Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 06-23-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 23, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held June 9, 1986. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints. Public Hearings a. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 5. Public Hearing to Consider the Making of Public Improvements Appurtenant to the Interceptor Sever and in Conjunction with the Rehabilitation of Trunk Highway 25. Old Business 6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution ordering the Making of Improvements, Assessing the Coat, and Setting a Bond Sale. _ 7. Conoideration of Adopting a Resolution Adjusting the Territory Proposed to be Annexed to the City of Monticello. S. Consideration of Adopting an Ordinance Regulating and Controlling Open Burning within City Limits. 9. Consideration of Financing Alternatives for Construction Cost Overrun for the Improvement of Sixth Street. 10. Consideration of Authorizing a Replacement of a Section of Force Ma in. 11. Consideration of a Cooperative Agreement with Wright County for Construction of West County Road 39 from I-90 to Elm Street. Now Business 12. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Uso to Allow Multiple Dwelling Structure in Excess of 12 Units, and Ordering the Preparation of Plane and Specifications for Public Improvements in and neer Construction 5 Addition. 13. Consideration of an Appeal for a Variance to Allow Placement of Entrance Lights and Sign within a Street Right-of-way. Applicant, Monticello Americ Inn. 14. Consideration of a Request to Reeproad Assosomonts in the Moadows/ Koaly Heights Subdivision - Applicant, Dan Frio. City Council Agenda June 23, 1988 - 7.30 p.m. Page 2 15. Consideration of Accepting the Annual Audit Report for the Financial Condition of the City of Monticello. 15. Consideration of Approving the Plans and Specifications and Ordering a Request for Bids for the Annual Sealcoating Project. 17. Consideration of a Proposal to Acquire Lawn Mower Replacement. 18. Consideration of a Proposal to Acquire an Automatic Blower for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. 19. Consideration of Pursuing Negotiations for the Acquisition of the Northern States Power Maintenance Building. 20. Consideration of Approving the Location of the Sherburne/Wright County Cable Commission's Administrator in Monticello. 21. Consideration of Membership Renewal in the Coalition of Outatate Cities. 22. Consideration of Ratifying the Union Contract. 23. Consideration of Bills for the Month of June. 26. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELL40 CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 9, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 27, 1986. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Mr. John Sandberg, who owns 34 acres abutting the eastern City limits along County Road 39 known as Naliiger's Tree Farm, noted that approximately a year ago he had requested that his property be considered in the future when the City considered annexation of surrounding lands and questioned whether he could be part of the Council's recent action concerning annexation. Mr. Sandberg noted that the boundaries specified for annexation by the Council did not include his property and noted his desire to be included. The Council suggested Mr. Sandberg submit an updated formal petition requesting annexation, and the Council would at the next meeting amend its previous resolution and include hie property in the original request to the Municipal Board. Mr. John Leoraeon, owner of approximately 10 acres of land abutting property Mr. Jim Boyle had petitioned for annexation, noted that his property appears to be included in the area the Council recently proposed for annexation and indicated he would be in opposition to being included in the annexation procedures. "It was noted by the Council that his property was intended to be included in the annexation procedures, as it allowed the area to be squared off and follow a definite boundary. The Council suggested that Mr. Laorssen attend the public hearing that the Municipal Board will schedule in the future and to provide written statements objecting to being annexed if he so desired. 4. Consideration of a Request to Create Two Buildable Lots which are Substandard in Size - Applicant, Del Emmsl. 5. Consideration of Makinq water Improvements on Chestnut Street. At the previous Council meeting, Mr. Dal Emmol had requested a variance to subdivide a lot adjacent to Chestnut Street into two 8,000 sq.ft. plus residential lots. As part of Lha Council discussion at that time. Public works Director, John Bimola, noted that the new lot if allowed would not have water services available without extending Council Minutes - 6/9/86 a long service line to River Street and recommended the City Council consider improving Chestnut Street with its own water main to service the three existing homes along Chestnut that currently use long service lines to either Broadway or River Street for their services. Mr. Simoia noted that as part of the Chestnut Street improvement project, water main could be extended between Broadway and River Street at an estimated cost of approximately $8,000.00 and that the existing three homes would be assessed approximately S3,000.00 each., and if Mr. Emmel's lot was allowed to be subdivided. four parcels could share in the cost which would bring the assessment to the neighborhood of $2,200.00 per lot. Mr. Simola recommended that the City Council seriously consider installing this water main even if the subdivision requested by Mr. Emmel is not approved, as eventually someone may have a problem with their service line and be responsible for repairing the newly constructed street in the future. Mr. Del Emmel requested that the City Council consider tabling his request for a simple subdivision at this time, as he did not want to be the cause of a proposed water assessment for other neighboring properties and requested that the City decide first whether they plan on improving Chestnut Street with water main prior to considering his subdivision request. He noted that if a water main is decided to be installed on Chestnut Street, his request for an additional lot would help lower the cost of the aseessmance by splitting the cost over four late rather than three. A letter opposing Mr. Emmol's lot split and any water improvements that would result in assessments was presented by the three property owners. A public hearing on this proposed water main extension will be included on the June 23 Council agenda at which time a decision will be made on whether the improvement will take place this year. In addition, the Council noted that after the water main issue is resolved, a decision will be made on Mr. Emmel's request for his lot subdivision request. 6. Consideration of a Proposed Ordinance Amendment to the City Code of Ordinances Regulating Open Burning. The City Administrator recommended that this item be tabled until the next regular Council meeting to allow for review by the City Attorney. 7. Consideration of the Renewal of Annual Licenses. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan elonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the following renewal of licenses affective July t, 1986. intoxicating Liquor, On -sale (Fee $3,300) Renewaia i. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Charlie's west 8. Joyner's Lanes S. Stuart Hoglund -2- j 1 Council Minutes - 6/9/86 Intoxicating Liquor, On -sale, Sunday (Fee $100) Renewals 1. Monticallo Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Charlie's West 4.,Joyner's Lanes 5. Oakwood Motel 6. VFW Club 7. American Legion Club Non -intoxicating Malt, On -sale (Fee $245) Renewals 1. Rod 6 Gun 2. Pizza Factory 3. Country Club Non -intoxicating Malt, On -sale, Temporary (Fee $10/day) 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival, 2 days - $20.00 Non-intoxicatinq Malt. Off -sale (Fee $50.00) Renewals 1. Monticallo Liquor 2. Riverroad Plaza 3. Wayne's Red Owl 4. Maus Foods 5. River Terrace 6. Tom Thumb 7. Charlie's West B. Holiday 9. Plaza Car Wash Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -sale (Foe $400) Renewal 1. aim's Deli Set-up License ($250) 1. Country Club 2. Rod 6 Gun Club Licenses (Fee - sot by Statute) 1. V.P.W. - $500 (membership 268) 2. American Legion - $650 (membership 580) -3. Q Council Minutes - 6/9/86 Bingo, Temporary ($20) I. St. Henry's Fall Festival Gambling. Temporary (820 per device) 1. St. Henry -9 Fall Festival - $60 B. Discussion on Existing Force Main Sewer Repairs. Public works Director, John Simola, informed the Council of problems with the existing force main located on Elm Street connecting to Third Street and Chestnut Street that was installed a few years ago. The force main has not been in use but will be connected at this time to the Chestnut Street lift station as part of the interceptor sewer project. In testing the main, the City has found out that the 6 -inch force main between Sixth Street and Country Club Road near Ruff Auto parts has a small leak somewhere that should still be located before the system is completed. In addition, the larger 10 -inch force main between Sixth Street along Elm to Third Street, and from Third Street to Chestnut Street has possibly numerous areas that have leaked. The force main has been dug up in a couple places and found to be cracked as a result of water being in the pipe over the past few years and having frozen. The freezing has occurred primarily due to the inadequate depth of the Bever line when initially installed a number cf years ago. Mr. Simola recommended that the City hire a firm from Omaha. Nebraska, that will be in Minnesota shortly that specializes in detecting where leaks are occurring in force mains at an estimated coat of 51,900.00 for two days' work. The firm would also be used to test other force mains the City has in other locations. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize hiring Leak. Inc., from Omaha, Nebraska, for 51,900.00 to test the City's force mains for leaks. 9. Discussion on Dog Catcher Position. The City -s current dog catcher, Dave Stromborg, has recently turned in his resignation; end as a result, the Mayor and City staff have boon reviewing the budget of the Animal Control Department and recommended that an increase in pay for dog catching services be approved. Currently. the Animal Officer receives 55,100.00 per year, and it was recommended that this be increased to $6,900.00 per year. In addition, the contract for pound maintenance is currently 87,000.00 per year; and it was recommandad that it be increased to S3,100.00 per year. Mr. Grimamo noted that Mr. Stromberg had been doing an excellent job as the City's dog catcher but felt the pay was not sufficient for the amount of work involved. -4- Council Minutes - 6/9/86 Motion was made by 8lonigen, seconded by Hill Pair, and unanimously carried to approve amending the Animal Control budget for 1986 increasing the Animal Control pay to $6.900.00 per year and the pound maintenance contract to $3,300.00 per year and to offer the increase to Mr. Stromberg, if he is willing to accept the increase. Rick wolfsteller Assistant Administrator Council Agenda - 6/23/86 4. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: A number of proposed amendments were presented to you for your consideration at the May 27 Council meeting. At that time, the Council set a public hearing to consider those amendments on June 23. Aa noted at that earlier meeting, the major thrust of the amendments affects the extension of the City's boundaries and its capital improvement planning for the future. At the risk of being redundant, the rationale behind the proposed amendments is that it is difficult and expensive for the City to continua to plan for an area that may never become a part of the City. The extension of that rationale is that property currently abutting the City which has a genuine need ani/or desire to became part of the City has the option of petitioning for annexation available to them. I believe that, no long as it is financially feasible, the City would welcome any territory that wishes to be annexed. The crucial factor here is that the City can no longer sit around in an indeterminate state wondering and waiting if there will be annexation and when it might occur and further, what sorts of services ought to be planned for that area. Quality planning calls for realistic goals and limits, not simply hypothetical cases that we continue to pour money into. A number of the amendments proposed reflect inventory update and data alterations based on current counts and projections. All of the information to be adopted in the Comprehensive Plan is currently in the Orderly Annexation Study prepared by Dahlgren. Simply because we are under severe time restraints in preparing this agenda packet, 1 have elected to not reproduce every chart and number for consideration. Rather, the data is printed in its entirety in the Annexation Study, and if the amendments are approved, then the now charts, graphs, and tables dill be prepared for printing and collation. Lastly, the question of multiple units as a percent of single family parcels is being discussed. Basad on the final percentage that is selected and what that percentage will mean in terms of real numbers of multiple units allowed, the Council may be faced with establishing a moratorium on multiple unite in the near future. Based on the final amendments adopted, I request the Council to give staff direction on whether or not a moratorium should be generated for a future Council meeting. Unlike the Zoning Ordinance, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan require a simple majority. (Zoning Ordinance Amendments require two-thirds (2/3) passage). If adopted, staff will prepare the now Comprehensive Plan with the current inventory and data. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. QC Council Agenda - 6/23/86 2. Select specific amendments for passage, reject others. This alternative will result from Council discussion. 3. Adopt no amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. You may wish to order an update of inventory and data. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that all amendments as proposed be adopted. In the name of quality planning. I believe it is imminently crucial that the City recognize that annexation under the original terms of the annexation order of 1974 may be a myth. I realize that that is very strong Language, but the hard evidence indicates that the direct benefit from the OAA derived by the City has been negligible over the last 12 years. There has been no municipal regulation in the area, but rather the area has grown at a rate faster than the City but has developed under County standards with virtually no regard to municipal expansion. The Orderly Annexation Area, by and large, has become urban in nature, but has been controlled by rural ordinances. The extent to which it has already developed can create undue hardship on the City to expand into the area now or in the near future. If proper planning controls cannot be initiated within the immediate future, then I believe that the City should not sustain its interest in annexing what could become a cumbersome and expensive territory to some day serve. D. SUPPORTING DATA: All supporting data was presented to you in your May 27 agenda packet. 