500 to $19,500. This benefit is payable in a lump sum after 20 years of service based on the requested increase of $825 a year of service to $975. The Relief Associations plans are referred to on an amount per year of service, such as the $975 which is payable at this amount only after 20 years of service etc. I point this out as to avoid confusion, as during the discussion the terms may to used interchangeably. The Relief Association was granted an increase in retirement benefits to $17,500/875 per year in 1987. Previous to that increase, the Association received $16,000/800 per year in 1986 and $10,000/500 per year in 1979. As you may recall, in 1982, the Council did not approve and increase requested to $14,000/700 per year, but indicated at that time that the Council would consider any increase in the Relief Association benefits provided their fund was self sufficient, eq. assets where greater than their accrued liability and any increase would not result in a contribution from the City from general property taxes. State statutes allow the Association to increase their benefits only if their assets are greater than their liabilities, otherwise they must come before the City Council for approval of any increase in benefits. Prior to August of each year, the Relief Association is required to fill out a financial schedule that computes the benefits that have accrued for each Fire Department member based on year of active service at the dollar amount established for each year of service. The financial schedule includes the funds, assets, and liabilities and through the calculations, arrives at a deficit or surplus for supporting the retirement benefits. In going through the departments financial schedules, I calculated the benefits based on three different figures, $950 per year, $975 per year, and $1,000. Copies of the three calculations are enclosed for your review. If the benefits were increased from $875 per year to $950 per year, the Association would have a deficit of $63,809 but the amount of income estimated for 1989 would be sufficient according to the formula without requiring municipal support. There actually would be a surplus income next year of approximately $1,900. In reviewing the calculations, increasing the benefits to $975 per year, the deficit would increase to $70,819 but in the estimated income would be sufficient to support this benefit level without requiring City taxpayer support. Should the benefits be increased to $1,000 a year for service, these calculations would require municipal tax support in the amount of $900 plus. According to the schedules, an Increase to $975 per year of service would not currently require municipal support as the anticipated state aide and other income would be sufficient to meet their debit service requirement. As I indicated last year when the Relief Association requested their last increase, an increase in benefits based on these financial statements appear not to require City support, but the majority of the Relief Association's income is based on state aid which the City does not have control over. If for some reason the state decides to cut state aid to local fire departments, the City, after the benefits are increased, would be responsible for supporting the Council Agenda - 7/11/88 penainn thereafter. Although I don't a•icips in the state aid, there are certainly no guarantees that this could not happen. The only other real factor that comes into play is if the Association was required to pay out benefits to the top five or six individuals in one year, the fund would not have sufficient assets to pay all the claims, and the City would then be required to contribute tax dollars. Again, the Association certainly has control over when an individual retires, but if some tragedy occured, the City could be required to contribute. I only point this out to let you know there are no guarantees that municipal support would not be required, but at the present time it is highly unlikely. In some respects, it may be appropriate to review the Association's assets and liabilities each year to determine whether an increase is warrented rather than waiting three to five years for an increase. Although, I don't know if has happened, it could be that members nearing retirement could be staying on the Fire Department waiting for an increase in benefits, whereas if the benefits where adjusted annually based on the Association's ability in increase the benefits without City support, some older fire department members may be retiring earlier to allow newer members to come on. Some older members may not be as younger firefighters, but are hanging on waiting for an increase before retiring. By adjusting annually, the incentive would be there for an individual to wait tw?vnnA nnrm l rakjrerect -,_. B. ALTERNATIVE AMONS: 1. Grant an increase to $975 per year/$19,500. This increase, according to the Relief Association schedule would not require a City contribution and could be entirely funded through anticipated state aids and other interest earnings on investments. 2. Do not grant an increase in benefits only if they have a surplus or an increase that would not require City contributions. 3. Grant an increase above the current $875 per year, but less than the $975 that would not require City support. C. STAFF RFX.'OtR4ENDATION: Again, in reviewing the coffputations supplied by the Relief Association, it appears that the state aids received by the Fire Department will continue to provide sufficient income to support their request to the $975 per year level. Anything over this amount would require City support through taxation. Based on this information, I have no objection to the increase being granted as long as the City Council realizes that there are no guarantee the state aids or investment earnings will continue at its present level. I belief the idea of annually reviewing the Association's assets and liabilities is a good idea and to grant increases provided tax levies are not required. The Council, of course, can deny granting any increase at this time and the Association can only increase their own benefits provided their assets are greater than their liabilities. Even at the present $875 per year, it would be a number of years before the Association could increase benefits on their own. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Couputation of benefits for each member at $950, $975, and $1,000 per year. FILING INSTRUCTIONS FOR STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1989 SCHEDULES I - II - III April 25, 1988 2962551 Scheduies I -II-III must be filed by relief associations paying lump sum benefits. File a copy of this set of Schedules with your governing body by Aucust 1. 1988. Keeo a c.py of them for the Office of the State Auditor which will be sent later, along with your Relief Association Reoortinq Form for the year ended December 31, 1988. FIRE/M.31 C AN EQUAL OPPORTL'ITY EMPLOYER a❑ STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR COPT SUITE 400 r �3 Sn PARK STREET SAL%'T PALZ 55103 A.FLNE Ii. CARLSON STATE ALDrOR FILING INSTRUCTIONS FOR STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1989 SCHEDULES I - II - III April 25, 1988 2962551 Scheduies I -II-III must be filed by relief associations paying lump sum benefits. File a copy of this set of Schedules with your governing body by Aucust 1. 1988. Keeo a c.py of them for the Office of the State Auditor which will be sent later, along with your Relief Association Reoortinq Form for the year ended December 31, 1988. FIRE/M.31 C AN EQUAL OPPORTL'ITY EMPLOYER a❑ SCHDULES I -II -:II FOR LLM Slim PLNS:CN PLANS STATE FIRE AID TEAR 1989 F1reflgnters Relief ASSoclatlon of Monticello rou^•y or Wright SCHEME I C-=uta:ion of benefit of relief association special fund (at S 975 per year of service) for all me.-er: t1asec on :near years of service as ac:lve fire dwar-cant members.. 1 2 3 I 4 1588 S I 8 1989 7 F. D. To End of This Yeer To Sna of vevt `.'emr Entry Year Active Ac::.10 Years Ac:1. a Ac:."Uea Name Age Date I Service L1a0111y I Service I LlaailIty C. Liefert 1 1 5-63 1 26 1 25,350 1 27 1 26,325 12. c. Jensen 1 1 7-66 1 22 1 21,450 I 23 1 22,425 13. D. Bitzer 1 1 4-70 1 19 1 17.979 1 20 1 19,500 I a. D. Kranz 1 1 4-70 1 19 I 17.979 1 20 1 19`500 I 5. W. Farnick 1 1 6-72 1 17 1 15.210 1 is 1 16,555 I 5. T. FArnam 1 1 3-73 1 16 1 13.923 1 17 1 15,210 I�W .y tgnli I I 7_74 1 14 1 11.544 1 15 1 12,_714 I 9. M. Flicker I I 5-75 1 14 1 11.544 1 15 1 12._714 .7. Mnrrnit I 5-75 1 14 I 11.544 I 15 112.714 s. nnnataa I 3_76 I 13 10.432 I 14 1 11.544 12 i 9.379 1 13 1 10.432 17 I 0 179 1 13 1 10.432 ti I A"5 1 12 1 9.379 la, r w.1.. I I 17_74 I 9 I 6.423 10 1 7.410 M. Johnson I I 9-80 1 a I 5.616 I 9 1 6,493 M. Theisen I I 5-82 I 7 I 4.:97 1 8 1 5.616 fart I I 11_83 ! 5 I 3.256 1 6 1 3,997 :8. R_ Fvtw I I 5-84 I 5 I 3.256 1 6 1 3.997 K or'—f I 1 �_A5 I A I 2.515 1 5 1 3.256 27. in -A% I 9 I 1.852 1 4 1 2.535 2;. T. Rrmm�r 1 I 17_85 I I 1 4,22 1 4 1 2.535 •.r I 1 A_tga i 7 I i_esz 1 4 I 2.535 t -R7 3 I 1.852 1 24. , r ....,... I I ,..a7 1 , I , }Qq I •3 :`-• Naw Ae0lacemant I I 1 1 585 1 2 1 1,209 r9. I I 1 1 1 585 1 2 1 1,209 27. I 1 I I I 1 129. I I I I I 1 130. I I I I I I 'o;sl of Ce!er na panstons. 3! env 1 I 'c tel of URD la InstalI a ts. !T env I ! 'd1-31 of Early vested panstons If env I I A. Accrued Liability Thru Neat Year 1089 (total, column 7) 1I I.... ... J ....... 243,940 8. Accrued Liability Thru This Year 1988 (total, column 5) 219,175 ....... 219,175 C. Subtract Lina 8 from Line A (normal cost: enter here and on Lina 6 Scnedute III) 24,765 Fractional years of service matt be calculated to nearest full year. For installment liability, enter amount wnlcn wilt be payable after end of this year in bots Column 5 and 7 Interest is to be Oaid On u00aia penaIans, sea interest for 1 year in Column 7. • Oy of tmese schedules must ba Oresentad to the City Council before August 1 aach year. SCHEDULE I1 Projection of Relief Association special fund assets to end of this year, (Decemeer 31, 3982) Ass -15 at .Jan_!ry 1, lgoo (•'his year) 5 165,607 i. .nticipated income to end of this year a) Minnesota State Aid 187 + 5% S 30,096 b) Receipts from local taxes c) Interest an investments 10,000 d) Other income Total of lines a -b -c -d - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2. $ 40,094 9e;inning assets plus estimated income for this year (L1 + 1.2) 3. S 205,701 Estimated disbursements through end of this year e) Pensions Pitt 25,350 Klein 30,225 5 55,575 f) Other benefits 1,200 g) MSF -DA or VFBA dues, if any h) Administrative and overhead 600 Tctal of Lines a -f -g -h - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 4, S 57,375 ?. _.-. ,..:cta at inof this year 12/31/88 (1.3-1.4 ) c S ;.30,1[6 Caiculation of average seeciai fund income per member (other than interest or investment Income) � State Aid Municipal Support 101. of surplus (if any) ' ist year 29,786 years ago 28.176 . 3 years ago 21,864 Totals 79.826 + + Total 3 year income $79,826. 3 . $26.609 + 26 (no. of members) - 6. S 1,023 CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL FUND REOUIREMENTS This i nfornation must be certified to the governing body of the municipality or inceeen- eent nonprofit firefighting corporation by August 1. 1988. We, the officers of the Firefighters Relief Association, state that the aCcomoanying schedules nave been prepared in actorcance with the provisions of the Volunteer Firefighters Relief Association Guidelines Act of 1971 (including M.S. 69.772) and that the schedules are correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. The financial re:utrements of the relief associations Special Fund for 1989 are S Check here if no municipal support required The average non -investment income per member of said special fund for the past 3 years was S �ognature or vreslcent Date 'gnature or becretary Date Signature or lreasurar Date UMULE I1I Computation of Financial Rarpiroments for Next Year - 1989 Column A Column 8 Column C Assets from Line S. Schedule It - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - $148,326 2. Accrued liability to erid of this year (from Line 8, SCnedule I) - - - - - - • - - - 219.175 3. a) If Line 2 is more than Line 1, subtract Line 1 from Line 2. Deficit - - - • - 70-Q49 b) If line 1 Is more than Line 2, subtract Line 2 from Line 1. Sum lus - • - - - If surplus exists, enter 10% of iurplga amount in Column C and go to Line 8.