Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 08-11-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 11, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimamo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Hold July 28, 1986. 3. Citizens Comments/Patitions, Requests and Complaints. Old Buoineas d. Consideration of Renewing a Contract for Hauling Refuse with Corrow Sanitation. 5. Consideration of Entering an Agreement to Sell the Old Fire Hall. Now Business 6. Consideration of the Municipal Liquor Store Financial Report. 7. Consideration of an Offer to Purchase tho Monticello Municipal Liquor Store. B. Consideration of Approving Specifications and Ordering an Advorticament for Bids for the Acquinition of a Loader for the Public works Department. 9. Consideration of Setting a Special Budget tfooting. 10. Conaideration of Setting a Special Meeting to Interview Computer Consultants. Other Business 11. Distribution of Preliminary Draft of a Contrnct for Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations. 12. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 28, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: Arve A. Grimsmo 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held July 14, 1966. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Administrator Eidem presented a petition to the Council that had been received by three property owners along south Minnesota Street requesting extension of sewer and water services to their property. The owners involved were Tom Brennan, Marvin Kramer, and Tom Holthaus. The petition requested that a feasibility study be prepared by the City Engineer at an estimated cost of $2,200.00-52,600.00, and the petitioners agreed to pay the cost of the feasibility stuffy should a change order not be completed on the 1986 Interceptor Sewer Project that would facilitate these extensions. The petitioners also indicated a willingness to be assessed for a normal sower and water extension but noted that it is their understanding the sewer line would have to be extra deep and a water line be oversized to accommodate future extensions, and they requested that these extra costa be not assessed to their properties. In order to determine the actual coat of the petitioned extensions, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to accept the petition and authorize the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility study and change order on the 86-1 Interceptor Sewer Project contingent upon the three property owners signing the petition and agreeing to pay for the coat of the study should the project not be extended. 4. Consideration of Awardinq the Sale of General Obliqation Bonds for trio Making of Improvements to Highway 25 and Imorovemsnts Appurtenant to the Construction of the Interceptor Sewer. Bids ware received and opened at the City's Bonding Consultant's office of Springsted. Inc., at 1:30 p.m., Monday, July 28, 1986, on the sale of $385,000.00 in G.O. Bonds for improvements to Highway 25 and appurtenant to the interceptor sewer project. Five bids ware received as follows: -1- 1 QL Council Minutes - 7/28/86 The low bidder was Allison -Williams at a net interest rate of 7.485%, and it was recommended by the bonding consultant that the sale be awarded to them. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of 5385,000.00 in General Obligation Bonds to Allison -Williams. See Resolution 86-19. 5. Consideration of a Proposal to extend the Refuse Hauling Contract with Corrov Sanitation. Representatives of Corrow Sanitation have presented a proposal to extend the garbage contract for an additional throe years at the present base monthly fee in effect totaling 56,125.50, with the only increase being in the new homes and apartments added each month. Corrow Sanitation requested that additional homes be added at $5.15 per month and apartments at $2.50 per unit compared to the previous $3.50 per month for homes and $1.50 per unit. Corrow's proposal would not result in much of an increase over their provious contract other than for the now homes added from now on. Council members questioned Mr. Curt Corrow on whether they had supplied the City staff with records to indicate how much garbage was being hauled from the City. Mr. Corrow indicated they were in the process of reviewing their records and would be able to supply the information shortly. Public Works Director, John Simola, felt the City should be supplied with accurate records of yardage hauled, as it may become important in the future as landfill coots increase. It was the consensus of the Council that the proposal presented by Corrow for a contract extension seemed reasonable in comparison to other communities- cost, but agreed with staff recommendations that the contract extension be delayed until the next Council meeting to enable Corrow to provide the City with current dumping records that would support their contract proposal. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to table the contract extension until the next mooting to allow Corrow to compile and present tonago records for review by City staff. Consideration of Authoriminq the Expenditure for the Makinq of Additional Improvements to the Softball Field Complex. Initially, the City had planned on improvements of approximately $80,000.00 for the now softball field complex on land leased from 7 Net Interest Net Interest J Bidder Dollar Cost Rate Allison -Williams $285,740.00 7.485 Miller/Schroeder $288,673.75 7.5618 Dain Bosworth $288,875.00 7.5671 lot Bank of St. Paul $290,125.60 7.5998 Piper Jaffrey 6 Hopwood $300,831.00 7.8803 The low bidder was Allison -Williams at a net interest rate of 7.485%, and it was recommended by the bonding consultant that the sale be awarded to them. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of 5385,000.00 in General Obligation Bonds to Allison -Williams. See Resolution 86-19. 5. Consideration of a Proposal to extend the Refuse Hauling Contract with Corrov Sanitation. Representatives of Corrow Sanitation have presented a proposal to extend the garbage contract for an additional throe years at the present base monthly fee in effect totaling 56,125.50, with the only increase being in the new homes and apartments added each month. Corrow Sanitation requested that additional homes be added at $5.15 per month and apartments at $2.50 per unit compared to the previous $3.50 per month for homes and $1.50 per unit. Corrow's proposal would not result in much of an increase over their provious contract other than for the now homes added from now on. Council members questioned Mr. Curt Corrow on whether they had supplied the City staff with records to indicate how much garbage was being hauled from the City. Mr. Corrow indicated they were in the process of reviewing their records and would be able to supply the information shortly. Public Works Director, John Simola, felt the City should be supplied with accurate records of yardage hauled, as it may become important in the future as landfill coots increase. It was the consensus of the Council that the proposal presented by Corrow for a contract extension seemed reasonable in comparison to other communities- cost, but agreed with staff recommendations that the contract extension be delayed until the next Council meeting to enable Corrow to provide the City with current dumping records that would support their contract proposal. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to table the contract extension until the next mooting to allow Corrow to compile and present tonago records for review by City staff. Consideration of Authoriminq the Expenditure for the Makinq of Additional Improvements to the Softball Field Complex. Initially, the City had planned on improvements of approximately $80,000.00 for the now softball field complex on land leased from 7 Council Minutes - 7/28/86 NSP near their training facility. As part of the project, the City had applied for an LC*t matching grant that would cover half of the cost, but the State Grant received totaled only $27,500.00 rather than the $40,000.00. It was noted by Public Works Director, John Simola, that although the project funding had been reduced by the grant program, there were three items that should still be completed this year if the softball fields were to be developed. The three items were a sprinkler system at an estimated cost of 59,240.00, sever and water service extensions at an estimated cost of $11,000.00, and a temporary electrical service for the facilities at an estimated cost of $2,300.00. The approximate $22,540.00 in extra expenditures were originally planned to be allocated from the Capital Improvement Revolving Fund in 1986. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Slonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the allocation of an additional $22,540.00 for the three improvements to the softball fields and to transfer the funds from the Capital outlay Revolving Fund to the LCM Grant Fund. 7. Consideration of Approving a Request for Proposals for Computer Consulting Services. A request for proposals for a computer consultant to help the City through the process of acquiring a computer system was presented by the Administrator for approval. The Administrator recommended that the RFD's be sent to four computer consultants who have performed similar services for other communities. The RFP was modeled after a similar proposal made by Inver Grove Heights. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the RFP as presented and authorize the transmittal to potential consultants and to advertise for bids. 8. Consideration of Appointing Judges for the 1986 Primary and General Elections. A list of 16 nomas of individuals who have served as election judges in tho past and who are again willing to servo was presented to the Council for approval for the Primary Election Tuesday, September 9, and the General Election to be hold Tuesday, November 4, 1986. /•lotion was made by Bili Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to appoint the 16 individual• listed as election judges for the upcoming Primary and General Elections. Seo Exhibit 41. 9. Consideration of Ratifying the Appointment of Marly■ Erickson to the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The Monticello HRA has recommended that Marlys Erickson be appointed to fill the vacancy on the HRA Committee created by Gary wiaber-s resignation of February 12, 1986. The appointment requires the City Council ratification. Council Minutes - 7/28/86 Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously / carried to ratify the appointment of Marlys Erickson to the Monticello HRA. 10. Consideration of Bills for the Month of July. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of July as presented. 11. Consideration of an Offer to Purchase the Old Fire Hall Building - National Bushing Company. Mr. Wayne Brinkman, owner of National Bushing Auto Parts store at the corner of Broadway and Highway 25, informed the Council that due to lack of sufficient parking near his auto parte store, he was in need of a new location to move his business on a temporary basis until he can construct a new facility he has planned for 1987. In the meantime, he presented an offer of $65,000.00 for the City's old Fire Hall facility on Cedar Street. Mr. Brinkman noted that he would not be able to construct a new facility yet this year and felt he had to have a new location almost immediately to be able to compete due to the Highway 25 construction and lack of parking near his present store. Administrator Eidom noted that the City previously had an appraisal on the old Piro Hall building and thought the value should be much higher than the offer of $65,000.00 and recommended against the sale of the property at this time. In addition, he noted that the City at the present time may have future use for the building such as possible Location for the senior citizens or other City uses. At this point, discussions turned toward the possibility of National Bushing leasing the facility for 1-2 years, and Mr. Brinkman indicated a willingness to enter into a lease agreement but noted that he estimated approximately 530,000-535,000.00 worth of improvements would have to be made to the building to make it suitable for his use. At this point, negotiations would have to take place with Mr. Brinkman and the City to determine what type of lease could be established and how the cost of the improvements to the property would be taken care of, as Mr. Brinkman did not feel he could afford $30,000.00 worth of improvements and only be in the building for one or two years. At the same time, It was possible that some of the improvements being planned by Mr. Brinkman would be needed by the City to make the building usable for other purposes in the future, and it was felt that negotiations could possibly be arranged to cover these pointe. As a result, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigan, and unanimously carried to direct the City staff to negotiate with National Bushing on a possible lease of the old Fire Hall facility and/or possible sale should it be determined to be in the bast interest -d- 0 Council Minutes - 7/28/86 of the City. If a lease or sale proposal was agreed upon, the item would be brought back for Council approval. Rick Wolfatelier Assistant Administrator .g. EXHIBIT t ELECTION JUDGES Marvel Trunnell Joanne Link Jeanette Host Yvonne Smith Ruth Harstad Lucille Clausen Joanne Becker Don Nagel Leona Kline Maria Toenjes Bette Grosanickle Fern Anderson Betty Lund Rita Soltau Florence Mayer Anne Fair I Council Agenda - 8/11/86 6. Consideration of Renewing a Contract for Hauling Refuse with Corrow Sanitation. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last Council meeting, action was tabled regarding a 3 -year extension of the refuse hauling contract with Corrow Sanitation to enable the staff to review dumping records that Corrow had not yet supplied. Corrow representatives supplied statements from Yonak's Landfill indicating that approximately 750 cubic yards of refuse were hauled the first six months of 1986. Although the records are not as accurate as the City would like, it appears that the amount of yardage hauled is reasonable with our expectations. In regards to the contract extension, Corrow currently receives 56,125.50 per month, which broken down amounts to approximately 55.10 per home and $2.25 per apartment unit. As part of the old contract, new residences were added at $3.50 per home and apartment units at $1.50 per unit. Corrow's initial request was to leave the base fee as is but to add additional homes from August 1 on at $5.15 per unit and additional apartment dwellings at $2.50 per unit. The increase as proposed would amount to a small increase over the life of the 3 -year contract, as it would affect only the new homes added from now on; and it was the staff's opinion that the request for $2.50 per apartment unit would be reasonable, but it was the etaff's opinion that the residential homes added after August 1 should remain at $5.10 per unit. We discussed further with Corrow our proposal to add additional homes at $5.10 rather than 55.15; and after further negotiations, Corrow agreed to this proposal. The proposod contract agreement was previously submitted with the Council agenda a couple of meetings ago and would be the same one used should the contract extension be approved. The only change proposed at this time would further detail the amount and types of records that we would expect Corrow to supply regarding cubic yards hauled each month. In addition, the contract has always required Corrow to pick up a maximum of six containers or bags par home per pickup, and Corrow representatives noted that sometimes residents do have more than this amount or they have picked up what they consider large amounts of remodeling debris, which they felt is outside of the contract. The staff has agreed that six containers is all that Corrow should have to pick up each time, and we have notified Corrow that we will help in relaying this information to the general public. n. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorise the City staff to enter into a now extended 3 -year contract with Corrow Sanitation at the present base fee with additional now homes being added at $5.10 par house and apartment units at 52.50 per unit. Council Agenda - 8/11/86 2. The second option would be to still advertise for bide. