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