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Amortization of deficit (or deficits) Incurred prior to end of last year (see note). Column I Column 2 Column 3 Year Original Amount Retired Amount Left Inc..^red Deficit Amount In Prior Years to Retire Ig 80 65,664 - 52,544 13,140 19 86 39.285 . 7.858 . 31.427 19„§7 2.651 265 . 2.386 4. Totals Fi0.667 AA 099 107.620 ---------- --- - - - - -- - - ---- x 30: - -- - 10.762 5. Suotract Column 3 total from Line 3(a). (If Column 3 Is scual to or greater than Line 3(a), no new deficit exists.) If Column 3 is less than Line 3(a), differance is new ceficit. Enter . • .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. 2, 96 Enter 10. of this nor deficit in Column 8 ..... • ........ • ...... ..... 2.390 5. increase (from line c, Schedule I) ......... ...... .. .. ... .. .. ... 24.765 7. Anticipated expenses Next Year, (other than pensions, or investments) 1929 estimates - - . - moo B. Anticipated income Next Year 1989 estimates a) Minnesota State Aid . 130.0494 t.5%1 ................. .. 31,599 b) 52 interest on amount of LIAO I above ...... .... .. ... .. .. 7-416 c) Other Income (do not include local tains or investment Income) - . - - - - - Total 8 sob -c ....... ........... .. .... ..... .. .. .. .. . ..... 39.015 9. Total, Column B ........................ • .. • .......... 38,517 1C. Total, Column C . ....... .... • .... .. ...... ..... .. .. .. ... .. .. . 39,015 11. If line 9 is more than line 30, the difference Is tits amount of municipal support required. Certify this amount to city council before August 1 (bottom part of Schedule iI - Special Fund Requirements) ........ .... ..... .. .. .. .. . 12. If Line 10 is more than Line 0, no municipal support 1s rewired. Certify that fact to council before August 1. Council is permitted to provide funds In excess of requirement. 8 498 - Surplus Note. Deficits arm generally retired In loss than 10 years, because of Increase In state aid, turnover gain and *armed -est greater than 5%. If desired, the mount In Column 2 may be increased to that the total of Column 3 Is equal ,no 3(a). If more than one deficit is being amortized (the tae rewires sacro deficit to be retired socaratsly). adjust Column 2 for the oldest deficit first. When Column 2 e=els Column 1 for any deficit, that ceficit hos been retired and may be removed from the amortizetion schedule. Whenever a Now Deficit appears In Lina 8, the original amount of such deficit must be added to the amortization schewle ten following year. SQiOULES I -II -Ili FOR Ltd sia! Pt4S:Cn PLAKS STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1989 Firef lgntors Rei lef Association of 0/%�/�"%/c f � L. . County of U.) Q fG N 7— IA I Coeautation of benefit of relief association spacial fund (at i 00 per year of service) for all eemcers based on tneir years of service as active fire depar„went oencers.. 1 2 1 a lose 3 ( o syov r • F.C. To E” of This Year To End of Next Year Entry Tears Active Accrued Tears Active AC -rues hams Aga Date Service LIA01111y Service I Lia:il Ity 1. G. Lta'ar= 1 l l-63 t 2(. i .2 t, dao i 1 ; 7noo I 2. G. :ensen I I 7-36 I 2 2 I 12 O-0 4-70 I 14 20 000 i := I I 4-70 I 19 I lyuuo I 20 I 20 6$`-010 I I S. W. Fa=-c=x i I 6-7: I V7 } /S- Oo0 I I i If, .(;,Y•O } a. t. farca_ ! 1 3-73 i lb I 1u 2,''o I f7 I /-1-(. Ica ✓a i 7• W. Saa.an— i I 7-74 I 1y i 11 .1V 0 ) +S i /3 o :.ter ! i !-7_ I 1 r fvo 1 is- I /B.o�o I 9. me:L 6L- I I !-75 I y i I/ PVv I IS } 13 0 wO C, s. ::cc -,as i 1 3-76 �iJ ! ::.Y 1. :acraIs I I !-77 I 1 9 0'a a 1 Il I /0 700 112, M. :*a__e^. 1 t !-77 1 .1 7 0 } t J } !O 70J i 111. G. oealae—er I I .-76 F0 1 1 L 1 9. b a.0 I I Is. mat: ! .:-7? i G b r. too /0 } 7.600 ) 15. M. :cr.ason _. I 4-3: 6'r0 I S. :^.a_d0 ..._ } 7 } 1✓070 7Cao 1 .7. T. L:e_er= I I t7-33 ( S ( j�y0 ! (. ( L e.1/Do 1 f,la I I l-34 j 3 V0 j ter' 100 I S0. K. 5:.==. f 1 !-3° � J 1 26o6 1 29. G. !oat I 10-3! 1 7 ' 40 o 121. '. l:e=er 4 i. -3s # 3 } t goo V 1 2 6vo M::4=c, =: A-36 ] food ✓ I 2 4oa I 121. ... 51:=8cct i } t-37 I 2 /21/0 3 ) t gad i 1-37I 1 13VO •3 I 1 too I Wo27. I:l, Ne✓ (P.�,«.•-w•) i } 1 Goo S L I I s 12s. 129. i 1 !C. I Total of Warred Oenslons. If env I } I I Total a• Umtata InStal Nnnts• If Anv 1 } Total of Early vested Pensions. If Anv 1 •• 7) jj� A 2 $`.%� Z 0 O A. Ac:rued Liabil l ty rKni Mut Year 1960 (total • calymn .... . .. .1 . « .. .. 9. Accrued Liabi II ty TRru This Year IM (total• eotuan E) 2 ? q, S-00 ( .. 7I ZZ V. FDO 8 from Line A (noreal east: enter here and on Line a Schedule 111) jf ;S" No a C. subtract Lina Fractions] years of service must be calculated to nearest full year. For installment 1 lability. anter amount which •111 be payable after and of this leaf in both column I and 7. It interest Is to be paid on unpaid bansions, ado interest for 1 year in ep]iaan 7. toDy of these seaadulos must be presented to the City Council before August 1 each year. I SCHEDULE II Projection of Relief Association special fund assets to end of this year, (December 31, 1988) Assets at January 1, 1988 (this year) 1. $ /&-5-407 ticipated income to end of this year a) Minnesota State Aid 'F7 +f% S 3�, 0 `►'/ b) Receipts from local taxes c) Interest on investments io 000 d) Other income Total of lines a -b -c -d - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2. $ &/o 095/ Beginning assets plus estimated income for this year (L1 + L2) 3. Estimated disbursements through end of this year e) Pensions A4 :&,.— el.,;. S S-70,00 f) Other benefits i :oo g) MSFOA or VFBA dues, if any h) Administrative and overhead &00 Total of Lines a -f -g -h - - - - - -- -- ----- - - - - - -- a. $ J00 ifojec.aG assELS aL eiiu ui Luis year 12;5!i66 ju-L6) 5, j iy�, iu/ Calculation of average special fund income per member (other than interest or investment income) State Aid Municipal Support 10% of surplus (if any) Last year �fb ,ears ago �. . years ago >j Fi,/ Totals 79,f:& + + Total 3 year income $79f+i,+ 3 - S.24& -P + 26, (no. of members) - 6. E fo23 CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL FUND REQUIREMENTS This information must be certified to the governing body of the municipality or indepen- dent nonprofit firefighting corporation by August 1. 1988. ire, the officers of the Firefighters Relief Association, state that the accompanying schedules have Deem prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Volunteer Firefighters Relief Association Guidelines Act of 1971 (including M.S. 69.772) and that the schedules are Correct and Complete to the best of our knowledge. The financial requirements of the relief associations Special Fund for 1989 are $ Check here if no municipal support required The average non -investment income per member of said special fund for the past 3 years was 5 Signature of vresiaent nate Signature of Secretary Date t Signature of treasurer Date SCHEDULE Ili Computation of Flnancial Requirements for Next Year . 1989 Column A Column 8 Column C Assets from Ltne S. Schedule ii - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ - . _ .. _ _ _ . _ $.J 90/ Z. Accrued liability to and of this year (from Line B. Schedule i) - - - - - - - - - . i2 y, PO 0 3. a) If Line 2 is more than Line 1, subtract Line 1 from Line 2. Deficit - - - - - % P 9y b) If line 1 is more than Line 2, subtract Line 2 from Line 1. Surplus - - - - - If surplus exists, enter 10S of surplus amount in Column C and go to LI me B.- - - - -- Amortization of deficit (mor deficits) Incurred prior to and of last year (tee nota). Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Year Original Amount Retired Amount Left InGrred Deficit Amount to Prior Years to Retire 19IF0 6S 6&y SJ,Svv i3. pyo 19 W. 39 16f 7 F-rr 37 VA 1977 1 bS/ - Pbf .2 lf6 a. Totals Lo.LL7 4G. 957 /07620 __... - -' - - - - ---alms----- /0,7c2, _. Subtract Column 3 total from Line 3(a). (If Column 3 19 move to or greater than Line 3(a), no new deficit exists.) If Column 3 is less than Line 3(a), difference ) Is nn deficit. Enter ........ . .. . . . . . . ...... . ...... 3� Q4G Enter 10: of this nee deficit In Column B ... ..... .. . ... . ........... 3 09! B. Increase (from Line C. Schedule 1) . • - . • . . . . . ........ .... . ...... 1S, yoo 7. Anticipated expenses Next Year, (atner than pensions, or investments) 1989 estimates - - - - Goo B. Anticipated Income Next Year 1989fstimetoes rr% a) Minnesota State Aid - - 1• •- - r- - !... ....... .... _ . ./ b) 5% interest on amount of Line 1 above . .. . .. ....... ..... . c) Other Income (do not Include local taxes or investment Income) - - - - - - - Total 8 a•b.c ' ' _ ... • • • .. _ ... _ . _ . . ....... ......... . .... .. �Pg yy 9. Total,Columna - ----•.................................3.�f7 10. Total, Column C - ....... _ .. . .. . .. ...... . ....... . . . .... .. ?Y9yyi 11. If Line 9 Is more than Line 10, the difference is the amount of municipal support required. Certify this amount to City council before August 1 (bottom part of Schedule 11 - Special Fund Requirements) ... - ........ ' .. ........... 12. If Line 10 is more than Line 9, no municipal support is required. Certify that fact to council before August 1. Council Is permitted to provide funds In excess of requ 1 rment. Note: Deficits are generally retired In tots than 10 years, because of Increase in state std, turnover gain and earned 1j• --est greater then 5s. If desired, the amount in Column 2 ay be increased so that the total of Column 3 is equal t` ne 3(a). If more than one deficit Is being amortised (the lar requires each deficit to be retired separately). adjust Column 2 for the oldest deficit first. When Column 2 *Wile Column I for any deficit, that deficit has been retired and may be removed from the amortisation schedule. Whenever a Now Deficit appears In Line 8, the original amount of such deficit must be added to the amortization schedule the following year. SO4E'DpLES I-II•III FOR lila' Stir PENSION PLANS STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1989 Ftraftgntars Relief Association or f>'I -. :rr+; 1 'i County of S12iEII= I Commutation of benefit of retief association spacial fund (at S cl" SO per year of service) for all aeaoers basso on their years of service As active fire department mrmers.- Fractional years of service must be calculated to nearest full year. For tnstatiment liability, anter amlount shish s=ill be payable after antl of Uta ;ear to Doth cotusui S and 7. It lntarest is to of paid on uaoald pensions, add interest for 1 year in ceimmt T. copy of these icheCules must be presented to the City Council before Auqust S each year. 1 2 •1988 S 1 aF.D To Endof this Year To End offie■t Year i 1J. Entry Tears Active Accrued tears Active I AC..ved Name Aga Date Service I liability Service i liability j 1.-Getert i 5-52 2L 1 1417&0 t -7 i 2. f. .7ersea 1 1 -56 I 2 Z I ?o OO y 1 2 i I 1/ Dl0 1 I y. 7. 3 -t=ar i f 3-70 119 i /7 t-/,' i 000 i .Lara I I :-70 1 !9 i /7 t_/d� 1 �0 1 /Q Oao I S. W. ?aa-:c:t 1 1 6-72 i 17 11'f V10 /F /4 9. =- -s=tem ! 1 3-72 1 I L 1 /z S•L(. /- I /V. Ps0 i 7. W. 36a_ar.d 1 7-76 ru a. ... a_ b ar i t !-7=_ i r v i // .7 i /S' 9. .. .._c=ell I I `.-73 I ;V I //. ✓y /S I /z, TPi I _.._„r a I '.1. a• LaEreeI i 3-77 12. "•• +a ler, I 1 !-77 1 1 /0145 1 13. G. :6.l.`.a--- or 1 1 2-78 I // I S�[C-/ ! /1. 1 9135 1 ta, J. Weir i i 12-79 j Cf i /Z3za /0 I 7110 1 19. y• ,;Pr=am 1 1 9-3•: i 1 SYT3- I 9 ! 