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It has always been the staff'e opinion, and I believe also the Council's, that Corrow Sanitation has done an excellent job for the City the past 5-6 years. By renewing the contract at the present rate structure, with the only increase being in new homes or apartments added from now on, it is the staff's opinion that it may be in the beat interest to renew the contract as proposed rather than advertise for bids. From the staff's survey of surrounding communities, Corrow's proposal is certainly in line with other communities, and we do not feel there would be any advantage to seeking other bids at this time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: You may wish to refer to the previous two Council agendas for additional background information. -2- Council Agenda - 8/11/86 5. Consideration of Entering an Agreement to Sell the Old Fire Hall. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This item may be deleted from the agenda by Monday night. As of this writing (Friday morning), I have met with Mr. Brinkman on one occasion to discuss the sale of the Fire Hall. Mr. Brinkman indicated that he is not particularly interested in a lease operation. I indicated to Mr. Brinkman that I didn't see any real benefit to a sale and potential buy back for him to recover his remodeling cost. I felt that it might be inappropriate for the City to consider buying improvement.a that wouldn't necessarily be applicable for a potential City use. Consequently, we began discussions cantering around an outright buy out. I indicated to Mr. Brinkman that I found his offer to be too low, and countered with the City's appraisal price (adjusted to reflect the reduced square footage). That price is approximately $93,000.00. During our conversation, we also discussed some other alternatives which Mr. Brinkman wishes to pursue at greater length. At the conclusion of our discussion, I indicated to Mr. Brinkman that if he wished to continue negotiations so that the Council could be involved, he should get back to me by Thursday afternoon. As of this writing, I have not yet heard from him and consequently don't know if we will have information for the Council meeting. I believe Mr. Brinkman is still interested in the acquisition, but simply needs to prepare a counter offer to my opening offer. If any information of substance comes to pass prior to the meeting, I will attempt to update everyone orally so it can remain on the agenda. If no further negotiations are carried out before the Council meeting, then this item should simply be delated from the agenda, and will be taken up at some later data. There are no alternative actions, staff recommendation, nor supporting data at this time. -3- Council Agenda - 8/11/86 6. Consideration of the Municipal Liquor Store Financial Report. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Joe Hartman, Liquor Store Manager, will be at the Council meeting Monday evening to review the six month Liquor Store Financial Report. Sales for the first six months show an increase of over $33,000.00 over the same period last year, with the resulting gross profit increasing approximately $20,000.00. The gross profit percentage of 23.42% is in line with expectations. Overall, operating expenses are very similar to last year, with a noticeable drop in our insurance premium of approximately 53,000.00 over last year's cost. This lower operating expense and the increase in the gross profit resulted in an operating income figure of $45,900.00, which is approximately $23,000.00 higher than lest year. Overall, the operating income appears very adequate and should result in an excellent net income for the year if the trend continues for the second half of the year. No action Is needed by the Council other than acceptance and review of the report as presented. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the six month comparative financial statement. -4- MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE GREET MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE Y ' ..................................................................................................................................... JUNE 30. 1986 AND 1983 ASSETS •1 CURRENT ASSETS CMAMOE FUND 4 1.00.00 4 1.000.00 CASH IN BANK - CHECKIND 35.650.50 15.121.10 CASH IN DANK - RESTRICTED .00 1.614.50 i I14VESTOEMIS 374.99.44 261.932.47 INVESTMENTS - RESTRICTED .00 47.540.20 NSF CHECK - RECEIVABLE 154.77 148.60 t INVENTORIES 100.061.16 06.608.78 PREPAID INSURANCE 0.594.10 16,654.73 UNAMORTIZED BOND DISCOUNT .00 34.27 w ------------- ------------- TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 4 520,453.13 0 450.734.95 PROPER TT AND COUIPMENT LAND t 6.039.93 4 6.039.95 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 151.671.04 151,671.04 PARKING LOT 0,515.50 0,515.50 FURNITURE AND F3XIURES 50.400.31 58.400.31 AF.CUM. DEPR. - BUILDINGS 1 39,400.001 4 35.301.00) i + ACCUM. DEPR. - PARKING LOT t 6,409.50) 4 6,071.501 ACCUM DEPR-FURNITURE 4 FIXTURE 141-947,12) 136-027 67) _-«^ TOTAL PROPFRTY AND EOUIPMENT ..... 4 137.662.10 4 148.106.63 .....__.«_ TOTAL AS$tT8 ------------- 5.31 . 66,1 4 ... 0 4 ............. ...641.. . I pa S MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIOUGR REVENUE AND EXPENSES ' MUNICIPAL LIQUOR SIORE FOR 111E S1Y MONTHS ENDED J114 C 30. 1906 ANA 1933 ........................................ .e......eee.v..u.............uaca.e.e...c.............a.......au........................ CURRENT -PERIOD CUR -PD YEAR-TO-DATE Y -T -D SAME -PD -LST -YR PD-LYR Y -T -D -LST -YR YTD -LY AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO OTHER SERVICED AND CHAROEB PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (AUDIT) • 1.696.00 .61 6 2.073.00 .63 COMMUNICATION 251.09 .09 372.63 .00 TRAVEL -CONFERENCE -SCHOOLS .00 .00 170.80 .0• AUVERIIBINO 601.60 .17 791.60 .17 INSURANCE• GENERAL 3.058.68 1.10 0.503.31 1.86 UTILITIES. ELCCIRICAL 1.025.80 .66 3.201.53 .69 UTILITT ES• HEATINO 110.36 .06 1.522.62 .33 IIT ILITIES. 8 • Y 52.00 .02 106.16 .02 MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT 179.56 .06 2.063.56 .63 EQUIPMENT 16.00 .01 1.160.00 .23 DUES. MEMBERSHIP. SUBSCRIPTION 33.00 .01 35.00 .01 ,AYES AND LICCNSEB 79.25 .03 79.25 .02 GARDAGE 683.63 .1B 759,95 .16 1iCPR. - ACOUIRED ASSETO---_-:=520_39 __-�91 _--_ 3_05677 1.09 TOTAL OT14ER CCRVICEB • CHARGES• 10.806.90 3.89 • 25.096.16 5.60 VEDI GCRVICC INTEREST •.00 .00 6 267.50 .05 PAYING AGENT F'ECO .00 .00 16.03 .00 ------------- ----------------- -- ------ TOTAL DEDI SCRVICCB • .00 .00 6 262.33 .05 ------------- ------------------- ------ TOTAL GENERAL • ADIM. CYPCNSEG• 29.9]6.28 10.77 6 62.611.60 13.60 TOTAL OPCRATINO INCOME • 30.016.65 13.73 6 65.920.07 9,96 O1HCR INCOME (CYPFNSCB) INTEf<E01 INCOMG • 7.273.56 2.62 6 12.500.31 2.70 CIT14 INCOME 5700 .02 166.51 .03 EAEN LONO/SHORT 1 11..29) 1 .00) t 13.50) 1 .001 ------------- ------ ----------�-- _____• TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EYPENOES) • 7.319,27 2.66 6 12.639.26 2.71 NEI 114CDME 0 65.333.92 16.37 6 58.560.11 12.67 ............. u.... ............. ...... 0 2.680.00 .66 0 2.010.00 .67 152.29 .06 306.67.07 .00 .00 133.00 .06 668.00 .18 693.00 .Il 0.596.27 3.30 11.573.96 2.70 1.666.60 .65 3.199.60 .75 103.56 .07 1.088.26 .23 136.00 .OS 29].81 .07 262.96 .10 1.953.37 .66 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 79.25 .03 91.-5 .02 265.50 .10 313.00 .12 -2.-693.-04 -- -_1_06 _-__ 5_307 66 1.26 6 16.166.31 6.36 • 27.067.63 6.32 0 863.13 .33 6 1.800.26 .62 .00 .00 10.00 .00 ------------- ------ ------------- ------ • 065.1] .3] • 1.010.26 .62 ------------- ------------------- ------ 35 305.56 ----- 35.305.56 13.06 6 65.609.31 15.27 • 16.699.22 6.69 • _2.620.11 5.25 • 6.975.99 2.76 6 16.001.75 3.20 160.00 .06 166.00 .06 ( 167.59) ( .06) t 199.27) 1 .05) 0 6.960.60 2.76 6 16.066.60 3.21 ------------- -•-__•------------- ____-• • 23.667.62 9.23 6 36.666.59 0.52 ......u..... ...... ............. ...... I 0 r� d ' MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIOUOR Page 1 GROSS PROFI7 DY PRODUCT SOLD For ............................................................................... the Period 04/01/06 to 06/30/06 Current - Period Year - to - Dat. . Amount Y Amount Y LTGUOR 0AL£S • 71.240.99 100.67 0 120.342.74 100.55 DICCOUNTS 1 475.33) ( .671 1 702.501 ( .351 COST OF SALCS - LIOUOR 33,332.33 70.22 99.297.03 77.00 • GROSS PROFIT _----__•_•--- • ............. 13.413.09 ------ -------- 21.70 • ----- 20.342.33 ------ 22.20 .. EERALC 159.327.00 ...... ............. 100.36 237.029.20 ...... 100.53 1CF'OSI Ip AND REFUNDS ( 374.701 ( .361 ( 1.352.09) 1 .331 COST OF SALCS - DEER 114.079.00 72.27 192.603.23 73.36 CI GROSS PROFIT • 445073.30 27.73 0 62.993.14 24.64 s ............. ...... ............. ..... WINC SALES 33,300.39 100.00 $9,044.1® 100.00 c.ST Or SALES W1NC 27.609.20 70.24 43.273.35 72.31 • 'I n&0£0 PROFIT ------------- • 7.699.39 ---- ___-•_______- .1.76 • 16.370.03 27.49 IIT IiFP. 6ALCS 7,267.32 90.50 12.114.42 90.71 MOTTLE DErO'IT •• MISC 110.96 1.50 152.62 1.24 I DGT OF LALES _ DIRER 9.491.'6 74.43 03.20 rROPIT • 1.006.92 -•--10.477.09 23.57 4 1.009.15 14.72 a •••` ••••• fafX . NON-7A1AI•LC SALES 4.753.27 100. 00 6.903.60 100.00 101- - MIoC. FON TAYAPLE4.244.71 69.30 5.607.16 01.41 I.I.D£S FROFIT • 800.56 10.70 • 1.290.53 10.119 .ur..l. ..511 p :)7.603.35 •41.26 U2.g7.41 6:7.61 .i�..L L_ F fd ..1 [� ,*D9.2H.03 103.07 354.093.10 060.04 I 7u1:1 FM u'.; rInFIT • ............. 611.313•s. 437.19 • 100.090.27 5f0•fi ...... ............. ...... 0 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIOUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE FOR THE SIV MONTI(S ENDED JUNE 30. 1986 AND 1905 ...............................................00................................................................................. CURRENT -PERIOD CUR -PD YEAR-TO-DATE Y -T -D SANE -PD -LST -YR PD-LYR Y -T -D -LST -YR YTO-LY AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO SALES L IOUOR DEE R NINE OWER MDSE MISC. NDN-IAXADLE SALES DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS POTTLE OEFOSIT - MISC DISCOUNTS TOTAL SALFS LOST OF GOODS SOLD GROSS PROFIT GENFFAL AND ADIM. CXPENSEI ` PERSONAL sFGVICES SALAGILL, IdGULAR PERA I//•.IIRANFC. MFDICAL AND LIFE LOC IAL KCUF1IY TOTAL FCXI'ONAL 6ESVICEU •JMPI ILS Y IIFI Ifl ',.INILIEM 1NEIAl. (IFEP.A11N0 fUPPLIE. i 01AI. 41MFLlE.s • 71.240.99 25.70 0 120.362.74 27.75 6 66.586.54 :6.16 0 121.955.23 28.45 159.527.80 57.54 257.029.26 55.50 148.310.05 58.27 230.887.24 55.72 35.300.59 12.76 59.844.18 12.94 27.199.06 10.69 49x195.29 11.40 7.267.32 2.62 12.134.42 2.62 7.220.06 2.04 11.076.64 2.77 4.753.27 1.71 6.905.66 1.51 4.695.57 1.04 6.696.37 1.56 ( 574.70) ( .21) 1 1.352.09) ( .29) 562.40 .22 14.06 .00 110.96 .04 152.62 .03 1 5.641 ( .00) 144.29 .03 1 475.551 1 .0) 1 702.50) 1 .15) 1 59.38) ( .02) f 64.40) l .02) •___-•__•• -_•__- __•--- ------- ------ •_____------- ------ __•---..----- .__... 6 277.238 .76 99.99 0 462.433.45 99.99 6 254.509.46 100.00 0 420.706.72 99.99 0( 209.209.03) ( 75.49)91 334.093.10) ( 76.57) 01 202.704.601 1 79.65)9( 340.677.30) 1 79.471 ------------ ------ ------------- --------------- ......------------- ---..- • 67.940.T3 24.50 6 108.340.27 23.42 • 51.004.70 20.35 0 00.029.42 20.52 6 '14094.04 5.37 0 20.641.50 6.19 6 15.510.10 6.09 • 30.422.53 '7.10 403.91 .17 917.09 .20 507.90 .70 1,033.73 .24 976.77 .35 1.771.30 .38 729.82 ,'.19 1.824.55 .43 160.55 .31 1.544.11 .33 050.65 .33 '1,714.63 .40 0 17.224.17 6.20 6 32.175.03 7.10 6 17.590.55 6.91 6 34,995.44 '6,17 0 149.37 105 6 376.23 .01 6 16.49 .0l • 92.04 .02 1.1:5.04 --. 63 _3=001_2 ------ ------------- _------ISI*09 .27 __...1'44].94 ---.34 • -•. 1Y41.905.21 .60 9 `--- 3.377.54 .73 • 717.57 20 • 1,527.91 .36 C.,1 i a MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIOUOR BALANCE SHEET - MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE ................................. .................................................................. JUNE 30. 1906 AND 1985 x.......................... ..... LIABILITIES AND COUITY CURRENT LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE • 62.353.36 • 69.617.25 SALARIES PAYABLE 886.62 763.60 PAYROLL WIN - FERA 23.16 150.78 FAYROLL W/H - FICA 35.93 279 72 PAYROLL Y/H - STATE f 60.00) 266.00 F AYROLLY//1 - FEDERAL 60.00 223.00 BOND IN If REST PAYAD. 00 1.237.50 ACCRUED SIC., LEAVE t VACATIONS 603..52 1.306.93 SALLH TAX FAYADLE 3.656.36 3.053.01 ' IA" OLL Y/H - INSURANCE .00 1 366.91) - - TOTAL CURDENT LIABILITIES - • 67.390.09 • 57.298.00 LUNG -TERM LIABILITIES BONUS FAYADLE • 00 • 65.000.00 - TOTAL LONG-TERM LIABILITIES - • .60 • 65.000.00 - i TOTAL LIABILITIES • -------- ----- •7.390.•9 _-_----.----- • 102.298.00 FOUITY IfETAINFD FARNIN05 •60= 157.11 • 6$9576.11 REVLNIILS OVER EXPENDITURES 05.365.11 36.666.59 TOTAL CQUITY -_ — • 615=725-22 -_- • TOTAL LIADILITIES AND EDUITY -- • 616.115.31 a.. ---496.542.70 • 595.511.38 ............. C.,1 i Council Agenda - 8/11/86 7. Consideration of an Offer to Purchase the Monticello Municipal Liquor Store. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In the 4+ years that I have been with the City of Monticello, there have been a number of conversations covering the subject of selling the Municipal Liquor Store. Various individuals have made inquiries as to whether or not the City wishes to sell. My response to those inquiries has remained consistent. I have always told individuals inquiring that the City will evaluate the sale of its Municipal Liquor Store when and if it has a bona fide offer that warrants financial evaluation. About two weeks ago, Mr. Floyd Markling inquired about buying the Municipal Liquor Store. I gave him the same information that I have given every other inquiry. Mr. Markling has submitted an offer which I have included in the supporting data. To me, the only decision the Council can make at this time is whether or not to pursue the evaluation of the offer. I will not authorize staff time or accounting services if there is the possibility that the Council does not wish to even consider selling the store. The offer from Mr. Markling has not been evaluated. If the City wishes to investigate the matter of selling the Municipal Liquor Store further, I would like a motion from the Council authorizing staff to prepare an in-depth evaluation of the offer so that the City has sound data from which it can make its decision. If it is the opinion that the City ought not sell the Liquor Store at this time, I do not need a motion, but rather only an indication that you do not wish to consider the offer any further. Basically, if the Council is not yet ready to sell the Liquor Stora, I don't want to dedicate time and money to investigating the offer. If you do think the sale of the Liquor Store merits further study, then we will put the time and effort into preparing a detailed report for your review. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Determine that the Liquor Store is not presently for sale - offer will be rejected, and the matter will be closed for the time being. 2. Determine that the issue of sailing the Liquor Store is worthy of additional investigation, and order additional investigation. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Thera is no substantive staff recommendation for this issue. I, as the City Administrator, am torn on this particular issue. In one respect. I don't think the City needs to be involved in a municipal disponsory any longer; but the Monticello Liquor Store generates substantial cash to be used by the City. In a time when other financial resources are drying up, I think it is important for the City to evaluate its consistent sources. I believe that only an in-depth -5- Council Agenda - 8/11/86 report could truly evaluate whether or not the sale of the facility could generate the long range financial benefit that owning and operating the store does. With this particular issue, the staff is prepared to do whatever the Council wishes. If the Council opts not to pursue it any further, we will continue business as is. If the Council wishes to have it studied further, we will prepare an in-depth investigation and, at that time, develop a staff recommendation based upon the results of the study. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the letter from Floyd Markling making the offer for the Liquor Store. -6- August 8, 1986 Mr. Tom Eidem City Administrator City of Monticello Monticello. M. 55362 Dear Mr. Eidem, Pursuant to our meeting of August 5. 1986, please accept this letter of intent to purchase the Monticello Hi—Way Liquor off—sale store for the purchase price of 6420,000. Further details will be discussed and disclosed at a later date. Sincerely, Floyd Karkling Walter Markling 07 Council Agenda - 8/11/86 8. Consideration of Approving Specifications and Ordering an Advertisement for Bide for the Acquisition of a Loader for the Public Works Department. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In November of 1981, the City purchased a 930 Caterpillar Rubber Tire Loader from Ziegler, Inc. When drafting the specifications for the new loader back in 1981. I included some unique options for the City of Monticello. Cne of those options included a separate private bidding process for the City's trade-in and old 865, 3 -yard International Loader. In addition, we asked the bidders to bid on a guaranteed maintenance or repair cost for a 5 -year period. we also asked that they bid, if available, a minimum repurchase or a guaranteed value of our new loader after the City had used it for five years. In addition, we asked them to provide us with a simple interest annual rate if we chose to finance a portion of the loader payment. The City benefited quite well from the unique way in which we prepared our bid specification in 1981. We received a trade-in value for our International of $14,000.00 from Ziegler, Inc. Our private bid was $10,000.00. We received a guaranteed maintenance expense from Ziegler of $4,150.00. To Hate we have not even come close to spending that amount on repairs. Our total purchase price for the loader in 1981 was $61,371.00. Our minimum repurchase price was $63,400.00. We basically had a bonded contract with Ziegler that they would give us $2,029.00 more for our loader at the and of five years than we paid for it. To top this, they gave us an interest rate for financing the difference between our trade and the now loader of 10% at a time when we ware able to invest our money at a much higher rate. our guaranteed repurchase comas due on November 10. we are guaranteed the repurchase of our machine up until that time for an amount of $63,400.00. I boliovo the current value of our 930 is somewhere around $50,000.00. The Cat has hold its value better than any of the other machines around, but it is not worth near what our guaranteed repurchase is. In addition, our loader has shown signs of wear over the five years. It is due for tires shortly, and once in a while has a ghost transmission problem that we have not been able to solve. It seams appropriate and good business sense to replace the loader at this time. I estimate the City will benefit to the tune of approximately $13,000.00 by doing this. We have drafted specifications for the now loader, and thay are included with your agenda packet. The Public Works Director, Street Superintendent, and Public works staff have lookod at and operated throe new loaders, and developed the specifications based upon that research. Since the 930 Cat has ceased production, our specifications aro drawn around a machine site to tho 930's replacement, or a 9306 Cat. This size of a machine has approximately 25 more horsepower than our 930, but is still significantly smaller in size than the 865 Huff tho City owned prior to 1981. -7- Council Agenda - 8/11/06 The specifications are drafted in such a way as to include all of the options we had in 1981, with the exception that our guaranteed cinicum rapurchase now serves as our private bid amount. For instance, if we chose a John Deere as the best machine for the City of Monticello. we would be able to still sell our 930 Cat to Ziegler and use the money to purchase the John Deere. The specifications. if approved, wou:d call for bids to be returned August 22, 1986, and consideration by the Council on August 25. This allows approximately 75 days of delivery time prior to the Novembar 10 deadline for our existing machine. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to approve the specifications for the now loader and authorize advertisement for same for consideration at the August 25 meeting. 2. The second alternative would be to keep our existing loader. replace the tires, and continue using it. This does not appear to be good business when we can obtain $13,000.00 more than the unit is worth. C. STAFF RECOMMUMATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and the Street Superintendent that the Council approve the specifications and advertisement as outlined in Alternative Mt. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the specifications. .8. CITY OF MONTICELLO ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR ONE (1) NEW 1986 MODEL, 125 HP 2.50 CUBIC YARD ARTICULATED LOADER Notice is hereby given that sealed bids for furnishing a new 1986 model, articulated loader will be received by the City of Monticello, until 2:00 p.m., on Friday, August 22, 1986. These bids will be publicly opened and read aloud at that time. The City's current 2.25 yard 930 caterpillar may be used as a trade in for the purchase of the above loader and may be viewed Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Public Works Building. Each bid shall be submitted on a proposal form which is attached to the specifications. Specifications are on file in the office of the City Administrator, 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota 55362. Specifications will be furnished free upon request. All bids must be sealed, marked "1986 Model, 125 HP Loader," and addressed to the City Administrator. Each bid shall be accompanied by a certified check, cashier's check, or bid bond in the amount of 5% of the total amount of the bid. Bide shall be based on cash payment for the product described in the specifications. The right is reserved to reject any or all bids and to waive informalities therein. Bids may be rejected for any alterations or erasures. By Order of the City Council Data: August 11, 1986 Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator 9 SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE (1) NEW ARTICULATED 125 HP WHEEL TYPE LOADER FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA Bid Opening Date: Friday, August 22, 1986 Place: City Hall 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota Time: 2:00 p.m. Bidder-e Name: Address: SPECIFICATIONS - LOADER ONE (1) NEW ARTICULATED 125 HP WHEEL LOADER INVITATION FOR BIDS: Sealed bids will be received at the City Hall of Monticello, 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota until 2:00 o'clock p.m. on Firday, August 22, 1986, for the furnishing and delivery of one WHEEL LOADER as per attached d-sscription and specifications. INTENT OF CONTRACT: Furnish and deliver to the City of Monticello one (1) WHEEL LOADER meeting or exceeding the specifications in this proposal. Bid price to include the cost of the new machine LESS trade-in of one used unit, plus guaranteed five year maintenance costa and a guaranteed repurchase price after five years. BID BOND: All proposals moat be accompanied by a certified check or bidder's bond payable to the City of Monticello for at least 5% of the amount of the proposal. Surety to be forfeited to the City of Monticello if bidder is awarded a contract and fails to fulfill it. No bid may be withdrawn for a period of 30 days after opening. DELIVERY DATE: The new machine shall be delivered complete to Monticello no later than 4:00 p.m., November 10, 1986. If the successful bidder fails to make delivery by November 10, 1986, the contractor agrees to credit the City 51,450.00 per week or part thereof until delivery is made so that the City may rent a loader comparable to the new machine specified. (State compliance or excopticn in this column) Complies Does not Comply GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS: Unit bid shall be a currently advertised and produced model with all the latest changes and features offered as standard whether called for in these specifications or not, except where specifications call for a substitute feature or item in lieu of manufacturer's standard. Cab and operator controls must be on rear of machine. Machine must be manufactured using American standard bolts, fittings, and fasteners, not metric. WEIGHT: The basic operating weight of the machine, including all attachments and tire ballast, shall not be lose than 28,000 lbs. Machine must most the following minimums: -1- Complies Does not Comply Basic operiting weight 28,000 lbs. _ Static tipping load -straight 21,000 lbs. _ Static tipping load -full turn 19,000 lbs. _ Break out force 24,000 lbs. ENGINE: Shall have the following specifications: Displacement: Not less than 425 cubic inches _ Cylinders: Four (4) Cycles: Four (4) Horsepower: Not less than 125 Fly wheel horse power Fuel: Capable of operating on 42 diesel Air Cleaner: Double safety element dry -type with service indicator Muffler: Low noise type Alternator: 50 -amp continuous Batteries: Heavy duty 170 -amp or better Min. Starting aide: Low temperature assistance with block heater Dumping Clearance: 108 inches ® 451 Wheel Base: 115 inches TRANSMISSION: Shall have the following specifications: Converter: Single stage or twin turbine only Type: Full power shift Speeds: Four forward, two reverse Controls: Single lover for both gear and direction DIFFERENTIAL: Conventional FINAL DRIVES: Shall have the following specifications: Drive: All wheel _ Reduction: Planetary inboard or outboard BRAKES: Shall have the following specifications: Type: Disc, air or hydraulic actuated Quanitity: Four (4) wheel Adjustment: Self-adjusting Pedal Control: Doublo-one neutralizes transmission and stops unit: second has normal braking action with transmission engaged Park brake -type: Shoe location: transmission output shaft Emergency brake -type: Parking brake warnings: audible 6 visual OSHA: Brake system must meet regulation alcohol air dryer system if air actuated -2 0 - Complies Does not Comply STEERING: Shall have the following minimum specifications: Type: Articulated full hydraulic Follow-up: Provide "automotive feel" at any speed Lubrication: Hinge points of cylinders to have 200 hour lube intervals Articulation joint: Fully covered under 5 -year warranty Tracking: Rear and front wheels track at all times Rear Axle Oscillation: Minimum 22 degrees HYDRAULICS: Shall have the following specifications: Filter: Full flow CONTROLS: Shall have the following specifications: Lift circuit: Raise, hold, lower, and float positionere with automatic lift kickout Tilt circuit: Roll back, hold, and dump positions with automatic bucket positioner (automatic return to dig) LIFT ARMS: Loader linkage preferred to be sealed against dirt and have 100 -hour lubrication intervals; except lower bucket pine and bushings preferred to have 50 -hour lubrication intervals TIRES: Shall be as follows: Size: 20.5 x 25, 12 PR -radial Michelin, L2, Traction tires CAB: Shall have the following proferred specifications: General: OSHA approved, BOPS, all weather, insulated, including floor mat Heater: High output Defroster: Front and roar wipers: Front and rear washers: Front Seat: Adjustable deluxe vinyl (fora, aft, 6 weight) bucket with seat bolt Horn: Easily accessible Engine service panels hinged for easy access L01 Complies ELECTRICAL SYSTEM: Shall incorporate the following requirements: System. 12 or 24 volt Alternator: 50 -amp Batteries: 172 -amp hour Min. Lights. Two headlights -chassis mounted Two headlights -cab mounted Stop and tail lights -each side Front and rear turning signals with 4 -way flashers Cab dome light Instrument panel light Dual rear working lights Remove strobe light from trade-in and install on new loader. If not compatible, provide and install new comparable light BUCKET: Shall have the following specifications: Capacity: 2.50 cubic yards, struck (SAE rated) General Purpose Edge: Shall have bolt -on edge guaranteed against breakage Spill plate extension: Shall be included wear Plates: Must be easily replaced ACCESSORIES: Shall be equipped with the following: Manual: operators, parts, and service manuals In -cab Gauges: Fuel Engine hour meter Engine coolant temperature Engine oil pressure Torque converter temperature Brake indicator eye or buzzer Ammeter or volt motor Filters: Full flow -engine Full flow -fuel Cartridge type Mirrors: Una - inside cab, dual stainless steel wast coast exterior mirrors Backup alarm: Slow moving vehicle sign: Drawbar Vandalism protection locks for fuel, water, hydraulic and engine oil Front and rear fenders are required -4- Does not Comply .J N Complies Does not Comply Rear counted counter weights, give weight if complies Quick coupler for bucket disconnect, American coupler or Baldenson or approved equal Tow hooks, loops, or tie downs fore and eft water separator for fuel filters PAINT: Hi -visibility STD type factory paint, yellow or yellow and white Furnish two 16 oz.spray cans of touch up paint MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS: A complete set of manufacturer's specifications and illustrated descriptions shall be furnished with the bid. GUARANTEED MAINTENANCE: The vendor contractor hereby agrees to furnish all parte and labor required to keep this unit in good operating condition for 5 years or 6,000 hours, whichever comes first, for any amount in excess of the cost specified in Item a of the proposal. In addition, the warranty repairs shall be handled as follows: There will be no charge for the first year's repairs except for normal day -today consumed Stens (oil, filters, grease, etc.) (. The guaranteed maintenance expense for the period following the first year of ownership up to and including the fifth (5th) year of ownership or 6,000 hours, whichever occurs first, will be paid by the vendor -contractor for any amount IN EXCESS of the amount shown In Item 6 of the proposal except as follows: The Buyer will be responsible for all costs of repair due to: fire vandalism theft operator negligence accident mechanic negligence in addition, the Buyer will assume and be responsible for the costs of: tires tiro repairs lubricating oila anti -freeze filters cutting edges grease glass breakage fuel electrical parts such as bulbs brake linings other day-to-day items normally consumed Componanta which aro covered by the daelar's guaranteed maintenance agroecont shall include the following: engine starter and alternator transmission turbocharger to blower differentials regular brakes torque convertor emergency brakes final drives steering system wheels hydraulic system lines controls articulation joint frame bucket cab lift arms drawbar valves tanks and other specified hoses attachments Any costs as a result of shipping the machine (or parts thereof) to or from the vendor's shop for maintenance or repair will be borne by the vendor after the amount shown in Item 4 has been exceeded. MAINTENANCE: The City of Monticello agrees to provide such preventative maintenance and daily and monthly services as described by the manufacturer. DOWNTIME; Throughout the five-year period, the vendor -contractor agrees to furnish at no cost to the City after any continuous 72 -hour period inoperation of this unit (due to need of mechanical repairs) a unit in good operating condition equivalent to the unit called for herein, until the unit is repaired and in operation. Should the contractor fail to provide a unit acceptable to the City, the contractor hereby agrees to credit the City 520.00 par hour for all downtime (24 hours day) after the period cited above. Any unit furniahed or any monies credited are not to be construed as a penalty, but as liquidated damages to compensate for additional costs incurred by the City. SERVICE FACILITIES: The bidder will certify that he maintains an adequate stock of parts and employe qualified servicemen within the area available on short notice. Bidders shall submit detailed specifications or listings of all machine support capabilities. Listing