2M Council Agenda - 6/23/86 5. Public Hearing to Consider the Makin of Public Improvements Appurtenant to the Interceptor Sever and in Conjunction with the Rehabilitation of Trunk Highway 25. (T.E.) AND 6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Ordering the Making of Improvements. Assessing the Cost, and Setting a Bond Sale. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This public hearing is being held so that the City may combine both improvement projects under a single bond issue and avoid the duplication of issuance costa. As you recall, we held one public hearing for the work appurtenant to the interceptor sever, but we did not hold a hearing for certain improvements appurtenant to the rehabilitation of Trunk Highway 25. It was the recommendation of Holmes 6 Graven that a new hearing be held discussing all of the aspects of both jobs so that there would be record of both construction projects being addressed as a single project. The work involved in both of the projects really have not changed since their original formulation. The work appurtenant to the construction of the interceptor is the extension of sewer and water to specific sites, the coat of which will be assessed 100%. The construction of Locust Street to be assessed 100% against the City. The construction of Fifth Street to be assessed on a per foot basis at the 20% formula. Chestnut Street will also be constructed and is proposed to be assessed at the 20% level. Also affiliated with the interceptor sower is a water extension to the Lucius Johnson property which will be assessed at 1009. Lastly, appurtenant to the interceptor work is the proposed water main construction on Chestnut Street. Based upon past practices for assessing for sower and water, we on staff believe that the water should be 100% assessed. If the City Council opts to reduce the assessment, then we believe it is absolutely essential to assess at least 501 of the water coat. For all work related to the interceptor sever, we think the assessments will be approximately as follows, based on the construction bide. Sanitary sever will be assessed at 51,241.00 per unit. water will be assessed at $16.35 par lineal foot. Street construction, at the 20% level, will be assessed at 510.03 along Fifth Street, and Street construction along Chestnut will be assessed at $8.59 per lineal foot. With respect to the reconstruction of Highway 25, it is essential in order to roach the 20% level of assessment that the City assess for the construction of the sidewalk and a minor amount for the City's share of the street construction. The City's actual cost on the Trunk Highway 25 project is projected to be approximately $32.00 per lineal foot. Twenty percent (20%) of that value in $6.40 per lineal toot. Staff recommends the following assessment proposal. For property which will have sidewalk and curb and gutter removed and replaced with now material, we recommend an assessment of 52.00 par lineal foot. For property that currently has neither sidewalk nor curb and gutter, staff recommands that the assessment be $4.00 per lineal foot. The difference between the replacement and the -3- Council Agenda - 6123/86 brand new product is intended to reflect the increase in value or benefit to the properties receiving the improvements. Clearly, both proposed assessments are less than the 205 level. However, based on a review of the bid tab, the city's cost for sidewalk and associated curb and sidewalk work is just over $10.00 per foot. Using only these expenses (or bid items), $2.00 is, in fact, 206 of the sidewalk cost, and S4.00 is 405 of the sidewalk, curb and gutter cost. If the city elected to assess its entire cost at a 205 level, the minimum assessment would be $6.40 per foot. Staff is, in fact, recommending that the assessment be sat at a level lower than the pure 205 mark. We believe that this is extremely fair and generous on the City's behalf. Lastly, assessing at this particular level puts our combined assessments at approximately $104,000.00. Based upon our construction estimates, the combined cost of construction will be approximately $382,000.00. Twenty percent (205) of this cost is $76,500.00. This leaves us a margin of approximately $27,500.00 on the assessment rolls so that we will not fall below the 205 minimum required by Statute. The resolution being offered for adoption is one ordering the specific project, noting the intention to assess for benefit, and setting the sale of bonds. A single motion to adopt the resolution will put the process underway. Even though the hearing was postponed for two weeks, the resolution setting the sale will still allow us to receive funds at the and of August. John Simola will be providing a little additional information with respect to the actual work being done. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Considering that 995 of the project has already bean awarded and contracted, tho only real alternative is to adopt the resolution. There may be some flexibility available to adjust assessments, but I would recommend that such final adjustments be made at the assessment hearing which will be held after the projecto are completed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the resolution be adopted and the bond sale be set. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption. NOTE: After the writing of this agenda supplement. I was informed by Springated that the resolution setting the bond Salo had to be kept separate and distinct from the other resolution. Consequently, there will be two resolutions that require adoption, rather than having all of the information compiled into a single document. This process keeps it much tidier for bond counsel to work with. -4- Council Agenda - 6/23/86 CONTINUED... 5. Public Hearing to Consider the Making of Public Improvements Appurtenant to the Interceptor Sever and in Conjunction with the Rehabilitation of Trunk Highway 25. AND 6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Ordering the Making of Improvements, Assessing the Cost, and Settinq a Bond Sale. U.S.) The following is a general discussion of the projects. Project 86-1 Interceptor Sever Appurtenant Work Fifth Street The Fifth Street construction will consist of the installation of sanitary cover, storm sever, street, and curb and gutter.. The street section will be 36 feet vide from face of curb to face of curb and will extend from Pine Street (Higt.way 25) to Maple Street. Along with the street construction, storm sever will be installed in that portion from Locust Street to Maple Street. The existing storm sower facilities in the other portions of the street will be utilized. Water will be extended from Walnut Street to Maple Street. This water will be used to serve the railroad property on the north side of Fifth Street and will serve the one-half lot in the southeast corner of Linn and Fifth Street. In conjunction with the water, the Lucius Johnson property will be served south of Sixth Street. For sanitary savor, in addition to the interceptor, a lateral sever will be provided from Linn to Maple. This lateral will also serve a one-half lot in the southeast corner of Linn and Fifth Street. In addition, a sanitary sever service will be provided for Suburban Gee. We are also looking into the possibility of providing a larger water service for the Suburban Gas property at the intersection of Walnut and Fifth Street. Locust Street Locust Street will receive a 36 -foot wide stteot with curb and gutter similar to that of Fifth Street. In addition, the old 4 -inch cast iron water main will be replaced. Chestnut Street The construction on Chestnut Street will consist of a 36 -foot vide street face of curb to face of curb. There are no proposed plane for any assessment for the recently installed force main. There has, however, been much discussion in regard to the installation of a 6 -inch water main along Chestnut Street to serve the throe existing homes there. The water main with three water services could cost 53,200.00 per unit. If a fourth unit is put in, the cost goes down to under $2,300.00 per unit. Mr. Dal Emmol has withdrawn his request to subdivide and put in services. I would oppose ripping up the new street at a later date shoul.A he suhmit his request again. My recommendation remains the same as it was on June 9 that the water main should be installed even for the three existing services there. -5- Council Agenda - 6/23/86 Highway 25 Construction The Highway 25 construction will provide for widening of the existing roadway through Monticello. There will be five lanes north of I-94, with a center lane being utilized for left hand turns, and the outside lanes being utilized for right hand turns. Across the bridge there will be three lanes, with the center Sane being used for left hand turns onto the ramps. South of I-94 there will essentially be one through lane north and south and left ani right hand turn lanae. All of the existing sidewalks, with exception of the sidewalk near Sam Peraro's building, will be replaced. All of the curb where it exists north of I-94 will be replaced. Curbing will be added from Fourth Street south to the I-94 ramps. Sidewalk will be added on the west aide from Fourth street south to the mall entrance. On the east side, sidewalk will be provided from Third Street south to 7th Street. Concrete median will exist only south of the Burlington Northern Railroad. Painted median will exist north of the Burlington Northern Railroad in the downtown business area. Mid -block access in the area of the painted median will be limited to one per aide per block. The widening, of course, will require that the City move its street lighting system out accordingly. Within the project, there are two areae of special consideration dealing with landscaping or surfacing. In the area of Sam Peraro-s old building between the now curb and the existing sidewalk, a narrow area will be filled with exposed aggregate. In the area between the new sidewalk and the cemetery on the east side of Highway 25, approximately $10,000.00 worth of Honeysuckle shrubs will be planted, both State funded. In conjunction with the Highway 25 project, 7th Street will be widened on the south side from Walnut to Pine Street. This widening will be approximately 20 feet in width. -6- RESOLUTION 86- A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the City Council adopted February 10, 1986, ordering the making of improvements by constructing a sanitary sewer interceptor line, and WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted April 14. 1986, the Council entered into a cooperative construction agreement with MNIDOT for the rehabilitation of Trunk Highway 25, and WHEREAS, it is proposed by Orr-Schelen-Mayaron 6 Associates, the City's Consulting Engineer, that work appurtenant to the construction of the sanitary sewer interceptor line and to the rehabilitation of Trunk Highway 25 be performed in conjunction with that construction, and WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 27th day of May, 1986, fixed a date for a public hearing on the proposed improvements appurtenant to the sanitary sewer interceptor by installing sanitary sewer collection lines, water distribution lines, and improved streets, and work appurtenant to Trunk Highway 25 by installing sidewalk and curb and gutter, and WHEREAS, tan days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given, and the hearing was hold thereon on the 23rd day of June, 1986, at which all persona desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED 8Y THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvements appurtenant to the construction of the sanitary sewer interceptor Sine and the rehabilitation of Minnesota Trunk Highway 25 are hereby ordered as proposed. 2. Plans and specifications, a copy of which is an file in City Hall, are hereby approved. 3. Springsted, Inc., Is hereby designated the Financial Consultant for the financing of this public improvement. Adopted this 23rd day of June. 1986. Arve A. Crtmemo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidsm City Administrator U John W. Sandberg P. 0. Box 396, Monticello, MN 55362 Bus.: (612) 295.2317, Res.: (612) 295-3634 June 11, 1966 Mr. Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator City of Monticello Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Tom: Enclosed please find petition for annexation. 1 am requesting City Council to include my petition in the annexation action being initiated under the resolution of May 27. Thank you. Yours truly, r— Jo Sandberg JWS:mjI G John W. Sandberg P. O. Box 386, Monticetto. MN 55362 Bus.: (612) 295.2317. Res.: (612) 295.)=33 2274 June 11, 1986 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION To the Council of the City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota: I, the undersigned, the owner of the territory described below, hereby request the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota, to annex this territory to the City and to extend the City boundaries to include the same, and for that purpose respectfully state: 1. The territory to be annexed consists of 34 acres. All of this land lies entirely within the County of Wright, Minnesota, and the description of such land is as follows: The south 1622.88 feet of Government tot 2 and the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, except therefrom the east 24 rods (396 feet)thereof. 2. The territory described above abuts upon the City limits at the southeasterly boundary thereof and none of it is presently included within the corporate limits of any Incorporated city. 3. All of this territory Is or is about to become urban or suburban in character. w Jonn aA%Derg C a it \ — �• �- �. 53 lap �.I�- � ' ,� � '' i. •� 't ,@. ��r, ®� ' f ,ra•.. � �; �,�i.. •l_ ,I p _ ' t'M n t, �.. rte 'M1, ; 7 r Orderly Annexet'on Area '1 4, ,l �... � .�„� wJ � - • ��� -- Planntnp $aCtOrB'�4 �,���+i��J��`A. 1 1i \1�.:;�`"7-K + t•�:,• ,1.; i r "1`•.7)r�i �I� 'l -` 44 Pink outline Existing City 1 • °]¢'� 'J �' ^ JSP Limits ,• 1� - - , - �_,., � lie, r T X14 t; »t r� -./7 Yellow .Original resolution to annex 1 l i'�{ i- �.o -' •�ti�µ�a� Green - Sandberg petition plus balance of land up to the river ®- 80 acres of original 19'• N'' T C bl L. resolution designated for :'Alt IOdle school r usst s aa separate annexationod /[ ._ :-�i i' f �' • o 1 �[i; '1.ti'��r` �y * ! /r resolution ANNEXATION AREA A The following described parts of Auditor's Subdivision Number One, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Wright County, Minne- sota: Lot 16 lying northerly of Interstate Highway Number 94. The right of way of Interstate Highway Number 94 in Lots 9, 10, 11. 12, 16. 17 and 18. The following described unplatted parts of Section 18. Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota: That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter lying northerly of Meadow Oak. according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Wright County, Minnesota. That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter lying northeasterly of said plat of Meadow Oak. That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter lying west of the east 24 rods (396.00 feet). That part of Government Lot 2 lying west of the east 24 rods (396.00 feet). 