1,327 1 I 15. atson I !-32 - '7 I NG)ry/ 1 G I SV7i I7. T. Llefort 1 1 11-32 5 3/Ti ' L t 3F9r' 1 18. B. F,116 I I !-34 t ? I�1 & 1 29, Y. S ma. I I !-3! V t .7V'7a 4— 1 3/7l i 20. G. Hast I I 10-3! I /eor- Y 1 2V70 I 21. -- ?rams. i 1 12-3! j liof +/ 1 4470 1 22. T. Mcce—Ott I 4-a6 ' 3 I / re Or s/ , .^..V)0 1 V. M. 4Ga=baa i f 1-37 7f 3 /.ir i 120. L. Larsen I ! 1-37 1 1 i/7P 3 I /yD 129. fh.., R!o/nf•rs.2+ / C.70 ! !7e 7 L //7L 127. 128. I 1 30. t F 4 I Total of Oeferso Pensions. if env i Toth! of Unoato Installments. If Any i I I Total of Early vestal Pensions. If Any j A. Accrued liability Thru Neat Year 1989 (total. Colman 71. .... .. 1T/7/G9U 1 6. Accrued liability Thru This Year 1988 (total, Co11Nff S) ....... tt C. Subtract tins 9 from line A (tarsal Costs enter Nan and on Etna 8:rhedule ill) JS! /3a Fractional years of service must be calculated to nearest full year. For tnstatiment liability, anter amlount shish s=ill be payable after antl of Uta ;ear to Doth cotusui S and 7. It lntarest is to of paid on uaoald pensions, add interest for 1 year in ceimmt T. copy of these icheCules must be presented to the City Council before Auqust S each year. SCHEDULE II Projection of Relief Association special fund assets to end of this year, (December 31, 1982) Assets at January 1, 1988 (this year) 1. $ //5'6o7 ticipated income to end of this year a) Minnesota State Aid 67 +ry. $ 3o, oogr b) Receipts from local taxes c) Interest on investments Jo 000 d) Other income Total of lines a -b -c -d---- --------- --•---- 2.$ 4"'0,09V Beginning assets plus estimated income for this year (LI + L2) 3. S 10 S 7 of Estimated disbursements through end of this year a) Pensions R+4 2Vlo- At'/..» .29.v,'o $ -y/IV f) Other benefits / too g) MSFOA or VFSA dues, if any h) Administrative and overhead b eo Total of Lines a -f -g -h - - - - - • _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.$ S S, 9s -o F^,'ujCCted assets at end of tnis year 12/31/88 (1.3-1.4) S. E /Y9. 7S/ Calculation of average special fund income per member (other than interest or investment Income) � State Aid Municipal Support 10% of surplus (if any) Last year 24 7d L sears ago ek ' � � years ago i. Totals o J.� + + • Total 3 year income 5_ 11.6+ 3 • S 21.Gof + 24 (no. of members) - 8. S ,*A) CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL FUND REODIREMENTS This information must be certified to the governing body of the municipality Or indepen- dent nonprofit firefighting corporation by August 1. 1988. We, the officers of the Firefighters Relief Association, state that the accompanying schedules nave been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Volunteer Firefighters Relief Association Guidelines Act of 1971 (including M.S. 59.772) and that the schedules are correct and comoleta to the best of our knowledge. The financial recuirements of the relief associations Special Fund for 1989 are S Check here if no municipal support required The average nor. -investment income per member of said special fund for the past 3 years was ',signature or President Signature or secretary Signature or treasurer Date Date Date SCHEDULE III Computation of Financial Rewiraments for Nest Year - 1989 Column A Column 8 Column C Assets from line S. Schedule II - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 2. Accrued liability to and of this year (from Lina B. Schedule I) - - - - - - - - - - - S 60 3. A) If Line 2 1s more than Line 1. subtract Line 1 from Line 2. Deficit ..... G b) If Line 1 1s more than Line 2, subtract Line 2 from line 1. Surplus - - - - - If surplus exists, enter 101 of surplus amount in Column C and go to Line 6.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Amortization of deficit (or deficits) Incurred prior to end of last year (see note). S. Suotract Column 3 total from Line 3(a). (If Column 3 1s equal to or greater than Line 3(a), no new deficit exists.) If Column 3 13 less than Line 3(a), difference is now deficit. Enter . .. .. ..... . ...... .. . ...... .... /4.fs6 ! Enter 101. of this nw deficit In Column 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - /,GPL 6. increase (from line c. Schedule 1) - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24/)0 7. Anticipated expenses Next Year. (other than pensions, or Investments) 1989 estimates . .. . 600 8. Anticipated Income Next rear 1989 estim� tea e) Minnesota State Aid - - - - - 1o$ 91. 1 t V .............. 31-s'9 b) 5% Interest on amount of Line 1 above ................... 7VPj c) Other income (do not include local texas or investment Income) ...... . Total 8 A -b -c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39 o�G 9. Total, Column 8 ..... ............................... ... 37,/78 10. Total, Column C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - 11. If Line 9 is more than Line 30, the difference 1s the amount of municipal support required. Certify this amount to city council before August 1 (bottom part of Schedule It - Spacial Fund Requlrsaents) ....................... .. . 12. If Line 10 is more than Line 9, no amnicipal support 1s rewired. Certify that fact { / 90 to council before August I. Council Is permitted to provide funds In excess of ' raw I rament. Note: Deficits are generally retired in less then 10 years, because of lncreaas 1n state aid, turnover gain and earned {-rest greater than S1. If desired, the amount In Column 2 my be Increased to that Ina total of Column 3 Is equal ine 3(a). If more than one deficit 1s being amortized (the tar requires each deficit to be retired separately), adjust Column 2 for the oldest deficit first. When Column 2 equals Column 1 for any deficit, that deficit has been retired and any be removed from the aaortizetlon schedule. Whenever a Now Deficit appears In Line 8, the original amount of such deficit must be added to the smortlzation schedule the following year. Column I Column 2 Column 3 Year Original Amount Retired Amount Left Incurred Deficit Amount In Prior Tears to Retire 197f7o ., bis/ 51,r1/y /3. /A 19p� ip 3f 7,gt'o li. va7 19� 2. (.r/ - lA.r Z. 36L a. Totals /.e 647 N/.9C3 /07G2o ..........................x10%..... /0711 S. Suotract Column 3 total from Line 3(a). (If Column 3 1s equal to or greater than Line 3(a), no new deficit exists.) If Column 3 13 less than Line 3(a), difference is now deficit. Enter . .. .. ..... . ...... .. . ...... .... /4.fs6 ! Enter 101. of this nw deficit In Column 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - /,GPL 6. increase (from line c. Schedule 1) - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24/)0 7. Anticipated expenses Next Year. (other than pensions, or Investments) 1989 estimates . .. . 600 8. Anticipated Income Next rear 1989 estim� tea e) Minnesota State Aid - - - - - 1o$ 91. 1 t V .............. 31-s'9 b) 5% Interest on amount of Line 1 above ................... 7VPj c) Other income (do not include local texas or investment Income) ...... . Total 8 A -b -c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39 o�G 9. Total, Column 8 ..... ............................... ... 37,/78 10. Total, Column C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - 11. If Line 9 is more than Line 30, the difference 1s the amount of municipal support required. Certify this amount to city council before August 1 (bottom part of Schedule It - Spacial Fund Requlrsaents) ....................... .. . 12. If Line 10 is more than Line 9, no amnicipal support 1s rewired. Certify that fact { / 90 to council before August I. Council Is permitted to provide funds In excess of ' raw I rament. Note: Deficits are generally retired in less then 10 years, because of lncreaas 1n state aid, turnover gain and earned {-rest greater than S1. If desired, the amount In Column 2 my be Increased to that Ina total of Column 3 Is equal ine 3(a). If more than one deficit 1s being amortized (the tar requires each deficit to be retired separately), adjust Column 2 for the oldest deficit first. When Column 2 equals Column 1 for any deficit, that deficit has been retired and any be removed from the aaortizetlon schedule. Whenever a Now Deficit appears In Line 8, the original amount of such deficit must be added to the smortlzation schedule the following year. t SURVEY OF FIRE DEPARTMENT RETIREMENT PENSIONS 6 PAY PER HOUR Amount Per year Pay per hour of service at call Big Lake 5 600 S 5.00 Buffalo S 700 S 6.00 Elk River $1,000 $ 8.00 Monticello $ 875 S 7.00 2 0 Council Agenda - 7/11/88 5. Consideration of MNDOT's Proposal for Closing of East River Street. IR.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous Council meeting, District Traffic Engineer for MNDOT, Bud McCulloch, appeared before the Council to discuss two problems that existed on East River Street to access Highway 25 and recommended alternative methods to provide the safest course of travel for the motorist. The Council action, as I understand it, recommended that MNDOT proceed with designing the closure of East River Street provided MNDOT would design and construct a parking lot on East River Street between Cedar and Highway 25 and also work with affected property owners (Wright County State Bank, and Monticello Times) to come up with a solution for correcting traffic patterns within the individual properties for egress and ingress caused by the closure of East River Street. On Wednesday, July 6th, I received a letter from Mr. Malloch (copy enclosed) which briefly outlines MNDOT's understanding of the Council's action at the last meeting. Although, the staff is certainly in agreement with their understanding of the intent to close East River Street, the letter is somewhat vague in indicating who will actually be paying the parking lot improvement to River Straet and also did not indicate whether MNDOT representatives will be working with the property owners to provide a solution to their ingress and egress. Another concern the staff noted is that it appears MNDOT is planning their design to extend the concrete median from the bridge approach to the driveway access for Wright County State Bank, which would in affect cut off any access to our Bridge Parks by north bound traffic on Highway 25. Currently there exists a left turn lane allowing traffic north bound to exit on to West River Street which would be cut 'off by a concrete median. The only easy access to the park would be by Big Lake residents traveling south on Highway 25. If the City Council is in concurrence with the concrete median, I guess there is not a problem, but I do not believe the Council motion from the last meeting ever really discussed the concrete median, only closure of East River Street. Don Smith has contacted me regarding the proposed closing of River Street. Don feels the access to River Street is important for not only his business, but the Community as a whole. He hopes the Council doesn't react too soon to the permanent closure and noted that this whole issue of closing River Street access to Highway 25 and concrete medians was a City Council issue along with downtown business concerns over the original design and many months were spent to have MNDOT re -design Highway 25 and the Bridge to leave these streets open. Although Don agrees the present situation does present a safety problem, he doesn't feel that MNDOT has researched all the alternatives, including moving the Highway 25 lanes slightly west etc. He feels MNDOT should be able to come up with other solutions than just suggesting closing River Street. Mr. McCulloch and his representatives will be in attendance at Monday nights meeting to present and discuss their plans for resolving the situation. B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS: Provided MNDOT has completed it's plans for closure of River Street and design of a parking lot, the Council could accept a proposal as submitted. Along with this alternative, Council would have to address whether the proposed concrete median extension from the bridge to Wright County State Bank entrance is acceptable and determine who is paying for all the necessary improvements. CoLmcil Agenda - 7/11/88 2. If the design presented by MNDDT is not acceptable, the Council could approve other alternatives discussed at the meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: At this point, City Staff has not seen the final design plans proposed by MNDOT to correct the East River Street access problem. It is assumed the design will close East River Street with curb and extend the concrete median from the bridge to approximately the entrance point for the Wright County State Bank. One of the main concerns the staff sees is the concrete median cuts all access to West Bridge Park accept by traffic coming from the north on Highway 25. The concrete median would also eliminate east bound traffic on West River Street from entering the bridge. Although, we certainly realize this would not be the safest intersection or easiest for crossing, there certainly appears to be adequate visability. Naturally, all street intersections onto Highway 25 will be problem areas for access because of the four lane traffic and MNDOT has not suggested that all access points be closed. The staff recommends that the Council seriously considers elimination of the concrete median on Highway 25 which would still allow for the left turn lane to exist and easier access to West River Street and our Dark system. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of letter from MNDOT and copy of letter from City to MOM summarizing City Council action of June 27th. Your letter mentions that MNDX would be designing a parking lot and or culdesac on the closed street, but no reference was made to who was going to be responsible for the construction of the parking lot facility. In addition, as I indicated, I believe MN= was to consult with the affected property owners to work out a suitablo traffic pattern that would be the least disruptive to the affected property owners for egress and ingress. In reviewing the Council action, no mentioned was ever made of City approving the construction of a concrete median extending from the bridge to the Wright County State Bank's access point on Highway 25. The construction of this median would definitely have an adverse affect on access to both the East and West Bridge Park with a median, the only direct access would be from south bound traffic on Highway 25. I do realize that one of your plans showed the establishment of a concrete median as part of the closure of East River Street, I believe this issue should be clarified at the July 11th Council meeting and that the motion to recommend closure of East River Street did not make reference of the construction of a median cutting off left turn movement on north bound traffic on Highway 25. I believe the City Oouncil and City Staff concurred that a problem existed on East River Street regarding eight line distances for safe access onto Highway 25, but I do not believe that there are any sight obstructions onto Highway 25 on West River 250 Coat Broadway AtWW* tt, minneaota 55902.6245 cityt tti m;�LoW62-9245 July 7, 1988 Phone (8121) :95.2711 Matra (812) 3335736 E. W. c4cC111ach Dist:iCt Traffic Engineer Minnesota Department Of Transpor3tion vtavov 301 Laurel St:eet Arve Gnmsmo P.O. Sox 973 ::tv Coured: Brainerd, MN 56401 pan Blonrgen F'an Far. W,nram Farr R-1: C.S. 8604 (T.H. 25) at River Street Warren Smnh Dear Mr. McCulloch: Administrator: I received your letter of July 1, 1988 in which you outlined your Rica watatCUW understanding of the City Council's actions regarding closing of East A atunamAdmrnritratarl RIV61: SLCCoL u.. Lazar ju;i G rr.... Plannuy A Zonwq: Jeff ammo Although I am in basic agreement with your comments in your letter, it Pt w,cJoh ware: JohnSimlarecommend is my understanding that Council Member Bill Fair made a motion to Bwldmg that MNDOT proceed with plans to close East River access onto o - •.Arroerson Anderson Highway responsible designing g y 25 provided MNDOT would be ze sibie for deal in and Ec ncoeyehpmem: constructing a parking lot on that closed section of River Street lying on,e KoMmIt a between Cedar Street and Highway 25 and also that MNDOT would work with the affected property owners, i.e. Wright County State Bank and Monticello Times, in correcting any traffic patterns that would have to be altered because of the closure of River Street. Your letter mentions that MNDX would be designing a parking lot and or culdesac on the closed street, but no reference was made to who was going to be responsible for the construction of the parking lot facility. In addition, as I indicated, I believe MN= was to consult with the affected property owners to work out a suitablo traffic pattern that would be the least disruptive to the affected property owners for egress and ingress. In reviewing the Council action, no mentioned was ever made of City approving the construction of a concrete median extending from the bridge to the Wright County State Bank's access point on Highway 25. The construction of this median would definitely have an adverse affect on access to both the East and West Bridge Park with a median, the only direct access would be from south bound traffic on Highway 25. I do realize that one of your plans showed the establishment of a concrete median as part of the closure of East River Street, I believe this issue should be clarified at the July 11th Council meeting and that the motion to recommend closure of East River Street did not make reference of the construction of a median cutting off left turn movement on north bound traffic on Highway 25. I believe the City Oouncil and City Staff concurred that a problem existed on East River Street regarding eight line distances for safe access onto Highway 25, but I do not believe that there are any sight obstructions onto Highway 25 on West River 250 Coat Broadway AtWW* tt, minneaota 55902.6245 Mr. E. W. McCulloch July 7, 1988 Page 2 Street. This intersection has as much visability for access to Highway as any other intersection within the City limits. Although I cannot speak for the City Council, again, I believe this issue will have to be addressed Monday evening. In addition, clarification will be needed regarding the closure and construction of a parking lot on East River Street and who will be responsible for the cost involved along with M MOT's working with the affected property owners to establish a traffic pattern within their parking lots that is agreeable to all parties. in ere/llyI, Rick 'toles ller City Aaministrator RW/vb C: D.L. Rainsanen/G.N. Kreutzer - Brainerd Don Smith - Monticello Times John Simola - Monticello Public Works Wright Oounty State Bank Leo Olmscheid - St. Cloud Jim Labo - St. Cloud C 410! sor' Minnesota Department of Transportation %?ata Olstrict 3 July 1, 1988 301 Laurel St., P.O. Box 978 Bralnero, Minnesota 58401 (218) M2460 Ouality Service Through Individual Commitment Mr. Richard Wolfateller City Administrator P.O. Box 83A Monticello, Mq 55362 In reply refer to: c.s. 8604 (T.H. 25) at River Street Dear Mr. Wolfateller: ^n J*.te 27, 1,91�R; Jim fabo and I attended a city council meeting in Monticello. A plan vas presented to the council that proposed closing River Street east of T.H. 25 because of sigot distance restrictions. This plan also included the extension of the concrete median to the south across River Street but provided a left turn lane into the Wright County State Bank. Councilmen Bill Fair made a motolon to this effect and it vas passed. To clarify the intent of the motion, I discussed the subject with Bill following the meeting. It vas agreed that the intent vas to close River Street. I also talked with Mr. Dale Lungvitz and George Phillips, co-owners of the bank, and told them that we may have to close the street tezVorarily until the permanent closure could be constructed. Mr. Lungwitz requested that Mn/DOT take a lrok at the possibility of moving the barrels to shift the northbound lane, thereby giving motorists room to pull out farther in order to see to the south. We have researched this matter and have moved the traffic slightly west. Northbound traffic will remain as is teaporarily marked and River Street open until construction is completed. Mn/DOT vill design a parking lot and/or cul-de-sac on the closed street. The inplace trees will not be disturbed. On June 29, 1988, Tom Davidson and Dave Buse vent to Monticello to do the folloving: 1. Check with city to see if they understood that the street vas to be permanently closed. 2. Reviev the present intersection to see vbat could or should be done. 3. Inform Leo Ol.mecheid and Mickey Klasen what took place and have Klasen survey out the proposed parking lot area for design. Art £putt Oppmtunsy £mAtoyst Mr. Richard Wolfstel.ler July 1, 1488 Page 2 Tam and Dave reviewed the plan change with Leo Olmscheid, Project Engineer. Leo requested that Design draft it up for him. They (Tom and Dave) then vent to the city hall to meet with John Simola and you to discuss Item dl. 'John stated that both he and you were aware: of the closing and had no trouble with it being temporarily closed. They went to the bank and met with Mr. Lungwitz. His primary concern vas alloving the bank some time to come up with a parking lot scbeme. He also knew that it was going to be closed permanently. He asked if we could give him same reca=endations before leaving. After making the additional changes to barrels and txpe, we have determined that we will leave the street Creu until construction closes it (approximately °-' :ceaa). As you requested. I will attend your meeting on July U to shorty and discuss the plans. Sincerely`, / E. W. McCulloch District Traffic Engineer cc: D.L.Raisanen/O.R.Kreutzer - Brainerd Don Smith - Monticello Time John Simola - Monticello Wright County State Bank Leo Olmscheid - St. Cloud Jim Lebo - St. Cloud �x".t„T9T Council Agenda - 7/11/88 6. Consideration of Water Tower Site, Elevation, b Cost Comparisons. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At our last meeting, the workshop session, the City Engineer was directed to prepare cost estimates for the construction of a water storage facility on six different sites. The City Engineer was directed to look at the type and cost of the storage facility and interconnecting piping to be built upon the various sites. City Staff was to continue negotiations in attempts to obtain property at the most two promising sites, Kenny Shultz and Monte Club. We were also directed to determine the estimated land costs for the remaining sites. The City Engineer was also directed to obtain information from several communities who had older cast iron mains of similar vintage as Monticello's and older homes with galvenized piping which have gone through similar changes in water pressure. much of the discussion at the workshop centered around a 27 pound boost in pressure and it's negative effects on the City's water main and private residents. The City Engineer was also asked to look at the success rate of in home pressure regulated devises. It was apparent at the meeting that the City Engineer had not any recent first hand experience in significately boosting water pressures in older communities. John was to have completed his report by Thursday in time to incorporate in with the agenda supplement. We have not as of Friday morning received the report. Since the workshop, City Staff had discussions with Butch Lindenfelser of the Monte Club and Kenny Shultz. The discussions with Kenny Shultz have lead to a tentative purchase agreement, to purchase five acres and a 30 foot easement leading to that five acres from County Road 118, for a total purchase price of $50,000. Mr. Shultz would like to receive the first payment of $20,000 upon successful completion