shall include, but not be limited to, field cervico support, available shop space, technical tools, parts backup systems, training, etc. TRAINING PERIOD: The contractor agrees to provide a training program for the City of Monticello employees in sufficient scope to assure efficient and economical performance and maintenance of the equipment. PAYMENT: The City of Monticello agrees to arrange for payment or contract for the now unit within 45 days after the unit has been received, inspected and approved by the City of Monticello. REPURCHASE: The City of Monticello retains the right to sell or trade or otherwise dispose of the equipment, purchased under the contract, at its discration at any time. Should the City decide to Bell or trade this equipment during the five (5) year period, tho contractor hereby agrees to submit a bid in an amount not leas than the repurchase price sot forth in his bid on this contract. Should the City of Monticello trade or otherwise dispose of the equipment, such action will make this contract null and void for the machine. BOND: The successful bidder will be required to furnish a PERF0Rn4NCE BOND in the amount of the repurchase price on hie bid (Item 5) of this proposal in favor of the City of Monticello to protect the City against any breach of the �D/ contract. The bond will remain in effect for tha entire contract period to assure performance of all conditions of this contract. BASIS OF AWARD: Award of the contract by the City of Monticello may be based upon the factors of guaranteed total cost concept (Item 6 of the Proposal). However, delivery data, parts and service facilities, analysis and comparison of specification details and past experience of the City of Monticello shall be considered in arriving at the decision of what constitutes the best bid. The City of Monticello reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to award to other than the lowest bidder if in its judgment the best interests of the City of Monticello are thereby served. Only firm prices F.O.D. Monticello, Minnesota, will be considered and bid must be accompanied by a certified check or bidder's bond in the amount of 5% of the amount for the loader including the specified attachments (Item 3). TRADE: One 1981 930 Caterpillar Loader, SN: 61K10762, may be viewed at the City of Monticello Public Works Building by appointment only during regular working hours. The successful bidder will be required to sign all the necessary agreements entering into the contract conforming with all the requirements of these specifications, before payment will be made or bidder's security bond or certified check are surrendered. PRICING: Successful bidders shall be prepared, prior to award, to substantiate that their bid prices are no higher than the published factory list prices, plus freight, in effect at the time of the bid opening. Such substantiation will be made to the buying officials directly from said factory price lists and will be kept strictly confidential by the buying officials. Refusal to comply with substantiation of bid prices shall constitute a reason to reject said bid. EXCEPTIONS TO SPECIFICATIONS: Specifications for the machine heroin called for have been carefully prepared to beet meet the future needs of the City of Monticello. Should any prospective bidder take exception to any portion of those specifications, he shall notify the City of Monticello in writing by August 20, 1986. Failure to do so shall cause him to forfeit this opportunity at any later date and may be cause for rejection. The letter shall include the rationale for exception. STANDARD WARRANTY: The standard warranty when no bid is received for the five (5) year guaranteed maintenance shall be one (1) year parte and labor. This shall exclude normal day to day consumed items (oil filters, gramme, etc.) and any damage resulting from fire, accident, vandalism, or operator - mechanic negligence. -7- CY) SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ESTIMATED COSTS 1 AND OPERATION COST J CALCULATION FORM FOR WHEEL LOADERS INSTRUCTIONS: The intent of this form is to determine the total scheduled maintenance costs that can be expected during the first five (5) years of 2,000 hours of ownership. Service intervals, number of grease fittings, and capacities should be taken directly from the manufacturer's lubrication instructions. Costs given are equal for all bidders. Although there may be a slight variance due to refill capacities, these total costs are made up of labor, overhead, lost production, gaskets, lubricant, filters, and supervisory time. The comparison examines the service intervals for the various units bid and assumes that the manufacturer's recommendations, if followed exactly, will allow the costs that are to be incurred on each unit to be calculated with reasonable accuracy. The City of Monticello believes that scheduled maintenance is an integral part of the overall cost of the operation of a wheel loader and is therefore asking for its inclusion for consideration as part of the total cost of the unit bid. I. Grease Fittinqs Total Hours of Service No. of Fittingo Cost per Total Operation Interval X 0 Each Interval X Fitting Cost (400 hre. yrly. : 10 lire X X 3.25 s i 50 Mrs X X 3.25 . $ (2,000 Kra 4 100 Kra X X 5.25 . $ for 5 yra.) 4 200 Mrs X X 5.25 S 4 250 Mrs X X 3.25 . 5 500 Mrs X X 5.25 . s 1000 Mrs X X 5.25 . $ TOTAL COST 3 (S) Determine number of fittings at each interval, insert each number as indicated (if none, write none), perform calculations and total 1st column. II. Engine 011 6 Filter Total Hours Service of Operation : Interval X Cost per Change Total Cost 400 hrs. yrly or 2,000 hrs. j for 5 years X $60.00 $ (II) (FJ From factory maintenance manual determine crankcase drain and fill interval. Insert this hourly number and perform the calculation to arrive at the total cost for an engine oil change. III. Transmission Oil Total Hours Service of Operation - Interval x Cost per Chanqe a Total Cost 400 hrs. yrly or 2,000 hrs. for 5 years x $100.00 e 5 (III) From factory maintenance manual determine transmission drain and refill interval. Insert this hourly number and perform the calculation to arrive at the total cost for a transmission oil change. IV. Other Flud or Oil Chanqcs Total Hours Service Hyd. System Of Operation Interval x Capacity (Gals.) Total Cost 400 hrs. yrly or 2,000 hrs. for 5 years x $1.45 5 (IV) From the factory maintenance manual determine the service interval for draining and filling the hydraulic system. Insert thin hourly number, insert the total capacity (in gallons) and perform the calculation as indicated. V. Estimated Fuel Consumption at Workload 2,000 hours x Gal per hour- x S.80 (V) per gal. -NOTE: May require certification from a current owner of the same model machine. Listed below are each of the categories dust calculated. Insert the total number for each category and add the column. This total figure may be used in consideration of the award. I. Grease Fittings 5 (I) II. Engine Oil 6 Filter S (II) III. Tranamission Oil S (III) IV. Other Fluid or Oil Changan S (IV) V. Fuel Consumption S (V) TOTAL 5 year scheduled S maintenance and fuel cost CITY OF MONTICELLO PROPOSAL FORM FOR ONE (1) 125 RP ARTICULATED 47REEL LOADER 1. Make and model of equipment being bid, outright purchase price as specified. MAKE: MODEL: F.O.B. Monticello, Minnesota S 2. Trade-in Value: MODEL: 1981 930 Cat SIN 41K10742 $ 3. Item #1 less Item #2 (Trade-in Purchase Price) S 4. Guaranteed Maintenance Expense for 5 years or 4,000 hours, whichever occurs first, shall not exceed. S 5. Guaranteed "Minimum Ropurchaso" in 5 years. S 6. Total Cost Bid (Item 43, Plus Item 04, Loss Item #5) S 7. Simple interest annual rate for lease purchase or purchase (5 year program) and yearly payment ; for 5 payments. (Attach schedule if payments vary) S (Based upon Itoo #3) NOTE: Bidder must bid on items 1, 2. 3, and 4. Failure to bid on these atoms will disqualify bid. The City reserves the right to award the bid based on any of the above and or deviations from the specifications, whichever is in tho beet interact of the City or to rojeet any or all bids. NAME OF BIDDER: ADDRESS: SIGNED BY: 010 ACCEPTED: (data) BY: TITLE: 1 \' 1 Council Agenda - 8/11/86 9. Consideration of Setting a Special Budqat Meetinq• (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the past two years, prior to the preparation of the preliminary budget, the Council has met in special session to discuss goals and objectives for the upcoming year. This meeting generally has been a morning meeting and has lasted approximately one hour to 1&j hours. This particular goal and objective meeting is different from the preliminary budget meeting when you review actual dollar allocations. This first meeting is the meeting where the plans and priorities for 1987 are laid out, and then staff goes to work on the budget in order to attempt to achieve those goals and objectives. In the past, I believe that these goals meetings have been beneficial. Hence. I have written into the budget calendar a time for us to hold a goals and objectives meeting. City staff has already held its startup budget meeting, and the worksheets have been distributed for preliminary work. It is my hope that we can hold this special meeting prior to August 20. All that is required of this Council meeting is a motion to set a special meeting for budget goals and objectives. S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt a motion setting a special meeting to discuss 1987 budget goals and objectives. 2. Opt not to hold such a special meeting this year. There is no staff recommendation, nor supporting data for thin item. Council Agenda - 8!11185 10. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting to Interview Computer Consultants. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On Thursday, August 9, I received a total of 4 proposals to do the consulting work for the City on computer selection. I have done the reference and background check on each of the firms, and reviewed their proposals and believe that it is beneficial to interview 2 consultants. The process I would like to follow in for certain key members of City staff to first conduct interviews with the consultants (since it is staff members who will work closely with the consultants), and then have the City Council interview the consultants. After the Council interviews the consultants, then I will make the preferences of City staff known to the various Council members and present the rationale behind each. I would hope at that time then, the Council would select which consultant will assist the City in the overall process. I believe that the Council interviews can moat effectively be held in a special meeting. I also believe that we should try to hold that special meeting before the August 25 Council meeting. It can be held at virtually anytime including prior to the regular Council meeting on the 25th. I should note that getting this meeting done before the 25th is not crucial. We are not faced with any deadlines and can feel free to take longer if we choose. All that is needed at this meeting is to select a date and pass a motion setting a special meeting to interview computer consultants. It is conceivable that the meetings for the budget and the interviews could be combined, but that may require quite a time commitmant for a single day. For instance, if it takes one hour to 1% hours to discuss the budget, and S hour per interview, plus the decision making discussion, the special meeting has suddenly become three hours or more. I do believe that, if at all possible, all Council members should be present for both meetings. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Sot a special meeting for interviewing computer consultants. 2. Abandon the idea of hiring a consultant and the notion of automating in the immediate future. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a special meeting exclusively for interviewing computer consultants be set prior to August 25, it scheduling is possible. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Data on the various proposals will be passed through to the Council along with general comparative evaluation# when those reports are complete. •10. J PRASE I PHASE II POST -CONTRACT CONSULTATION A R A N WON Wets Wets !teats It— Cost RPR Slma Cost RFP 71ms Cost RfP Time Cost AFP Carroll, Franck 3 uks $1.350 yea4 vks• 61,115 yas 0 eks $3.060 21 wk. $3,440 yea 665/hr.; 214 par mile as headed , 1 ek ) Gruys Johnson 10 vka $3.000 yae 4 Yks 62.400 yea 10 vka 63.000 yes 52 uks $3.600 •• Yee 660/hr. • Rune oonrurrant rlth Phsaa IA. •• Proposed so as to meat full contract compliance (past saperlenc• Indicates 60-75 hra) ••• Estimated to M 60 h—at 660 par hour. Lams tI- • Leas money; Nora ilea • N=. money. CARROLL, FRANCK & ASSOCIATES TRAINING. ENGINEERING. AND PLANNING 537 LAUREL AVE.. ST. PAUL. MN 55102 612429.9151 5 August 1986 Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Dear Mr. Eidem Per our phone conversation yesterday, attached is the supplemental information intended to accompany the one-page financial summary of our proposal for computer consulting services for the City of Monticello. We have presented this additional information in the format requested, and have added a summary schedule, list of deliverables, costs and proposed payment schedule, project references, resume of the project manager, and preliminary letter of agreement. As you and the other reviewers read through our proposal, I would like to draw your attention to our approach, which we believe is unique among consultants who bid on such projects: We understand that every city performs a wide variety of functions -- from accounting, to building inspection and economic development, to infrastructure planning and maintenance. In your case, we must add the special issues of the maintenance and operations of a wastewater treatment plant, a municipal liquor store, and Deputy Registrar functions. These varied and diverse elements suggest that a computer consultant must assess Monticello's needs from a comprehensive, integrated perspective. We believe that it is critical to evaluate all municipal functions at the outset, In order to ensure that whatever direction you pursue, you maintain the option to eventually build sophisticated, integrated computer capabilities. Most communities stage their Implementation over several months or years -- as you suggested in your letter listing accounting and word processing functions as your lop priorities right now. We believe that our successful experiences with computer consulting for other Minnesota cities makes Carroll, Franck 6 Associates uniquely suited to offer Monticello a process to address your short-term requirements Within the context of your long-term needs. Thank you for considering Carroll, Franck E Associates for this project. Please give me a call at the number above if you have any questions. We look forward to meeting with you In person to discuss our capabilities and approach, and to working with you and the City of Monticello on this project. Sincerely, a...