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