of the referendum in 1988. Additional funds would be paid in 1989 or at a later time agreeable to the City. We would provide a free service connection and lateral benefit for the farm homestead containing one acre or less. In addition, we would agree not to place an assessment agai—nst Me—property until such time it was in the city and developed requiring service. Rick has drawn up a purchase agreement and we hope to have Kenny and his wife sign it prior to Monday evenings meeting. We have done some research on the proposed five acre piece of property. A map of this property in enclosed for your review. There are two Northern Natural Gas lines which cross the vary southeasterly tip of the property. These are located on a 50 foot wide easement. United Power Association has a transmission line located about 30 feet south of the southerly line we are looking at. They are there without a recorded easement and may have some type of rights to the southerly 5 or 10 feet of the property. The major concern to us is a fiber optic telephone cable which crosses diagonally through the southern portion of the property. The cable crosses about 100 feet away from the gas line. Speaking with representatives from Bridgewater Telephone Cumpany, they felt they wanted to avoid the approximity of the gas line so they did cut the corner, they are also without easements, but do have a lease access agreement. We will be working with Bridgewater in attetpts to get them to relocate their cable and give them a permanent easement down near the gas line or make arrangements for them to do that in the future when the property is needed by the City of Monticello. Council Agenda — 7/11/88 It was originally thought that Rick and I would not be able to attend Monday evenings meeting. Since we do not have the information from OSM in time for an adequate review, I felt obligated to be at the meeting on Monday and will make arrangements to do so. If there are any questions concerning the site selection, please feel free to contact me over the weekend or an Monday. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Select the Kenny Shultz property for the proposed site for the water storage facility and authorize submittal to the OAA for a Conditional Use Permit. The pipeline would be constructed on County right of way, therefore we will not need easement from the township for the pipeline. 2. Select the Kenny Shultz site, authorize a Conditional Use Permit application and set the elevation of the high water in the storage facility and the system operating pressure. This would only be possible if the Council is comfortable with the information provided by OSM on Monday's meeting. 3. Select one of the other sites. This would mean a different type of construction going from a ground construction facility to an elevated tank and even without OSM's report I would estimate it would be more costly short term and long term to go to another type of elevated tank at this site. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that the Council approve the Kenny Shultz property for the new water storage facility site and authorize preparation of a Conditional Use Permit application as outlined in Alternative 11. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of map of Kenny Shultz site and copy of report Exam OSM (if available and arrives in time). C Council Agenda - 7/11/88 7. Consideration of Establishing a Pee for Mobile Homes. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the annexation of additional land into the City of Monticello with the Rjellberg East Mobile Home Park, the City Staff is looking at iniciating a fee for the installation of a Mobile Hoare Park on a Mobile Home Lot. We have checked with other communities in the metro area which have mobile home parks with also issue permits through the city to allow a mobile home to be placed on a mobile home lot. The communities we checked with were the cities of Burnsville, Maplewood and Blaine. If you'll note, in the enclosed sheet, the cities charge in the range from $30.50 to $39.50 for the mobile home permit, and the range in updating an older mobile home to be placed on a mobile home lot now to bring it up to code. The range and permit fee for that is $10.50 up to the value of the amount of work to be done. In the City of Monticello's case, for instance, we could have mobiles brought onto an existing mobile home lot or we could have older mobile homes moved onto an existing mobile home lot. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve one of these suggested fee schedules. 2. Not to have any type of fee schedule for mobile homes. 3. Set a recommended fee schedule for a mobile home permit of $30.50 and a permit amount of $10.50 to bring the mobile home up to building code. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: With the annexation of the existing mobile home park, Kjellherg East Mobile Home Park, we can foresee some possible problems in the future as this mobile home park developes. We would like to recommend that the City Council establish a fee of $30.50 for a mobile home permit, and $10.50 to bring mobile homes to code. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the survey of the three communities, cities of Burnsville, Maplewood, and Blaine, and their mobile home fee schedules. Copy of mobile home park inspection requirements. , 3o oo e 30,570 56 75 i ap X AfR /1;"- 0 4W �6 h e rJol 0 lo.00 5,ec�Aane X11 r%A/f fu X31 50 ap X AfR /1;"- 0 4W �6 h e rJol 0 MARCH 1986 STATE CF KC09Z= BU=r,C CMES s STANCARru DIVISION BUIL. r, .77'!C_AIS MILT.4C.JRED 4CN9: INSTALIATICN _ON 1. Permits - A. Permits - Required prior to installations. A seperate ordinance and permit fee schedule may be necessary. B. Temporary ?emit - Should be used in the winter months or during unusual weat^.er conditions when the hare is not placed on a foundation system. C. Irstaller - J2ast be registered :y State for current year. Installer should provide installation certificate/seal number, (Issued to Installers by Building Code Division) before the Building Official issues permit. D. Owner - No certificate/seal number is needed when owner installed. Installation mast comply with code. Permit should be required. E. Foundation Systems - when manufactured (mobile) home is installed in compliance with State Building Code, no installation seal is required to be affixed by the installer. Installation must comply with code. Permit should be rewired. F. Manufactured Q4obile) Sone Installation Instructions - Should be obtained prior to issuing permits for the following systems when applicable: State rules require installer to follow manufacturers installation instructions supplied with home. 1. Foundation Systrm 2. Support System 3. Anchoring Systems •4. Frame Removal Approval (Single or Double Wide) 5. Assewly connection instructions for double wigs b additions: a. Met',ods and materials needed (bolts, spacing, location, etc.) b. Utilities - Gas, Electric, Water, Waste. c. Weathetitation and rodent proof materials needed. • Fr:mes can be removed only when manufacturers installation instr::cticn permit it to be removed. 2. Inspf-t_cn A. Construction Seal Required. HUD Seal (if built after June 14, 1975) State Construction Seal (if built from July 2, 1972 to June 15, 1976), must have Ntinnecota, Wisconsin. or Indiana seal. If built prior to July 2, 1972 no Construction Seal required. B. Support System In>vspection. Installation seal affixed. Soil conditions. Pier spacing and correct materials installed. Tightness of shiers. manufacturers instructions available i followed. June 1986 MTT::.""coS A SZ .::+C C. -r -ES ?233 S."A:MAP1S DTVISIC N 4c3 !--c au=zrC , H ; xn-Mr 3MV—:S ST. PUL, 55i01 tCAE Crc?Y LSIS r"aS State Law :ecui:=_s that all manufactured `ane sucocrt systems installed after Septerier 1,i9'4 shall c—Tply with the Manufactured Hcme Building Code. This -c.:_des a..l mar.ufact-:y9 ;ones new cr used. that are installed or mored and :e -instated at amther ?ccaticn within this State. Marufact_red Foxes Marufac .:ed _fter Se -tarter 1. 1974. The manufactured hone manufacturers installation instructions should be available. (See owners manual). 11..e irst:actions should give you the pier location and load to be sLzvcrted ty eac!,. If the soild bearing c ditions are unknown, we wculd suggest a pier spacing of 6 feet or less. Manufactur-2d Hares Manufactured P:icr to Sectenber 1. 1974. Manufactured hones with -so installation 'instruction provided shall be supported :y piers not more than 10 feet apart for homes 12 feet wide, and not more than 8 feet apart for m bile hones ever 12 feet wide. If soild bearing conditions are unkrc n we would suggest a pier spacing of 6 feet or less. Arvroved Sm=r• cvst-^n I. Fbcti:-cs shall *..•e two 4 x 8 x 16 inch solid concrete blocks (or ecui•ra.�erti laid ?arallel to the steel beam. 2. Piers shall be c: r.c:ete blocks 3 x 8 x 16 inch with open cells placed vertically upon the footing. Single stacked blocks shall be placed perpendicular to steel beam. (See Figure 2) 3. Piers shat be covered with a 2 x 8 x 16 inch wood or concrete cap (See F!(T4re 3) . A 4 x 8 x 16 inch n olid concrete cap is also reputable. (See Figure 4) 4. Piers are 1' -sited to 40 inches in height when single blocked. All corner piers over three (3) blocks high shall be double blocked. (See Figure 51 All piers eve: 40 inches high shall be double blocked. S. Elevated Manufactured Hares. When more than ane -fourth of the area of a .T r:ufactured :here .a installed so that the bottan of the main fran+e-etber3 are more than three feet above ground level, the marufactired yore stabilizing system shall be designed by a qualified Registered Profes3icnal Engineer or Architect and the installation shall be approved Prior to installation by the authority having jurisdicticn. 6. C_esrarce Above Ground. The bettem of the manufactured hone shin f:=,.e must to at least 12 inches above the ground in the area of the utility =%n --tions. Do not Wp ort the have on the wheels. The wheels must be up off the ground or removed. 7. Plates and Shins. A word plate not exceeding 2 inches in thickness My be used to fill the gap between the pier and the steel beam. A shim may be used up to 1 inch thick and at least 4 inches wide by 6 inches long. ShLra shall be driven tight between the wood plate or pier, and main frame. C. Arc`.crirg System Inspection (Anc-hors are not required by State Law). Soil C nditions - Soil Probe Used. CCcrrec: Anchors Installed. Ccr.ect Spacing. Manufacturers Instructions available and followed. D. Utility Crnnecticns - Must co:ply with State Building Code. 1. Water Correct materials used. Protect from freezing. Flexible to permit movement. 2. Haste - Correct materials used. Protection f_an freezing on long runs. If necessary. Correct sloe to drain. Pipe supported. Gasket at sewer connection. 3. Gas - Correct materials. Flexible to permit movement. Gas line pressure test. 4. Electrical - Connected as per tag on home. Permanent wiring by electrical contractor. Inspection of wiring by electrical inspector. One cord only on HUD homes (100 amp service requires direct wiring) E. Inside Hone - Visually inspect appliances for proper connection and installation. Data plate lists appliances installed by manufacturer. Report any transporation damage or dealer alteration problem to Building Code Division. F. Aacescory Structures and Additions - Factory made entries and adder rooms must bear a State Accessory Structure Seal. AP.diticns built on site are under local permit. Supports shall conform to the Manufactured Wbile) Bane Regulations. Addition mist be anchored if the Manufactured (Mobile) Hese is anchored. The Manufactured Hone Miles - Chapter 1350 are available from: Documents Section 117 University Ave. St. Paul, eM1 55101 612/297-3000 Price: $4.00 (Stock 03-20) Please add $1.50 Postage i Handling Charge per order and 6% Sales Tax for Minnesota Residents. FIGup IP el, 2"X 8' X 11o" CONC. OR WOOD CAP —,, A -CROUND LINE FIGURE FILLED .76P.BLOCKS BEAM 4" WIDE SHIMS (80TP -SIDES) Z 2" X S" FI L L E R• WOOD --CONC. .4'"THICK SOLID CONC-BLOCKS WOOD SHIMS OVER OPEN COPII:s LINT Car -7,E CONT_ RETE 'BLOCKS LAID 14oRizosrml- 4 NOT- A C. C. rz. P TA EL F- FIGU RM 1 FIGURE. Z. Fl o r}� I, • 8X8 x 16 ii1� 'PIERCONC: .'