- &tV., k Anne R. Carroll �0 CARROLL, FRANCK & ASSOCIATES TRAINING. ENGINEERING. AND PLANNING 517 LAUREL AVE., ST. PAUL. MN 55102 612.225A1S1 CITY OF MONTICELLO DETAILED SPECIFICATION OF SERVICES PROVIDED and SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Proposal Date: S Aujist 1986 Project Mm ager: Ame R. Carroll J INTRODUCTION Below is Carroll, Franck 6 Associates' detailed response to the City of Monticello's request for computer consulting services. The proposal includes the following sections: approach, description of services (per your specified format), summary schedule, list of deliverables, costs and proposed payment schedule, project references, resume of the project manager, and preliminary letter of agreement. APPROACH At Carroll, Franck 6 Associates, we take what we have found to be a rather unique approach to projects such as this: We work with you and your staff, not in spite of you. We believe that you know a great deal about how you are using your existing system, and can offer some excellent suggestions on what else you'd tike to be able to do. To that set of individual experiences and Ideas, we add our technical and information management expertise in all areas of municipal functions and services, including in-depth knowledge of not only Finance and Administration, but also of the more specialized municipal functions (building inspection and economic development, infrastructure and park maintenance and planning, Deputy Registrar functions, and municipal liquor Inventory and control). Consequently, throughout the project we actively work as a team with you and key staff members, assuring that the analysis reflects the best the team has to offer, and that the final recommendations are workable and realistic. We are also accustomed to carefully managing a project, so that from start to finish everyone Involved (City staff/Council and consulting staff) understands the following: What we are, jointly, trying to accomplish; performance criteria; each person's roles and responsibilities; schedules and time commitments; deliverables; and costs. SCOPE OF SERVICES Based on the requirements outlined in your RFP and the format specifications, beginning on the following page are the steps Carroll, Franck 6 Associates proposes to successfully accomplish each Item. Proposal: Computer Consulting Services Carrott, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7186 page 1 PHASE IA - DEFINE REQUIREMENTS Estimated Date of Completion: Week 3 (= 10/3/86 if start date is 9/15/86) Cost: $ 1.360 Description of Services The Needs Assessment will identify short- and long-term needs in relation to a phased acquisition and implementation program. Carroll, Franck 6 Associates (CF&A) will work with City staff and elected/appointed officials to identify and document current and future needs and the most appropriate transition process. The assessment includes all municipal functions, as we understand that you wish to consider the eventual integrated automation of all functions. This phase will involve: 1. Detailed content interviews and workshops with department heads and support staff. 2. Identification, analysis, and documentation of current and future flow of information between: a. Departments within the City b. City staff and Council, Commissions, Boards, etc. c. The City and other governmental units d. The City and outside service bureaus and consultants e. The City and the public Documentation will take the form of flow charts, narratives, and projections, as appropriate. 3. Analysis of the current and projected decision-making processes used by City staff and elected and appointed officials. End Product: The primary end product of this phase will be the draft Needs Assessment to be presented to the staff. This will include documentation of all work performed in this phase, including the process material noted above. Once approved, the Needs Assessment will form the basis for the system alternatives and later the Bid Specifications/RFP. Projected Schedile Activity week Responsibility Monticello CF6A 1. Sign contract 1 X 7. Content Interviews and 1-3 X X meetings with staff and elected/appointed officials to generate Needs Assessment 3. Deliver Needs Assessment 3 X Proposal: Computer Consulting Services Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Pape 2 PHASE IB - DETERMINE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND COST ANALYSIS Estimated Date of Completion: Week 4 ( = 10/10/86 if start date is 9/15/86) Cost: $ 1,115 Description of Services Once the Needs Assessment has been completed, we will complete the following: 1. Identification of system alternatives which meet the City's short- and long- term needs. For each option, this includes determining and analyzing the following: a. The general capabilities, scale, and scope of the available software and hardware. b. Current and future system capabilities vs. current and future City needs. c. The level of current or possible future system integration, compared to the City's requirements. 2. Development of cost projections for each alternative. This includes: initial acquisition of software, hardware, training, and documentation; financing costs per unit of time; initial data entry (via conversion, temporary help, etc.); staged/future acquisitions; maintenance; supplies; and consulting services. We will also project costs for each phase (presuming a staged acquisition of any system or service), and present alternative acquisition methods and costs. 3. Detailed cost vs. benefit analysis of each alternative, and recommendation of how to proceed. End product: The final report will include a discussion of each alternative and its advantages and disadvantages, short- and long-term costs, cost -benefit analysis, ranking, and final recommendation and justification. The final recommendation will address both the alternative and the most appropriate process to follow to achieve It. Projected Schedule Activity Week Responsibility Monticello CF 6 A 4. Identify and analyze system 2-4 x alternatives and costs S. Deliver System Analysis 4 x x Proposal: Computer Consulting Services Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Page 3 60) PHASE IIA - DEVELOP, ISSUE AND EVALUATE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS Estimated Date of Completion: Week 13 (= 12/8/86 if start date is 9/15/86) Cost: $ 3,060 Description of Services Request for Proposals: The Bid Specifications/RFP will be based on the Needs Assessment and the System Analysis report, to which detailed system specifications are added. It will clarify the technical and performance requirements necessary to allow the City to meet those stated current and future needs. The Bid Specifications/RFP will address the following items: Software: 1. Applications: Generally what the software must do. 2. Capabilities: Specifically what the software must do given Monticello's existing data and future information needs, and generally how it must do it. 3. Maintenance of existing capabilities: How the software must replace and/or supplement computer services currently provided by your service bureau. 4. Scale and Scope: How much of Monticello's information must be handled concurrently and how the Information must be managed by the system for acceptable access by operators. 5. Use: How the software must be designed to allow for trouble-free start up and ongoing use by staff; this will also address maintenance Issues. Hardware: 1. Stale: The memory and storage capacity required to meet Monticello's short- and long-term data quantity and data type needs, plus the capacity needed to meet software requirements. 2. Scope: which work stations require what software and hardware in order to meet present and future needs. 3. Maintenance of existing capabilities: How the hardware must replace and/or supplement computer services provided by your service bureau. System (Software/Hardware): 1. Output: The acceptable output forms and formats. 2. Interfaces: The specific linkages required to communicate with other computerized and manual systems such as those at the County, local and national data bases that would be Important to departments, and service bureaus (if required). 3. Training How much, when, where, at what level, and for whom. 4. Ability to Upgrade: How the initial system configuratlon (hardware and software) must be able to be upgraded and further Integrated. Proposal: Computer Consulting Services j Carroll. Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Page 4 �O) 5. Transition: Now the vendor must handle the following transitions: a) from the present service bureau system, b) to the system of choice, and c) between stages of the new system. 6. Service and Maintenance: The services and maintenance agreements that will be required of the selected vendor. 7. Price and Financing: For City use only, identification of proposed price ranges for each stage and alternative acquisition methods and costs. Bidders will be asked to submit financing alternatives that would be appropriate for the system they are proposing. The end product is the RFP which is first presented to staff and Council and then sent to prospective verulors. Proposal Analysis: This involves the review and evaluation of alternative hardware and software proposals received in response to Monticello's documented needs and RFP. It includes the following steps: 1. Complete review, analysis, and documentation of proposals submitted in response to the RFP. 2. Preliminary financial analysis of all proposals. 3. Identification of top bidders: those which best meet the criteria identified in the RFP. 4. Documented basis for recommendation of top bidders. S. Comprehensive analysis of capabilities and costs of the software and hardware proposed by the top bidders. This Is documented on a detailed spreadsheet in which the desired capabilities are listed with costs and a ranking of each vendor's ability to provide that capability. 6. Complete system demonstrations of the proposed hardware and software by the top bidders. Staff and interested elected/appointed officials will attend with CFSA. Following the demonstrations, attendees and CF&A will meet to discuss the alternatives and begin formulating a recommendation for the system of first choice. 7. Documentation of background and process used by City and Consultant to Investigate each proposed system and reach conclusions; detailed discussion of criteria used and basis for Consultant's analysis. 8. Final analysis of proposals and demonstrations, and recommendation of vendor. The end prorict is the final recommendation, presented first to staff and then to Council for approval. The report will include the following: 1. A complete summary of the events up to this point and the process used to reach these conclusions. 2. The RFP as issued to the bidders, with explanatory notes as necessary. 3. A summary of the preliminary analysis. 4. The complete detailed analysis of the top bidders, with rankings and costs. S. A summary of the results of the system demonstrations. 6. The final recommendation and justification, including: a. A summary of the recommended vendor's proposed software, hardware, training, and services. Proposal: Computer Consulting Services Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Page 5 l r4%� b. A summary of the recommended vendor's background, references, and ability to follow through on the commitment to the City. c. A discussion of recommended conversion activities. Projected Schedule Activity Week Responsibility 6. Develop RFP from Needs Assessment Needs Assessment and System Analysis 7. Deliver RFP 8. Advertise for and receive proposals 9. Review and analyze proposals; system demos 10. Deliver Vendor and System Recommendations Proposal: Computer Consulting Services Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Monticello CF&A 5-7 x 7 x 7-10 (30 days) x 10-11 x x 13 x Page 6 ON J J PHASE 1113 - CONTRACTING AND IMPLEMENTING Estimated Date of Completion: Week 34 (= 4/10/87 is start date = 9/15/86) Cost: $ 3,440 Description of Services Following the Council's selection of a system vendor, CF&A will complete the following: 1. Detailed Implementation Plan, outlining the phased acquisition schedule, conversion arrangements, all projected costs, and requirements of all software and hardware from the selected vendor. This will include planning for any future acquisitions and conversions. Z. Contract negotiations with the selected vendor: Presuming a successful conclusion, this process will include: a. Preliminary contract document for review by the City Attorney, City Manager, and Finance Director. This will address the required specifications, delivery timing of immediate and future software and hardware, training arrangements, service, and performance requirements. CF&A will facilitate any revisions required. b. Analysis and recommendation of acquisition method (lease, purchase, or other); for review by City Attorney, City Manager, and Finance Director. c. Final contract and acquisition recommendation for the City Council. This will include a summary of critical contract elements, such as operations and maintenance responsibilities, warranties and/or performance provisions, back-up assistance, payment/financing agreements, training, documentation, project management, etc. CF&A will monitor vendor compliance with the terms of the contract. (In the unlikely case that an agreement cannot be reached with the vendor of first choice, CFbA will make separate arrangements with the City to begin work on either a new RFP or negotiations with the vendor of second choice. The process followed at this point is at the discretion of the City.) d. System order: CF&A will coordinate the ordering and delivery of the system, and manage any conversion, transition, and other activities to be done while waiting for delivery. 3. Implementation and Installation Assistance: CF&A will provide the following assistance: a. Project implementation checklist, documenting steps, timing, and responsibilities for the implementation of the selected system. Critical steps will be highlighted, and all parties will be involved in developing and agreeing to this process. CF&A will monitor compliance. 1). Comprehensive testing of all initial software and hardware. The results will be documented for the City. c. Analysis and spot-checking of system trainirg ord documentation. d. Implementation management: CFEA will generally manage the system Implementation, including troubleshooting, answering questions, keeping problems from occurring (or facilitating solutions as necessary), monitoring Proposal: Computer Consulting Services Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Page 7 6J vendor/contractor programming and installation, etc. For a period of at least one calendar year following the system start-up, CF&A will be available for hourly consultation with the City. 1. Deliverables The exact nature of the work done is at the discretion of the City, but may include the following: Resolution of contract questions or disputes, software customization, additional documentation, file or application development, and supplementary training. 2. Schedule and Time Commitment: CF&A will be available on an as -needed basis for consulting services for the City of Monticello. These services are available until the City is comfortable working with the system with only vendor support. 3. Const: CF&A will bill the City of Monticello monthly for time and expenses at a rate of $65 per hour and $.21 per mile. Projected Schedule Activity Week Responsibility Monticello CF b A 11. Contract Negotiations and Imple- 14-30 X X mentation/Installation Assistance . Implementation Plan (on-going) Contract Negotiations (4• wks) Ordering system (4-8 wks) . Implementation assistance, testing (4. wks) (Optional Long -Term Consulting 30• X) Proposal: Computer Consulting Services Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Page 8 0/0 K SUMMARY: PROJECTED SCHEDULE The following is a summary of the projected project schedule, based on the services and products discussed above. The indicators of responsibility refer to activities which will require time commitments on the part of either the City or CF&A. Activity Week Responsibility Monticello CF&A 1. Sign contract 1 X 2. Content Interviews and 1-3 X X meetings with staff and elected/appointed officials to generate Needs Assessment 3. Deliver Needs Assessment 3 X 4. Identify and analyze system 2-4 X alternatives and costs 5. Deliver System Analysis 4 X X 6. Develop RFP from Needs Assessment 5-7 X and System Analysis 7. Deliver RFP 7 X 8. Advertise for and receive proposals 7-10 (30 days) X 9. Review and analyze proposals; 10-12 X X system demos 10. Deliver Vendor and System 13 X Recommendations 11. Contract Negotiations and Imple- 14-30 X X mentatlon/Installation Assistance (Optional Long -Term Consulting 30. X • Proposed payment points. See below. Proposal: Computer Consulting Services Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Page 9 /O COSTS AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE As noted on the summary page of the proposal, the total cost to deliver the products and services detailed in this proposal is $8,975. Below is a proposed payment schedule for your review. You will note that payments are tied to deliverables to insure your satisfaction with our performance, and match the totals by phase Indicated In the summary. (If you prefer, we can bill monthly based on the percentage of the project completed to date.) 1. Payment of $1,500 upon signing contract with CF&A. 2. Payment of $975 upon delivery of the System Analysis. 