Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 07-28-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 28, 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 July 14, 1986. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints. Old Business a. Consideration of Awarding the Sale of General Obligation Bonds for the Making of Improvements to Highway 25 and Improvements Appurtenant to the Construction of the Interceptor Sever. 5. Consideration of a Proposal to extend the Refuse Hauling Contract with Corrow Sanitation. 6. Consideration of Authorizing the Expenditure for the Making of Additional Improvements to the Softball Field Complex. New Business 7. Consideration of Approving a Request for Proposals for Computer Consulting Services. S. Consideration of Appointing Judges for the 1986 Primary and General Elections. 9. Consideration of Ratifying the Appointment of Marlys Erickson to the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 10. Consideration of Bills for the Month of July. 11. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 14, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: Arve Grimsmo 1. Call to Order. The regular meeting of the City Council was duly called to order by Acting Mayor, Fran Fair. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 23, 1986. Prior to proceeding with the agenda, Acting Mayor Fair turned the floor to Administrator Eidem. Administrator Eidem said he wished to take just a moment to introduce Barbara Jones, the newly appointed Administrator for the Sherburne/Wright Counties Cable Communications Commission. Eidem provided the Council with a brief background on Ms. Jones and indicated that the Cable Commission's offices would be Located in the Monticello City Hall. Acting Mayor Fair acknowledged Ms. Jones' presence and welcomed her to the City of Monticello, and wished her good luck as Cable Administrator. 3. Citizens Commente/Patitione, Requests and Comolainta. John Simola, Public Works Director for the City, presented a petition that had been submitted by Mr. Lucius Johnson. The petition requested the installation of storm sower to his property lying south of Sixth Street at the termination point of Linn Street. Simola indicated that the request was for storm sever connection to be installed as part of the interceptor sewer project. Simola reported that the estimated cost of the storm sewer connection would be approximately $4,500.00, and that 100% of said amount would be assessed to Mr. Johnson. Motion by Bill Fair, second by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to accept the petition of Mr. Lucius Johnson requesting an installation of storm sower with the expense for ouch installation to be assessed entirely to Mr. Johnson. 4. Public Hearing to Consider the Vacation of Property Line Easements within the Construction 5 Aedition. Acting Mayor Fair convened a public hearing to accept public comment on the proposed vacation of property line easements within Construction 5 Addition, said easements being 6 feat in width and adjoining the 01Q Council Minutes - 7/14/86 lot lines between Lots 1 6 2, Lots 2 6 3, Lots 3 6 4, and Lots 4 6 5. Administrator Eidem explained that the conditional use permit that was reviewed at an earlier meeting and granted for the development of 54 multiple housing units would require the location of buildings such that they would lie over the easements. Eiden indicated the perimeter easements would remain intact as would the main drainage easement to the west of Lot 1. Acting Mayor Fair requested public comment. Mr. Norm Ecklund, representing Northern States Power, asked if any utilities were currently in these easements. Administrator Eidem indicated there were not. There being no other questions from the public, the Acting Mayor closed the public hearing. Motion by Bill Fair, second by Dan Blonigen, and carried unanimously to vacate the easements described above with said vacation to be contingent upon the execution of an approved development agreement between Construction 5, Inc., and the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority ensuring that the development as proposed will occur. The recording and certification of said vacation of easements shall not occur until the proposed project has been included in the development agreement. If the project does not occur, then the easements shall remain intact. S. Consideration of Awarding Contract to the Lowest Responsible Bidder for the 1986 Seal Coating Project. Public works Director, John Simola, reviewed the bide received for the 1986 Seal Coating Project. The bids received and reviewed are as follows: City Sweeping Bid I Sq.Yd. Bid II Sq -Yd. 1. Batter Construction Co. $21,096.04 S.59 $18,736.14 5.524 P.O. Box 1025 St. Cloud, MN 56301 2. Allied Blacktop Co. $19,272.48 5.539 517,127.12 5.479 10503 89th Avenue N. Maple Grove, MN 55369 3. Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. S19,487.02 5.545 517,987.00 5.5030 Box 337 - Hwy. 55 west Buffalo. NN 55313 Simola noted the low bidder was Allied Blacktop Company from Maple Grove in the amount of 517,127.12 with the City doing all of the sweeping, and 319,272.48 with the contractor doing the sweeping. Simola noted that the annual budgeted amount for seal coating was $20,100.00. Simola also wished to point out that th0 unit price for 1986 seal costing showed an improvement over the 1985 0081 coating -2- O l Council Minutes — 7114!96 project. In 1985, the cost per square yard of seal coating was awarded at S.568, while the cost per square yard for the 1986 project is 6.539. Motion by Bill Fair, second by Jack Maxwell, and carried unanimously to award the 1986 Seal Coating Project to Allied Blacktop Company of Maple Grove, including the contractor sweeping option, in the amount of $19,272.48. 6. Consideration of a Recommendation from the Wastewater Treatment Plant Contracting Subcommittee to Commence Negotiations with PSG. The City Council briefly reviewed the executive summary supplied by Boling Consultants, who had assisted the City's subcommittee in the investigation of contract operations for the wastewater Treatment Plant. John Simola. Public Works Director, reviewed the process the committee had gone through and indicated that the committee's unanimous preference was to, indeed, contract operations at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and to negotiate such a contract with Professional Services Group (PSG). Mr. Simola introduced Mr. Mike Robbins, the Senior Vice President of PSG. Administrator Eidem noted that neither in the agenda supplement prepared by him, nor in the executive summary prepared by Haling Consultants, was the contract price indicated. He wished to note that PSG had bid the annual operations at a budgeted amount of $265,000.00 per year for three consecutive years. Eidem stressed that, while this amount appeared to be approximately $25,000.00 higher than the 1985 operating budget, the City's operating budget did not accurately reflect total related expense since many man hours out of engineering and administration were not charged to the department. Eldam also noted that the staff had documented the need for one additional staff member at the wastewater Treatment Plant and that the annual cost of such a staff member would very likely push City cost to approximately the same as the bid cost. Eidem noted lastly that the comparative figures wore between the 1986 budget and 1987, 1988, and 1989. Noting that even a 41 increase annually on the 1986 budget, would eventually cause the City to exceed the bid amount. Councilmomber Fair indicated that, having eat on the subcommittee, he had received a favorable impression of contract operation, the goals of contracting. and each of the firma interviewed. He noted that he had visited two plants in other locations that were under contract operations and had come away with an overall favorable impression: and he supports the recommandation of the subcommittee that the City contract Operations and attempt to negotiate said contract with PSG. Councilmomber Maxwell indicated his preference for pursuing the contract option so that the City could enter into contract operations for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Councilmember Blonigan indicated that he had spoke at length with Public Works Director Simole and felt satisfied that contracting operations was the most efficant manner for the City to proceed. Bionigan noted that while there Council Minutes - 7/14/86 is, at first appearance, a difference in the financial obligation of the City, he feels the merits of the contract of services far outway the difference: in money. He noted that he believed delivers of service and possible long range cost savings substantiated the need to continue with the contracting process. Motion by Blonigen, second by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to direct the Wastewater Treatment Plant contracting subcommittee to commence negotiations with PSG. 7. Consideration of Authorizing Negotiations for the Acquisition of the Northern States Rover Maintenance Suildincl. Acting Mayor fair recognized Administrator Eidem, ut.o explained that over the last several months there has been considerable discussion concerning the City •a acquisition of the Northern States Power service station/maintenance building located on west County Road 39 adjacent to the City of Monticello's Public works Department. Eidem explained that Councilmember Maxwell had Hone an appraisal of the building, but NSP had also had a formal appraisal prepared. He noted that to date, there had not been a formal making price for the Council to consider. At this point, Eidem introduced Norm Ecklund, Director of Area Relations for NSP. Mr. Ecklund informed the Council that NSP was, indeed, interested in selling the building, and they had O established an asking price of $89,500.00. Ecklund noted that if this price is found to be unsuitable to the City, Northern States Power is ready to begin negotiations. Maxwell noted that his appraisal was substantially lees than this amount, said appraisal reflecting an estimated value of $67,000.00. Council and staff considered it essential for representatives of the City and HSP to sit down together to review the two appraisals to find out if there were discrepancies in what was appraised. Motion by Bill Fair, seconded by DSonigen, and carried unanimously to appoint Jack Maxwell and Tom Eidem to a negotiating subcommittee to attempt to arrive at an agreeable sale price and report back to the Council. Bafore closing this agenda item, Dan Blonigan wished to note for Mr. Maxwell"s information that the building was reconstructed when NSP purchased it. He wished to note that soma adjustments had been made to the original plans, and that consequently the plans Mr. Maxwell had available to him might not reflect the actual conditions on site at this time. S. Consideration of G rantinq Approval for a Simple Subdivision - ADplicant, Mel Wolters. Mal Wolters appeared before the City Council to request final approval of a simple subdivision, creating two buildable lots, out of Lot i, Block t, in Doerr Estates. The request for the simple subdivision also Council Minutes - 7/14/86 contained a request for a variance to reduce the street frontage on one of the lots. Acting Mayor Fair noted for the Council that the Planning Commission had granted approval to this request. Mr. Wolters indicated that it was a fairly simple request to create one new building lot and that the variance request was included to allow access to the rear lot. Councilmember Blonigen indicated that, in his opinion, due to the extremely large size of the lot, perhaps the entire parcel should be replatted. Blonigen expressed some concern over the creation of two irregularly shaped lots and the granting of variances. He was concerned with establishing a precedent for approving lots with only 33 feet of frontage. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that the Planning Commission, at their meeting on July 8, 1986, raised the same question of precedent. Anderson noted that some discussion of the Doug Pitt subdivision which received approval contained lots with far lees frontage than Mr. Wolters, proposal. Administrator Eidem indicated to the Council that it was the Doug Pitt subdivision proposal that generated an amendment to the Zoning ordinance such that the street frontage of an irregularly shaped lot should contain a minimum width of 53 feet, said number being two-thirds (2/3) of the required minimum lot width at building setback line. Eidem noted that consequently, the Pitt subdivision could not be used as a precedent since the requirements of the ordinance had changed since approval of that subdivision. Eidem went on to say that the Council needed to be aware of the consequences of granting a variance where a hardship or finding of fact relating to the uniqueness of a lot mandated the granting of such a variance. Eidem indicated that land use planning law generally hold that the granting of variance without a finding of fact was essentially amending the ordinance and lessening the minimum requirements. He noted that for a governing body to arbitrarily grant variances that will allow development below the minimum standards essentially lowers those minimum standards without officially amending the ordinance. Eidam stressed that the finding of fact needed to be documented in order to justify the granting of the variance. Councilmomber Bill Pair defended the configuration indicating that the proposal exceeds all other requirements with respect to size and density, setbacks, etc. Councilmombor Maxwell also supported the lot split concept based on the fact of the substantial quantity of land availablo. Administrator Eidem indicated that the question, at this point, was not a question of design and density or configuration, but rather a question of process. Eidam indicated that in the absence of the finding of fact substantiating a hardship or a uniqueness to the parcel, any future request for a 33 -foot front lot would have to be legitimately considered. Acting Mayor Fair asked Mr. Wolters if he had considered any other design that might more adequately address the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Wolters indicated he had not really considered any other design. Mr. Wolters noted 'g- Council Minutes - 7/14/86 that there is a house in place, and that he wished to create the new building site without infringing or encroaching upon the existing structure. It was Ht. Wolters' contention that a different design configuration could encroach upon the existing structure and would lessen the rights to property enjoyment of that existing structure. Councilmember Bill Fair indicated that the parcel in question is, in fact, unique because it was designed and developed under a different set of requirements from the City's subdivision ordinance and was annexed as designed. He felt that the parcel deserves specific consideration. He indicated that he found no difficulty in finding that the parcel is, in fact, unique based on the design considerations under which it was developed. He noted that the proposal exceeds all other municipal requirements and that the variance would not be considered arbitrary. Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, read the following letter into the record: To the City Council: We desire the lot at Lot 2, Block A, remain single family dwelling zoned. We desire the lot at Lot 2, Block A, not be divided to contain (2) two single family dwellings. The statement was signed by Teresa Whitson, Lot 1, Block A, 1328 West River Street. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and carried unanimously to approve a Simple subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, in Doerr Estates, with one lot (Parcel I being granted a variance in minimum width of lot frontage from 53 feet to 33 feet. 9. Consideration of Awarding the Contract for the Sealinq of the Interior Beams and Decking for City Hall. Gary Anderson presented to the Council one bid for the resealing of the interior beams and docking of City Hall. Mr. Anderson noted that the exposed beams and decking vara becoming extremely dry and in some areas soma minor splitting of the laminate, was occurring. Mr. Anderson indicated that one bid for the work had been received, that bid being from Lindberg Painting and Wallcovering in the amount of 52,984.60 to be paid upon completion. Mr. Anderson further noted that that price had boon originally submitted in July of 1985, and that Mr. Lindberg had agreed to do the work In 1986 for the same price. Anderson also noted that Lindberg had proposed to do all work in City Hall in the evening hours and on weekends am as not to disrupt the operations in City Hall. Councilmomber Blonigan raised a question basad on the bid proposal submitted which did not address the docking. The written proposal submitted originally talked only of sealing the boama, and Mr. Blonigen felt that that needed to be clarified. Mr. Anderson assured the Council that the bid proposal included all docking and beams within City Hall for the one bid price. Motion by Fair, second by Blonigon, and carried unanimously to accept the proposal of Lindborg Painting and Wallcovering in the amount of $2,984.60 for the cleaning, sanding, sealing, and finishing of the City Hall coiling including beams and decking. Council Minutes - 7/14/86 10. Consideration of Aoproviny the Specifications for Refuse Hauling Contract and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids. The 3 -year contract for refuse hauling with Corrow Sanitation expires on August 1, 1966. The Council was presented with a revised contract and requested to approve the contract spec's and order an advertisement for bids. it was noted that prior to advertising for bids, the Council could attempt to renegotiate a contract with Corrow Sanitation as had been done three years earlier. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to the Council several pointe that Corrow Sanitation wished to have changed in the contract. Eidem explained that this was not the time to renegotiate the contract, but rather a time for the City to determine what the contract specifications that they would require would be. Councilmember Blonigen indicated that in his opinion it would be better to renegotiate rather than go to the bidding process. Public works Director, John Sioola, felt that there might be benefits to investigating the bidding process, since there might be a refuse hauler who would be willing to bid a substantially lower amount in order to gat established in the City of Monticello, much like Carrow had done six years earlier. Simola also suggested that an option for once a week refuse pick up be included in the specifications, whether bid or negotiated. Simola vent on to note that he recalled that Corrow received a substantial increase to cover the increased fuel prices of a few years back, but there had never been a decrease when fuel prices dropped. Eidem explained that what the Council should be considering is the level of service delivery that they wish to maintain and that the specifications should be adopted to address that issue. Upon adoption of those spec's, either bids could be taken or negotiations could commence in order to determine the cost of achieving that level of service. Eidem noted that the main issue at hand was to evaluate the specifications thereby setting the level of service to be provided, and then, and only then, could the process continue to determine the cost of that service delivery. Motion by Maxwell, second by Bili Fair, and carried unanimously to approve the specifications for refuse hauling and ordering staff to moot with Corrow Sanitation by tho next regularly scheduled Council meeting in an attempt to negotiate an extension of the existing service contract. Staff noted that Corrow Sanitation agreed to continua service delivery beyond the August i date under current contract prices in the event that a now contract had not boon executed by August 1. The Council noted that should negotiations with Corrow Sanitation be unfruitful, the City would advertise for bids for refuse hauling. 11. Consideration of Change Order Nos. 1, 2, and 3 for the Interceptor Sower prolact. Public works Director, John Simola, explained to the Council the substance of Change orders 1, 2, and 3 to the interceptor sewer project. Council Minutes - 7/14/86 Change Order No. 1 is to increase the length of submersible pump power cables to 50 feet, increase conduit size to 2 inches, set a power pole with Li -inch conduit, and to change the concrete base of the control panel in size for a total acount of 51,886.58. Simola explained that Change Order No. 2 was an addition to the interceptor sewer connected with the authorized installation of the water main in Chestnut Street. The work included the installation of additional 1 -inch corp. stops, 1 -inch curb stop and box, connections to existing curb stops, abandoning to existing corp stops, cutting in tees, and connecting to existing 6 -inch stub. Also included was the installation of one 4 -inch sanitary sewer service all for the total cost of $3,640.00. Change Order No. 3 involved changing the granular bedding material and to increase the quantity from 500 cubic yards to 800 cubic yards. Cost of Change Order No. 3 is $5,000.00. Motion by Blonigen, second by Bill Fair, and carried unanimously to approve Change Orders 1, 2, and 3 to the 1986 Interceptor Sewer Project. 