% BLOC K) • I. 2.._..4.X 8" X 16 SOLID CONCRETE_ BLOCKS .. �• CR EQUIVALENT. GRO.'uN•D' C-, FO-OTIN'G FIGURE .3•..FIGURE 4. AV OO D OR CONC. CAP .2" x 8" x 160" q"WIDE 5HIM- ` DRIVEN F0.0M Lr _ DOTH . � :SIDES r AL'rERNATB 4"x 50,06' �O 4c. CAP ' 1 SOL10) j BEAM ( MAIM . / nenBeC) PiF_F25 USING 8" CONCRi_TE BLOCKS WITH CELLS VERTICAL LAID I -005E W i I-IOUl- AL.1_ CORNER. PIERS OVER 'T•I-IREE•(3) BLOCKS HIGH SHALL BE DOUBLE BLOCKED ( SEE FIGURE 5). An Council Agenda - 7/11/88 6. Consideration of Final Plat Approval and Developers Agreement - Heikes Trailer Park. 0.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous meeting, Council granted preliminary approval to the proposal submitted by Don Heikes to expand the West Side Mobile Home Park. Council is asked to consider final approval of the plan approved at the last meeting and consider entering into an agreement with Mr. Heikes which provides the City with some assurance that Mr. Heikes will develop his facility as shown on the final plans plans. B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: Attached you will find a developer agreement which is designed to provide the City with some assurance that the development will be completed as planned. In summary, the agreement stipulates that the City will provide occupancy permits for individual mobile homes, at such time that the development is completed. The agreement also stipulates that if occupancy permission is desired before the project is complete, the developer shall place funds in escrow which can be used to complete the remaining portion of the project. Please see the developer agreement for more detail. It is the view of staff that this agreement is necessary and sets a good precedent for development of subsequent agreements with other owner/operators of mobile home parks located within the City limits of Monticello. C. DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE HOME INSTALLATION PERMIT: Coinciding with the development of this agreement is the development of a Mobile Home installation permit process outlined in a related agenda item prepared by Gary (see agenda item p7). Establishing a permit process for installation of mobile homes goes hand in hand with the development agreement as the permit process will be ertployed to assure the City that the developer will live up to his plans. The development agreement notifies the developer that the City will grant permission to occupy mobile home structures at Such time that improvements are completed or at such time other arrangements are made for the completion of the improvements. Thus, the agreement provides the City with some assurance that the development will be completed as proposed. Please note that Tom Hayes has reviewed this document as of the writing of this memo as Tom is on vacation until July 11, 1988. I hope to have hie input on the viability of the agreement prior to Council review. It is suggested that this item be tabled if Hayes is unable to review the document prior to Council Consideration. D. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative 1. Approve proposed developer agreement, approve final plait (identical to preliminary plat). Alternative 2. Approve proposed developer agreement with changes as suggested during Council discussion, approve final plat.C. ACTION Council Agenda - 1/11/88 C E. ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve developer agreement with Don Heikes which outlines terms and conditions for the expansion of the West -Side Mobile Home Park. Motion to approve final plat - West Side Mobile Home Park Expansion. C DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1988, by and between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Don Hei kes, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer." WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted a written request to the City to Expand the West Side Mobile Home Park as outlined in the final Plat Application entitled "West Side Mobile Haase Park" for the platting and development of Part of Gov't Lot 2, Section 3, Township 121, hereinafter referred to as the Development; and range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the parties desire that the Development utilize municipal sewer and water systems. WHEREAS, the parties desire that private water lines, sanitary and I storm sewer lines, concrete curb and gutter, concrete surfaced streets, and other improvements hereinafter described, be constructed within the Development; and WHEREAS, the City Council by resolution adopted July 11, 1988 has granted final approval to the Development, on the condition that the Developer enter into this agreement to provide for the installation of street, water, sewer, and other inWrovements hereinafter described on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Ordinances and Resolutions of the City of Monticello authorizes the City to withhold granting of occupy my permits for habitation of the mobile home sites until such time that improvements are completed to insure that the improvements associated with the Development will actually be constructed. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties made herein, 1 ARTICLE ONE - PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The Developer shall, at his own expense, forthwith, construct the improvements mentioned above. Construction shall conform to plans approved by City Council and are attached as exhibit A. ARTICLE TWO - MOBILE HOME INSTALLATION Developer shall not commence install or locate a mobile home in Development are or place a mobile home on a lot in the Development until all improvements have been made or until a cash escrow has been conveyed which equals the cost to install remaining improvements. No Occupancy Permits shall be issued until all utilities including streets have been installed. ARTICLE THREE - OTHER GOVERNING BODIES No utilities and street work shall be done until the Minnesota Health Department approves watermain plans and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency approves the sewer plans. ARTICLE FOUR - CITY DISCLAIMER The Developer shall indemnify the City against any loss, including suit costs and reasonable attorney's fees, incurred on account of injury or death of persons that may have been related to the work mentioned in this agreement, on account of damage or destruction of property that may have been related to the work mentioned in this agreement. The developer, at hie expense agrees to repair or replace property damaged, by reason of the work, that belongs to others. 2 ARTICLE FIVE - BINDING EFFECT The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the development and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. References made herein to the Developer, if there be more than one, shall mean each and all of them. This Agreement, at the option of the City, shall be placed on record so as to give notice hereof to subsequent purchasers and encumberances of all or any part of the development and all recording fees, if any, shall be paid by the Developer. ARTICLE SIX - ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT Upon completion of all the work outlined in Exhibit A, the City Building Inspector or his delegated representative shall inspect inprovements. Before occupancy permit will be granted, the City Building Inspector shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans. ARTICLE SEVEN - OCCUPANCY PM1ITS PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. In the event the Developer desires to install mobile homes in Development area prior to conpletion of work shown on approved plans (Exhibit A), Developer must escrow an amount equal to the cost to complete work on development area. This provision does not apply to streets, curb or sewer and water facilities. Such facilities must be in place prior to issuance of occupancy permits. The escrow amount required to complete improvements shall be established by the Building Inspector. If the work is not completed by the Developer within 365 days then the City my, at its discression, utilise the funds in escrow to complete the necessary improvements. 3 ARTICLE EIGHT - COMPLETE AS BUILT DRAWING Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, or prior to final release of Escrow funds, Developer will provide as - built drawings which accurately describe location of improvements. CITY OF MONTICELLO DEVELOPER Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor (Developer's Name) Rick Wolfsteller, City Admin. (Developer's Name) (CITY) STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by (DEVELOPER) STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by CTHIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, Mod 55362 4 EXHIBIT A A. SUMMARY OF APPROVED PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF WESTSIDE MOBILE HOME PARR 1. Grass Planting: a. All lots shall be fully sodded except for roadways and driveways. b. Hillside area to be planted as rem.^andcd by the Un:iersity of Minnesota Urban Laboratories, which calls for a deep rooted short growth seed from Northrup Ring 437. 2. Fences: a. A fence six feet in height shall be installed as described in attachment A-2. The fence shall be made of all weather wood and both sides of the fence shall me maintained by the owner/operator of the development. 3. Park Area: a. The development shall contain 12,000 square feet of park area along the river bank. This area shall be maintained for general park use and shall include four picnic benches and a horse shoe pit, per attachment A-1. l 4. Street Lights: a. Three street lights shall be installed per the plan as outlined in attachment A-1. 5. Grounds Maintenance: a. Snow removal, grounds and street maintenance, water and sewer maintenance will be preformed by the owner/operator and or his agents. 6. Structural Foundations: a. Concrete slabs shall he installed per the design drawings shown on attachment A-2. 7. Storm Shelter: a. A lower level of the duplex maintained by the park caretaker will be available at all times for use at a storm shelter. Each residence of the park will hold a key to the storm shelter. The shelter shall have a sign placed above the door indicating its status as a storm shelter and all new tenants shall be informed that the lower level of the duplex maintained by the caretaker also Cserves as a storm shelter. 8. Block Retaining wall: a. Developer shall install a four feet block retaining wall as Indicated on attachment A-1. 1 PAGE 2 EXIBIT A 9. Three Peet Gravel Walkway: a. Developer shall install a three foot wide gravel walkway as outlined on attachment A-1. The walkway shall extend from the drive to the park area. 10. Grass Swale: a. Developer shall install and maintain a five feet grass Swale designed to channel water from the culdesac to the river. Any erosion problems created by the installation of the drive and subsiquent water run-off shall be quickly corrected by owner, subsequent operator of the park. 11. Off Street Parking: a. Off street parking shall be provided for per attachment A-1. 12. Curbing: a. A concrete curb shall be constructed along the southern and northern edges of the access drive and contiue around culdesac. water from the access drive shall drain to the curb and then drain in an easterly direction as discribed in attachment A-1. A shallow f trough shall be installed to carry water across driveway openings. 