3. Payment of $1,530 upon delivery of the Bid Specifications/RFP. 4. Payment of $1,530 upon delivery of the Vendor and System Recommendations. 5. Payment of $2,440 upon delivery of the Implementation Plan. 6. Payment of $1,000 one month after system installation. PROJECT REFERENCES Carroll, Franck 6 Associates provides consulting services to public and private sector clients throughout the region. Our expertise Is In the following areas: Planning: Assisting public organizations to plan for, select, and Implement an Integrated computer system. This Involves a needs assessment, bid specifications, evaluation of bids, final recommendations, contract negotiations, and implementation assistance. Training: Designing, developing, and implementing comprehensive training programs for managers and supervisors. This includes designing the training system and writing all necessary materials, such as workbooks, manuals, or simulation games. Engineering: Planning, design, and specifications for civil and structural engineering projects. Special expertise in risk assessment for structures. We have worked extensively with both governmental units and private corporations. Beginning on the next page are specific references for projects similar to that proposed for Monticello, and the resume of the Project Manager for this project. Proposal: Computer Consulting Services Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Page 10 0 City of Maplewood, 1986t Comprehensive Needs Assessment, including: Statement of Existing Capabilities and Future Needs System alternatives and costs System management recommendations Required conversion activities Policy and use recommendations Process recommendations Contact: Dan Faust, Finance Director Don Lais, City Manager Phone: 770-4500 City of Shoreview, 1985 -Present 1. Needs Assessment 2. Bid Specifications and RFP 3. Proposal Analysis 4. Vendor and System Recommendations S. Contract Negotiation and Acquisition Recommendations 6. Organizational Analysis (internal procedure changes) 7. Application development for specialized files 8. Installation Assistance and Post -Audit Report 9. Long -Term Consulting Contact: Gary Dickson, City Manager Bill Stawarski, Finance Director Phone: 484-3353 City of Prior Lake, 19844N-esent 1. Needs Assessment 2. Bid Specifications and RFP 3. Proposal Analysis 4. Vendor and System Recommendations S. Contract Negotiation and Acquisition Recommendations 6. Orientation Training 7. Installation Assistance 8. Follow -Up Reports 9. Application development for specialized files 10. Long -Term Consulting Contact: Mike McGuire, City Manager Phone: 447-4230 Proposal: Computer Consulting Services Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Page 11 Regional Transit Board. 1985 -Present 1. Needs Assessment 2. Computer System Specifications 3. Vendor and System Recommendation 4. Testing and Implementation Assistance 5. Long -Term Consulting Contact: Elliott Perovich, Chairman Phone: 292-8789 City of Ramsey, 1983-84 1. Needs Assessment 2. Bid Specifications and RFP 3. Proposal Analysis 4. Vendor and System Recommendations 5. Orientation Training 6. Installation Assistance Contact: Jeanne Haapala, City Accountant (now Cottage Grove: 458-2821) Proposal: Computer Consulting Services 1 Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Page 12 J �0 CARRQLL, FRANCK & ASSOCIATES 'RAINING. ENGINEERING. AND PLANNING 511 LAUREL AVE. St PAUL, MN 55102 612428A15t ANNE R. CARROLL Ms. Carroll founded Carroll, Franck tG Associates in 1485 to more effectively provide her public -sector clients with computer-related consulting services. Her expertise is in the areas of system design, planning, training, policy development, and financial analysis. In the past several years, Ms. Carroll has designed, written, and delivered consulting services, training programs, manuals, and position papers on: computer system analysis, selection, and implementation, goal setting and decision-making, ranking and evaluation systems for financial decision-making, performance management and performance appraisal, planning theory and methodology, and policy analysis. She has organized and managed project teams for computer system selection and Implementation, performance management programs, system and technical operator training, and software development. She is also a skilled stand—up trainer and C. facilitator and has worked with both small and large groups. At the Unlversity of Minnesota, Ms. Carroll received a Master's Degree In Planning In public affairs from the Humphrey institute and a Bachelor's Degree in American Studies and English. Proposal: Computer Consulting Services Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 817186 Page 13 AD CARROLL, FRANCK & ASSOCIATES TRAINING. ENGINEERING. AND PLANNING 537 LAUREL AVE.. St PAUL. MN 55102 612-228-9151 J LETTER OF AGREEMENT For the delivery of the services and products outlined in this proposal, the City of Monticello agrees to pay Carroll, Franck 6 Associates the sum of $8,975 on the agreed upon time and payment schedule. Agreed to: Date City of Monticello Carroll, Franck 6 Associates City of Monticello J Proposal: Computer Co1WIling Services Carroll, Franck 6 Associates: 8/7/86 Page 14 Cuter feasibility Study KWosal August 7, 1986 Gruys. Johnson and Associates, ltd. CEATWIED PU811C ACCOUNTANTS 6 '9rur s, 76znson anJ.Wssociafes, CERTIRED PUDUC ACCOUNTANTS August 7, 1986 Mr. Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, M!7. 55362 Dear Tom: P4ra Probaab,W SWdVV ,,,, KV" 25 Norm SIA55312L10( rN.vww: 682.1762. MOW. .yD-0D2a An%W o. 6Nya Data A, JOM4M Pnntlpau: Cea Foran Roman E. Careen Rick 8orean We are pleased to submit this proposal to assist you in automating your accounting and city administration systems. The information presented here is based upon your AFP, the meeting we had with you and Jim Snyder of our affiliate, Management Advisors, and our long standing familiarity with the city. We plan to utilize Management Advisors on this engagement because of their extensive technical experience in municipal systems. This letter contains our understanding of your situation, the project objective, the approach and scope for conducting the work, the project staffing, scheduling and fees. The city of Monticello has been studying the feasibility of automation for several years and has recently decided to hire a consulting firm to help you clarify the data you have collected and help you make a decision. Specifically, you want the consulting firm toe • Help you identify ail the opportunities for automation and document these into an unrestricted wish list. • Evaluate the feasibility of various alternative methods of automating each idea. • Estimate the true costs of automating each item on the wish list. • Independently and objectively determine the real benefits of automation in each area. • Knowledgeably evaluate vendor products and services to make sure the city receives what it is expecting and not the various shades of the truth that the vendors want them to hear. �l MAMBARS OF WNNUVA SOOM OF ORAT,P18e RUKIC ACDOUNTANTS AND AMIR,OAN INST,TUTS OF CENTNND KMX AOOOUNTANTsU • Educate city personnel on computer systems and generally prepare you and your people for both the benefits and problems associated with a computer implementation. • Develop a good contract which protects the city. • Assist the city personnel during implementation to make sure the vendor performs satisfactorily. Your overall philosophy is to build the city staff's confidence in computers so the council in turn will have confidence in the process, the vendor decision and in the resulting system. It is essential that your staff be involved in the entire process from selecting a consultant to presenting and explaining an output report from the system to city council. One of the consultant's responsibilities will be to ensure that the staff develops this knowledge and confidence so that it can carry most of the load during implementation and deal with the vendors knowledgably. The only automation in the city currently is the use of our computer system at Gruys, Johnson and Associates, LTD. for the functions you outlined in the RFP. The use of this service is to be replaced as soon as possible by the chosen alternative to minimize duplicate costs. The remainder of this proposal outlines our approach to assisting you in determining the feasibility of automation for the city of Monticello. OBJECTIVE The major objective of our proposed assistance will be to assist you in automating your current and future administrative systems. To satisfy this objective, we believe the project should .be divided into four secondary objectives as follows: • 'Define your information system requirements • Determine the feasibility of various alternatives to meet some or all of these requirements • If feasible, select the proper resources • Implement the new system AFFROACH AND sCCPE Our approach is identical to the one you outlined in your RFP. Our affiliate has used the four phase process for years on all types of clients including many city governments. It is a proven approach that is carefully designed to touch all the bases, maximise communication and keep the risks and costs to a minimum. Our approach also stresses the involvement of you, your staff, all city department heads and city council in all phases of the project. The benefits obtained from this approach include educating your personnel, making them part of and committed to the resulting system, reducing the ti.se required to implement the system, reducing the number of errors at conversion time and reducing your cost for outside assistance. We have divided this project into fou• nhoses corresponding with the objectives stated above. The activities of each phase are described below. u PROPOSAL FOR COMPUTER CONSULTING SERVICES CITY OF MONTICELLO 1986 NAME: OWS, JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. ADDRESS: 1111 Highway 25 North Buffalo, M. 55313 PHONE: 662'1762 CONTACT PERSON: Robert E. Carlson PHASE I A) DEFINE REQUIREMENTS S 3,000 D) INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS $ 2.400 TOTAL PHASE I S 5.400 PHASE 1% A) DEVELOP 'REP S 3.000 1}) CONTRACT I IMPLEMENT S 3,600 Estimated TOTAL PHASE 11 $ 6,60D TOTAL CONSULTING SERVICES S 22,0::0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 certify that eruys. Johnson a Assoc. i Management Advisobas/have no affiliation with, either direct or indirect, not business interest in any vendor, supplier. service bureau, or contractor which say, as a result of the eonsultina services provided to the City of Monticello. Minnesota, be selectad for the automation of the City of Monticello. sfdiature Date IV E; ® PHASE IA - DEFINE REQUIREMENTS ESTIMATED DATE OF COMPLETION 10 weeks from start date COST S 1.000 (PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF HOW YOU WILL FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PHASE IA, INCLUDING A PROJECTED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES.) Phase I - Define System Requirements ({� During phase I we will assist you in documenting your current and future data s� processing requirements. The documentation will include flowcharts and narratives of the current systems and current and future transaction volumes. The purpose of preparing documentation will be for us to become more familiar with your system requirements and to collect the information required to prepare vendor requests for proposals later in Phase III (if appropriate), we will be relying heavily on interviews with council, management and staff to provide the necessary information. As we review your systems during this phase, we will also make improvement observations and provide ideas for management information you ars not now producing or using. During interviews with city personnel, we will ascertain in detail the procedures they follow, the transactions they process and the records they maintain. We will obtain counts of transactions and report volumes, and estimate future volumes that may result from expanded operations. We will also bring to bear our experience with similar cities anis explore with your personnel the ideas they have come up with. The functions that will be included as a minimum in this review include, Fund Accounting Revenue and Expenditure Statements by Department Payroll Utility Billing Budgeting Wcrd processing inventory/Fixed Assets Job and Equipment Costing Special Assessments Liquot Operations Deputy Registrar ' Parcel Data Base Management Othrr functions integral to the above areas ® Other ideas for automation may surface during the data gathering process. The end product of Phase I activities will be a document describing your immediate Q and future data processing requirements and recommendations for the priority of systems installation. we will schedule a revisw with City officials and city council at this stags to obtain concurrence on the defined requirements. PHASE IB - DETERMINE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND COST ANALYSIS ESTIMATED DATE OF COMPLETION 4 Weeks from approval of phase I results COST E 2.400 (PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF HOW YOU WILL FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PHASE IB, INCLUDING A PROJECTED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES.) Phase II - Develop Cost Analysis of System Alternatives The major focus of Phase II Will be to identify the alternatives for satisfying your data processing requirements. Some alternatives We Will consider include: Installing a small computer system Installing a network of interconnected micro computers Utilizing another service bureau Improving your manual systems, or A combination of alternatives Other alternatives May be identified once we have defined your system requirements in Phase I. ` The remaining activities of Phase II will involve determining the relative feasibility of the alternatives identified. In determining the feasibility of any alternative, we Will assist you in identifying the direct and, Where possible, the indirect cost of implementing that alternative. All costs Will be considered including but not limited to hardware, software, maintenance, eight preparation, training, supplies, etc. These costs will be projected over the expected life of the system so that the entire cost of the decision is considered and so that you have figures for each budget year. At this time, costs will be estimates only because final ccsts cannot be determined until we receive vendor proposals in Phase iii. FJ Phase II continued - We will also help you identify the benefits to accrue with each alternative. While we do not believe there will be substantial direct cost savings with any of the alternatives beyond the elimination of the Gruys, Johnson and Associates charges, there should be some intangible benefits realized such as: More timely and accurate reports Ability to handle larger transaction volumes with the same staff More detailed reports available on demand The end product of Phase II will be a report and presentation about the relative feasibility of each alternative and a recommended course of action. Again, we will schedule a meeting with administration and council to review the results of this phase. PHASE IIA - DEVELOP, ISSUE AND EVALUATE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS ESTIMATED DATE OF COMPLETION 10 weeks from approval of Phase II results COST E 3.000 (PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF HOW YOU WILL FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PHASE IIA, INCLUDING A PROJECTED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES.) Phase III - Select Processinq Alternatives Phase III activities are completely dependent upon Phase I and II activities. However, assuming a small computer was chosen as the best alternative, we would assist you in performing the following tasks: Identify potential vendors/services Prepare a Request for Proposal for the vendors Evaluate proposals received from the vendors Recommend the top two or three vendors for further evaluation Prepare a detailed comparative analysis and an executive summary of all proposals