3 ANNEXATION AREA B The following described parts of Auditor's Subdivision Number One, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Wright County, Minne- sota: All of Lots 20 and 21. The South Half of Lot 22. All of Lot 23. The cemetery as shown in Lot 23. The following described unplatted parcels in Wright County, Minnesota. In Section 13. Township 121, Range 25: The Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. The East Half of the Southwest Quarter. Lot A of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter. In Section 24, Township 121, Range 25: The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. In Section 18, Township 121. Range 24: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying south- westerly of the northeasterly right of way line of County Highway Number 118 (a.k.a. N.E. Jason Avenue). In Section 19. Township 121. Range 24: The West Half of the Northwest Quarter The East Half of the Northwest Quarter lying southwesterly of the north- easterly right of way line of County Highway 118 (a.k.a. N.E. Jason Avenue). The west 5 rods of that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. V Council Agenda - 6/23/86 8. Consideration of Adoptinq an ordinance Regulating and Controlling Open Burning within the City Limits. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: A11 information on the burning ordinance and rationale behind it was provided for you in your agenda supplement for June 9. The City Attorney, Gary Pringle, has revised the substance of the ordinance text, which is included with this packet. Technically, a public reading of the proposed ordinance is required before adoption. I believe it is sufficient to summarize and highlight the critira'. factors before accepting a motion. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the ordinance as proposed. 2. Do not pass the ordinance and continue to enforce the State regulations. 3. Refer the ordinance back to City Attorney for additional work. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the ordinance, as revised, be adopted. As noted in the previous meeting's agenda packet, the open burning provisions of State law have no penalty clause, and consequently our enforcement of open burning violations is virtually nil. I believe it is essential for the City to enforce the State regulations, and this ordinance would allow us to do so. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed ordinance as revised by the City Attorney. (The revised ordinance has not been completed by City Attorney, Gary Pringle, and will be delivered on Monday, June 23.) -8- Council Agenda - 6/23/86 9. Consideration of Financing Alternatives for Construction Cost Overrun for the Improvement of Sixth Street. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City of Monticello awarded a contract for Sixth Street construction on April 16, 1986. The contract was awarded to Veit Construction for a cost of $66,152.00. Our costa for engineering to OSM are expected to be approximately 510,000.00. This makes the total project cost about 576,152.00. Prior to beginning the work and drawing plans and estimating quantities, Braun Engineering was hired to perform four soil borings in the area of the proposed street. The information from these soil borings was used by OSM to estimate quantities of unsuitable materials to be excavated and quantities of fill materials to be brought in. The actual amount of excavation amounted to 701 more than was originally estimated by OSM. This resulted in an increase in not only excavation, but also fill material. The approximate dollar amount is $18,000.00, or about 271 over our original contract with Veit 6 Company. This then brings the total cost of our job to approximately S94,152.00, depending upon the final engineering costa being higher or lower than the $10,000.00 estimated. On Monday, June 16, I had Rick go through the Tax Increment Plan for Raindance to see what monies were left. We had originally estimated the coat to be no more than $75,000.00 on thin project. Rick indicated that if all the bills to date were in which did not include construction, we had approximately $97,950.00 left. Apparently we had over estimated soma of our original costa, which will help us out in this situation. If this is the case and all the figures are correct, it looks like we will still have a small ourpluo loft when completing the project. Originally when this item was placed on the agenda, it was thought that the project would be short of funds and that it would be necessary to transfer funds to the Tax Increment project. Since this is not the case, this supplement is prevented as an informational item to sake the Council aware of the significant change in the scope of the street portion c,f the project. You may wish to question the City Engineer as to how this overrun actually came about. I have asked the projact engineer, Chuck Lepak, to prepare some transparencies or such as may be neadod for Monday evening's meeting. S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The only alternative action at this ties is to keep a close eye on the remainder of the project to monitor the funds closely. It is likely that we will have to give Veit until June 10 to complete his work duo to extra quantitie C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends general discussion of this ovorrun and recommends discussion with the City Engineer to encourage additional preliminary .9. Council Agenda - 6/22/86 investigation and/or double checks on future projects to keep such overruns to a minimum. Almost all of our public improvement projects lately have experienced some significant overruns. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Norte. MIM Council Agenda - 6/23/86 10. Consideration of Authorizing a Replacement of a Section of Force Main. O.S. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As I have discussed with the Council on previous occasions and in the last quarterly department head report, we are having problems with the force mains on the west portions of town near Elm Street. The Council authorized additional funds to be spent locating small leaks which remain in the 6 -inch force main put in with the Country Club project. The City staff, along with Rehbein Construction, have been doing further investigation and testing of the 77-3 ten -inch force main. This force main, as some of you may recall, was put in with the 77-3 project to be used sometime in the future. This project was mostly complete in the fall of 1976. This part of the 77-3 project consisted of 1,740 feet of 10 -inch Claes 50 duct tile iron force main. The force main began just north of the intersection of Third and Chestnut, continued east to Elm, then south flown Elm terminating just south of Sixth Street near Mrs. Panter's house. The pipe was jacked into place underneath the Burlington Northern Railway and placed in a casing. The street surface placed over the force main consists of deep strength asphalt in the area of 5 inches in thickness. This was used on the 77-3 project in many areas in lieu of the typical Class 5 and thinner blacktop construction. In May of this year, we tooted the 77-3 section of force main together with the force main put in by Ted Le Tour in 1985 which crosses Broadway. We could not hold pressure. At that time, some questions ware raised as to the adequacy of the La Tour force main, as this section had never been tested, and supposedly the 77-3 project had boon tooted and passed in 1978. we, therefore, proceeded to cut in a valve between the two projects for the purpose of isolating the 77-3 project and testing it separately. This valve was cut in at a cost of 51,253.54. The 77-3 portion of the force main was then tasted separately. we pumped approximately 28,000 gallons of water into a line which should have held 4,000 gallons. No back pressure was even received after pumping this much water into the force main. No water was observed coming up in any of the cracks in the blacktop, and no noises were heard In any of the storm sewer manholes or ouch. I then made the decision to excavate at the corner of Third and Elm so we could isolate the two stretches of force main and test them separately. upon completing the excavation at the corner of Third and Elm, it was noted that the cast iron elbow at this point was badly fractured. it was also noted that the pipe was extremely shallow with approximately 5 feet of cover. in addition, a storm sewer passed over the force main approximately 12 inches above the force main with no insulation in between. I had some thoughts that the force main had either frozen or that some displacement in the earth had causod the elbow to fracture. I relayed this information to Chuck Lopak, who discussed this with a pipe company. it is my understanding the pipe company indicated that the cast iron elbows were subject to damage and have since been am Council Agenda - 6/23/86 replaced with duct the elbows. I had asked to receive copies of the original inspection reports or to have OSM review those and had not yet heard word back from either Mr. Lepak or Mr. Badalich in regard to the inspection of the original instailation. Mr. Lepak indicated that we should test at approximately 80 pounds and not the original 150 pounds. His thinking, as I understand it, was that 80 pounds would be enough pressure to show a bad gasket, and we were not worried about the structural capabilities of the pipe. We then proceeded to pressurize the long stretch of pipe down Elm Street and found one leak immediately near Fourth and Elm. Upon excavation we found that the bottom of the pipe was split wide open and bellied out. It was clear that this break was caused by freezing water. It was noted in this area that the pipe had approximately 5 feet of cover. We proceeded to make the repairs and retest the long stretch. We retested at 80 PSI, and the pipe held with only a small drop in pressure. We then proceeded to test the westerly portion on Third Street. This stretch did not hold. We excavated the elbow at Chestnut and Third Street hoping to find a broken elbow in this point. This area appeared to be intact even though it was only 45 feet deep and placed near a storm sever catch basin. While the pipe was open we had Viking Pipe Services televise this section of line and found one broken pipe bellied out on the bottom again and another area which was questionable. We dug up the first area and repaired it. It was obvious that the damage was due to freezing. Upon retesting, we found another leak. We excavated again and repaired this leak. This was not in the area of our original questionable pipe. After retesting, we decided to increase the pressure, as we were worried about the structural properties of the pipe since it was filled with water and frozen. Before reaching 100, another leak developed. Without proceeding with further repairs. I made the decision to atop making repairs and bring this before the Council. It is my professional opinion that the pipe was damaged from being left full of water after testing; that the pipe was laid at an inadequate depth to protect it from freezing. There are indications that the pipe was placed slightly more shallow than indicated by our as built drawings or proposed drawings for the project. The extant of the actual damages is still unknown. But from the work we have done, the entire pipeline's structural durability may be questionable. The contractor on the 77-3 project was Atcon Construction from Mora. Minnesota. The engineer providing design and inspection was Orr-Schalen-Mayeron, our current Consulting Engineers. To date, in addition to the cost for cutting in the valve, we havo expanded 58.554.91 in testing, oxcavation, and repairs on the 10 -inch force main. These costs have baen kept to a minimum by utilizing 60h City manpower and equipment am possible. Doing this work, however, has cut into other City projects currently in construction. The total cost to date then spent on the 10 -inch force main is $9,908.45. To currently repair the street, curb and gutter, and sidewalk in the areas we have excavated would cost another $4,000.00 if performed by outside services, bringing the grand total to approximately $13,908.15. -12- Council Agenda - 6/23/86 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: There does not appear to be a great number of alternatives. This torce main is needed to complete the link between the new lift station at Chestnut and River Street and the interceptor sewer. 1. Since the entire force main is in question, ons alternative might be entire replacement. This could cost $60,000.00. 2. A second alternative could be complete replacement of that section of force main on Third Street at a cost of about $15,000.00. This is recommended due to the fact that by the time we complete all of our leak repairs in this area, most of the street will be torn up and the pipe will be patched extensively. This alternative would then include further investigation of the remaining portion on Elm Street with the hopes that as we go further south the pipe may be in better condition. There is some indication from the pians that this pipe in this southerly area was buried at a deeper depth and may not be as extensively damaged. One of the drawbacks of this type of repair is that several thousand dollars can be spent in investigation which may ultimately result in replacement of the lines. In addition, by making repairs, we are unable to lower the force main, and the force main would remain at a relatively shallow depth and could be susceptible to freezing again should an extremely rare occurrence disable our lift station. This alternative is attractive from the standpoint that it could save thousands of dollars in repair costs if we find the pipe to be structurely sound the further south we get. 3. A third alternative could be to replace the force main on Third Street as outlined above, then to look into the possibility of slip lining the existing 10 -inch line on Elm Street. Slip lining of the pipe should be cheaper than the actual excavation and replacement of the force main. Here again it does have two drawbacks. however. One, a smaller pipe would have to be placed inside the 10 -inch, thus increasing our pumping pressure and increasing our coot of operations slightly. In addition, with the slip lining process, we would not be able to increase the cover over the force main. And again there is the possibility, however alight, of freezing again should the lift station be out of operation In the winter. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that we proceed as outlined in Alternative #2 and authorize replacement of the existing force main on Third Street by Rahbein Construction and to pruceed with additional testing of the force main on Elm Street. I would, however, recommend a not -to -exceed amount of $5.000.00 be spent in investigative and repair work on the Elm Street section, If after spending this amount we are unable to prove the soundness of the remaining section of force main, I recommend that the Council authorize -13- Council Agenda - 6/23/66 complete replacement of the force main on Elm Street as outlined -� In Alternative #1. Now comes the question of financing of the repairs and/or replacement. As I stated earlier, it was my feeling that this pipe was damaged due to freezing from being left full of water and being buried at too shallow a depth to adequately protect it from freezing. Certainly the City had no control over these two items. They were in the hands of the contractor and the engineer. I find no place in the specifications where the contractor was informed that after testing of the force main it would have to be drained of water. As far as bury depth, the only reference made is on the plan and profile sheets where they indicate the force main is buried at a depth lees than shown on the plane. Again, the City had no control over this. It was in the hands of the contractor and engineer. The City paid for the design and recommendations of the City Engineer. The City paid for the installation of this pipe by Arcon Construction, and we paid for the inspection of this pipe. we did not get our money's worth. The most overriding factor in this case appears to be the draining of the force main. If this simple task had been done, we would have an undamaged pipe today irregardloss of the shallow bury depth of the pipe. I have informed John Badalich that this item is on the agenda for the Monday evening Council meeting so that you may discuss it with him. It would appear that we would have some recourse with the engineer, but little hope of recovery from the contractor. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the letter to John Badalich. -14- City O/ Va..ti""110 MONTICELLO, MN 55382 Dear Mr. Badalich: ACM.010Sa7: TO1C."M As you may be aware, after approximately eight days of attempting ��' Rica WdlatellN to fill the above referenced 10 -inch force main, we were unable Rita PUDW Wawa: to even get back pressure on the pipe. After some discussion jam Snnos with the project engineer, Mr. Chuck Lepak, on the 86-1 Project Piano a2o-V; we decided to test that portion of pipe put in by LaTour Constr-uction Gary Anovean in 1985, as this portion was not tested. At considerable expense, we cut in a valve between the 77-3 Project force main and LaTour,s force main. We then retested the force main put in by La Tour. This section passed with no problems. It appears that there is a large separation,disconnection,missing pipe, or whatever, in the force main installed during the 77-3 Project, We would wish to discuss this during Tuesday evenings Council meeting and ask the Council for some direction. I have asked Chuck Lepak to research all of your field notes and as-builts in regard to this force main, especially any notations you have in regard to the actual in place testing of the line. Please bring any information you have, as well as your recommendations to the Tuesday evening -a meeting. If you have any questions. or if we may be of any assistance concerning this matter, please contact me. R po f lly ,.3ohn E. Simola Public Works Director JES/kd cc: T. Eidem 86-1 Project File JES 250 Eat 8ra°a°ev Rate C sce 63A Monaceae, MM 66362 WE ' May 23, 1966 Phane(612)295.2711 Mean (612) 333.6739 Mr. John P. Badalich, P.E. Orr-Schalen-Mayeron 6 Associates 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Mawr: Arve Grvnarno Suite 238 C;1V Coned: Minneapolis, M14 55413 Dan Bbnpsn Wllh F°° FMn F car Re: Elm Street/Third Street Force :lain Baca Mango Installed During 77-3 Project Dear Mr. Badalich: ACM.010Sa7: TO1C."M As you may be aware, after approximately eight days of attempting ��' Rica WdlatellN to fill the above referenced 10 -inch force main, we were unable Rita PUDW Wawa: to even get back pressure on the pipe. After some discussion jam Snnos with the project engineer, Mr. Chuck Lepak, on the 86-1 Project Piano a2o-V; we decided to test that portion of pipe put in by LaTour Constr-uction Gary Anovean in 1985, as this portion was not tested. At considerable expense, we cut in a valve between the 77-3 Project force main and LaTour,s force main. We then retested the force main put in by La Tour. This section passed with no problems. It appears that there is a large separation,disconnection,missing pipe, or whatever, in the force main installed during the 77-3 Project, We would wish to discuss this during Tuesday evenings Council meeting and ask the Council for some direction. I have asked Chuck Lepak to research all of your field notes and as-builts in regard to this force main, especially any notations you have in regard to the actual in place testing of the line. Please bring any information you have, as well as your recommendations to the Tuesday evening -a meeting. If you have any questions. or if we may be of any assistance concerning this matter, please contact me. R po f lly ,.3ohn E. Simola Public Works Director JES/kd cc: T. Eidem 86-1 Project File JES 250 Eat 8ra°a°ev Rate C sce 63A Monaceae, MM 66362 WE Council Agenda - 6/23/86 11. Consideration of a Cooperative Agreement with Wright County for Construction of West County Road 39 from I-94 to Elm Street. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The County received bids on the Went County Road 39 project on May 22. Buffalo Bituminous was the low bidder on the project. The City's portion, which was designed by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron, is only a small part of the entire project which extends several miles to the west. The County wishes to enter an agreement with us so that we will pay approximately 30% of the grading, blacktopping, and restoration costa. The County will pay 100% of the culverts, and the City will pay 100% of the storm newer. The County will reimburse the City for engineering fees up to 5% of the bid amount. OSM's fees could be approximately 11%, so this would leave un with about 55% of the engineering design costs. The County will pick up, it appears, all of the construction staking and inspection for the grading portion, as they will cover up to 5% of the final project cost in those fees. The following is a breakdown of our expected coats on this project. Municipal portion $86,747.66 Construction; City's share 29,848.61 City's share design 5,204.85 Pringle 6 OSM Easement Drafting Eat. 2,500.00 Misc. tree 6 fence relocation 2,500.00 CITY'S COST $40,053.46 On a review of the proposed job approximately two Weeks before the bid opening, Richard Marquette, the Assistant Wright County Highway Engineer, noted a potential problem with some of the back slope design on the project. As proposed, some of the elopes would be impossible for homeowners to maintain and could encroach upon existing driveways and garagoo. I brought this to the project angineer'e attention, Mr. Chuck Lepak. After some discussion, we felt the beet remedy would be to add some additional storm sever in those areas and fill the ditches to lesson the impact on those homeowners. Since there was not time before the bidding process to issue an addendum, we will have a change order on this project. The estimated cost of that change order is in the neighborhood of $5,000.00 and will be borne 100% by the City of Monticallo. This would bring the City's total coat in the area of 545,053.06. This is below our share of the estimated construction cost of $47,100.00 which I gave the Council on August 9, 1985. The agreement between Wright County and the City of Monticello is in the process of being typed at the Courthouse in Buffalo. The County Board, however, did approve the content of the agreement on Tuesday. June 17, 1986. 1 will have a copy of the agreement available for Monday evening'• meeting, and I recommend approval. -15- Council Agenda - 6/23/86 12. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use Request to Allow Multiple Dwelling Structure in Excess of 12 Units, and Orderinq the Preparation of Plane and Specifications for Public Improvements in and near Construction 5 Addition. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Construction 5, Inc., is proposing to construct, as per public hearing notice, two 24 -unit apartment buildings on the five existing lots in Block 1, Construction 5 Addition to the City of Monticello. However, Mr. Gus LaFromboise, owner of Construction 5, Inc., noted that prior to final recording of the Construction 5 Addition he was allowed to use the old text of our ordinance as far as lot area square footage per unit. Using the old lot area square footage requirement figures, the property would allow construction of a 24 and a 30 -unit apartment building. Taking this into consideration on their enclosed site plan, they do meet all of the minimum setback requirements. The buildings would consist of 42 two-bodroom units, and 12 one -bedroom units, with 54 garage spaces and 65 off-street parking spaces. Thera are a couple of variances that are needed with this property, and they are as follows: A need to vacate the easements between Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. If 36 off-street parking spaces were allowed to be placed within the 30 -foot easement along the west side of the property, a condition of the conditional use would be that the City would not be responsible for the replacement coat of the asphalt should we have to go in there to maintain or repair utilities underneath this surface within the 30 -foot right-of-way easement. Also yet to be submitted are the proposed landscaping and screening plana as required by ordinance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow construction of one 24 -unit apartment building and 30 -unit apartment building. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow construction of one 24 -unit apartment building and one 30 -unit apartment building. 3. Allow construction of one 24 -unit apartment building and one 30 -unit apartment building with the following conditions: a. An approved landscaping/screaning plan be submitted prior to building permit application. b. Relinquishing of easement rights between Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. c. Allow construction of 36 off-street parking spaces within a 30 -foot utility easement right-of-way with the condition that the City is not responsible for placement of any of the parking lot within the right-of-way if the City needs to gat in to do soma work within the 30 -foot right-of-way. d. A designated play ares be established and put in before a Certificate of occupancy is granted for the second building. -16- Council Agenda - 6/23/66 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow construction of one 24 -unit and one 30 -unit apartment building. The following conditions are also suggested. 1. Relinquishing easement rights within Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. 2. An designated play area be established and put in before Certificate of occupancy is granted for the second building. 3. A landscaping/screening plan be submitted for approval prior to building permit application. 4. Allow 36 off-street parking spaces within the 30 -foot west utility easement line with the condition that if the City needs to get in there to do any type of work, the applicant and any subsequent owners will be responsible for all restoration costs. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Location of the proposed conditional use request; Copy of the proposed site plan. NOTE: The public improvements requested along with this agenda item include street, curb and gutter, storm sewer, and water. -17- west. tc a1z0'/ t� .jp.ODLt �Ip 7 J I' ... ��utt1,1 7 Y J ; ! `�� i • t . `'''• ' - "'�s3 - •"'•',;:f `1 t �t •• "" - y It ,'°°';: `'o�. t, .' > J ,l:r �,•� - � - J / / J •n n r ! - �^)4., j !!`,i�rl' t.. t _i f _ 4,,,,,R�, P r; II J' !e r '"'`'•'"'. � �i ! l' •�e • f �. ., f •�J.,� t � !,. + r�+ih",•.' j`r•� r"^i. E ,',' "�"• ,w,�'t'f'1'J•1� '�'�•• �"` •`� �`i'� ��V.ft r! �'.�`�1��`.;-�::rJ 'r,1J ,• 'fir y� •)• �,,.~„• t, "`'°' r t• �� r ,t +. � r�..�.,.,,, �' "".c,;,L1 •tj; r ,r �`"'"•t :rG"w *w,a'•. )r t3 'tf: safr: of •:.,,,t r`!• t•r ;r I`�1. tvt, `'. t J'lat r L..,`r"j•7V7P j'T�r�, ��"`i»i'� ,x c r ,f r • - '�+•.vf r • w.'•• •:! ,./" ��1�, f 1 +1 7 , ry f �i , !. .,. r;. moo• J� � "�• „'+•4+e J • �`y+ �• _ ,�� t�7 •: J , {i , te• 1 HJGMwAY N0. 94 {, ri• ,lk ea I/ Council Agenda - 6/23/86 \ 13. Consideration of an Appeal for a Variance to Allow Placement of Entrance Liqhts and Sign Within a Street Right-of-way. Applicant, Monticello Americ Inn. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. W.J. Murphy, owner of the Monticello Americ Inn Motel, is proposing to be allowed to leave the newly installed entrance light poles and sign in their location. Sometime on or before the opening of the new Monticello Americ Inn, Mr. Murphy was allowed to put up a small entrance light near his driveway entrance with a little sign noting the Americ Inn by the previous City Administrator or previous City Building Official. This type of light and sign are not allowable uses within the street right-of-way. Having discussed this with the City Attorney, Gary Pringle, we do have problems with obstructions located within the right-of-way if they are not allowed by City Ordinance. The City would become a liable party in a lawsuit if something were to happen with an accident incurring with these light poles and signs. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow placement of entrance lights and sign within a street right-of-way. 2. Deny the variance request to allow placement of entrance lights and sign within a street right-of-way. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance to allow placement of the sign and lights within the street right-of-way. The liability factor with having these lights and sign within the street right-of-way far outweighs the advantages to approving the variance to leave the lights and sign in place. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the variance request; Copies of pictures. -is- / , F A variance request to allow Placement of entrance lights and sign with a street right-of-way. Monticello Americ Inn Motel. �/ r +p l '/!r/ r� "Cry r• f�,�d ..... � lei- ��+ � /' '""`J ' • •r `til �/'.� r " f 4. /I' _N j ! r. ♦(„jjy .t,rrr !I. .tf ,/% � ` t _ • � �wi I r • r+. a .`\ ' 4 ra ' r * ,Y � r /e, % /.. r! `I /� 1 \%i't'�sy � �' �%/,;• fr• ill M ; ••%�r•• ••. I!IN� s J: q. Council Agenda - 6/23/86 14. Consideration of a Request to Respread Assessments in the Meadows/ Kealy Heights Subdivision - Applicant, Dan Frio. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Last fall, Mr. John Sandberg took over the Meadows Subdivision from developer, Mel Wolters, and came before the Council requesting as part of his multiple family replotting into what is known as Kealy Heights that the delinquent special assessments that had accrued for the years 1984 and 1985 be re -assessed along with the outstanding balance to lots that were currently buildable along Marvin Elwood Road. The Council approved his request, which resulted in the respreading of $185,000.00 in assessments over the remaining six years of the original term to 20 Iota fronting on Marvin Elwood Road and two lots at the west end of Prairie Road. Since that time, Mr. Sandberg completed his replotting of the interior lots of the former Meadows into Kealy Heights and subsequently sold the property to Mr. Dan Frio and Dale Veches, who have been building homes and duplexes along Marvin Elwood Road. Since the Keely Heights plat was not officially completed and approved until 1986, the assessments for the Meadows that were re -assessed starting in 1986 currently i have one year due on this year's taxes under the old Meadows descriptions. The new Kealy Heights subdivision plat has not been officially signed by the City staff nor recorded at this time. Mr. Fria and Mr. Vechas are now considering filing the subdivision plat for Kealy Heights and in order to complete the recording, the County requires that all current year taxes and assessments be brought up to date, which on the assessments alone amounts to $30,181.32 plus any penalties that have occrued since the first half of the taxes wore duo May 15. As a result, the developers are again requesting that the City Council lift the amounts due for 1986 to allow them to record their plat. They have asked that after the assessments are lifted, they can be again placed against the new Iota in Kealy Heights plat; end they aro projecting to continue building homes and duplexes along Marvin Elwood Road with the majority of the assessments being paid at the time of closing on the sale of each home. In reviewing the request, the staff can certainly understand the situation the developers aro in in that they must coma up with at least 530,000.00 to record the plat; but the staff feels that this improvement project and this development has already had the assessments ro-assessed only six months ago, and the staff questions whether the City Council will want to continually re -assess assessments in order to help out developers with their cash flow problems. On the other hand, since Mr. Frio and Mr. Vachon have taken over the Meadows development from Mr. Sandberg, who took it over from Mel Wolters, building has occurred, and the City has received three or four assessments paid in full during 1986 alone; and it's possible that the majority of these assessments would be paid in a year or two if the developers continue to build homes at the rate they have during the past three -19- Council Agenda - 6/23/86 or four months. The question becomes how many times does the City Council want to re -assess and respread the assessments for a developer. The developers also have approximately $1,700.00 in subdivision fees that have not been paid, which would be required prior to City officials signing the plat for recording. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to approve the developers' request to respread the first year's payment due on the 81-1 Improvement Project again in the amount of approximately $31,000.00 to allow the developer to have the plat recorded. If the respread of assessments is again approved, all real estate taxes for the lots in the amount of approximately $800.00 must be paid directly to the County with only the assessments being lifted and respread. 2. Deny the request for respreading the assessments and require the developer to pay the first year's taxes and assessments from their own financing sources prior to plat being recorded. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although the staff can see the predicament the developers are in in that they originally thought they would only have approximately $800.00 in taxes to bring currant prior to the recording of the plat, it's the staff's opinion that since this project in this subdivision has already been re -assessed relieving two years worth of delinquencies just six months ago, it's the staff's opinion that it should be the developer's responsibility to obtain his own financing to bring the assessments current rather than the City continually being in the banking business. The possibility exists that if the assessments wore again respread, additional homes being built may result in the entire assessments being geld off at an early date; but at the same time, this should be sufficient for the developers to obtain their own financing rather than through the City. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Enclosed is a map of the Meadows Subdivision indicating which lots have assessments that the dovelopers have requested be lifted and re -assessed. J -20- teff 11row Ap 'P.- .rj4Af 'ge86 t_0 - V A6A,,-A) I - (1l) Flo er Sa- 00— w,t S o goo X Am r(wood 4.— 00 0.00 000 0,0 1 16 cop ao Isq— zfl eA x1l 64 44 00 •: \� .. .1 lo le ts 00 01, *Door Council Agenda - 6/23/86 15. Consideration of Accepting the Annual Audit Report for the Financial Condition of the City of Monticello. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Rick Borden and/or Kim Lillehaug of Gruys Johnson S Associates will be present at the meeting to present a brief overview of the 1985 Audit recently completed. A copy of the Audit Report is included with your agenda supplement. The auditors apologized for the short amount of time you will have to review the report prior to the meeting, but the Council should review and accept the report prior to the end of June as required by State Statutes. After the presentation of the report by Gruys Johnson 5 Associates, if the Council foals that they have not had sufficient time to review the report, this Stem can be again scheduled at a future Council meeting for further review and discussion if so desired. Should any of you have any specific questions regarding the information presented in the Audit Report, you may contact myself prior to Monday night -a meeting, and 1 will hopefully try to answer any questions you may have. S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The only action noceaaary by the Council is to accept the 1985 Audit Report as presented am that a copy may be submitted to the State Auditor as rsquirad by State Statutes. As I mentioned earlier, if the Council feels they would like more time to review the report, the auditors will be available for a future meeting to again answer any questions you may have. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the 1985 Audit. -21- Council Agenda - 6/23/86 16. Consideration of Approving the Plane and Specifications and Ordering e Request for Bids for the Annual Sealcoating Project. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the City of Monticello's comprehensive street and parking lot maintenance program, the City sealcoats a certain percentage of its streets and parking lots each year. we attempt to get through the City and re-evaluate each section every six years. Sealcoating is a method of sealing in the elasticity in the bituminous surface by placing a thin spray coating of oil on the surface followed by a chip seal. Sealcoating after the street or parking lot has lost its elasticity or flexibility has little effect. The areas elated for Sealcoating for 1986 are. 1. Sandberg Road 7,971 square yards 2. Oakwood Drive vest of Highway 25 3,389 square yards 3. Cedar Street (7th Street to BNR) 2,978 square yards 6. Hart Boulevard 8,186 square yards 5. Parking lot vest of Flicker's 3,630 square yards 6. Commuter parking lot 6,659 square yards 7. Wastewater Treatment Plant 2,_943 square yards TOTAL 35,756 square yards Based upon the 1985 price for sealcoating of 56.84 per square yard, which included sweeping, we expect this year's project to come in at approximately $20,309.41. There has been a drop in the oil price, but our project is also chopped up a little bit more than last year, so I would expect to receive prices very near to those last year. The amount budgeted for this year is $20,100.00. If we come in at the same price as last year, this will place us $209.41 over budget, which in acceptable. The plana and specifications will be available for your review Monday at City Hall. The only change made from 1985 is a slight increase in the application rate of the granite chips after the oil is laid down. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to do the sealcoating as outlined above with granite chips, to approve the plane 6 apses and authorise advertisement for bids returnable July 14, 1986. 2. The second alternative would be to discontinue our sealcoating program or use alternate materials. This, I do not feel, is In the best interest of the City of Monticello. -22- Council Agenda - 6/23/86 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the Council approve Alternative 01 and authorize sealcoating of the above noted streets and parking lots. It is anticipated that the work shall be in and complete by August 22, 1986. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map showing areas for sealcoating. -23- J r i ............... t A KW [[lstx[Itt[[l �RggR M . Oq[ [ tw tww [[.[ aa•ctgo ............... I Ys ut[ tlwt '[0*[ � y[qs [[Y 4tY[cYge [q[C'M M• �imM1gCA�.�_1�1} Q 0pM1�tYi AMM /Qir!D .SCQ+yrt STREET DESIGN CAPACITY NQIIT1C0L0 gAOR{a,i/�rWfl wK Council Agenda - 6/23/86 17. Consideration of a Proposal to Acquire Lawn Mover Replacement. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The 10 HP Cub Cadet has been around this City for a long time. For the past several years, it has been used at the WWTP to maintain that area, and also to mow the area around the reservoir. We have had some problems with it over the years, most of which have been related to engine problems. Much of the ground this machine covers is eloped, and with the horizontal shaft engine design may have contributed to failure of the engine. There is approximately $1,540.00 left for replacement in the 1986 Budget. Original thinking was that we would replace this mowar with another tractor type mover to be kept at the VAMP. Since that time, we have changed our thinking slightly and looked at alternate methods of accomplishing the moving. We wore looking at a method to improve the productivity in moving the City Hall and Library and now the new Fire Hall. Tom Schumacher had been moving these areae with a push mover. In addition, it had long been the feeling that the Park Department could maintain the reservoir grass and the WWTP grass more efficiently than the existing staff. The Park Department is set up better for this type of work, and the people on the movers generally have more experience with them. The temporary help and the summer kids at the WWTP always seem to have some problem with the equipment. To test this to see if it was going to be practical, we put a not of rings in the engine on the Cub Cadet mover this winter so that we could begin using it this spring to see how it would work out. It has worked out quite wall. Tom Schumacher is able to handle the existing moving and also do some additional moving in about the same time frame. The Cub Cadet, however, is again starting to use some oil; and we feel it would be best now to replace it. We have solved the tow vehicle problem at the WWTP and feel it is not necessary to leave a mover down there other than a push mover and string trimmer; so we feel that a riding lawn mover rather than a garden tractor would be beat suited to the type of moving which Tom Schumacher will be doing. in addition, these types of equipment are lose costly than a tractor. It is our pian to continue moving and fertilizing of the WWTP reservoir and now Piro Hall utilizing Tom Schumacher and other Park personnel and back charge those departments for the coat. We have looked into the features and cost of riding movers which we fool would do the job for us. Ono unit is the Model 3011X59 Snapper Riding Mover. This mover features a 28 -inch cut with a heavy duty industrial/commercial 11 HP engine, which is four cycle and manufactured by Briggs and Straton. This unit has a grass catcher. It is sold and serviced by Saitz Hardware in Monticello, and the cost delivered in $1,599.95. The second unit which we fool would work for us is the Model HTR3009 Honda Riding Mowar. This features a heavy duty four stroke 8% lip Honda engine. This engine has a pressure lubrication system for oiling the engine. The cutting width is 30 inches, and it also includes a grass catcher. The cost of this mover is $1,709.00. It is sold -24- Council Agenda - 6/27/86 and serviced by Moon Motors Sales in Monticello. we have looked at and priced a few other movers but feel they are not comparable to the Honda and the Snapper. It is the opinion of the Public Works Director and Street and Park Superintendent that we opt for the Honda Mover from Moon Motors. we feel the Honda has some distinct advantages over the Snapper. one, the engine, being pressure lubricated, should provide longer life than the Snapper, especially when operated on slopes. The stiff knee of Tom Schumacher's would require that we modify the Snapper mower in two ways. The first modification would be to remove and change the linkages from one side to another so that he can properly operate the clutch and brake. In addition, we would have to build a guard and cradle over the left front wheel for Tom's leg. The Honda would require no modifications at all. In addition to the mower, we would like to purchase a email trailer for Tom to utilize. The existing trailer he has been utilizing is a trailer for the City's vibratory compaction equipment. DRI Industries makes a unique 4xB utility trailer with 1,000 lb. capacity that folds up and stores in dust 2 feet of Space. This would be an excellent trailer for Tom -o purposes and sells for approximately $200.00 plus freight. This would bring the cost of the Honda and trailer to approximately $1,950.00. Subtracting the amount in the Budget of $1,560.00 leaves a deficit of $410.00. I believe it would be relatively easy to sell the Cub Cadet for a figure exceeding $410.00, especially because of the last sale the City made, its 1951 Dodge Army Truck for $1,794.00. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Alternative 41 would be to purchase the new Honda mower from Moon Motors and the trailer for a total coat of $1,950.00, and to further advertise the Cub Cadet for bids and accept the highest bid in excess of $410.00. 2. The Second alternative would be to continue moving with the existing 15 year old Cub Cadet. I do not feel this is in the boat interest of the City of Monticello. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the rscommandation of the Public Works Director and the Park and Street Superintendent that you opt for Alternative N1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the brochures: Copy of the bids, Copy of the trailer. -25- t 611115;ej 4-Z,— QUOTATION Phone: 1612) 295-2920 MOON MOTOR SALES, Inc. 414 S. Highway 25 MONTICELLO, MN 5S352 NAMFData Sale3man Year Mae 1414'7-�00,4 Model 1-174 ?e,:P-y r-,gw Serial No Engine No FactoryF.O.B. Price ........................ ........ ........ ................. ........ XJ n 774-r C-,bE,,iLLY,- 7 d?. IZ-- TOTAL Freight FOR O"for Assembly & Sorv4c* TOTAL Less—Allowance for Trade in Make Model 3401111 No Yew License cola Mileage Engine No Tax License, Tine & Fees No Cash DOW Price 6 Ttws quotation Priest Quilital harem are SVANW to stemp bv ft vieftow%ows wit"'No fw" C4r4d"ft 40 us" wieaw aMe to 'e"kase an "" 40 son V~ C17 vI�TARa �yP Gf�.c. Y�-�-� wf b! ICELLO. rd.11CV.Z� D/7 7A I rl V,! :T. : �, J4 vow op o O%ds capac.. sp• ac 5. "'t of Cl C, U. Council Agenda - 6/23/86 18. Consideration of a Proposal to Acquire an Automatic Blower for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Part of the process at the Wastewater Treatment Plant in treating sewage is to provide air to the organisms in the aeration complexes. This air is provided by three blowers, each equipped with 25 HP electric motors. In addition, there is a larger blower driven by a 6—cylinder Waukashaw engine which operates off of methane gas and natural gas. During periods of high loading, the current Plant operations require large amounts of air, which in some cases requires all four blowers to be on. As nighttime approaches and the loadings taper off, there are periods of time when additional air is not needed, and one of the blowers could be turned off. In some cases, two of the blowers could be turned off. It in not cost effective to have an individual sit at the Treatment Plant and monitor the air requirements of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and turn these blowers off accordingly. In order to study and determine the actual cost savings, it Was necessary, however, to have someone sit through one night to determine the on and off periods of the blowers and to determine whether this on and off switching had any detrimental effects on the equipment or Plant. Based upon the studies performed by the staff at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, we could expect up to a maximum of $12.00 per day for a minimum of 120 days per year with automatic blower control. This amounts to an annual electrical cost savings of 51,440.00 The automatic control for the staging of the blowers is easily set based upon reeding the amount of dissolved oxygen in the aeration complexes at any given time. When the D.O. falls below a certain level, blowers are turned on. When the D.O. raises above another level, the blowers are turned off. We are proposing to install e :quare D Class 8009 PLC controller at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. This device will control the operation of the blowers adequately as we dosire and sen bo added onto later for other items. It does include its own cepabilitis for reprogramming as necessary by the wastewater Treatment Plant personnel. The cost of the equipment aspar Automatic Control end Communications, Inc., oP Richfield, Mianoaota, is 51,870.00. They have indicated that they will install the equipment for $150.00. This brings the total cost of the equipment to $2,020.00 installed. In preparation for this expenditure, we placed an amount of $2,000.00 in the Budget for the Wastewater Treatment Plant facility. During our meetings with the three possible contractors for the Wastewater Treatment Plant, we have indicated that this change will be made and that this cost savings from the installation of this equipment will be 100% returned to the City. -26- Council Agenda - 6/23/86 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to install the Square D equipment as outlined above for a cost of $2,020.00. 