13. Lot Configurations: a. Installation of mobile homes shall be in accordance with the plans submitted which call for development of four mobile home Bites with mobile homes having the approximate dimensions of 26 x 40 feet. 14. Culdesac: a. A Culdesac or turn around shall be installed per attachment A-1. 2 WESTSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK 1323 'lest River St. MONTICELLO, Mtr 55362 295-4802 June 9, 1988 City of Monticello Monticello, MN 55362 TO ':lHCM IT MAY CCNERN: In reference to the addition of :9estside Mobile Home Park 1. GRASS PLANTING -All lots to be fully sodded except for roadways and driveways. 2. HILLSIDE AREA to be planted as recommended by the University of Minnesota Urban Laboratories. A deep- rooted short growth seed from Northrup King -#37 to omit erosion and requires non -cutting and chokes out weed growth. 3. FIVE FOOT SW ALE ditch for water run-off to be sodded and staked by a landscaper. 4. FENCES will be all-weather wood, six feet in height. 5. NEW ADDITION to be developed is approximately 1.78 acres of which 12,000 sq. feet for a park along the river bank, to include picnic benches, horseshoe pit, and fishing access. 6. THREE LIGHTS to be installed as per plan. 7. ELECTRIC, phone and cable to be underground. 8. NATURAL GAS to be available. 9. SNC"Jremoval, grounds and street maintenance, water and sewor maintenance to be performed by the owners of the Park. 10. TRAILERS to be on concrete slabs as per drawings. 11. STOP14 SHELTER is provided in the lower level of the duplex which is maintained by the Park caretaker living on the upper floor. Storm shelter is equipped with a bathroom, water, lights and heat. Shelter shall have a sign placed above the door and all new tenants are informed of this emergency shelter. �.• . vim, I c� Al � Donald W. Heikea (owner) Y P! TE Flou 1A V AT 1 0 5t ti= VIEW Oouncil Agenda - 7/11/88 9• Review of Community Survey Questions. W.0.) Following is a rough draft of the telephone survey and represents a starting point for discussion. Staff hopes the proposed questions address policy areas of interest to Council and City Commissions/Committees. Council is asked to review the survey and make comments on the survey accordingly at the meeting on Monday, July 11, 1988. Members of the HRA, Planning Commission and Industrial Development Committee are also receiving a copy of this draft which gives them the opportunity to review the questions and make comments on the survey at the City Council meeting or relay comments to me on an individual basis. I would have liked to have obtained formalized responses from advisory groups on this survey prior to Council review but timelines do not permit it. Please feel free to suggest additions or subtractions from the list of questions proposed. Also, survey is limited to 30 questions without any additional charges. Each additional question over the limit will cost about $200 per question. B. ACTION REQUESTED: Reveiw and discuss survey questions and implementation schedule. l_ C-=:missicn, trm and !ndust:4-al Development Committee Members Assistant Administrator, :ef! 01�;el11 Re: 7ouqh Draft of C==nit7 Survey A. REP "—E:C-Z/aACKCRCUM Pol7owing is a -ouch draft of the telephone survey and represents a starting point for discussion. Staff hopes the proposed questions add:e3z policy areas of interest to Council and City C:mm i s3 ions/Cormi t tees. council will be reviewing the survey and making ccr,rznt3 accordingly at, the meeting on Monday, july 11, 1988. Members of the HILA, Planning Commission and industrial Development Committee are receiving a copy of this draft and have the opportunity to make comments on the survey prior to the City Council meeting. If you would like to provide input on this survey please call me prior to the Council meeting and or provide your input directly at the upoomming meeting of the City Council. I would have liked to have obtained formalized responses from the various commissions/committees on this survey prior to Council review but timelines do not permit it as we are trying to have the survey completed prior to budget review which starts in early August. Again, Please feel free to suggest additions or subtractions from the list of questions proposed. Also, survey is limited to 30 questions without any additional charges. Each additional question over the limit will cost about $200 per question. If you should have any questions, please call. :_*C+ - :Z=::t --C--�r "C l..:el:o. 1s this . a :'esidpares? 2. f' :TCS ,_.-s... 3't sc^�.F a :ave -he-a:C.i.1,=--rD C':.`MC.". 3. r= =7---- .. `L:*M) ':-.Is :s ;:'CLQ :r%M) at St. C_aa:d-a re-3:�,. - = 1= -.= - �i�c �L-U= laboratory St rte. ;a ars L.g a ==I Ln crl-ar = de=_—irs what residents Z; cf Yz:__ce:_z _�.r.=k to=. va:_aus C._j policies and services. it a ::, cr- twa: :a i .arr_a, a :an i:. -- :==eholds and a w=n in cthe_x-s so that the re-;lt3 W_' 1 ~sly :apresar 4 al t*.s people in ywr C_' 1. A=r:L'-x7 o .`.e =tr_`Od Used by our trr iVuMi_!, I need to i_� at r_ra the 13 years cf age or told -r Aw lives in your hSt3stcid. kvld that 'cs 1ah? (= YES -S' --,JC =,_':V I (IF wn :ay I speak with that peasah? (ter S n.Y.c= mm�. ; IM irm5y mw m NO herr sC;1'-�rr'- I i w�8e'n =yy Z call back to %sub I ad/aw) ? I So curt I viii know who to ask I for, %halm is (h SAW) rima? ! (RLr'6�1' T 3= 20 BE S= YM S)►VB I Tr AM %-= PImIIaC27 =w XF IT STAR.^•tl'.a'N�'A j IS A YWJUZ4. Ia MMPC4CCIT CB." E= TO FXV=C Don: "F1a no-,unat:cns I reed to ask Wh aid , ( only -md the person's first taka abmm Is •a 10 »aa -arras. 3".lm be_'= recce: the 1w. name isn't Sti---.? t`.aa ::matt CA L`at r mumirl.* I wain i bs h.3;py to arwn-- sry. .cit as''.. cra II acre.: the an:, viv sit -.or nc.+ or later. :10'T.`=Z LXM ZR mzm= ;C.ao, =2t 7 .::_a I_I ow IS C^.-_''_"'Isrm -• AM MR =W PADS OVER 10 - and cra:.sta:7 vci- :3^?. : we steu:di Imo'.:: iLQC-3T N= SC3wn cz...s a =1 t:ast:cn wt -1--h ycu Ccn't ger:l a arr, a,: , ; t_st 1st ---a &= , and we'll I a-wa Curt k.tu. LK•N So cm a t`.s :act 4tcssr.4=. I=,,G _C! Y"1 08 YF 4. Chi.:. Rrt C' -N= Cw_" el 02 o) ma I9 lr7__V=4 :v 5 =.L=, Cit I= W: CZMI FL....1SE ML41N M= .MPOO a)=*M a-zzz S:=IL NWiCT WC1tlM Nt?!M 22_3=3 r . M ;t atio �.=LZV RESP. O (GZT IWZIT3m,0 n) R-MIZ W" C': -a_,% 'ts f'...t' T..A=T) C.. _.rC= SECOND Dr -.A' -CI t'1 OF MONT.ICELLO CITIZEN SURVEY 'JULY 1988 P.�jL P!�' ':ala. wcuid tike to beqin by asking your opinion about the quality of .w �,_ous services in :tor.ticello. Please rate each service as silent. good. neither good nor bad, not -very goodo or not good at .. (FEPEA' CATEGCRIE3 AS NECESSARY). 15) As you may know Monticello's phone calling area includes cities'* sja«•4-�01 °"a+s - _°• --•f -�_ a•'t• but not the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. Some citizens believe city officials should _ undertake efforts to include Monticello as part of the ,Twin Cities calling area. Thinking of a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being not important at all to 10 being very important --how important is it to Y M personally that Monticello phone service be part of the Twin cities calling area, -,,,. — RANK 88. DON'T KNOW 99. REFUSED (I EXCEL GOOD NEL- NOT NOT DON'T REF TNER VERY AT KNOW GOOD ALL GOOD 1) cartage services to your house -5 4 3 2 1 e 9 _) naving reascnable property to:zes ------------------------- 5 4 3 2 1 8 9 a �"tion----------5 recreation facilitiesr 4 3 2 1 8 9 b) over-all police protection -----5 4 3 2 1 8 9 7) responsiveness of the police farce if you or a member of your immediate household tried o to contact them within the past twelve months ---------=--S 4 Z: 2 1 8 9 8) retail shopping services -------5 4 3 2 1 $ 9 9) animal control -----------------5 4 3 2 1 8 9 10) street traffic ----------------5 4 3 2 1 8 9 11) street maintenance ------------5 4 3 2 1 8 9 �"} Safe pedestrian or Bike access -5 4 3 2 1 8 9- _ to Parks. Schools. Shopping . j ,nank you -now let's move some different areas. 15) As you may know Monticello's phone calling area includes cities'* sja«•4-�01 °"a+s - _°• --•f -�_ a•'t• but not the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. Some citizens believe city officials should _ undertake efforts to include Monticello as part of the ,Twin Cities calling area. Thinking of a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being not important at all to 10 being very important --how important is it to Y M personally that Monticello phone service be part of the Twin cities calling area, -,,,. — RANK 88. DON'T KNOW 99. REFUSED (I ilhat 1 the .na:,.imum amount you would be willing to have added to -•sur .ncn-ti!t yase talepncne rate in order to get Twin Cities 'i .cal;,tzn teleahene service' Would it be --(READ LIST) _ S: a month or less _ 113 a noneti or lass 31' or lase 1. 1:7 or less _g. mcr3 than $= a month -S. or nothing at all -------------------------------------------------------- 7. ----- - -- --------------------------------------- 7. DO NOT WANT TWIN CITIES PHONE SERVICE 8. CCN' - hNCW 9. RE=USED 171 Some in Monticello would like to see an ice arena built in the (:it,.,. How about you -7o you strongly support, support, oppose, or strzngly =ccose the Suilding of an ice arena even if it could mean soma increase in your taxas and/or a reduction in some other service? 1. STRONGLY SUPPORT -. SUPPORT 3. OPPOSE 4. STRONGLY OPPOSE e. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED Hier@ are some other aspects of the city ws would like you rate using the rat:nq scale of e-:cellent, good, neither good nor bad, not very good, or not good at all. (REPEAT CATEGORIES AS NECESSARY). a. T_cmo !3e0010 have some specific ideas on what the City should do to lv^. _ve te quality, of life in the City of Montieallo and Its ,ji;mborhoodl. . Now about you7 what community Imarovemant activities .cup] you ""ort @van If it would mann @oma Increase In your- taxes and or `VdUCtl:.)n 1m some other service. EXCEL GOOD NEI- NOT NOT DON'T REF THER VERY AT KNOW GOOD ALL GOOD 18) your personal safety from personal crimes like assult--5 4 3 2 1 8 9 19) freedom from e:<cessive noise -3 4 3 2 1 8 9 =0) home resale values -----------5 4 3 2 1 a 9 ==) a place to raise children ---- y 4 3 2 1 9 9 convenience to your church or synagogue -----------------5 4 3 2 1 9 9 :4) available day care -----------1 2 3 4 5 9 9 =5) convenience to wcrk---------- 1 2 3 4 3 9 • :S : a place t] raise children ----1. 1. 4 S 9 • -7) emplcyment corartunities ----- 1 . 3 4 5 9 9 :a) elderly housing opportunities ----------------1 2 3 4 0 9 9 a. T_cmo !3e0010 have some specific ideas on what the City should do to lv^. _ve te quality, of life in the City of Montieallo and Its ,ji;mborhoodl. . Now about you7 what community Imarovemant activities .cup] you ""ort @van If it would mann @oma Increase In your- taxes and or `VdUCtl:.)n 1m some other service. ?) Same c_`_v rosidento would like to see a municipal swimming pool b -lilt in th3 ..t i. How about you -do you strongly support, support, -30sa. or strongly oppose the building of a swimming pool even if it '+ uld mean some increase in your ta::es and/or a reduction in some .ier servic='? 1. STRONGLY SUPFCRT -. SUPPORT OPPOSE 4. STRCNGLY OPPOSE S. DON'T ►.NOW 9. REFUSED =O) Also, some Monticello citizens would like to see a additional park facilities developed by the city. How about you -do you strongly Support. Support, oppose. or strongly oppose the building of a -3dd.tienal part, facilities even if it could mean some increase in your ta::es and/or a reduction in some other service? 1. STRCNGLY SUPPCRT -. SUPPORT OPPOSE 4. STRONGLY OPPOSE 8. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED ---------------PARK PROBE NOT INCLUDED ----- Now let's talk about some aspects of housing within Monticello. 