submitted. Assist you in the final selection of a vendor Analyse your financial:investment braft a contract for subsequent negotiation If another alternative was determined to be feasible, we would of course, adapt Phase III activities to selecting the appropriate resources. The end product of this step shall be a report that contains the RFP as it was distributed, the comparative analysis, the executive summary, the financial analysis, a ranking of the top three proposals, and the consultant's recommendation with justification. This report shall be presented at in-depth meetings with City staff, and one presentation at a City Council meeting. F. a lu PHASE IIB - CONTRACTING AND IMPLEMENTING lu ESTIMATED DATE OF COMPLETION 12 to 18 months after selection aCOST $ 3.500 estimated (PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF HOW YOU WILL FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PHASE IIB, INCLUDING A PROJECTED SCHEDULE OF Its= ACTIVITIES.) y Phase IV - Implement the New System our experience shows that implementing a computer system is more demanding than the selection process itself. once the proper system is selected, the implementation must be actively managed to achieve the full benefits identified in the feasibility rm analysis. Our approach would be to assist you throughout the implementation, Nil if appropriate, working in conjunction with your management team and the vendor. our primary role in Phase IV implementation activities would be to assist in project control. This includes our participation ine Negotiating a final contract with the selected vendor Finalizing a detailed implementation plan Establishing a project checklist, outlining responsibilities for all participants Conducting status review meetings Reviewing all major documents for content and Quality Monitoring system test results Facilitating the solution to any problems t Evaluating user and system documentation Mcnitoring and interpreting the contract to ensure vendor performance and conformance. The selected computer vendor would be responsible for the installation of the hardware/software and personnel training. we would not perform any computer programmit System design or specific installation tasksl we would wide the city and the vendor's staff to ensure that defined responsibilites are completed in a timely and effective manner. /D Phase IV continued - We will be available on an as needed basis for an indefinite period of time to assist city personnel with these implementation activities. It is difficult to estimate how much help any one city requires from the consultant during this phase. The level of consultant involvement varies with the skills of city staff, the vendor chosen and the number and types of problems that surface during the protect. we have estimated our involvement below based on experience with other cities and have fixed our hourly rate. You will pay for our involvement at the hourly rate. The actual fees paid for this phase will be based on the actual number of hours worked. At the fixed rate, if less time is required, you will pay less than the estimate. If you require more time, the additional hours, once authorized by you, will be charged at the fixed rate. J 6o) STAFFING I, as a principal in Gruys, Johnson and Associates, LTD., will have overall responsibilit; for the success of this engagement. As such, I will review all work products, participate in council reviews of our reports and generally control the quality of work. As your auditors, we are in a unique position to serve you on this engagement because we: Know the city and can add perspective that a distant firm might not provide. • Are vitally concerned that automation be done right at Monticello so that future audits are no more difficult than they are presently, • Can be available quickly if any problems come up especially during the implementation. We rely heavily on Management Advisors, our affiliate, for many of the technical skills required on an assignment of this type. Management Advisors will perform a majority of the actual tasks comprising the engagement. Management Advisors, Inc. is a staff of consultants specialising in systems work for a wide variety of small to medium sized businesses and public sector organizations. Management Advisors personnel have performed more than thirty similar studies in the past twelve months. In the public sector, they have performed similar work for school districts, counties, health agencies, civic associations, special districts and cities. Some of their city govenment references includes City of Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota Mr. Doug Sell, Director of Finance 612-457-2111 City of Buffalo, Minnesota Mr. Mort Auger, City Administrator 612-692-1161 City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota lin process) Mrs. UVor,ne Wilson, Administrator/Treasurer bl2-439-4439 City of Cherry Hills Village, Colorado Mr. Chuck Coward, City Manager 333-799-2511 City of Worthington, Minnesota Mr. Don Habecht, City Administrator 507-376-3161 City of Moundsview, Minnesota Mr. Dun faulay, Administrator/Clerk 612-794-3055 0 Jim Snyder from Management Advisors will be the project manager and principal. consultant. He will be assisted by other Management Advisors Consultants and members of our staff if appropriate. Neither Gruys, Johnson and Associates nor Management Advisors has any interest in any products or services which might affect our judgement on independence. As we have mentioned several times, we consider city staff and council an integral part of the project team. We will involve all personnel to the maximum extent practical and the council to the extent warranted. In fact, this involvement is very critical to the success of the project. SCHEDULING AND FEES We will be available to start this project within two weeks after receiving your approval to proceed. we estimate that Phase I will require approximately ten weeks to complete depending on the availability of city staff. Phase II will require approximately four weeks, and Phase III will take eight to ten weeks depending on the response from vendors. For your planning purposes, you should count on it taking several months beyond the completion of Phase III before a computer could actually be installed and operating. If you start this project in September of 1986, you will complete the selection of a system in January. We estimate that our fees and expenses for the first three phases of this project will be $ 8,400. This estimate includes professional fees and all direct expenses for travel, subsistence, telephone, photocopying, stenographic and clerical services which will be billed at coat. The fee structure by phase is shown below: Description Fee Quote Phase I - Define system requirements $ 7,000 Phase lI - Develop cost analysis of system alternatives S 2,400 Phase Ill - Select prveessing alternative S 31000 S 8,400 I I 1 11 As noted previously, fees for Phase IV are difficult to estimate accurately because of the varying degrees of complications from city -to -city. Nonetheless, we estimate chat Phase IV will require 60 hours at our standard government rate of S 60 per hour or S 3,600. If less tine is required, you will be billed less. If more time is required, we will seek your approval before incurring any additional charges. For this type of project, we bill our clients on a monthly basis for hours act•aally worked during that month at our standard hourly rates plus direct expenses. Payment is expected within thirty days. In no event, will the total charges for Phases I, II and III exceed S 8,800 unless the city authorizes in writing additional work or a material change in scope beyond what is contemplated by this proposal. j we thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to assisting you in this most important project. If this letter properly states your understanding of our assistance, please sign a copy and return it to us as our authorization 1 to proceed. If you have questions about this proposal, we would be glad to meet at your earliest convenience. Cordially, i pert ar son. PA !� GRUYS, JON.NSON AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. Certified Public Accountants REClame i Council Agenda - 8/11/86 11. Distribution of Preliminary Draft of a Contract for wastewater Treatment Plant Operations. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the July 14, 1986, meeting, the City of Monticello Council accepted a recommendation of the subcommittee on contract operations of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. That recommendation was to commence negotiations for contract operations of the wastewater Treatment Plant with Professional Services Group. Since July 14, the committee members, along with the City Attcrney, have reviewed the proposed agreement. As Public works Director. I assembled a list of items of concern within the proposed agreement totaling in excess of 40. I discussed these items with repreaentatives of PSG by phone during the past three weeks. On Tuesday, August 5, we held a formal negotiation session at City Hall. Present during that session were Tom Eidem, myself, Acting Mayor Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Gary Pringle, and in place of John Badalich, Chuck Lepak. Present for PSG were Mike Robbins, Mike Nelson, and Steven Suhnt, who is the proposed manager for the wastewater Treatment Plant Facility. our meeting went Quite well, and within three hours we covered every point of concern that the committee had with the proposed agreement. The now draft document is expected to be here for Monday evening's i meeting. At Monday evening's meeting we merely wish to present the draft agreement to the Monticello Council for their review, with discussion and action to be taken at the August 25 meeting. At that time, the subcommittee will make its formal recommendation to the Council. we have enclosed for your review copies of concern items addressed by the contract negotiation committee, a mutual aid agreement, and the proposed draft document. Thera are no alternative actions, nor staff recommendations for this item. am ' MONTICELLO. MN 55362.9245 July 16, 1966 Pnone (e 12) 295-2711 Mero 18121333.5739 TO: Members of the Contract Negotiations Committee Wastewater Treatment Plant Mayor; Arve Gnmsmo FROM: John E. Simola, Public Works Director C.1y Council: oan Elanigen :ran iaa RE: Contract Review for Negotiation Session wllliar Fav qac. M8—ea Dear Committee Members: On July 18, 1986, at the regularly scheduled Monday evening Ac.I.AIS M01! Council meeting, the Monticello City Council voted unanimously Tom E,cem Finance 01 ec:w: to begin negotiations with Professional Services Group for contract R,C% wo1'31e0e1 operations of the Monticello wastewater Treatment Plant facility. Puol.c works: On Tuesday, July 15, 1986, I met with Mr. Michael Robbins, Senior done 5lmola Vice President for •Professional Services Group. We discussed Plammmga Zowng: the proposed agreement for operations and maintenance services. Gary Anaerson we have tentatively sat a schedule for the negotiations to begin the first week in August, most likely, Tuesday, the 5th. Prior to formal negotiations, Mr. Robbins requests that we contact him concerning any problems or clarifications needed in the agreement. In order to do this, it will be necessary for each member to make his or her review by the 25th of July and return your comments to City Hall so that we may pass them on to Mike Robbins. I have already discussed some of my concerns with Mr. Robbins, some of which may require language changes or clarification in the contract. Some are just items of concern. The items I discussed with Mr. Robbins are as follows. 1. The contract should continue to have a bond clause and the City may request at any time by letter an annual bond at an additional cost of $910.00 per year. I do not feel A bond in this case would be necessary. Other members or the City Attorney may feel differently. 2. I asked Mr. Robbins to prepare a detailed budget for the first year of operation aligning as closely as possible with the line items in the City budget. 3. We discussed Appendix C and that the contractor was Only allowed time to correct effluents exceeding limitations when the overall design capacity of the Wastewater Treatment Plant facility had been exceeded. 250 East 8rcaawaY Menilcalw Mlnnaeata 553e2.0246 f! Contract negotiations committee Wastewater Treatment Plant July 16, 1986 Page 2 4. We also discussed Section 5.4 and that the City would make payment to the contractor after approval by the Council on the 4th Monday of each month. 5. I requested additional language that no City property would be utilized by Treatment Plant personnel for other than the operation and maintenance of the Wastewater Treatment Plant facility, and that no outside usage would be allowed unless special written permission is given. 6. That the City draft a mutual aid agreement for approval by PSG. 7. That along with Section 2.23, Professional Services Group be required to align their inventory with the City's property management ordinance. This would mean that Professional Services Group would be required to maintain an ongoing inventory and record of City equipment and property. 6. I discussed Appendix F, the bass fee adjustment formula and that it was not clearly understood that this formula would only be used at the end of the contract period, 3L years down the road. Mr. Robbins indicated that they may be able to revise Appendix F and delete the formula and indicate some simpler arrangement for negotiating a contract renewal. 9. I asked that PSG evaluate Carol Blommol, who is a temporary employee at the Wastewater Treatment Plant facility. I asked that they evaluate her and look into the possibility of hiring her as a full-time employee and that she would be avaluable asset to them. 10. The final thing wa discussed vas a rebate, for the automatic blower control installed by the City of Monticello. This blower control was installed at a cost of $2,010.00 and should be rebated within the next 14-15 months. I asked that Professional services Group include in their contract some method for rebating the cost of that blower control to us within their contract period. I have enclosed a copy of the proposed agreement for your review. Please make your comments in writing and return them to we no later than July 25. Fool free to contact me at any time regarding any questions you may have. �a ctfu11 John E. simola Public Works Director cc: Gary Pringle Tom 81dom John Welich is ✓ Bill Fair Fran Fair File Arve Crime= �� i _ City 4/�/onfice��o MONTICELLO. :.N 55362.9245 July 25, 1986 Pncnete121295-2711 Mevo 16121333.5739 TO: Members of the Contract Negotiation Committee Wastewater Treatment Plant Maya,: FROM: John E. Simola, Public Works Director Ane Grimsmo Clry Council RE: Contract Review for Negotiation Session Dan Bion,gen Fran Fan Vhnacn Fen Dear Committee Members: Jac+ M—en I have received comments from several of the committee members and will attempt to sumaariae those in this letter. These are Aem- -a:or: points of concern, and I will relay them to Mr. Michael Robbins, Tom Eiaam Senior Vice President for Professional Services Group. I will Finance 01 ac:or: Arc, won!vener attempt to put these concerns in chronological order as the Puoac woos: proposed agreement was. .conn S.moia , Pia—,; a 2o--.: Section 1.5: A note was made that the notices should be transmitted Gary Ancenon to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager tether than being sent t0 Rydal, Pennsylvania. Section 2.1: A question was raised as to whether or not an alteration exceeding 51,000.00 would be considered a capital improvement and that anything leas than 51,000.00 in relation to an alteration would not be considered a capital improvement or capital expenditure. This would also go along with a more descriptive narrative for Section 3.1. Section 2.5: In this section, maintaining should be changed to maintain. Section 2.6: In this section, the comma after develop should be deleted. Section 2.9: This section should be expanded to indicate that the Plant will also perform not only those tests required by the NPDES Permit, but also those sludge tests required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and those testa currently being performed in conjunction with the City's current sludge disposal program. It should also stipulate that the testing should be done in accordance with future sludge disposal programs as wall. Section 2.11: This section should be expanded to indicate that no employees will be dismissed for a period of less than six months unless there is documentation to gross inefficiencies or other serious problems. In addition, the City requests that employees after six months would not be let go unless there was documentation as to unacceptable performance. This would provide the best possible guarantees to existing City employees. 