12. In a non -agenda item, Zoning Administrator Anderson requested the Council to consider paying Fullerton Lumber, the general contractor on the Fire Hall construction, all but approximately 53,000-55,000.00 of the retainage currently held by the City. Anderson asked that the Council authorize the Fire Hall Building Committee to determine the appropriate retainage and grant final payment of the balance. Anderson noted that all but some minimal items had been completed. Anderson noted that due to the largo retainage of the City, Fullerton Lumber had not paid its local subcontractors who had completed their work. Blonigen noted that that was not a failure on the City's part but on the contractor's part, and the City should not be responsible for paying the subcontractors to cover the failure of the general contractor. Blonigen went on to say that he fait the entire retainago should be withhold based on the poor scheduling performance under the terms of the general contract. Blonigen noted that the schedule called for the building to be completed in February of 1986, and here it was mid-July and it still was as yet incomplete. It was noted that the fact that the City had not begun to aseose liquidated damages for non-compliance with the contract was concession enough. The rest of the Council agreed with Blonigen that if we are unable to got the contractor to complete the project while retaining in excess of $20,000.00, it would be vary unlikely that we could got successful completion if the City retained only $3,000.00. It was the consensus of the Council to withhold the entire retainage amount allowed under the contract to ensure final completion by the general contractor. 13. Thorn being no other buoinass, the mooting was adjourned. I Th mas A. Cidom City Administrator Council Agenda - 7/28/86 d. Consideration of Awarding the Sale of General Obligation Bonds for the Making of Improvements to Highway 25 and Improvements Appurtenant to the Construction of the Interceptor Sewer. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At 1:30 p.m. on Monday, July 28, 1986, I will be at Springsted's offices in St. Paul for the bid opening on the bond sale for the improvements of Trunk Highway 25 and the appurtenant improvements to the interceptor sewer. The bond sale is for $385,000.00 and is a general obligation bond issued under Minnesota Statute 429. This, of course, means that at least 20% of the overall project cost will be assessed to benefiting property owners. Again, our preliminary estimates indicate that there will be no difficulty in reaching that 20% threshold. At the meeting Monday night, a representative of Springsted may be present. At our last bond sale, if you'll recall. I was present for the bid opening and received all of the necessary documentation from Jerry Shannon at that time and made the presentation to the City Council. Depending on scheduling, Jerry Shannon or Ron Langness may attend our meeting; but as yet, their attendanco is not confirmed. An always, Springsted will submit a recommendation for the sale. Similarly. Springsted will prepare and present the formal resolution for adoption for the bond sale. This resolution will not be in its ` final form until after the bid opening, consequently it cannot be provided to you in advance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Since we have already authorized the work, entered contracts, and are under construction, the only real alternative is to sell the bonds so we have money to pay for the work. It is anticipated that the proceeds of the bond sale will arrive in the City treasury by August 28. No staff recommendation, nor supporting data for this item. .M. Council Agenda - 7/28/86 5. Consideration of a Proposal to Extend Refuse Hauling Contract with Corrov Sanitation. (R.w.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last Council meeting, staff was directed to meet with Corrov Sanitation representatives in an attempt to negotiate an extension of the existing garbage hauling contract. On Thursday afternoon, I met with Al and Kurt Corrov to discuss an extension of the present contract. In reviewing the proposed new agreement that would be used in either bidding or contract extension with Corrov. Corrov representatives did not feel there would be any problems with the proposed agreement as presented. Corrov Sanitation currently receives 56,125.50 per month. This amount includes all new homes, apartments, etc., that have been added since the last time the contract was renegotiated, and also includes the additional $1,080.00 per month increase that was granted last April because of an increase in their dumping charges at the Elk River landfill to cover state taxes imposed. Last May Corrov indicated the average monthly cubic yards hauled from the City was 720 and requested the additional $1,080.00 to cover their increased cost which worked out to 51.50 per yard. I believe the actual increase was approximately 5.20 per yard charged by the landfill, and an additional $1.00 per yard state tax, which appears at that time resulted in an additional 5.30 per yard profit. The proposal presented by Corrow for the now contract extension does not include an increase in the base fee, but they have requested that additional homes and apartment unite added each month be increased to $5.15 per home, and $2.50 per unit for apartment dwellings. Previously, we wore adding homes at $3.50 per month and apartments at 51.50 per unit. The only other rec.uoat made by Corrov was that the contract be subject to renegotiations should they incur landfill dumping increases or a tax increase for some reason or other. Currently, the agreement as approved at the last meeting has a paragraph that would allow for renegotiation should a special tax or processing fee be incurred that was not under their control. Since it appears Corrov is basically satisfied with the amount of the contract at the present time, the basic increase in the coat of garbage service for twice a weak pickup would be minimal over what the current cost is to the City, as the only increase anticipated would be for additional homes or apartment units added from now on. Ono of the reasons Corrov has not requested an increase in the basic contract price is probably because when they received last year their 51,080.00 per month increase, this was based on the fact they ware dumping their garbage at Elk River which had imposed the state tax; but since that time they have switched and are dumping moot of their garbage at the Yonak Landfill near Buffalo, which is currently charging 5.60 per yard less than Elk River. 8o basically, they were being paid the extra tax imposed by Elk River but wore able to save this money each month by going back to Yonak's landfill which was cheaper. Corrov also indicated that since April 1, 1986, they have experienced a S.40 per yard increase in the dumping charge at Yonak's but have -2- Council Agenda - 7/28/86 not requested the contract to be amended and felt these two items would cancel each other out. According to Corrow's, the City has increased its monthly cubic yards from 720 last year to approximately 850 yards per month this year, which is approximately an 18% increase. Since last year, the City has added approximately 10% more homes and apartment units, which seems to indicate that the amount of garbage per home or apartment unit is increasing. It was originally the staff's opinion that possibly the amount of garbage per month should be decreasing since the establishment of the leaf compost site and the stipulation that Corrow would no longer pick up leaves. In my discussions with Corrow, they have indicated that they believe the number of cubic yards is increasing primarily due to the extra amount of building materials they are picking up because of the new homes and apartment construction; and also they felt the apartment buildings are contributing a larger amount of garbage since more of the apartments are family orientated rather than elderly, etc. Under the current agreement, it would appear that the City is currently paying approximately $5.00 per unit for the 1,061 residential units, and $2.00 per unit for the 318 apartment units, plus $175.00 for six dumpaters located at various City parka and facilities. Using these estimates, the total price equals approximately $6,125.00 per month. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to approve a new proposal effective August 1 presented by Corrow, leaving the contract at the current bane price and adding additional homes at 55.15 each and apartment units at $2.50. 2. The second alternative would be to continuo negotiations with Corrow in an effort to either got the base price lowered or to reduce the amount that would be added each month for additional homes and apartment units. 3. The third alternative would be to still advertise for bide to sea if other refuse haulers would be interested. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the information Corrow presented last year regarding the number of yards being hauled versus the number of yards this year, questions were raised regarding the apparent increase in yardage compared to the number of increase in residences since last year. An a result, we have requested that Corrow supply dumping records which verify the tonago hauled each month. At the time this itom is being prepared, Corrow has not yet supplied the information, but it may be available by Monday evening. At this point, it would appear -3- Council Agenda - 7/28/86 that Corrow is willing to extend the contract for an additional three years at the current base price with their only increase being the additional chargee for adding new homes and apartments each month, which on the surface appears reasonable. The only questions unanswered are whether or not the base price at the present time is an accurate figure and may be alightly overstated since last year the $1,080.00 per month increase granted to Corrow was supposed to cover the additional landfill dumping costs which were based on the charges at Elk River, when, in fact, Corrow has since then been dumping at Yonak's, which was lower priced. On the other hand, the current price is approximately $5.00 per house and $2.00 per apartment unit, which is comparable to what other communities such as Buffalo are paying when Buffalo's fee is currently $5.45 per house. As a result, bidding may not really lower the City's cost when the City doesn't appear to be currently overpaying for twice a week pickup compared to Buffalo, which only has once a week pickup. The staff would like to have more time to review the dumping records and to negotiate further with Corrow, but if the Council is satisfied with the service and the price we are currently paying, the new proposal from Corrow would not result in much of an increase over the life of the contract. At the present time, Corrow was not ready to give me a price on only once a weak pickup, as they felt they would have to actually only pick up garbage once a week for about a month so they could determine what their coat savings might be. They initially didn't think the savings would amount to much since the same amount of garbage would have to be hauled and the same landfill cost would be incurred. In addition, they felt they would have to have additional trucks for that one day pickup in order to complete the job in one day. If the Council would like the staff to continue negotiations in an effort to reduce the current contract price, this item could be tabled until the next meeting. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Corrow's proposal. -4- M -i Corrow Trucking & Sanitation 15520 LAWNDALE LANE • DAYTON, MN 55327 • (612) 421.9638 PROPOSAL FOR NLV CONTRACT Effective 8-1-86 Additional Houses 8 $5.lEper House 14 Additional Apt. Units 8 $2.50 per Unit + Contract subject to change to Landfill increase or Tax increase • Average yards of Garbage per month in the City of Monticello - 850 yards. • Landfill increase April 1, 1986 - .40 per yd. L 0 Council Agenda - 7/28/86 6. Consideration of Authorizing the Expenditures for the Making of Additional Improvements to the Softball Field Complex. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In 1985, the City of Monticello received an LCMR Grant in the amount of $27,500.00 to aid in the construction of a 4 -field softball complex. The City matched this amount for the 1986 Budget in the LCMR Fund for a total of $55,000.00. This $55,000.00 is to be used for grant eligible items such as grading, field establishment, fencing and backstops, Class V for the parking lot, and miscellaneous landscaping and design. Certain portions of our project were not fundable through the LCtIR Grant program. Three items not fundable are needed this year. One Item is the sprinkler system at an estimated coat of $9,240.00. Another item is the water and sever services estimated at $11,000.00. The last item is a temporary service for a security light, booster pump power, and outlets for a portable concession stand. This temporary electrical service in estimated to cost $2,300.00. This brings the total to approximately $22,540.00 for these three items. The only item including outside paid for labor 1s the water and sever service. The other items we hope to install with volunteer and City labor. It was and is the otaff-s intention to utilize a portion of the $158,000.00 unallocated in the Capital Improvement Revolving Fund for 1986 to cover the unfunded project costa for 1986. Since the Council has already approved the project itself, this is really a formality allocating funds from the Capital Improvement Revolving Fund to the softball field project. Formal action, however, is needed to keep the fund balancea correct and to document the expenditures for a future LCMR Grant audit. It is expected that future improvements to the ballfields ouch as bleachers, etc., will be specific Capital Outlay items in the budget for 1987 and thereafter. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to allocate an amount estimated at $22,540.00 from the unallocated amount in the Capital Improvement Revolving Fund to the softball field project. 2. The second alternative would be not to allocated such funds. This does not appear to be practical, as it would put a halt to our project which was already approved by the City Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of Alternative 11. D. SUPPORTING DATA: LCMR Grant budget shoot; Capital Improvement Revolving Fund budget shoot. -5- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND 1986 BUDGET FUND NO. 24 REVENUE 1511 Current Ad Valorem 1601 Principal 6 Interest -Assessments 3582 Interest Income 4595 Transfer In From Liquor 4595 Transfer In From LCI9t TOTAL REVEME $146,750.00 2,450.00 6,800.00 0.00 0.00 5158,000.00 5158,000.00 EXPENDITURES Capital Outlay 7559 Improvement Other Than Buildings S 0.00 7561 Machinery and Vehicles 0.00 7563 Unallocated 158,000.00 $158,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $158,000.00 -90- D LCMR FUND 1986 FUND REVENUE 1511-100 Ad Valorem 2553-100 LOMR Grant TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES $27,500.00 27,500.00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 Capital Outlay 7259-100 Improvements Other Than Buildings $55,000.00 555,000.00 (softball fields) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $55,000.00 —57• Council Agenda - 7/28/86 7. Consideration of Approving and Issuing Requests for Proposals for Computer Consulting Services. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Since 1982, Rick and I, along with other members of City staff, have been assembling data and information relevant to data processing for the City. We have attended seminars, work shops, and vendors' home offices, we even had one vendor MCR) set up a computer in City Hall for an afternoon's demonstration procedure. We have assembled a file that is easily 3-4 inches thick with material. I think the most apparent observation to be made about all our efforts is that the total inundation of materials about data processing is quite overwhelming for the novice. The other readily apparent fact is that we at City Hall do not speak "computerese." Throughout our entire research and information collection process. Rick and I have dealt primarily with vendors and/or suppliers. As expected, the people we deal with are concerned with a sale. Consequently. we seem to receive all sorts of assurances that the system we're looking at at the time can perform all the functions we are interested in. All too often, however, it has been the case that when the vendor is pressed by Rick or me for definitive explanation of the information processing, we receive comments like, "well, we can't prepare that 10 report right now, but our research division is planning to add that to the package." Occasionally we will receive comments like, "Do you really think you need such a report?" It occurs to me that the sales people representing the vendors are all too often trying to "snow" us so that we will acquire the system as presented. I must admit that after three years of reviewing systems and collecting data about various ayatoma. I feel no more comfortable in making a major decision or recommendation for the City than at the beginning. I think it in safe to say that Rick and I are both substantially mcre informed about computora, but I'm not aura wore anymore comfortable. In my case, the more I have learned about data processing, the more I find out how little I know. It is for this reason that I am requesting the City Council to approve Requests for proposal* for consulting services to analyze our needs for a computer system. The RFP I am submitting to you is adapted from an RFP prepared by Inver Grove Heights. I have exercised great care in insisting on ataff and Council involvament throughout the entire process. The consulting portion of the project to broken into four separate steps, each of which requires its own and product so that staff and Council will be involved at every key decision point. I will insist on substantial participation with City staff throughout the assessment procoduro, and will notify Council members of our staff meetings so that you may attend if you wish. Those, of course, are intended primarily to be work and discovery sessions. They will be very "nuts and bolts" oriented. I sea the process of using this consultant as being similar to our construction of the Piro Hall and Wastewater Treatment Plant. .6. Council Agenda - 7/28/86 we do not keep an architect nor an engineer on staff, so consequently we go outside the City to hire an expert. we do not have a computer expert on staff and thus, I believe we need to go outside to hire that expert. Similarly, the expert must work closely with the City so that the end product is what we want and not what they believe we should have. This would be virtually identical to the Fire Hall Building Subcommittee. The only difference is rather than the consultant working with the subcommittee, I believe we should require the consultant to work with the people who actually perform the day to day tasks so that there is an in-depth understanding by both the consultant of what the City desires and by the City on what a computer can provide for us. In the 1983 Municipal Budget, the City Council authorized an appropriation of 549,000.00 of Revenue Sharing funds to be dedicated toward computer acquisition. These funds have not been used for other purposes and have been accruing some interest through investment. I wish to note that these funds were not allocated based on a specific estimate of a system, but rather as a lump a= to begin a capital expenditure fund for computerization. Total expenditures could be substantially loss if a service bureau turns out to be our most viable option or substantially more if a stand alone system is projected as the most effective for the City. To me, the other significant factor about computerization is dolivery of service. I do not anticipate the City to reduce its working force at all. Rather, I believe we can increase productivity and efficiency with the existing staff. A brief example: Karon and Marlene have spent a good share of one entire work week completing budget worksheats by hand. These worksheets will then be passed to City staff who will spend approximately 40-60 additional hours manually completing the forms for review. Once completed and preliminarily approved. Karen must typo the entire document into the budget format that is presented to the Council. If the preliminary budget is amended or rovicod (and it usually is), then now typing is required to prepare the final document. with all of the financial data already in a data base, the workshoots could be generated in loss than one afternoon by one parson. Based on my conversation with Karen, the final budget document (excluding photocopying and binding) could be prepared in one afternoon. This is only one example of how City operations could bocomo drastically more efficient. City business is largely seasonal, and the work loads have peaks and valleys. There are periods during each year when I wrestle with tho notion of adding an additional clerical staff person. During tho slack periods, we take on the challongas of sorting files, revising systoms, and recoding documents, etc. Part of the difficulty in this rush period/slow period system is that we may be in the middle of a particular project during a slow period when business of an urgent nature comes to the forefront, and the other project must be abandonod in mid -stream. I visualise computerization as providing the key method for eliminating the peaks and valleys and providing 0 -7- Council Agenda - 7/28/86 far more accountable service delivery. As you well know, a sound decision, whether it be by City staff or City Council, relies primarily on accurate, current information. We are, after all, an information society. It is my contention that better information provides for better decision making. My goal is, and always has been, to make the best and fairest dec lsiona possible. It is for the above reasons that I do not believe we can postpone the thought of automation any longer. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the RPP as presented and authorize transmittal to potential consultants. 2. Revise the RFP to address areas of concern, and then authorize transmittal to various consultants. 3. Do not authorize the issuance of an RFP, but direct staff to pursue further computer acquisition. 4. Abandon the concept of computerization. C. STAFF RECOMMMATION : staff recommends that the RFP as presented be approved and their dissemination be ordered. RFP's, unlike specific pians and specifications, need to be somewhat flexible and open-ended. While I have attempted to define the absolute minimum requirements and expectations of the City, I have attempted " leave the AFP open enough to provide each consultant with the lat 1tudo to work within their professional knowledge. If they are considered the oxperts in the field, it seems foolish for me to try and define the scope of their work for them. D. SUPPOPTINO DATA: Copy of the entire RPP packet that will be oubmittod to consultants. .a- cily 4 / --tiA1- Once of cna vnona: (6t 21295-2711 Gay Aamimsvalm mevo 16121 3335739 Dear Prospective Consultant: The City of Monticello, Minnesota, is seeking the services of an independent consultant to assist in the evaluation of and possible conversion to automated information systems. City staff has performed substantial investigation into data processing, but due to time constraints and other job obligations, the information assembled has not been coordinated nor assimilated for decision making. It is the position of the City of Monticello that a specialized consultant can better provide the evaluation services deemed essential to an informed City Council decision. Enclosed is a copy of the City's Request for Proposals for consulting services. Please submit your proposal in a separate sealed envelope marked "Proposal for Computer Consulting" no later than throe o'clock (3:00) p.m., Thursday, August 7, 1986. Your sealed proposal may be included in a packet which contains any additional information you wish to provide which might aide the City in making its selection. Your previous experience with municipalities is considered essential. The proposals will be reviewed, screened, and presented to the City Council on August 11, 1986. (Tentative) Interviews with the top candidates will be conducted mid to late August. Upon selecting a consultant, we anticipate approximately two weeks to finalize and execute a contract for services. we anticipate the job to begin no later than September 15, 1986. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require additional information. Very truly yours, Thomas A. Eidom City Administrator TAE/kd Enclosure cc: Pile 250 East Broadway a Monticello. MN 55362.9245 PROPOSAL FOR COMPUTER CONSULTING SERVICES CITY OF MONTICELLO 1986 NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE : CONTACT PERSON: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PHASE / A) DEFINE REQUIREMENTS $ B) INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS $ 0 TOTAL PHASE 1 $ PHASE // A) DEVELOP RFP $ B) CONTRACT 8 IMPLEMENT $ TOTAL PHASE 11 $ TOTAL CONSULTING SERVICES $ 1certify that has/have no affiliation sith, either direct or indirect, nor business interest in any vendor, supplier, service bureau, or contractor which may, as s result of the consulting services provided to the City of Monticello. Minnesota, be selected for the automation of the City of Monticello. Signature Date PHASE IA - DEFINE REQUIREMENTS ESTIMATED DATE OF COMPLETION COST S (PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF HOW YOU WILL FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PHASE IA, INCLUDING A PROJECTED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES.) PHASE IB - DETERMINE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND COST ANALYSIS ESTIMATED DATE OF COMPLETION COST $ (PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF HOW YOU WILL FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PHASE IB, INCLUDING A PROJECTED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES.) PHASE IIA - DEVELOP. ISSUE AND EVALUATE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS ESTIMATED DATE OF COMPLETION COST E (PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF HOW YOU WILL FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PHASE IIA, INCLUDING A PROJECTED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES.) PHASE IIB - CONTRACTING AND IMPLEMENTING ESTIMATED DATE OF COMPLETION COST $ (PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF HOW YOU WILL FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PHASE IIB, INCLUDING A PROJECTED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES.) CITY OF MONTICELLO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES IN EVALUATING THE FEASIBILITY OF AUTOMATING INFORMATION AND ACCOUNTING FUNCTIONS The City of Monticello is seeking proposals from qualified persons/firma to assist in the evaluation of the need and benefit of automating the City's information and accounting functions. Included in this evaluation shall be 1) a determination of Whether or not automation is both desirable and beneficial, 2) a definition and recommendation of the most feasible alternative of automation, 3) assistance in the selection of a system/vendor/service bureau based upon the definition of the most feasible alternative, and 4) implementation of the selected system. CURRENT SITUATION The City of Monticello currently receives data processing services for a monthly fee through a service bureau typo arrangement. City staff prepares all data used by the service bureau such as copies of receipts, general check disbursements, and payroll information, Which are coded in accordance with the recommended State Auditor's Chart of Accounts. The information is normally compiled and delivered to the computer service by the 10th of the following month and returned to the City within approximately five days after delivery. The City currently receives the following items each month. 1. Cash and investment summary totals. 2. Cash receipts journal. 3. General cash disbursements journal. 4. Payroll disbursements journal. 5. Individual fund general ledgers. 6. Adjusting entries journal. 7. Payroll journals. S. Revenue and expense statements by fund and departments, including current monthly expenditures, year -to -data expenditures comparisons to annual budget, etc. Upon request, the City can also obtain monthly trial balances by fund and year -to -data or year-end balance shoots and revenue and expenditure summaries by funds as needed. In addition, individual fund general lodgers can be requested on a year-to-date basis, which includes all entries by account number to date. Payroll services are performed manually. Paychecks are issued every other Wednesday to one group of employees and on the 15th and 30th to another 3G group of employees. All payroll associated reports are prepared manually and submitted according to agency required schedules. Payroll associated benefits such as vacation, sick leave, etc., are recorded manually. The City bills only for sewer and water. This is done manually on a quarterly basis. Residential water usage is metered and billed accordingly. Residential sewer rates are established annually and are based upon the first quarters water usage. For the final three quarters, the sewer rate is fixed. Depending on the size of a particular public improvement, special assessments are computed either in house on a calculator or by the City's consulting engineer using their computer system. The annual budget is a line item budget prepared manually. The City has no word processing capabilities. Inventory records. including the Municipal Liquor Store, are kept manually. The Liquor Store operates two NCR Model #1020 cash registers. It is the City's understanding that these can be adapted to interface with an automated system. Real property valuation and assessment records are kept on index cards. Tax rolls are prepared by the Wright County Auditor. The City contracts for law enforcement services; needs in this area are limited. The City maintains a 25 member + Volunteer Fire Department. No spacial computer needs to date. The City operates a Deputy Registrar service for the State of Minnesota -s Department of Motor Vehicle Registration and Department of Natural Resources. This department conducted over 17,000 transactions for which daily reports are required. These are prepared manually. 