7,1) What type of home do you live in now? Is its (READ CATEGORIES) 1. a single family home _.Z. duplex or double bungalow _-, a three or fourpleu a condominium -�. a townhome h. an apartment building _7. a senior citizen apartment compleH -8. or something else- -------------------------------- 9. REFUSED Z=) In general. how satisfied are you with the home you live in now? Are you very satisfied. somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? 1. VERY SATISFIED :. SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 3. NEUTRAL -VOL. 4. SCME'AHAT DISSATISFIED D. VERY DISSATISFIED S. DK •. RE. ZZ) Do you own or rent your present home'' 1. OWN =. RE14T S. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED Z4) How long have you lived in Monticello'? 1. LEJ3 THAN 1 YEAR 2. 1-3 YEARS Z. 4-9 YEARS 4. 19-29 YEARS 5. 21 YEARS•/ALL MY LIFE S. DON'T KNOW •. REFUSED :9% W Tera [1:.1 you live just before you moved to your present home? Was at: (READ LIST AS NECESSARY) 1. the same neighborhood in Monticello - _ a di --_=rent neignborhocd in Monticello _ Sher�urna or Wright Caunt•f s. Metropolitan rwan Cities or St. Cloud 9. elsewhere in Minnesota a. outsiae of Minnesota ----------------------------- S. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED :6) Thinking about the future. where do you expect to live five years fra-o ncw7 Would you say, (READ CATEGORIES) -1. your present home --GO TO QUESTION amp ------------------------------------------ another residence in the same neighborhood. _ another residence within, Monticello. GO TO CUES. � 4. another residence in the Monticello area. S. outside of the Monticello area. 8. DON'T KNOW > 9. REFUSED GO TO QUESTION 4� :;7) (IF PLANS TO MOVE) what are the main reasons you onould want to move in the naiit five years"' (PROBE CAREFULLY) ;8) (IF FLANS TO MOVE) Keeping your budget in mind. L f you were to move. what sort of housing would you look for --(READ CATEGORIES --ACCEPT UP TO 2 ANSWERS) 01. housing primarily for persons 62 years of ape and older 0=. a single family home 0:. a duple:s or double bung&low 04. a three or fourplex 05. a c]ndominium _06. a townhouse 07. an apartment building 0e. or scmething alae -RECORD ------------------------------------- 88. DON'T FNOW 99. REFUSED -.91 (IF FLANS TO MOVE) Do you expect to rent or own that home? 1. OWN -. RENT S. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED Lq0 Here's a-diiferent topic. Mas -your household used or needed assistance in meet_inq your basic food needs at any time during the t twelve months? 1. YES 9. NO S. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED Now, we would like your views on a possible city recycling program. 41) The City of Monticello. in conformance with Wright County's Solid basto Management Plan. may begin a curb side pick up of recyClables such as newsprint, glass. and cans. Which of the following best describes your position regarding a recycling program. (READ LIST) _ 1 would voluntary participate in such a program I would participate if it was mandatory for everybody but there were no fines . I would participate if it was mandatory and there was a fine less than $5 a. I would participate if it was mandatory and there was a fine of 09 to 010 9. I would participate if it was mandatory and there was a fine of s10 to $15 6. I would participate if it was mandatory and there was a fine over 019 ---------------------------------------------------------- -- e. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED The last few question are primarily for statistical analysis and to C1p ue determine if we are getting a random sample. You don't have I answer all the questions but it will help us if we do. 42) What age group are you? Are you...a (READ CATEGORIES) -i . 1e-24 _2. 25-34 = - 39-44 4. 45-94 9. 99-64 6. 69+ 9. REFUSED 43) Which of the following best describes the area in the City OCA o Monticello where your present residence is located. is its (READ LIST) C.' 43) Huw many people are presently living in you home? NUMBER- 88. DON'T KNOW 99. REFUSED - Are you working now, temporarily laid off, unemployed, retired, a - household manager. a student or what^ [IF MORE THAN ONEa What do you consider yourself primarily?] 1. WORKING NOW -ASK NEXT QUESTION -j ---------------------------------- =. LAID OFF UNEMPLOYED d. RCT:FED 5. DISABLED SKIP TO OUESTION47 6. HOMEMAKER 7. STUDENT 9. RE=USED 4e) CIF WORKING:] what is your• occupation, that is, what kind of work do you do for a living? 88. DON'T KNOW 99. REFUSED 47) Would you please tell me the lanae w hich best represents the total income before taues, of all immediate family living in your household< 01. less than 010.000 02. 10 to 15,000 0v. 17 to 20.000 04. 20 to 25.000 05. 25 to 25,000 06. Z5 to 50,000 07. 50.000 or over 08. DCN'T KNOW 096 REFUSED ---------ANYTHING ELSE OPEN END NOT INCLUDED --- I would like to thank you very much for your time and cooperation. You have been very helpful. If you are interested in the results of this stud,, you may contact Monticello city officials in about three mcnthe. GcCO-by' --------------------------------------'—"--T----«--------------- OBTAIN FRCM CONTACT SHEET -RESPONDENT SEX 1. MALE 3. FEMALE JN? FVIE',tr'3 CHECK OUESTIONNAIRE FON COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY AND LE3I9ILITY. PLEASE DESCRIBE ON THE BACK OF THIS SHEET ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE INTERVIEW, SUCH AS DIFFICULT OUESTIONS, CODING PROBLEMS, CTC. Council Agenda - 7/11/88 10. Consideration of Change Orders S1 and $2 on Streetscape Project. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Wring the preeonstruction meeting with the various contractors, Jeff Martin from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., City Staff, and two members of the Downtown Development Committee, it was brought out that two of the existing ornamental street lights on the block of Broadway between Walnut and Locust were going to remain silver and all the other poles are going to be painted dark green. It was suggested that these two poles be painted green at a unit price of $83 each for a total price of $166. Since these two poles are out of the project area, it was felt that this should be brought back to the City Council in the form of a change order. Therefore, change order 41 would be for Arrigoni Brothers Construction in the amount of $166. Additional discussions during the meeting centered around the bridge railing refurbishment. The bridge railing design as laid out in the plans caused the supports for the panels to lay vary near the tree grate assemblies and could complicate the construction as well as be a potential problem area for unequal settlement around the tree grates. In addition, the panel length caused e significate amount of waste of good sections of railing. By adding additional length to the panels, we would use fewer panels allowing for more spares and also get away from the potential problem within the tree grate area. The proposed change would cut the total number of panels needed by five and would extend the lineal feet of paneling by 82 feet for a cost of $3,222.60. Therefore a second change order woilld be made to Minnetonka Iron Works in the amount of $3,222.60. Using the above quanities or panel lengths we would have ten or eleven spare panels which could be refurbished for spares or for use in extensions of the project in the future. Since the prices we received were vary reasonable, if there is surplus money left in the project, later this fall we may consider having these extra panels refurbished with this project. If the Council wishes, we could have them refurbished now. S. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Approve the change order I1 for 8166 to the Arrigoni Brothers, and the second lunge order for $3,222.60 to Minnetonka Iron Works. 2. Delete on or both of the above change orders. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It is the recoslnendation of the Staff, Goof Martin, and those members of the Downtown Development Committee present at our meeting, that the Council approve the change orders as outlined in alternative I1. Council Agenda - 7/11/88 11. Consideration of change Order I1 on Water Main Supply Line Project 88-01B. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As an atteapt to reduce costs of puaphouse 13 and complete the water supply line crossing of Chelsea Road at the same time the remainder of the water supply line is being done between wells 13 and 16, the City Engineer and Public Works Director have determined that it would be in the best interest for the City to issue a change order to accomplish that remaining pipeline work. Change Order I1 would be for the amount of $17,115.50. We would expect that the puaphouse project would be reduced by an amount greater than the change order. A Change Order is being made on the East County Road 39 project due to the amount of the change. Since all of the work is related to the major water improvement and the same contractor is utilized on East County Road 39 as well as the water supply project, City Staff feels the change order is proper. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the change order to project 88-01B in the amount of $17,115.50. 2. Not to approve the change order, but include the work with the pumphouse 13 project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It is the recommendation of the City Engineer and Public Works Director that the Council approve Alternative 11. The second Alternative may not be in the beet interest of the City and could result in an overall higher cost as well as delays in getting Chelsea Road patched. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Change Order will be delivered by OSM at Monday evenings meeting. c Council Agenda - 7/11/88 12. Consideration of Granting a One (1) Day Beer License to Lion's Club for Bridge Celebration - July 17, 1988. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In honor of the new Highway 25 bridge being opened and the demolition of the old bridge, the Monticello Lion's Club is planning a celebration to honor the new bridge and the old bridge on July 17th from approximately 2 o'clock to 6 o'clock in the afternoon. As part of this event to take place in West Bridge Park, the Lion's Club has requested a one day 3.2 beer license. The Lion's Club has the proper liability insurance and all that is necessary is Council approval. A simple motion to approve issuing the one day beer license for July 17th is all that is necesaary if the Council concurs. B. SUPPORTING DATA: None Council Update - 7/11/88 It New Aerial Fire Truck Delivery. (R.W.) The Monticello Fire Department is anxiously awaiting delivery of it's new aerial fire truck, which is expected the later part of August. The upcoming delivery is especially important now that the 62 Chevy pumper that was to be traded in has experienced a mechanical breakdown. At a fire last Thursday, June 30th, the engine in the 62 Chevy broke a crank shaft. At this point, it appears unfeasible to repair the motor in that the engine has been out of production for 20 plus year. Although Gould Brothers Chev. has been searching for parts for this engine, they have not had any luck at this point and the truck may have to be traded in as inoperable. As a result, the arial truck supplier has indicated the trade in value would drop from $7,500 to approximately $4,500. To retrofit the truck with a different type of engine and possibly other drive train changes would probably coat more than the city would receive on full trade in value and therefore it appears the city will Leceive $3,000 less than anticipated. In the meantime, the department expects to use mutual aid with surrounding communities until the new aerial truck arrives. Staining of New Firehall. The siding on the new firehall is starting to show signs of fading and Al Austin Painting has been hired by Contract to apply a three (3) coat finish. They are expected to start this weekend and complete the project within a few days. The cost will be $4,250 which was the lowest quote we received. L