2. The second alternative would be to continue to operate it as we are, which I believe is wasting City dollars. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that you approve the purchase of the Square D equipment as outlined in Alternative 41. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the equipment data cheat and quote from Automatic Control and Communications, Inc. -27- C 0 N T R 0 L @CALPABILI"TIES To Handle The Most Demanding Applications FIBER OPTIC COMMUNICATION POWERFUL INSTRUCTION SET LOCAL AREA NETWORK REPORT GENERATION CONTROL CAPABILITIES MOTION CONTROL NOT BACKUP REMOTE UO PROCESS (PID) CONTROL COMPATIBILITY The goal of any auioma::on plan IS t0 look as,'ands Of automation. The programmab�e cantro-er is a Cornerstone of that Clan. Ron t Create islands whzh are dAcuft Or impossve to Irak Oy uttiz.ng incampat.Ve prograrnmat'e Cor nf..:ers. SYIMAX" PCs are comDatb:e right out of the o0}r. No spec:al rntertsces' No spec;ai software' No excepttcns', The four SY3AAX PCs - Model 100. 3CO. 500 and 700 - hana'e a w:do range of opp::cw,:cns from rep:ac.ng a tow relays. to Co'I or ant conircl, Even Camnucus 0 pr=c--3 ccw.rcl to Oc=t:O ut.lizn0 0 Thor tho 5Y; MAX M=C* ICO. E00, or 7CO proGrarr rat'0 CCMN;::Ora Gr iho ,ry"MA X PrCLC_'3 C¢nttcl h",03u'o And, of COs; CO. the Prccm CCA:rCI E, CWO end C'1 ,rYR: AX cciv :'Ors COTtrunt:-o v13 Cur GY NET L=1 Arca NC:erCrk (LAN), m--kro th0 trtqr=n Gf crCCc=1 On] CC],jC5-^.Cl CGr.'z;i c--:,/ 0 Fr I= +G 5 I r-bC 'Automatic Contrc). and Ccmmun)cation0 inc. June u. vi2u box 2Z.209 RichfiCLd MSV 5!54:7, John Simcla Director of +:a,b) ir_ worry MaA :icello Citv Hall ::to E. !e-cacwa.,. Monticello. MN 55.6., Dear Jchn: This 43 the quote we discussaa +er the purcnuce o+ a DU control eys»em :n the waste '•rater ole -it. rho quote het threte attacnment3. tach :orreeponas to cot3ons you rsgvestea. I+ all three options arm eeacc_ed for installation a. - the same time there WILL be a Z:% discount +rcm the sum c+ tna Quoted price. Several expansion features of this system deserve spacial mention. These a.aditions can be mace it a later date and are mantioneo fo^ future referernce. Is The ease of future expetnsion through the purchase of more individual modules. These can ,control other process variables like Chicrino or pH. Zs The capability to install a iiadia Frequency modem at the site to 'transmit the status of the system to any other aauipoao location in Monticello. This will allow you to control ano mcnitzr remotely, eliminating the head for a dedicated plant opar atoY. Zi a interl4ce with a oriivrwr t(- give you a writnom r^Cora 'Oi tho i.lar lt.,:n n'A' ar:e': rR, tvJ :,)r, Ies::n i 'a'. I In T.'.c'e t i!'u I I ut i'L.ort-a._ +•r,1: ++�t�.i." 1•.r ia•-d µ 1' .. w" aru eoana in ttna 41 1010 ovetrm WILL M3] 1.tAin LA in a 3atia:r t ' atwi.' wa.0 +_.r t C thcae points are rea_mod. h stroj.tier CNitr.at t.o-t d Ca uovo i.).a L: adding a variable +requen.y ur ivy to the tioware tt,eesaivvs allowing them to vary as reciired instead ofi :he "al, or nothing", ihis nil: be 1juct:C uy.a"aLaLy t+ Vr.0 C�s:rs. r tuouet ar v ttri.r•t is sb,04: 1.. 69) Appendix A A Square Dai^ class Soo PLC controller mocnteo on a U114 rail,two analog input mcoules, 3-110v, 1 watt output ncdu_ffe, 1 manual reset switch, audible and visual alarm, reset Dutton, hand programmer, custom ROM chip, lcgi= anti software delivered to the Water Plant. This will ac_ept two, s -^u millismp sigrals from the evistinq ]0 -ensurs. turn on, in rotation. 3 olcwer® et 7_4: m3. _.4 az. 5.C- me. .Eme. antl alarm at 3.2 aa. Price *1670 Appendix 6 Installation fcr Appenoi>. "A" above system in,_.uoing. labor, materials, safety switches, inspections, Ly state licensed electririan. Price t� 15<0 Appendix C Complete console with switches and indicators, 2 FF modems, antenna, and controller for monitoring or control of the DO up to 13 miles in any direction with out phone line charges. Printer interface for record Keeping. This assumes purchase of A and 8 above also. Price *6380 if :purchased tegstneri S9500 (a •discount of 9230) s erely, ctl ,arn 1. C.,w,_-3 9 Council Agenda - 6/23/86 19. Consideration of Pursuing Negotiations for the Acquisition of the Northern States Power Maintenance Building. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: When John Sandberg first proposed the replat of the Meadows into Kealy Heights, he approached me on what might be done with the Klucas property. One of the ideas that came out of our discussions was that NSP might find that land valuable as part of the Nuclear Plant buffer area. It was proposed to NSP to acquire the land, but they found that it had no significant use for the Nuclear Plant. A second suggestion was that the land, because of its proximity to the training site, might be beneficial to NSP as a site for a new maintenance service complex. In conjunction with that concept, the City said to NSP that they would consider acquiring the existing service station to accommodate expansion of Public works. Over the months, NSP concluded that the Klucas property simply had no interest nor value for them, but they were now interested in selling the existing maintenance complex to the City and creating a new maintenance facility out on lands already owned by NSP. Norm Ecklund of NSP has brought the topic up to me on several occasions. NSP has had a professional appraisal done on the site, but at this time wishes to keep that confidential. NSP has requested that the City evaluate the potential of acquiring that property for Public works expansion; and if it appears desirable, make NSP an offer for acquisition. Being that we will soon be in the midst of preparing the 1987 Budget, we feel it is an appropriate time for the Council to discuss. in a preliminary way, whether or not to pursue the acquisition of this land and building. If the Council determines that it is reasonable to investigate the acquisition of this property, then the Council may wish to appoint a negotiating committee to begin the process. You may further wish to engage an appraiser so that the City also has an appraisal. At this point, NSP has assumed the posture that they will wait until an offer has been made from the City. The second part of this agenda item is being written by John Simole and will address the Public works perspective on the advantages and disadvantages of acquiring this property. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Order staff to commo).ca negotiations on the acquisition of this property with the intention to include in the 1987 Budget. 2. Determine that the property has no significant value to the City and have staff advise NSP of our decision to not pursue. C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that we do seriously investigate the acquisition of this property. I believe John -a aganda supplement will provide the data needed to make this determination. -28- Council Agenda - 6/23/86 CONTINUED... 19. Consideration of Pursuing Negotiations for the Acguisition of the Northern States Power Maintenance Building. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The NSP maintenance building is located just west of the existing Public Works facility. The building is of masonry type construction with a flat roof. There is approximately 1,841 square feet of shop, garage, and storage apace, and 441 square feet of office, for a total of 2,282 square feet. The lot itself, excluding that portion used for County Road 39, contains approximately 48,600 square feet, or 1.28 acres. Our plans for eometime have been to find the Water Department a home. Currently, the Water Department and Collection Systems Department is housed at the pump houses downtown, at the Maintenance Building within the WWTP complex, the reservoir on Chelsea Road, and portions of it at the Maintenance Building on West County Road 39. The major office for the Water and Collection Systema Superintendent is a 1983 orange Chevy van. Some of the ideas that have been kicked around in the past were to build a facility in the area of the reservoir to house this department. But recently, the thought of occupying the old Fire Hall was discussed. It appears that it is the consensus of the Council that the old Fire Hall should be sold to commercial enterprise rather than occupied by the City. The option of relocating this department in the old NSP maintenance complex is very attractive. The size of the NSP complex appears to be ideally suited to the size of the Collections Sytoma and Water Department. All of their equipment would fit nicely into the building. The fenced outside area would provide easy storage for not only their maintenance equipment and supplies, but some of the supplies from the Public Works as well. The existing fencing could easily be relocated to combine the area of Public Works with the NSP complex, making both facilities easily asseaeable to one another. Thera is also the possibility of locating tho ot'ficas of the Street Superintendent end the Public Works Director with that of the Water and Collection Systeme Superintendent in the offices of the NSP building. This would centralize a lot of the paperwork, and in many cases increase the level of service to the community to provide easy accessibility to information. If the offices are combined, the old office in the polo barn could be used as a storage or meeting and training room. It is the recommendation of tho Public Works Director, the Street and Park Superintendent, and the Water and Wastewater Collection Systems Superintendent that the City of Monticello pursue negotiations with NSP for the acquisition of their old facility. -29- ,--log w '.4 2 H-1, O.W. 0000- 36'- 9 0 5 10 05 PWVSICAL SCALE 19'-3 13,- Z ar1r.'r-a q b13 441 a. i Fit GROSS APER -1:5Cr 1 4, -LQAAWrX-- AX�,,- PP.OPG.CL'Tv P�&,T w Q - r -L& �. -iorr-: "twi% owa. .AjP,,m,6caa% rDvjc.. ,,D-z,,bs4 I \ a \ 4 I Al I1�4 �.C•, `\yam I MONTICIE SOLD TO CITY OF CO Cl.CO --1275 s0 o I to 66�, r ( SOU CANT RPCI 1 CITY �I �� O• i JC' ,"'j �Q., ` ` I OF MCNTiCCLW NSF �.' ,�'{ h �•j-, /i' GCCC • �5� � •r' �' �V•�\ � T \ 40 `Wei4Nf� /:r.. Catwfr /'s,..pN/fawAe No J.9 _ M6Y4r1 � QO..►�� I..0 C,N.1�u i4lO l�up �yflvYrOl� I�..w -..s �.re••e •iiMu ri •w�.n.�[*• 19i.- :in uiwr war :b u�RTN Au�'�s►r u....� �-c.�..� F Council Agenda - 6/23/86 20. Consideration of Approving the Location of the Sherburne/Wright Countv Cable Commission's Administrator in Monticello. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As I noted in my department head report, the SWCQ two meetings ago appointed a full time Cable Administrator. Me. Barb Jones, a recent graduate of Gustavus Adolphus, will be beginning work for the Cable Commission on July t. As I also noted, the cost of this position is funded entirely by the Cable Commission, which derives its revenues from franchise fees. Throughout the entire discussion of hiring an Administrator, one of the common discussion items was a place to locate that Administrator. During an early discussion, the City of Buffalo offered space in their City Hall. As their own City staff expanded, they had to withdraw their offer. we then investigated placing the Administrator in the offices of Rite Cable Company. They are currently renting small space one block off of Highway 25 in Buffalo. They indicated that they simply had no space available to set aside for Cable Administrator. Consequently, at the last meeting of the Commission, we discussed the possible location of the Administrator. The consensus of the Commission was that it would be most desirable to place the Administrator in Monticello if we can find the room. It was determined to be beneficial to have the Administrator hero for a number of reasons, to wit, I serve as the Chairperson of the Commission, the consortium of schools is headquartered at the Monticello School District, Ms. Jones has already found her home in Monticello and indicated her preference to locate hare, Monticello is one of the charter members of the Commission, and lastly, I believed we could arrange for space. I have met with City Hall staff, and we believe that we can arrange some work space in the central clerical area. A private office is totally unessential for this position. As you know, we currently have three work stations in the central area, but the building was designed large enough to accommodate as many as sight work stations. While eight work stations would be an extremely congested clerical area. I do not believe that one more work area would create any discomfort for any worker. Again, I wish to emphasize that there is no expected expense to the City. I informed the Commission that the City of Monticello will bill the Commission for any hard cost or out-of-pocket expense the City incurred. I did indicate that it would not be necessary for the City to charge back to the Commission a par square foot lease type of charge. WP do, after all, have to be open five days a week; so in one simplistic sense, we are not incurring any additional expense by having another person working in this area. A11 equipment, supplies, communications, phone, postage, etc., will be paid 100% by the Cable Commission. The Administrator will have access to the City's metro line, which will be advantageous to all cities. In addition, we _30_ Council Agenda - 6/23/66 intend to place Ms. Jones on the City -a payroll for the purposes of issuing paychecks and insurance purposes, but we will request six months' advance payment be made to the City. This allows the City to utilize the Commissions funds for six months while we pay the salary and benefits to this individual. I request the City to adopt a motion that will authorize the location of the SWC4 Administrator in the Monticello City Hall, and to enter an agreement with the SWC4 for the payment of personal services. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Authorize the location of the SWC4 Administrator in Monticello City Hall and order the execution of agreement that will allow the City to make payment for personal services on a reimbursement basis with the SWC4, 2. Authorize the placement of the Cable Administrator in Monticello City Hall, but do not allow the City to take care of the salary and benefit payments on a reimbursement basis. 3. Do not allow the placement of the Cable Administrator in Monticello City Hail. C. STAFF RECOMMENNMATION: This is not a staff recommandation, but my own acting both as the City Administrator and as the Chairperson of the SWC4. I would like to see the Council authorize the placement of this person, and allow the City of Monticello to assume personal service expense through a reimburaemont agreement with the SWC4. There is no supporting data for this agenda item. While Ms. Jones has not officially begun work for the Commission. I will be trying to contact her to ask her to attend the meeting briefly for the sake of introduction. -31. Council Agenda - 6/23/86 21. Consideration of Membership Renewal in the Coalition of Outstate Cities. (T.E.) A. REFERE14CE AND BACKGROUND: The major part of information concerning our membership in the Coalition of Outstate Cities was provided in the administrative department head report given to you at the May 27 meeting. As I noted in that department head report, I would be attending the Coalition Legislative Conference later that very week. I did attend the workshop and have concluded that there is no benefit to the City sustaining its membership in the Coalition. The major emphasis of the Coalition for the upcoming year is going to be lobbying efforts on a readjusted local government aid formula. That lobbying effort will be done by the legal firm of Briggs and Morgan, with their cost being assessed to the member cities. Monticello, if we remain a member, would be assessed an amount of slightly over $1,200.00. That assessment would not be considered high, if we stood to gain by the lobbying efforts. Being a somewhat peculiar city by virtue of NSP's presence, we do not stand to gain by the lobbying efforts of the Coalition. Rather, we could gain substantially from the Governor's proposed plan, which is the very position the Coalition opposes so adamantly. In a very sketchy way, the Governor is proposing to eliminate local government aid to all cities, but provide full local government aid to school districts. School districts would lower their mill rate accordingly, or perhaps eliminate it, while cities would increase their mill rate to make up for their lose in local government aid. In most outstate cities, such a transfer of funding sources would increase the overall mill rate for a taxpayer. In metropolitan cities and Monticello, the overall mill rate would be reduced. In essence then, the overall mill rate to a Monticello resident would decrease by about 10 mills if the Governor's plan to provide full state funding to schools waren't enacted. It's the Governor'• plan that the Coalition opposes. Based on the projections, the City of Monticello should support the Governor's proposal. Consequently, it makes no sense for us to contribute 51,200.00 plus dollars to a lobbying effort that works -against our best financial interest. My conclusion is than that we ought not contribute to the lobbying effort of the Coalition. It is pert of the bylaws of the Coalition that if you do not contribute to the lobbying effort. you may not remain as a member. Hance, our membership should be terminated. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: financially. I don't believe there are any real alternatives. I think we should simply terminate our membership in the Coalition since it provider no benefit for the money expanded. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of a letter to the Mayor from the Coalition of Outstate Cities, including the assessment levy; Copy of the comparative tax proposals as presented at the Coalition Conference. -32- Minnesota CMC Coalition of Outstate Cities June 6, 1986 Mayor Arve Grimsmo City Hall p. 0. Box 83A Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mayor Grimsno: The Coalition of Outstate Cities met on May 29th during our successful legislative conference at Maddens. The conference was attended by over 75 city officials and legislators. At this meeting we evaluated last year's legislative efforts and considered a legislative program for 1987. It is clear that the Coalition has benefited greatly from its past legislative efforts. There was a consensus among the city officials present at the legislative conference that it is essential that the Coalition have an effective legislative program in 1987. The Coalition has an uphill battle in 1987. Some of the proposals being suggested by the Governor and gubernatorial candidates such as full state funding for education could have devastating property tax impacts on Coalition cities. For example, if the funding for Local Government Aid were eliminated and shifted to provide a reduction in the school levy, property tax rates in suburban metropolitan cities would go down by an average of 5 mills, and in outstate cities they would rise by an average of 10 mills. The impact on many Coalition cities would be substantially greater than a 10 mill increase. After considerable discussion, the Coalition unanimously approved the following actions to implement the Coalition's legislative program for 1987- 1. Adopted positions on property tax reform, Local Government Aid and urban growth management for the 1987 legislative session. 2. Authorized the Coalition's officers to negotiate and execute a contract with Briggs and Morgan for legislative services for the 1987 session. 3. Reappointed Mayor Earl Laufenburger from Winona as the Chairman of the Coalition's legislative committee. Membership of the committee will be expanded somewhat and all Coalition members will be notified of its meetings. 4. Authorized an assessment of memoer cities of 40 per capita to fund the Coalition's budget for coordination and other support for the Coalition's 1987 legislative activities. These assessments can be paid in full or in installments any time before April 1 of 1987. This will permit cities to spread the cost over their 1986 and 1987 budget years if necessary. An assessment sheet for your city is attached. The Coalition took these actions to protect the interests of Coalition cities and taxpayers as the legislature considers property tax reform in 1987. If you have any questions about the assessments or the Coalition's legislative program, please call me at (507) 625-3161 or Mayor Earl Laufenburger at (507) 452-8550. Sincerely, /�'a p-"4 Mayor Herb Mocol Mankato President, Coalition of Outstate Cities cc: Tom Eidem MINNESOTA COALITION OF OUTSTATE CITIES ASSESSMENT FOR LEGISLATIVE SERVICES FOR THE 1987 LEGISLATIVE SESSION ` City of Monticello Population 3,060 z 400 Amount of Assessment $1,224 The assessment totalling $1,224 may be paid in full now or in installments any time before April 1, 1987. The assessment is based on the population estimate prepared by the State Demographer in 1985 and used for calculating 1986 LGA amounts. Checks should be made payable to the Minnesota Coalition of Outstate Cities and mailed to Bill Bassett, Coalition Secre- tary -Treasurer, Mankato City Hall, 202 East Jackson, Mankato, Minnesota 56001. 05-06-1. B6 RUN: ALBERT LEA ALEXANDRIA BEMIDJI BENSON BLUE EARTH BRAINERD BRECKENRIDGE CROOKSTON DS7ROIt LAMES EOGRAND FORKS ELN RIVER FAIRMONT FARIonULT FERGUS FALLS GRAND RAPIDS GRANITE FALLS INTHL FALLS JACKSON LE SUEUR L I TC14F I ELD LITTLE FALLS MANSATO MARSHALL MONTEVIDEO MONTICELLO nLu1HHL�u MORA MORRIS NEN ULM NO MANKA70 NORTHFIELD PIPESTONE REDWOOD FALLS ROCHESTER BARTELL SAUI RAPIDS ST CLOUD ST JAMES ST PETER STEWARTVILLE THIEF RIV FALLS WASECA WILLMAR WINONA WORTHINGTON TOTAL BRIGGS ANDMORGAN 091 --STATE Fl.�riD ING SHIFT FROM LGA TO SC1400L RIDS :a ! 1 THE IMPACT OF ELIMINATING THE LGA FORMULA AND PLACING THE SAVINGS INTO THE SCHOOL FOUNDATION AIDS FO.IMULA MINNESOTA COALITION OF OUTSTATE CITIES EO HUN MILLS AAV/CAPITA REVENUE LOSS MILL INCREASE NET IMPACT - n11L1.1�1 25.4 •5,149 -2,216,759 23.5 13.3 23.5 $6,623 -934,23Z 18.0 7.8 25.4 63,964 -1,504,433 33.0 22.6 36.6 $2,645 -379,821 39.4 29.2 59.2 :4,156 -367,231 21.2 11.0 25.6 :5,306 -1,127,678 18.6 8.6 45.6 $2,679 -496, 161 46.2 36.0 53.2 63,349 -996,331 35.1 24.9 22.0 $5,046 -724,987 20.2 9.9 43.0 $3,765 -767,956 24.1 13.9 14.5 $6,882 -260,864 5.1 -5.1 27.7 $5.469 -1,032,203 16.3 6.1 30.6 $4,478 -1.851,526 25.2 15.0 24.8 $5,552 -1,719,158 24.5 14.3 34.7 $6,544 -1,020,363 19.2 8.9 26.6 64,497 -293,813 19.7 9.5 33.0 66,759 -1,193,008 33.0 22.8 52.0 $3,293 -402,638 31.8 21.6 24.1 65, 404 -349,804 17.5 7.3 18.2 95.072 -501,679 16.7 6.5 33.5 03,406 -943,9456 39.4 29.1 33.3 05.491 -3,512,203 22.3 12.1 21.0 $5.544 -794,582 12.2 2.0 29.8 03,781 -603,837 26.9 16.7 17.9 027.475 -171, 530 2.0 -8.2 CY. 0 N. Ube -C. Ctl 1, b:4 I H. O :S. 4 19.2 63.47Z -273,573 18.2 8.0 38.8 03,171 -592,092 34.5 24.3 29.4 $5.02! -1,273,782 18.6 8.4 26.0 64,974 -1339.314 0.3 7.0 29.6 $4,148 -838,756 15.4 5.2 29.7 63.352 -503,539 32.3 22.1 30.7 64,930 -427,608 16.6 6.4 21.0 68,002 •-5,164.705 10.7 0.5 15.7 68,564 -244.896 7.3 -2.9 24.6 $4,030 -526.064 21.0 10.8 26.3 05,948 -4.880.020 19.0 8.8 40.5 03.612 -354,336 23.0 12.8 29.3 63,004 -507,276 18.7 8.4 23.0 64, 277 -256.243 i 4.7 4.5 34.4 03,767 -655,429 21.2 11.0 27.1 44,919 -768,931 18.7 8.5 21.7 61,919 -1,297,936 15.6 5.4 33.4 $4,382 -2.657,948 24.5 14.3 37.3 64.770 -1,117,774 22.6 12.4 27. 1 03,363 -49.627.631 18.4 8.2 s The not mill rate incrosso for cities rofleets the shift of stats property tam relief Galiar0 from cities to townships. FIRST Ci ,3S CITIES £0 MUM MILLS ARV/CAPITA REVENUE LOSS MILL INCREASE NET IMPACT MINNEAPOLIS C 30.9 $8,374 -58,040,873 20.8 10.6 ST PAUL C 29.5 $7,175 -33,863,003 t9.8 9.6 DULUTH 45.4 $3,712 -10,528,695 32.8 22.6 TOTAL 31.3 $7,364 -102,432,571 21.2 11.0 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION £O MUM MILLS AAV/CAPITA REVENUE LOSS MILL INCREASE NET IMPACT BLOOMINGTON 14.2 $11,442 -2,419,909 2.6 -7.6 BBOOKLVN PARK 18.2 $6,275 -1,780,730 6.5 -3.8 BURNSVILLE 18.5 $10,438 -1,426,935 3.6 -6.6 EAGAN 15.8 $9,496 -281,510 1.0 -9.2 EDEN PRAIRIE 17.1 $12,219 -274,166 1.0 -9.3 EDINA 8.9 616,628 -550,787 0.8 -9.5 INVER GROVE HIS 17.6 07,057 -597,456 5.1 -5.1 MAPLE GROVE 17.5 $7,215 -532,262 2.9 -7.3 MAPLEWOOD 16.6 $9,793 -1,277,158 4.9 -5.3 MINNEIONKA 13.8 613,302 -1,582,566 3.0 -7.3 PLVMOUIH 12.9 010,630 -346,121 0.9 -9.3 ROSEVILLE 11.3 $11,184 -717,475 1.9 -8.3 S14OREV IEW 9.4 $1,890 -398.487 2.6 -7.6 W44ITE BEAR LAKE 12.0 66,657 -8452242 6.3 -3.9 MUODBURV oa 14.6 09,694 -429.712 3.4 -6.8 TOTAL 14.0 010,438 -13,460.516 2.6 -7.6 TOTALS • FOR CITIES ONLY ED NUN MILLS AAV/CAPITA REVENUE LOSS MILL INCREASE NET IMPACT SUBURBAN METRO 14.5 $8,859 -54,393,841 4.9 -5.4 NON -METRO TOTALS 30.2 $4,738 -118,561,593 20.5 10.3 STATE TOTAL 22.0 $7,104 -L)64.839,310 12.4 2.1 s The not mill rate incrosso for cities rofleets the shift of stats property tam relief Galiar0 from cities to townships. Council Agenda - 6/23/86 22. Consideration of Ratifying the Union Contract. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On Thursday, June 12, 1986, a mediation session was hold with the state mediator. The City's final offer did not change, and the Union accepted the City's offer. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. withdraw the contract offer to the Union. 2. Approve the Union contract as offered by the City. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Union contract as offered by the City of Monticello and accepted by the Union. D. SUPPORTING DATA: All information was distributed with a previous agenda packet. -33- GENERAL FUND -- JUNE -- 1986 AMOUNT CHECK N0. Government Business Systems - Liquor license forms 10.48 22482 Fair's Garden Center - Landscaping at Fire Hall 6 tree repl 10,799.50 22483 U. S. Postmaster -- Refill postage machine 500.00 22484 John Simole - Seminar expense - Las Vegas 217.03 22485 Wright County State Bank - C. D.'s 99,000.00 22486 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded. 88.00 22487 Beverly Johnson - Animal control contract 250.00 22488 ICMA Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded. for employees retire. 74.67 22489 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at Library 206.25 22490 Dave Stromberg - Animal control services 212.50 22491 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 50.04 22492 Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment for May 6,094.00 22493 Institute on Aging - Seminar for Karen Hanson 43.50 22494 Sean Hancock - 41 hours contract service at WWTP 820.00 22495 MN. Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 506.00 22496 Mr. Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 22497 Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 22498 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 22499 William Fair - Council salary 125.00 22500 Jack Maxwell - Council salary 125.00 22501 James Preusse - Cleaning city hall 337.50 22502 YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment 529.17 22503 PERA - Para W/H 1,524,11 22504 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - May 2.264.00 22505 Wright County State Bank - FWT 2,429.00 22506 Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 2.888.12 22507 Thomas Eidem - Seminar expenses 59.93 22508 PERA - ins. premiums 18.00 22509 Janette Leerseen - Inf. Center salary 82.13 22510 Wilma Hayes - Inf. Center salary 47.25 22511 Wright County Recorder - Recording easement costs 10.00 22512 Minnesota DEED - Reg. fee for 0. Koropchak 6.00 22513 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 240.00 22514 Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 22515 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 44.00 22516 Gayle Brodt - 1986 LMC Conference Reg. - Rick 6 Tom 480.00 22517 L 6 G Rehboin - Payment d2 - Interceptor sewer project 132.601.76 22518 Veit 6 Co.- Payment #2 - 6th St. Project 36,678.00 22519 Northern States Power - Electricity 3.267.71 22520 Monticello Fire Dept. - Salaries for firemen 1,701.00 22521 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 1,053.12 22522 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 50.04 22523 ICMA Retire. Corp. - Employee's Retirement cont. 74.67 22524 Tom Eidem - Car allowance for June 300.00 22525 North Central Public Service - Utilities 984.61 22526 Vaughn's - Flag for Fire Hall 95.00 22527 Howard Cillham - Truckster for WWTP 960.00 22528 Dave Stromberg - Animal control contract 127.50 22529 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library 206.25 22530 MN. Dept. of Transportation - 1/3 of City share of Agreemt. 51,470.83 22531 Sean Hancock - 501 hra. labor at WWTP 1,010.00 22532 Federal Express - Postage for WWTP contract proposal 41.25 22533 Dept. of Nat. Res.