08JEcriVE The City of Monticello wishes to engage a consultant to assess and evaluate the need for and method of automation. The major objective of the City is to increase efficiency, coat control, service delivery, and accountability. The primary objective is in the area of automating accounting/financo/budget functions and initiating word processing. To satisfy this objective, the City porceives the process as being divided into two phases, each phase being subdivided into two secondary objectives, to wit: PHASE I A) DEFINE CITY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS. D) DETERMINE MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD OF MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS; SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVES AND COST ANALYSIS. -2- PHASE 11 A) ISSUE RFP ADDRESSING MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD. EVALUATE RFP's. B) CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION. APPROACH AND SCOPE The process is divided into phases and secondary objectives in order to ensure active City participation at key decision points. Each subsection shall have its own definitive end product (report, recommendations, etc.). Each and product shall contain a recommendation on whether or not to continue with the process in sequence. The City Council shall always be the ultimate authority on decisions to proceed. City Management and staff shall be closely involved in all phases of the process. Assisting City personnel in becoming familiar with the specialized vocabulary and functions of automation shall be considered essential. PHASE IA - DEFINE REQUIREMENTS The objective of this step is frequently called a "needs assessment." The consultant shall document the Current and future data processing requirements. Documentation should include flow charts, narratives and projections of currant systems and future volumes. The consultant shall observe production and use of information and shall offer ideas and/or suggestion* relative to now ways of preparing and/or utilising information. Extensive City staff participation shall be required during this step. The consultant shall assist staff in understanding computer concepts, appropriate and inappropriate uses of computers. the role of the computer and the user, and other information deemed necessary to facilitate staff suggestions on how the computer might improve their operations. The consultant may conduct group or individual work sessions. The functions to be assessed in this stop shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: • Fund Accounting Revenue and Expenditure Statements by Department Payroll • Utility Billing Budgetting Word Processing • Inventory/Fixed Assets Job and Equipment Coating • Special Assessments Liquor Operations Deputy Registrar • Other functions integral to the above areas. -3- The end product of this step shall be a document describing the City -s immediate and future information requirements and recommendations on whether or not to proceed with the computer search. At least one review session will be conducted with City Management, and one presentation to the City Council is required. PHASE IB - DETERMINE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND COST ANALYSIS The objective of this step is to identify the various alternatives for satisfying the data processing requirements delineated in Phase IA. The consultant will be expected to address all conceivable alternatives ranging from a single in house system which processes all functions, stand alone systems for specific uses, service bureaus, and any combination. Other alternatives that may be developed should also be presented. For each alternative that is determined to perform the required functions, cost estimates of acquisition and implementation shall be prepared for staff review. The balance of activities in this step will be to present coat vs. benefit analyses for each alternative. Sample reports should be submitted for comparisons. The consultant shall identify direct and indirect costa associated with each alternative. Projections of on-going budgetary allowances shall be required since data processing is not considered a one-time expense. The and product of thin step shall be a report covering the relative feasibility of each alternative identified as fulfilling the needs stated in Phase IA. The report shall include a ranking of the alternatives, a recommendation Of the most effective course of action, and justification for that recommendation. PHASE II ACTIVITIES ARE TOTALLY CONTINGENT UPON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CF PHASE I PHASE IIA - DEVELOP, ISSUE AND EVALUATE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS Based upon the assumption that the findings and conclusions developed in Phase I demonstrate a need for automation, the consultant shall coordinate and assist in the search for and selection of a vendor or such other service provider which may have been agreed upon under Phase I. At a minimum the vendor shall: • Identify potential vendors/services • Prepare a detailed Request for Proposals • Evaluate proposals (including documenting prior performance) • Prepare a detailed comparative analysis of all proposals submitted • Prepare an Executive Summary of the analysis required in the preceding item • Recommend the three beat proposals for more extensive consideration • Assist the City in the final review and interview process • Prepare an analysis of the City's immediate and long range financial commitments • Assist the City in the final selection • Evaluate preliminary contract for subsequent negotiation In the event that a service bureau in clearly the preferred method of automating, the preceding activities Shall be adapted accordingly. The and product of this stop shall be a report that contains the RPP as it was distributed, the comparative analysis, the executive summary, the financial analysis, a ranking of the top three proposals, and the conaultant's recommendation with justification. This report shall be presented at in-depth meetings with City staff, and one presentation at a City Council meeting. PHASE IIB - CONTRACTING AND IMPLEMENTING Upon selection of a system, the consultant shall initiate, coordinate, and facilitate contract negotiations between the City and the vendor/service. In the unfortunate event that contract negotiations with the City's firat choice prove unfruitful, negotiations shall begin with the City's second choice. Upon execution of a contract document, the consultant shall oversee and coordinate the implementation. The consultant shall monitor the supplier's compliance with the terms of the contract so that the City will achieve the maximum benefit identified in the earlier phases. This phase includes, but in not necessarily limited to, the following: -5- • Negotiating a final contract • Finalizing a detailed implementation plan • Establishing a project implementation checklist outlining the obligations of all parties • Attending statue review meetings with staff • Reviewing all major documents for content and quality, including system documentation Monitoring system test results • Facilitating problem solutions • Monitoring and interpreting contract compliance • Preparing a summary of significant contract provisions such as O S M responsibilities, warranty provisions, back-up assistance provisions, financial obligations, etc. • Reviewing the 0 6 M Manual that will be roquired to be prepared by supplier The consultant shall not be responsible for programming, system design, nor specific installation tasks. The consultant shall monitor these activities to ensure the City'a receipt of services as defined, offered, and accepted. For a period of one calendar year beginning with the City's final acceptance and start-up of the system, the consultant shall be available on an as -needed basis to help resolve any contract disputes which may arise or which may have been overlooked during the negotiation stage. -6- PROPOSALS Consultants submitting proposals to the City of Monticello shall have no affiliations, either direct or indirect, with a specific system, vendor, supplier, service bureau, etc., and shall so state. Modifying the terms of this Request for Proposals shall be considered cause for rejecting the proposal. All forms attached shall be completed in order to receive information explaining your process, credentials, and the like. Questions concerning the content of this RFP may be directed only to either Tom Eidem, City Administrator, or Rick Wolfateller, Assistant Administrator/ Finance Director, at (612) 295-2711 or 333-5739 (metro). Inquiries and/or review of current City operations and documents may be arranged by appointment with City Hall. Any lobbying or attempts to influence the decision making process through any form of contact with City elected and appointed officials is strictly prohibited and shall be deemed just cause for rejecting a proposal. The City retains the full and unrestricted right to reject any and/or all proposals. -7- Council Agenda - 7/28/86 S. Consideration of Appointing Judges for the 1986 Primary and General Elections. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This year is an election year. The Primary Election will be held on Tuesday, September 9, and the General Election will be held on Tuesday. November 4. Because of our meeting schedule, and the statutorily imposed deadlines for action, it is necessary to appoint this year's election judges at this meeting. I am submitting a list of names of people who have served as election judges before and are willing to serve again. I have notified each of them that there is a possibility that they will be appointed and trained, but may not have to serve at a specific election. 1984 was the first year we used the punch card voting system. I anticipate the 1986 election to run even smoother. That being the case, I believe we can get by with a few leas judges. I simply haven't made the final staffing decision as yet. All that is needed at this time is a simple motion appointing the following people as election judges. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: We must gat our judges appointed at this meeting, so unless you wish to edit the list, there really is no alternative action other than to make the appointments. There is no staff recommendation. D. curr'ORTINC DATA: List of the individuals to be appointed as election judges. -9- ELECTION JUDGES Marvel Trunnell Joanne Link Jeanette Host Yvonne Smith Ruth Harstad Lucille Clausen Joanne Becker Don Nagel Leona Kline Marie Toenjen Bette Grossnickle Fern Anderson Betty Lund Rita Soltau Florence Mayer Anne Fair n Council Agenda - 7/28/86 9. Consideration of Ratifying the Appointment of Marlys Erickson to the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The HRA, having accepted Gary Wieber's resignation Setter of February 12, 1986, thereby approved the nomination of Marlys Erickson to fill the said vacancy, expiration date of said term being December, 1987. The HRA approved the nomination on July 16, 1986. Ken Maus motioned to appoint Marlys Erickson to the HRA, Ben Smith seconded the motion, and passed 3-0. Marlys Erickson is a partner of Moon Motors Sales, Inc., a resident of Monticello, and agrees to accept the HRA membership. The HRA hereby submits the name of Marlys Erickson for appointment by the City Mayor and for ratification by the City Council in compliance with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Bylaws. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. To ratify the appointment of Marlys Erickson to the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 2. To deny ratification of the appointment of Marlys Erickson to the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority. y C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 The staff recommends that the Mayor and the City Council ratify the appointment of Marlys Erickson to the Monticallo Housing and Redevelopment Authority, No. Erickson accepting and meeting the Qualifications of the HRA Bylaws. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Minutes of the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority, July 16, 1906. -10- MINUTES MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, July 16, 1986 - 7:OOAM Monticello City Hall Members Present: Acting Chairperson Bud Schrupp, Ken Maus, and Ben Smith. Others Present: Marlys Erickson. 1. Call to Order. Acting Chairperson Bud Schrupp called the HRA meeting to order at 7:22AM. 2. Approval of the Mav 1. 1986 HRA Minutes. Ben Smith so moved to approve the May HRA minutes, seconded by Ken Maus, and passed 3-0. 3. Consideration to Appoint a New HRA Member. Ken Maus moved to appoint Marlys Erickson for HRA membership, thereafter, submitting said name for appoint- ment by the City Mayor and for ratification by the City Council, July 28, 1986. Expiration date of said term being December, 1987. Motion seconded by Ban Smith and passed 3-0. 4. Consideration to AQprove the Certificate of Cnmplption for Tax Increment District d4. A motion was made by Ken Maus to authorize the Certificate of Completion for Tax Increment District 04 to Ron and Dee Johnson. The developer having completed all construct- ion requirements of the Tax Increment Construction Plan. Seconded by Ben Smith and passed 3-0. It was a concensus of the HRA to have Tom Eidem, City Administrator or Robert Deike, Holmes and Cravens, to vrite an inform- ation letter regarding the Tax Increment Guarantee to Ron and Dee Johnson. 5. Reports. Accepted as written. 6. Other Business. Ben Smith inquired of FSI expansion plans to Big Lake. The main reason given by FSI for their Big Lake ex- pansion is rail access. Also, Big Lake's aggressive development to increase the City's tax base is enhanced through City incentives. (7 GENERAL FUND -- JULY DISBURSEMENTS AMOUNT CHECK N0. Dept. of Natural Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 146.00 22623 Dept. of Natural Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 22624 Unitof Rental Services - Uniform rental 202.20 22625 Tom Eidem - Travel expense 134.61 22626 Arve Grimsmo - Reimb. for travel expense to conference 99.51 22627 United Methodist Church - Reimb. for return of sign 25.00 22628 Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase 250,000.00 22629 Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchases 200,000.00 22630 Bill Fair - Travel expense 169.71 22631 MN. Planning Assoc. - Membership dues 50.00 22632 Dept. of Employee Relations - Medicare ded. - summer help 40.58 22633 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded. 204.00 22634 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 50.04 22635 ICMA Retirement Corp. - Employee tont. 74.67 22636 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at library 206.25 22637 Beverly Johnson - Animal control contract 250.00 22638 Dept. of Not. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 276.00 22639 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 18.00 22640 Thomas Eldem - Travel expense 30.53 22641 Hawkins Chemical - Chlorine for WWTP 507.70 22642 Wright County Recorder - Recording fees 22.50 22643 State MN. Municipal Board - Annexation filing fee 200.00 22644 Sean Hancock - Contract services at WWTP 1,180.00 22645 State Treasurer - Ins. premiums 18.00 22646 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,522.94 22647 Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 2,886.04 22648 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT 2,249.00 22649 Wright County State Bank - FWT 2,506.00 22650 Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 22651 Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 22652 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 22653 William Fair - Council salary 125.00 22654 Jack Maxwell - Council salary 125.00 22655 James Preusse - Cleaning city hall 337.50 22656 YMCA of Mp1s. - Monthly contract payment 529.17 22657 First National Bank of Mpls. - C. D. purchase 15,000.00 22658 Wilma Hayes - Inf. Center salary 119.25 22659 Janette Leeresen - Inf. Center salary 90.00 22660 VOID -0- 22661 Dept. of Natural Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 18.00 22662 Dept. of Natural Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 4.00 22663 Dept. of Natural Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 224.00 22664 State Agency Rev. Fund - Pro-rata share of Soc. Sec. coverage 38.15 22665 State Treasurer - State Building surcharge 2,122.79 22666 Doug Spevacek - Repair typewriter 34.75 22667 Northern States Power - Utilities 10,191.61 22668 North Central Public Service - Utilities 1,133.37 22669 Wright County State Bank - Investments 99,000.00 22670 Helen Wulf - Tree replacement costs 10.00 22671 Veit 6 Co. - Payment #3 - 6th St. project 19,967.00 22672 Dept. of Natural Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 195.00 22673 Dept. of Natural Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 72.00 22674 Dept. of Natural Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 22675 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone charges 1,014.41 22676 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial service■ 206.25 22677 Thomas Eldem - Car allowance for July 300.00 22678 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 50.04 22679 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Dept.of Employee Relations - Medicare W/H 43.08 22680 ICMA Retirement Corp. - Employee W/H 74.67 22681 Sean Hancock - Contract services 970.00 22682 L 6 G Rehbein, Inc. - 86-1 Inter. sewer project payment 232,233.54 22683 Wright County State Bank - FWT 2,728.00 22684 Dave Stromberg - Animal contract payment 307.50 22685 Don Rush - Painting street poles 850.00 22686 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,804.29 22687 Dept. of Empl. Relations - FICA W/H 3,373.82 22688 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone expense 27.00 22689 Janette Leerssen - Inf. Center salary 63.00 22690 Wilma Hayes - Inf. Center salary 42.75 22691 St. Cloud Fire Equip. - Service on fire extinguishers 66.50 22692 Moon Motors - Mower and parts 1,818.98 22693 Bethke Co. - Pipe for WWTP 306.70 22694 Quest Transfer Co. - Freight charges 32.30 22695 Rockmount Research 6 Alloys - Tartan and polaris seal pack 224.59 22696 Culligan of Buffalo - Water softener - WWTP 66.00 22697 Ranger Products - WW`TP supplies 193.25 22698 State Tress. - Surplus Property Fund - Desk, lite fix. etc. 95.65 22699 Unitog Rental - Uniform rental 160.80 22700 Maus Tire Service - Tire repairs 30.00 22701 Coast to Coast - Sprinklers, hose, stain, etc. 480.35 22702 Braun Eng. - 86-1 Sewer Proj. inspections, compactions, etc. 3.702.80 22703 Leak Location Consultants - Sewer leak detection expense 1.929.67 22704 Seitz Servicestar - Locks, cement, paint, etc. 392.48 22705 John Henry Foster MN. - Filter - WWTP 78.14 22706 Harry's Auto Supply - Torch, filters, belt, etc. 94.80 22707 MN. Dept. of Health - Water analysis fee 299.27 22708 Daly, Bohling 8 O'Connor - Union neg. legal fees 455.00 22709 Water Products Co. - Meters, valves, etc. 1,080.31 22710 Dahlgren, 6 Uban - Comp. plan review expenses 337.50 22711 Du -Al Mfg. - Parte - St. Dept. 302.15 22712 Mrs. Ida Pierson - Well expenses 11.23 22713 Phillips Petro. - Gas - Water 6 WWTP 79.47 22714 AT 6 T Inf. Systems - Fire phone charges 3.96 22715 Biff's, Inc. - Latrine rental - ball fields 85.50 22716 Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control expense 10.00 22717 Banker's Life Ins. -Group Ins. 4,259.69 22718 Maus Foods - Supplies for all depta. 149.58 22719 Automatic Garage Door - Repairs at Mtce. Bldg. 16.50 22720 Harbor Freight Salvage - Foldable utility trailer 200.94 22721 Power Process Equip. - Rust remover - WWTP 299.23 22722 Great River Regional Library - 2 book trucks 1.042.43 22723 Adams Pest Control - Library peat control 2.30 22724 Broadway Rental - Drill and bits for WWTP 289.00 22725 The Plumbery - Material for WWTP 88.02 22726 Cordon Link - Gas 333.45 22727 Centra Sots Coop. - Shovel and boots - WWTP 25.14 22728 Roco Rescue, Inc. - Rescue harness for Fire Dept. 90.37 22729 Simonson Lumber - WWTP materials 544.53 22730 Hayden Murphy - Asphalt cutter 91.67 22731 Monticello Timaa - Misc. publishing and printing 769.39 22732 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 130.30 22733 Blumberg Communications - Wall track system - Fire Dept. 435.65 22734 Golden Valley Furniture - Clock for Fire Dept. 20.00 22735 -2- i GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Davis Electronics - Pager repair - Fire Dept. 124.00 22736 Wright County Auditor - Police contract payment 10,357.50 22737 Ziegler, Inc. - Starter motor 230.16 22738 Martie's Farm Service - 20 fence posts 53.00 22739 Meridian Aggregates - Gravel 24.89 22740 Griefnow Sheet Metal - Pipe 29.30 22741 Hoglund Bus - Handle 6.54 22742 National Bushing - Parts - battery, carb. kit, etc. 97.23 22743 Central McGowan - Gas 22.62 22744 Control Data Business Adv. - Consulting fees 60.00 22745 Monticello TV Hardware - Supplies 8.63 22746 Earl F. Andersen - Signs 293.60 22747 Robert Timm - Pilot services to Iowa 125.00 22748 Howard Flying Service - Trip to Spencer, Iowa 460.00 22749 Big Lake Equip. - Blades 35.46 22750 Safety-Kleen Corp. - Equip. mtce. 38.00 22751 National Life :ns. - Ins. premium - T. Eidem 100.00 22752 Local 949 - Union dues 147.00 22753 Marco Business Products - Paper and office supplies 177.90 22754 Orkin Pest Control - WWTP pest control 115.00 22755 Thomas Salkowski - OAA Board meeting salary 125.00 22756 Mr. LeRoy Engstrom - OAA board meetings 