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