- Dep. Reg. fees 293.00 22534 Dept. of Nat. Rea. -Dep. Reg, fees 36.00 22535 Northern States Power - Electricity 4,995.92 22536 Dept. of Employee Relations - PICA W/H 7.28 22537 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes 2,489.00 22538 PERA - Pera W/H 1,530.70 22539 State Treasurer - FICA W/H 2,899.58 22540 Janette Leerssen - Inf. Center salary 76.50 22541 Wilma Hayes - Inf. Center salary 110.25 22542 Corrow Sanitation - June contract payment 6,125.50 22543 St. Michael Vet. Clinic - Animal control expense 25.00 22544 Keith Trippe - Purchase air Gond. for shop and garage 50.00 22545 Northern States Power - Utilities 13.43 22546 Monticello ,Times - Legal Publications 311.70 22547 Moon Motors - Snow blower for Fire Hall b parts for Parks 979.48 22548 Michael O'Connor - Union negotiations fees 455.00 22549 Water Products Co. - Meters, valves, etc. 797.67 22550 OSM - Eng. Fees 15,965.51 22551 Monticello Office Products - Fire Hall - desks, stools, etc. 860.66 22552 Simonsen Lumber - Lumber for parks 140.95 22553 Marlene Hellman - Mileage 32.50 22554 Purcell Plumbing b Htg. - WWTP repairs 13.64 22555 Brenteson Const. - Interceptor sewer project - backhoe 2,200.00 22556 Dahlgren, Shardlow, etc. - Planning fees 167.50 22557 Omann Bro. - Sand 54.74 22558 Safety-Kleen - Equipment mtce. 38.00 22559 Davis Water Equip. - Pipe, etc. - Inter. Sewer Project 492.99 22560 Elk River Concrete - Manhole, etc. - Inter. Sever Project 3.669.60 22561 Kjellberg's Carpet - Carpet for rental house (Johnson) 384.93 22562 Gruys. Johnson, etc. - Computer fees for April and May 580.00 22563 AME Ready Mix - Sand for parks 209.28 22564 Bryan Rock Products - Lime for softball fields 5,645.26 22565 Hawkins Chemical - Chlorine for WWTP 907.70 22566 Compressor Services - Separator, repairs at WWTP 530.95 22567 Audio Communications - Batteries, etc. - WWTP 240.00 22568 Seelye Plastics - Repairs at WWTP 103.50 22569 Servi Star Hardware - Weed -eater - 359.90, mise. mdse. 583.91 22570 Ranger Products - Supplies for WWTP 327.81 22571 Fair's Garden Center - Sod for Fire Hall 175.00 22572 Stokes Marine - Parte 33.35 22573 Ben Franklin Store - Parke expense 29.52 22574 Service Plus Foods - Dog food 14.76 22575 Coast to Coast - Wall clock, shelves - Fire Hall, mise. 279.05 22576 Harry's Auto Supply - Parte and supplies 140.78 22577 Maus Tire Service - Repairs 10.00 22578 Marco Business Products - Paper 6 Mtce. agreement - typewr. 238.90 22579 Auto fon Ind. - Repairs on pump house dl 443.24 22580 Feed Rite Controls - Chlorine, etc. 1.415.77 22581 Unocal - Gas 43.96 22582 MN. Fire d Safety - Couplings - Fire Dept. 24.65 22583 National Bushing 6 Parte - Parte 6 supplies 18.16 22584 ]CMA - Dues for Local Government 293.00 22585 Monticello Ford - Repairs on fire truck 402.21 22586 Curtin Matheson Scientific - WWTP supplies 420.03 22587 Smith, Pringle, Hayes - Legal - 4/30 to 5/30 1,757.00 22588 Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage 83.09 22589 Wright County Auditor - Police contract 10,426.14 22590 Foster Franzen - Ins. for license for Hwy. right of ways 50.00 22591 Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. 4,247.19 22592 Cummins Diesel Sales - WWTP parte 173.81 22593 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Century Laboratories - WWTP supplies 87.12 22594 Davis Electronic Service - Fire Dept. repairs 46.01 22595 Bowman Dist. - Supplies WWTP 70.36 22596 Int. Conf. of Bldg. Officials - Membership dues 70.00 22597 N. S. Services - Economiser for roof top at Library 982.00 22598 McDowall Co. - Repairs at City Hall b Library 638.41 22599 Gould Bros. - Repairs for Fire Dept. 468.08 21600 National Life Ins. - Insurance premium for T. Eidem 100.00 22601 Monticello Printing - Bldg. permit cards, permit forms 192.95 22602 AT b T Inf. Systems - Fire phone charges 3.96 22603 Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control services 38.00 22604 Biff's, Inc. - Latrine rentals for softball fields 115.50 22605 League of MN. Cities - Annual LMC payment 138.00 22606 Maus Foods - Supplies 104.45 22607 American National Bank - Issuance fee for Inter. Sewer. 500.00 22608 Keith Kubert - Mail box repair 21.93 22609 Orkin Exterminating Co. - WWTP expense 115.00 22610 Int. Union #49 - Dues 147.00 22611 Moody's Investors - Professional fees for bonds 1,000.00 22612 Karen Doty - Mileage 18.25 22613 Dist. 742 Community Schools - Employer share of help 43.88 22614 Continental Safety Dquip. - 0 ring9 for Fire Dept. 16.47 22615 Gary Anderson - Mileage 90.41 22616 Earl F. Andersen - Park bench 327.22 22617 Mobil Oil - Gas - Fire Dept. b Water Dept. 109.43 22618 Braun Engineering - Compaction tests b observations - Sewer 4,677.79 22619 Kromer Co. - Supplies for parks 93.40 22620 Olson b Sons Electric - Mtce. - all depts. 2,092.48 22621 Fyle's Backhoe - 6th b Elm St. digging 85.00 22622 Payroll for May 28,488.81 TOTAL GENERAL FUND DISBURSEMENTS FOR JUNE $477,110.88 LIQUOR FUND AMOUNT CNO. LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR JUNE - 1986 N0. Commissioner of Revenue - Liquor sales tax 5,951.26 12424 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 875.05 12425 Twin City Wine - Liquor 930.88 12426 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor 1,567.82 12427 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 1,847.13 12428 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 442.91 12429 MN. Dept. of Agriculture - License renewal 25.25 12430 Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes 247.00 12431 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - May 181.00 12432 Public Employees Retirement Assoc. - PERA W/H 146.17 12433 Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 253.36 12434 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 170.00 12435 Ed Phillips 6 Sans - Liquor 1,443.13 12436 Quality Wine Co. - Liquor 397.55 12437 Twin City Wine - Liquor 4,158.10 12438 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 719.63 12439 Eagle Diet. Co. - Liquor 3,681.26 12440 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor 1,900.17 12441 Twin City Wine - Liquor 875.42 12442 Ed Phillipe 6 Sone - Liquor 1,267.70 12443 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 156.92 12444 Bridgewater Telephone Co. - Telephone 127. 75 12445 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll W/H 170.00 12446 Northern States Power - Electricity 535.37 12447 North Central Public Service - Utilities 34.17 12448 Ed Phillipe 6 Sone - Liquor 2,617.21 12449 Twin City Wine - Liquor 889.95 12450 Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes 250.00 12451 PERA - Pare W/H 150.17 12452 State Treasbrer - Social Sec. Div. - FICA W/H 260.28 12453 Purcell Plumbing 6 Heating - Misc. supplies 45.29 12454 Cruys, Johnson 6 Assoc. - Computer fees for April 6 May 220.00 12455 Servi Star Hardware - Supplies .70 12456 Coast to Coast - Store expense 33.46 12457 Monticello Times - Adv. 89.20 12458 Monticello Printing - Special flyers 60.85 12459 Maus Foods - Store expense 6.76 12460 James Electric Motor Service - Freezer repair 80.00 12461 Banker's Life ]no. - Ins. premium 310.61 12462 Century Laboratories - Soap 61.92 12463 Dahlhetmer Diet. Co. - Beer 20,351.35 12464 Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse. 140.64 12465 Bernick's Pepsi Cole - Misc. mdse. 625.00 12466 Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse. 402.60 12467 Mark Schneider - Beer pumps 235.00 12468 Dick Beverage Co. - Beer 3.724.45 12469 Granite City Cash Register - Supplies 93.23 12470 Grosslein Beverage - Beer 19,531.55 12471 Cloudy Town Diet. - Mi-sc. sides. 172.52 12472 Day Diet. Co. - Beer 1,091.60 12673 Stromquist Dist. Co. - Misc. mdse. 67.25 12474 Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer 7,001.92 12475 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 2.70 12476 LIQUOR FUND Payroll for May 3.221.02 TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENT - JUNE $91,923.60 J AMDUNT CEECK NO. Seven Up Bottling - Misc. mdse. 440.25 12477 Leifert Trucking - Freight 539.18 12478 Maus Foods - Store expense 22.25 12479 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse. 795.41 12480 Yonak Sanitation - Garbage service for May 91.50 12481 , Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repair pop machine 33.00 12482 Lovegren Ice - Ice purchases 180.00 12483 Payroll for May 3.221.02 TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENT - JUNE $91,923.60 J Cl TT OF HYrrICELW W thly'Dullding Dcpert-L Rcport I'MIJUM mad USPS P11nth or 'nAY 19 86 �� 7ji1s --. -Sema F-Lh 'L.e6 I.- 'Due, I- PE2UUT5 ISSUED Hylth APrll 11m1th nay L.et Seer To D.L. To Datc 1lBIDDrr3A1 Dumber 14 21 9 32 54 Vnlu.Llm 1 340,990.00 82;515,620.00 $159,030.00 11,743,200,00 14,026,870.00 Feee 1,948.40 10,986.51 966.85 8,816.79 19,070.66 Surcharg.e 170.45 1,257.75 79.50 871.40 - 2,013.25 001002C AL Number 1 3 0 13 7 Yeluetlon 5,900.00 7)7,600.00 728,800.00 1,094,160.00 807,000.00 F.ee 54.70 7,395.30 3, 376. BB 5,606.88 3,064.00 Surcharges 2.95 366.BQ .364.40 547.05 401.00 INCU57N AL llumber Value Lion 1 Fees Surchargee Ilumber 5 13 3 IB 37 Feee 116.00 579.00 133.00 745.00 1,102.00 Surchnrgee 2.50 6.50 1.50 12.00 16.00 0771F7L9 Ih0ober1 1 3 V.lu.1.1 on 1,430.00 1,430.00 1,430.00 Fees 14.30 14.)0 14.30 D S.-ch-gee .70 .70 .70 T0TAL 11O. MLMITS 21 .._. .je.. _._... .1i -- ,050.96 'eVTAL GUnCxARD1:9 I76.60 I,631.75 445.40 1.430.45 I 2.430.95 _ LUIUlP1R 11x1'!11 llumbrr to Ontn I'DWIT IJANR6 Number PPIIYI�T SUllum-11 a "Juet1on 11i1n YeAr Lnet year Single Fem11y 7 8 7,107.75 1 198.90 1 397,800.0( 23 9 . WPI" 2 609.10 90.65 181,300.0( 3 2 1lul t14w.ly 7 9,257.06 906.45 1,017,900.0( 4 2 Comnerctel 0 5 Indu etrl el 0 0 Rr.; Careges 1 7 S1 1714 00 Public Dvl ldin`e 0 0 ALTFMTIUJ 191 REPAIR N.]I lnpe 10 1,391.60 69.2! ;123.620.dR 23 13. Co.."""el 3 3,395.30 36G. 80 733,600.0(' 7 •B ' Ind. sU'l e] 0 0 . I I I'IL1811J10 ' All types 13 32 IB ACCI'98OR1 9TPUC IP" e�lmml.a roan. 0 0 O.cM 1 14.30 .70 1,430.09 2 0 1'IMPORAJIT rcaUT 0 0 ' I " D"OLITION V 1 0 1 TOTAO 30 914,975.11 81,631.75 13,250,650.00 26 fi3 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT . MONTH OF NAT . 1986 'ERM IT DESCRIPTION P NAME/LOCATION VALUA710N 4UM8ER r 68-•51 mingle really dwelling or Mike 6 Judy Cyr/1020 Meadow Oak Or. 8 47,600.00 46-662 interior remodel AC 14000naWs/100 Vast Oakwood Dr -1 10.000.00 66-643 Nall Addition AC LtnWln CosSmaiss/200 West 7th it. 1 71f,600.00 66-664 Nowa r4wvetlon AO Dal Ca"2/824 Meat River or. 6 12,000.00 1d -48S Souse renow* tton AD Darothy' Jahnke/530-Cast %roadway 1 60,000.00 68-066 Rause caudal 6 now "role AD Jib 114am/911 West River St. 1 30,000.00 116-647 Now house roof AD RoWrc Kat=ar&V1400 West Co. 84.75 t 1,430.00 66-606 two easily dwelling 0 Via seltmaa/013 6 615 m. oroadvay 6 66,700.00 06-610 1 season porch AD- Roger R6hka RVIIt Hillcrest Read 1 6.000.00 46-801 sense root C0940csmest AD wry Lon FACsy/600 Last .3rd it. �, 6 1,430.60 86-662 single gamily dwelling or Gil 6 Gory C4mat./910 Nadow Oak or. A 41,500.00 48-403 manse 4 9tc4/s rNi6iA6 AD Gerald $Andvif/102 sluccost or. 6 5,100.00 44-804 26••unit apartment Mr Monticello Mousing A04e9. ►tar./ 6 436„700.00 401 Luring LmM 00-895 M testily dwelling 0 Doyle Vwhu co"t./246 8 244 Marvin 8 64,600.00 • Ahead Road ' 48-416 Single easily smiling or Nike 6 July Cyr/3600 Meadow Oak Dr. 6 54,100.00 84-497 saws 6 settle rest repLoo AD keys Mm411uM/304 Liar Cat. 4 1,430.00 ownL 04-604 Perdh root 6 window roplaoe AD James Ming/4-8 west $roadway 8, 1.430.00 Sant 66-019 31 -wit spartamt Mr River ►erkviow Apta. Ltd. Ptar/ 1 913.700.00 Ito wot River street 66-100 tingle easily dwelling O Marven Oaarea mullders/4 center Ciro. at 46,400.00 46-101 ling!* easily dwelling sr parvtn cows* sulleara/17 rairway or 4 46,400.00 6t-902 Rap3aes windows 6 new AD Ad Klein/719 east River St. 6 6.000.00 kitchen o4ninots 4i-103 single easily &wailing or La mmmovd/113 Club View Drive 5 70.300.00 as- 04 D ak AD Jd Vk 0016mn/6 Center C3r010 1 1,430.00 46-905 stella tautly d-611449 or mitt gpringkorg/207 Kevin Lmwgley Or 1 64,600.00 46-= Kitchen hostile" AC noyA llcumo/iu west arestway 1 4,000.00 _ 20TAL4 6).260.650.00 0 PERMIT SURCHARGE PLUMBING SURIKARGr 5 272.20 8 23.10 s 23.00 1 .50 6 90.s0 1 _5.00 $?,"2.00 s 351.60 9 28.00 0 .50 6 57.30 d 6.40 .. 1 313.00 6 30.00 6 193.00 1 15.00 1 15.00 4 .50 4 34.30 1 .70 6 423.10 g40.35 $ 40.00 5 .50 1 30.50 1 2.50 8 4.30 6 .70 8 276.211 S 24.75 8 23.00 6 .50 6 51.10 4 2.35 12,341.00 $ 419.60 1116.00 0 30 6 '3U. 00 6 42.30 1 42.00 s .50 4 205.30 S' '27.05 4 23.00 6 .50 s 14.30 6 .70 8 14.30 6 ,.70 82.111.25 1 4911.Q 6163.00 1 .50 8 366.60 1 23.20 8 23-00 s .50 8 344.40 1 23.20 8 23.00 9 .50 S 50.50 6 2.00 8 Its." 6 311./0 8 211.00 8 .50 8 14.30 1 .70 f 316.50 6 47.2! 1 27.00 1 .50 5 4450 � 9 .00 110.45.�00 '6�• 'j�7 1571.00 1610 11101VIDUAC PEFtt1T ACTIVITY REPORT MONTM Of MAY , 1986 OOXT3Nv . 'ERMIT DESCRIPTION D I NAMC /LOCATION (VALUATION AA ceee �- PERMIT ISURCNARGF �i PLUMBING SURCNARdr , ` PLAN RCV3ty , .. L • 66-691 Na13 Additlaa AC Liwolm CeoWsslaa/200 M. ltd-Bt.- -01.266.30 '• 06-896 26wult.apastmnot' _. RO N0ati0sllo Pt eoruin9 A"001atim, mr. 61,88].60 801' Louring Lama 1 86-809 31w lt,apartmast' 10 Rlvar Parkvlov_Apts._ Ltd. Ptoi/' 61.376.21, - " -'SI8,Ipst River st. - .. '20TAL9 08.187.11 , . ., lo7At asvrJitJl, at6.606.66 , I V (thea 5/31/66) 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Industrial Permits Number 3 2 1 2 0 0 Valuation $1,521,000.00 S 983,256.00 $ 91,000.00 $1,440,000.00 S 0.00 $ 0.00 Residential Garage Permits Number 11 4 7 17 15 1 Valuation $ 57,900.00 S 15,668.00 $ 28,556.00 $ 94,700.00 $ 81,500.00 $ 7,000.00 Residential Addition/ Remodel Permits Number 6 11 20 39 28 25 Valuation S 60,700.00 $ 66,234.00 $ 70,295.00 S 185,087.00 S 146,970.00 $ 177,100.00 Commercial Addition/ Remodel Permits Number 4 2 23 19 17 7 Valuation S 144,000.00 $ 130,000.00 $2,640,000.00 5 270,030.00 S 370,160.00 S 802,000.00 Industrial Addition/ Remodel Permits Number 2 0 2 3 0 0 Valuation $ 294,000.00 S 0.00 S 505,500.00 S 336,500.00 S 0.00 S 0.00 Total Building Permits Number 43 23 44 66 78 29 Valuation $3,772,900.00 52,665,444.00 $3,346,836.00 $6,761,100.00 3 9,508,600.00 $2,038,300.00 Total Addition/ Remodel Permits Number 12 13 45 61 45 32 Valuation S 498,700.00 S 196,234.00 $3,215,795.00 S 791,617.00 3 517,130.00 $ 979,100.00 Total Permits Number 55 36 99 127 123 61 Valuation $4,271,600.00 $2,861,678.00 $6,562,631.00 $7,552,717.00 $10,025,730.00 83,017,400.00 26 -unit Apartment Permits Number 0 0 0 0 0 1 Valuation $ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 839,200.00 31 -unit Apartment Permits Number 0 0 0 0 0 1 Valuation $ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 937,700.00 J ) SUILOIMO PERMITS (thru 5/31/86) 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Single Family Permits Number 25 7 23 29 40 23 Valuation S 985,000.00 S 230,000.00 $1,108.9,64.00 $1.425.000.00 S 2,166,000.00 $1,349,400.00 Two Family Permits Number 0 3 2 1 5 3 Valuation $ 0.00 S 230,511.00 S 154,396.00 S 80,600.00 S 416,900.00 S 265,500.00 4 -unit Apartment Permits Number 0 4 4 0 1 0 Valuation S 0.00 S 521,509.00 S 445,100.00 5 0.00 S 173,900.00 S 0.00 6 -unit Townhouse Permits Number 1 0 0 0 2 0 Valuation $ 227,000.00 S 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 S 523,400.00 S 0.00 8 -unit Townhouse Permits Number 0 0 0 1 1 0 Valuation S 0.00 S 0.00 S 0.00 $ 280,000.00 S 408,200.00 $ 0.00 8 -unit Apartment Pormita Number 0 0 1 0 0 0 Valuation 5 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 251,000.00 S 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 12 -unit Apartment Permits Number 0 0 1 0 2 2 Valuation S 0.00 S 0.00 $ 350,000.00 S 0.00 S 460,000.00 S 416,400.00 18 -unit Apartment Permits Number 0 0 0 0 1 0 Valuation 5 0.00 $ 0.00 S 0.00 S 0.00 $ 735,900.00 S 0.00 24 -unit Apartment Permits Number 0 0 0 2 1 0 Valuation $ 0.00 $ 0.00 8 0.00 $1,627,800.00 $ 737.500.00 5 0.00 Commercial Permits Number 3 3 5 td 10 0 Valuation 6 902.000.00 S 604.500.00 $ 917,820.00 $1.813,000.00 3 3.804,500.00 0 0.00