110.40 22757 Arve Grimsmo - OAA board expense 90.00 22758 Franklin Denn - OAA board expense 90.00 22759 Paul McAlpine - OAA board expense 42.60 22760 Marjorie Goetxke - OAA board expense 143.75 22761 Smith, Pringle 6 Hayes. - Legal services 1,617.00 22762 Snyder Drug - Film for Fire Dept. 8.36 22763 Monticello Printing - S(W postals. envelopes 263.85 22764 Norwest Bank Mpls. - Misc. bond payments 130,225.20 22765 American National Bank 6 Trust - 85 G. 0. Bond 18.583.26 22766 First Trust Co. - 84 Tax Increment, Fire Hall, G. 0. bonds 46,850.00 22767 Marquette Bank Mpls. - 71 Water revenue bonds - interest 380.00 22768 First Bank Mple. - 75 6 83 Bonds 50,831.25 22769 First Bank St. Paul - 78 G. 0. Bond - Interest 9,543.75 22770 Walters Cabinet Shop - City Hall repairs 193.10 22771 VOID -0- 22772 VOID -0- 22773 Schleunder Plumbing - Digging on Elm St. 150.00 22774 Viking Pipe Services - Television insp. of sewers 2,459.52 22775 DC Battery Products - 2 Globe cell batteries 40.48 22776 Griefnow Sheet Metal - Repairs to hook up hose washer - Fir< 239.00 22777 Medical Oxygen 6 Equip. - Resusitator 6 life supporter - 752.60 22778 MN, Fire 6 Safety - Hose 6 couplings - Fire Dept. 170.28 22779 Maus Foods - Materials for Fire Dept. 5.06 22780 Soidenkranz Welding - Repairs at WWTP 10.00 22781 Dist. 6742 Comm. Schools - Employer's share of summer help 105.00 22782 Buffalo Bituminous - Gravel 2.237.00 22783 Dept, of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg, fees 62.00 22784 Branteson Const. - New sewer service at Bank, ♦ mist. 4,754.00 22785 Monticello Fire Dept. - Salaries 1,031.00 22786 Gruys, Johnson - Audit fee (9,975.00) 6 computer fees 8,915.00 22787 Zap, Mfg. - Brush - WWTp 116.65 22788 MN, Clerk's 6 Fin. Assoc. - Membership dues 15.00 22789 MN. Dept. of Economic Security - Unemployment benefits 119.00 22790 Midway Ind. Supply - Seals for paint stripppor 7.17 22791 Mobil Oil Corp. - Cas Fire Dept. 89.32 22792 -,A- GENERAL FUND AMOUNT Palmer Chemical b Equip. - Supplies for animal control 72.58 Commissioner of revenue - Water sales tax - 2nd Qtr. - 86 227.28 Monticello Deputy Re G. #2 - Reg. l ton truck 25.25 Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 76.00 Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 54.00 Lindberg Decorating Center - Sealing for new Fire Hall 2,279.00 Waldor Pump - Pump repair at WWTP 35.32 Central Eyewear - Glasses fir Mtce. employees 293.90 Feedrite Controls - Chlorine and well inspection 1,715.03 Northern States Power - 2 street lights at #25 6 #75 300.00 OSM - Misc. eng, fees 36,572.94 North Star Waterworks Products - Hydrant, curb box, etc. 2,487.86 Water Products - Meters and wire 2,410.22 MN. Fire 6 Safety - Recouple hoses - Fire Dept. 34.95 Little Mountain Electric- Electrical work at City Hall 74.68 Layne MN. Co. - Test wells at Reservoir 12.658.34 Karen Doty - Misc. mileage 13.75 Century Laboratories - Weed killer 813.97 Taylor Land Surveyors - Surveying for the City 70.00 Commissioner of Transportation - Hwy. 25 construction costs 51,470.83 Al b Julie Nelson - Sub. 13,72 Gary Anderson - Misc. mileage 119.05 Tom Eidem - Misc. expenses - meetings 38.79 Holmes 6 Graven - Bond fee 6 professional services 2,076.50 Rick Wolfsteller - Misc. mileage b League Conf. expense 201.52 L 6 S Tool Design - Sharpen blades for chipper 50.00 Jim Ennis Cabinets - Moulding for new Fire Hall 237.60 VOID -0- Quest Transfer - Return of 5 gal. pails of chemicals - Frt. 157.35 MN. Rural Assoc. - Membership fees 100.00 Payroll for Jure 29.699.52 TOTAL GENERAL FUND DISBURSEMENTS FOR JULY $1.315,414.19 LIQUOR FUND -- JULY DISBURSEMENTS AMOUNT CF-rCK NO. Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - est. - June 4,476.30 12484 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - May 8,952.50 12485 Quality Wine 6 Spirits - Liquor 655.04 12486 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 425.80 12487 Eagle Diet. Co. - Liquor 2,291.25 12488 Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase 40,000.00 12489 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 170.00 12490 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - June 197.00 12491 Wright County State Bank - FWT - June 261.00 12492 Social Sec. Retirement Div. - FICA W/H 276.46 12493 PERA - W/H 159.50 12494 Twin City Wine - Liquor 1,907.24 12495 Ed Phillips b Sona - Liquor 4,855.66 12496 EAgle Wine Co. - Liquor 37.70 12497 Northern States Power - Utilities 749.78 12498 North Central Public Service - Utilities 7.94 12499 VOID -0- 12500 Maus Foods - Store supplies 25.55 12501 Granite City Cash Register - Ribbons 119.40 12502 Cloudy Town Diet. - Misc. mdse. 113.50 12503 Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse. 503.10 12504 Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse. 884.50 12505 Seven Up Bottling - Misc. mdse. 380.00 12506 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse. 470.94 12507 Stromquist Dist. Co. - Misc. mdse. 40.50 12508 Thorpe Diet. Co. - Beer 7,990.52 12509 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 11.67 12510 Day Diet. Co. - Beer, etc. 1,350.75 12511 Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse. 163.21 12512 Dick Beverage - Beer, etc. 2,880.85 12513 Dahlheimer Dist. - Beer, etc. 21,684.42 12514 Yonak Sanitation - Contract payment 91.50 12515 Olson 6 Sone Electric - Repair lights 59.54 12516 Monticello Times - Adv. 146.20 12517 Smith, Pringle 6 Hayes - Legal for Store 14.00 12518 Liefert Trucking - Freight 419.34 12519 Grosslein Beverages - Beer 14,799.75 12520 Eagle Wine - Liquor 131.56 12521 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor 7,545.75 12522 Ed Phillipe 6 Sons - Liquor 557.51 12523 Crigge, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor 221.78 12524 Twin City Wine - Liquor 1,237.06 12525 Quality Wine - Liquor 735.60 12526 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad. 170.00 12527 VOID -0- 12528 Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes 255.00 12529 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 160.05 12530 Social Sec. Retirement Div. - FICA W/H 277.62 12531: Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 59.92 12532 Cruye, Johnson - Computer services for June 110.00 12533 St. Cloud Fire Equipment - Service fire extinguisher 7.00 12534 Coast to Coast - Store supplies 57.94 12535 Viking International Products - Garbage bags 46.68 12536 LIQUOR FrVID J AMOUNT CFXCK NO. Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. 310.41 12537 MN. Bar Supply - Store supplies 108.00 12538 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor 128.01 12539 Quality Wine 6 Spirits - Liquor 594.99 12540 Twin City Wine - Liquor 667.04 12541 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 2,365.94 12542 Gruys, Johnson - 1985 Audit fees 1,350.00 12543 Co®issioner of Revenue - Sales tax 3,456.54 12544 Century Laboratories - New rugs at store 394.28 413.00 12545 12546 Lovegren Ice - Ice purchase June Payroll 3,246.06 TOTAL JULY DISBURSEMENTS 5142,179.75 J CITT OP N3rTICPLO llsllhly Dulldln8 Dcpsr meat Report I PI.7U1173 m1d USEr, llmLh o[ -Juno 19 B6 Teel -7h1e 'Swa Nm Lh 'Leet Yeu 1h1e Lear VETUUT3 ISSUED Mnth my Ebnth Jun. Lest Tear To Data To Dote RMI DBITI AL Numb- . 21 12 7 39 66 Valuation 12,515.620.00 S ' 369,190.00 3 452,360.00 :2,195,560.00 S 4,396,060.00 Face 10,986.51 1,959.10 2,464.53 11,281.32 21,037.76 Surcharge. 1,257.75 184.55 226.15 1,097.55 2,197..80 00194MCIAL ' Number 3 2 2 15 9 Valuation 733,600.00 760,000.00 619.80.00 1,713,960.00 ..1,562,000.00 Foes3,395.30 3,228.70 2,218.40, 7,625.20 7,092.70 Surcharges 366.80 380.00 309.90 856.95 781.00 Ill WiliTU AL . dumber Valuation Fe 3wee cherges , PII1101110 Ilmobcr 13 6 11 29 38 Fees $79.00 198.00 774.00 1,019.00 1,300.00 Swchargee 6.50 3.00 5.50 17.50 19.00 0111E113 Ve3ueLl on 1,430.00 10,000.00 456,900.00 456,900.00 12,860.00 Feee 14.30 80.50 2,1, 5.02 2,185.02 119.10 , Swchergos :.70 5.00 238.25 238.75 6.80 TOTAL 110. MUM + 30 21 2104 117 TOTAL VAIIIATIOII 3.250,650.00 1.139.120.00 1.529.060.00 4 366.420.00 9.970.870.00 TOT "1 r .} 14.975.11 5-466.30 7.141.95 22.310.62 29,549.56 7UTAL BUXI..aC1:9 1,631.75 572.55 769.00 2.700.79 ].004.70 GUTUtF7rr I!gII l.ly,L Ill.mbrr to Dptq I'laUl17 IIA1VIt6 Number 1'F7lMlT :VItL1Wt(:II Veluetlal pita year Loot rent• Single Fatally 1 S 1,297.00 1 127.55 S 255,100.0c 27 B 4lpler 1 366.00 42.30 84,600.00 / 2 WI ti -really 4 3 cowerclel 1 .3,140.20 375.00 750,000.00 1 6 Induatri al 0 0 Rre:Cnragen 1 74.50 4.80 9,000.00 7 B 31gne 0 0 Peblic Rrl ldlnee 0 1 A1,143LATlU11 C01 IMPAIR ILe11L1g. B 201.60 10.20 20.490.CU 29 17 Co-ercl nl 1 ,0.50 5.00 10,000.00 0 9 Indu etrl al 0 1 1 111.1111111110 All typos 6 190.00 3.00 38 29 ACccssont STIIUCTUI" Ori olny Pools 1 80.50 5,.00 10,000.00 10. Dec Le 2 0 TDNPORART P1:RJUT 1 0 0 UGNOW T1010 1 �� TOTAL9 21 •5,466.30 b7;.55 1,139,100.00 117 04 f InDIVIDUAL PE a,IT ACTIVITY REPORT MONTH OF Jun. PERMIT r scsc t.MB ER 0£SCRIPIICN P NAME LOC VALUATION PERMIT ISUR CMIRGEIPLUMBING ISURCHARr- 86-907 Interior Remodel AC Jones manufacturing/313 Walnut St._ / 10,000.00 3 80.50 5 5.00 8 1 86-908 in Ground Swimming Pool AS Clarence NoCarty/319 Watt 3rd Street 10,000.00 80.50 5.00 06-809 Datoehad Gerege RG Jim Kainarlik/612 Weat 3rd St. 9,000.00 74.50 4.50 -. 86-860 Commercial Rant el Building C Roindaace Partnership/546 Pion St. 750,000.00 1,908.00 315.00 63.00 .50 06-910 Noose Residing AD Lowoil Nandrlckemn/110 Dayton St. 5,200.00 51.70 2.60 06-911 Nouae 6 G.re9e Reelding AD Lyndon B..Ju/1308 West Rivar St. 6,000.00 56.50 3.00, 86-913 Single Family 0-0111.9 SF Quint Ln l+naars/1104 W. River St. $0,900.00 285.70 25.45 23.00 .50 06-914 mouse 6 Garage Reshingle AD Raymund Etlekacn/401 Rlvervlav Ds. 1,430.00 14.30 .70 86-915 Front 6 maar Porch Bernal Ad Julia P1a1ey1919 Fiat &roadway 1,430.00 14.30 .70 S6-916 , 2, Family Dwelling 0 Doyle Vachon Con.tmetlon/234 6 236 Marvin Elwood Road 84,600.00 286.00 42.30 42.00 .110 06-917 Single Family Dwelling SP Doyle Vachon Construction/222 Jerry •- Lierart DTIV. 53,500.00 293.50 26.75 24.00 .50 86-918 Bingle Family Dwalling 3? Kevin B.ynton/244 Klasisaippl Dr. 80,100.00 283.30 25.06 19.00 .50 86-919 Nowa eddltlan 4D Darold RunSCh/419 Want 6th et. 5,000.00 50.50 ' 2.50 66-920 Garop. 0*"del AD Doug Stokee1301 RITvlew Dri. 1.430.00 14.34 .70 06-921 Single Faaily Dwelling 3► Al 6 Judy Loren/$ 41-rslde Clrcle 100.600.00 434.50 $0.30 27.00 .50 TOTALS 81,139,190.00 $47287C.. $169-5.- St98.00 13.00 PLAN RE'V1tW 86-508 Commercial Rental Building Aalndanea Partnormhlp/500 Pine St. 1 1,260.20 TOTAL S 1,240.20 TOTAL acvrmE S 6.038.65