250 East 91oso. ov MonlKeeO, Mlnnesots B5382.9245 contract Negotiation Co=ittee July 25, 1986 Page 2 Section 2.13: Additional definition is needed in this section to define -hat extensive training progra=s are and -hat hands-on training really is. Section 2.14: A small amount of detail is needed here to indicate that on weekends and holidays that the Plant will be marled for approximately how many hours. Section 2.16: Definition is needed here to define what is normal and what is not normal project operations, possibly giving some examples. Section 2.17: Additional wording is needed here to indicate that the sludge disposal on the existing sites will occur by the contractor; but also that the contractor and City will work together to obtain additional sites for the contractor to dispose sludge upon.. Section 3.4: The City will be drafting a mutual aid agreement to help cover this section as was stated in the previous letter. Section 3.5: Additional definition is needed here so that the City will provide licenses for only those vehicles owned by the City. Section 3.7: This section should be further defined that the City provides only the dumpater and disposal service for the grit screenings and trash at no cost, that PSG is still responsible for getting those items to the dumpster itself. Section 3.8: Additional language should be added to this section to indicate that normal Quantities of water are those already documented by the wastewater Treatment Plant under City operation. Section 4.3: As stated in the earlier letter, this section will be changed. The formula will no longer be used or it will be changed. Section 4.4: There is additional clarity needed here as to whether or not this section will kick in. It is my understanding that this section is only to be used in negotiation of a new contract after a period of 3i years. Section 6: There are significant Questions about the entire indemnity liability and insurance section. we are asking Gary Pringle to address this section specifically and to make his recommendations known by the contractor. Section 7.5: To this section should be added the words "or batter. •• The City should receive at the and of the contract the wastewater Treatment Plant back in the same condition or batter. If improvements have been made which made the facility better, we want thoa• left in place. 0// Contract Negotiation Committee July 25, 1986 Page 3 Section Appendix C: Staff is doing additional checking into the design characteristics of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The loadings to the Wastewater Treatment Plant in some cases have already, on certain dates, exceeded the design capacity of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. We want the contractor to realize that this Wastewater Treatment Plant can handle flows in excess of its design and feel that the contractor should not be given excess time for handling a certain amount of flows, SOD, or suspended solids in excess of design capacity, especially when we can already docu`ent those. I wish to thank the committee members for their input. We will have additional input coming from dank Mayer from Baling and from Gary Pringle. I will forward that information to you when it arrives. In addition, we are still hoping to meet our August 5 negotiating session time table. We would then bring, if possible, a sample contract to the Council on August 11, not for approval but merely to provide it to the Council for consideration at a subsequent meeting on August 25. If you have any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please contact me. Respectfully, _v John E. simola Public Works Director JES/kd cc: G. Pringle is ✓ rile Eid.. B. Pair A. Grimam0 J. Badalich F. Pair 0 — q _ onticello MONTICELLO, MN 5536252-5 July 30, 1986 P+wnet912I 295-2711 Melo 19121 333.5739 To: Members of the Contract Negotiations Committee Wastewater Treatment Plant Mayor: FROM: John Simola, Public works Director Arve Granaso C41 COuncd: Dan RE: Contract Review for Negotiation Session F -an Fm a:euam Fair .ac.. res,-«ee Dear Committee Members: we have confirmed the date and time for our first negotiation meeting with Professional Services Group. The meeting will Aom+ "mr: Tem E-com take place at City Hall an August 5, at 9:00 a.m. While our Finance Dtremor: mooting is being conducted, PSG's proposed new plant manager kc. woaa:oner will be meeting with Al Meyer at the wastewater Treatment Plant. Puon woos: Jonn $-ON I received a tail on Wednesday, July 30, from Hank Mayer of PLari mg 6 Zormc: Gary Ancmeon Baling 6 Associates, Moline, Illinois. He had completed his preliminary review of the agreement and gave me his comments. ' I have enclosed his comments for your review. Section 2.2-2.3: It should be further stipulated here that -- the maintenance and repair does not include PSG labor. Section 2.5: Additional language should be added here so that computer hardware located at the site cannot be removed prior to termination of the service contract. Section 2.11: The first sentence here is a little bit unclear. It should simply state that benefits and wages are comparable. Section 2.23: Just an additional comment here that the inventory should include everything. Section 2.24: Hank Mayer indicated that the level Of detail shown in Appendix E is very limited and that we should ask for more detail in their monthly reports. Section 2.28: This should be further defined as to how PSG will determine their cost. It would be batter to have the multiplier given for their direct coats. Section 4.2: It should be further indicated in here that 100% of the unused maintenance items are returned and that 751 of those other items remaining as direct costs are returned. Section 5.1: Some additional clarification is probably needed here in that PSG is asking for payment in advance. We may talk to them about one-half month in advance. Payment in advance is standard in many of these typos of contracts Mr. Mayor informed me. 2aG Feat flroearveY MOniire9a. Mlnneeoa sasar92+a �� Contract Negotiations Committee July 30, 1926 Page 2 Section 5.2: We had clarified this and indicated to PSG previously that payment for invoices for other compensation will be paid on the 4th Monday of the month following receipt of invoice. There are few items that Mr. Mayer indicated should be extra or included in the agreement. I will give you those. 1. A statement should be made indicating, as PSG stated during their interview, that the technical support will be provided and that this will be provided at no additional cost to the City. 2. There should be some statement as to the security of the wastewater Treatment Plant and whose responsibility the security is. 3. There should be a statement as to regular meetings, at what time, and when they will occur, especially at what interval and who will attend. 4. It has been talked about many times and should be addressed that the appearance of the wastewater Treatment Plant is important to the City and should be kept up by PSG. 5. The odor control situation may not have been adequately addressed. It should be stressed in the contract as wall as in the proposal. 6. There should be some statement as to PSG'a attending public meetings and providing for public relations on an on-going basis. 7. Some statement indicating local purchasing wherever possible so as not to take the money out of the City. 8. There should be a statement as to snow removal and moving at the wastewater Treatment Plant. It possibly could be addressed in the mutual aid agreement. 9. I believe it in stipulated in the proposal that the O 6 M Manuals will be updated and kept current. It's poesible that we would want to include the proposal terms in the contract by a broad statement. I have talked to Mika Robbins about this, and he has indicated that this would be acceptable to him. 10. Thera should and probably will be a statement of non-discrimination of employment. 11. Mr. Mayer indicated that the section on insurance, which was actually flection 6, should be more aligned with contributory negligence rather than sole negligence, and that sole negligence very rarely finds itself into these types of contracts and C/—/) Contract Negotiations Committee July 30, 1986 Page 3 leaves the contractor too well protected. In a partnership or any type, contributory negligence should be the word used. In addition to the other sections, Hank Mayer and I talked about a couple of the appendices. In Appendix A, Hank noted that Section A.5 should have as much definition as Section A.G. The indirect costa need definition equally as well as the direct costs. In Appendix B, there is a need to be more descriptive in the boundaries of the plant which PSG will be responsible for. For example, the outlet is located outside of the plant fence but yet is still within the boundaries of the plant. Under Appendix C, Hank made some additional comments. I informed him that we were working with the loading parameters and that the Treatment Plant, on occasion, has been over the design parameters and has had no problems. He indicated that he felt under Section C.1 that Item 2 should be stricken, that PSG is not responsible for treating sewage when a discharge has been made violating any or all regulations, whether it's harmful to the plant or not. He recommends that this section be stricken. In addition, under Section C.14, Hank indicated that PSG indicated they would not be atle to operate the plant or be responsible for the plant because of labor disputes or adverse weather conditions. He foals this is very restrictive because labor problems are supposed to be non-existent with PSG, and the plant should be capable of operating in the rain or during the cold weather we have here in Minnesota. In addition, under Section C.3, it was indicated that the last sentence needs some clarification and does not make a lot of sense. This concluded Hank Mayer's commonts, and I Will attempt to pass these on to Mike Robbins of Professional Services Group prior to our August 5 meeting. Again, if you have any questions, or if I may be of any assistance, real free to contact me anytime before the meeting. I have not as of yet received con monts from Gary Pringle. Hopefully he will have his section completed and be present during our August 5 meeting. A01 ,otrally, BimOla Public works Director JES/kd cc: G. Pringle T. Eidem J. Badalich J8 v 8. Fair F. Fair Firs A. Grimsmo 0// MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT FOR LABOR AND EQUIPMENT BETWEEN THE CI'.": OF MONTICELLO AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, CONTRACT OPERATOR Cr THE MONTICELLO WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY This agreement is made on this day of , 19 , between the City of Monticello, whose address is 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Mimaasota 55362, and Professional Services Group, whose addrass is Rydell Executive Plaza, Suite 330, P.O. Box PSG, Rydell, Pennsylvania 19046. 1. Professional Services Group agrees: Emergencies 1.1 To immediately provide man and equipment to assist during emargancias such •s, but not limited to, lift station failure, sanitary sewer line failure, water main failure, water pumping station failure, water reservoir or tank failure, flood, fire or flood or civil emergency involving • portion of the ccmmunity, or nuclear emergencies. 1.2 To provide labor and City owned equipment when requested by the Public Works Director to assist City workers in the routine aspects of public works when it will not disrupt the activities or operations at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. 1.3 Provide City owned equipment normally used in conjunction with the wastewater treatment operations to other departments within the City when It will not disrupt the oparations of the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Facility. Such equipment provided is, but not limited to, the IMd sludge nurse unit, the I.ME sludge applicatcr unit, the G:4C pickup with hoist, miscellanecus shop tools and equipment, testing equipment, and other pumps, etc. 2. The City of Monticello agrees to: 2.1 Furnish labor and City owned equipment immediately upon notification of an emergency as verified by the Public Works Director at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. 2.2 Provide labor and City owned equipment for use at the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant facility for non -emergency use when its use will not disrupt other normal operations within the City of Monticello. 0// Mutual Aid Agreement Page 2 2.3 Furnish City equipment only for use during nor --al operations at the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Facility when it will not disrupt other operations of other depart=alts within the City of Monticello. Such equipment shall be, but not limited to, dump trucks, large rubber tire loader, small rubber tire loader, 3 point hitch backhoe, 4 -wheel drive tractor, sewer jet, rodding machine, bucket machines, 6 -inch centrifugal pump, 3 -inch diaphragm pump, small portable generator, chain saw, concrete pipe saw, drill press, hydraulic press, miscellaneous hard tools, etc. 3. The City of Monticello and Professional Services Group agree to: 3.1 Keep track of all use of labor and equip=ent and to be responsible for maintenance and operation costs when in use and to file with each other an annual report indicating amounts of labor and equipment used. 3.2 Reimburse the other when use by the City or PSG exceeds 25% of the other's usage. Reimbursement shall be at coat only. This cost shall be the actual cost of labor, including all benefits, and the cost of operating and maintaining the piece of equipment used. 3.3 Both parties agree that the City of Monticello shall plow the main driveway, the horseshoe driveway off of Hart Boulevard, and the lower parking lot utilizing the Public works Department and City snowplow trucks. The City will also sand the hill on the main driveway during its normal sanding operations and will use the City loader and forces to push back snow banks in the areae it plows. PSG will be responsible for snow removal in the central area of the complex as well as for clean up of walkways and around buildings. During the winter months, the City will provide a small tractor with snow blower in good operating condition for use by PSG at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. During these months, the operation, maintenance, and repair costs for this tractor snow blower shall be borne by PSG. The unit shall be returned in the spring to the Public works Department in good operating condition. Snowplowing will be exempt from Section 3.2. 3.4 Both parties agree that the City of Monticello will provide mowing services to the wastewater Treatment Plant facility if Public Works staffing and work load permits and requested by PSG. PSG agrees to reimburse the City of Monticello for actual costs incurred for such mowing operations. 14 C APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PSG agrees to provide the services necessary for the management, operation and maintenance of the following: a) All equipment, vehicles, grounds and facilities now existing within the present property boundaries of or being used to operate CITY's wastewater Treatment Facility located at: 1601 Hart Boulevard, Monticello, Minnesota. This shall include the fenced in area as well as that area between the fence and Mississippi River, including outfalls and between the fence and Hart Boulevard. The building currently housing the City's animal shelter is exempt from this agreement. The driveway and sidewalk are, however, part of the contract obligation. nl