City Council Agenda Packet 12-08-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
` Monday, December 8, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arne A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Special Meeting Held Monday, November 24,
1986, and the Regular Meeting Held Monday, November 24, 1986.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Old Business
4. Consideration of Authorizing Final Closeout and Payment for the
Construction of 6th Street.
5. Consideration of Continuing with City Computer System Selection.
6. Consideration of Revised Bid for City Hall Ceiling Sealing.
7. Consideration of Band Shell Designs.
New Business
S. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Joining a Joint Purchasing
Consortium.
9. Consideration of Ratifying 1987 Salarias/Mages for Non -Union
Employees.
10. Consideration of Conveying a Small Parcel •or Driveway Purposes
to Northwest Clinic.
11. Consideration of Cancelling Second Meeting in December.
12. Consideration of Bills for the Month of December.
12. Adjourn.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEET114G - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, November 24, 1986 - 6:00 p.m.
A special meeting of the Monticello City Council was duly held at
6:00 p.m., Monday, November 24, 1986, in the City Hall. Members
present were: Dan Blonigen, Bill Fair, Fran Fair, Arve Grimsmo,
and Jack Maxwell. Members Absent: None. Also present were Tom
Eidem, City Administrator; and Council member elect, Warren Smith.
The Mayor called the meeting to order. The Mayor requested that
Administrator Eidem review the results of the comparable worth study
to date. Eidem explained that the comparable worth study was not
as yet in its final reporting form, but substantial progress had
been made;'*and the findings and results were virtually final. Eidem
indicated that the results of the study show that the City of Monticello
will be required to make some minor adjustments to establish pay
equity, but that overall pay equity currently exists within the City.
Eidem noted that the process yet to be completed would be to take
the results that were being shown to the Council at this meeting
to the entire City staff and review with those employees. Upon completion
of that review process with City employees and final fine tuning
of the pay equity plan, the plan in its final form would be returned
to the Council for final adoption, after which it would then be submitted
to the State of Minnesota to demonstrate the City's compliance with
the pay equity act.
Eidem spent a brief amount of time summarizing the entire 2 -year
process that staff has gone through. He explained that all City
employees participated in the occupational analysis questionnaires
and that all employees completed time spent profiles. He provided
brief information on the role of Control Data Business Advisors in
assimilating all of the data collected. Eidem reviewed the hierarchy
of job points as established by Control Data Business Advisors and
illustrated the City•s hierarchy In comparison to the benchmark hierarchy
established by the over 100 jurisdictions in the study.
Eidom then covered the basic definitions of comparable pay, comparable
vorth, competitive worth, and proportional pay. He noted that the
definitions of comparable and proportional generally needed to be
determined with respect to classes of employs*& and their relationship
to a pay corridor. He explained that proportional worth means generally
that higher points will generate proportionally higher pay. He noted
that for the purposes of establishing the Comparability within employee
ciasses, he first established a pay line reflecting actual salaries
currently issued. Based on that pay line, he then established e
corridor to be 10% either side of the pay line. He further noted
that the employee classes ware broken down at 15 point intervals
so that any two employees within a given 15 point interval should
be determined to be of comparable worth. He noted that once the
me
t A-)
Special Council Minutes - 11/24/86
comparable worth has been established within the employee class,
then it would be necessary to compensate within the pay corridor
established for that employee class. Eidem emphasized that other
factors such as longevity, excellence in performance, and the competitive
market can account for fluctuations in actual pay which would not
be seen as violations of the pay equity act. He noted that pay equity
or comparable worth did not mean identical pay. Similarly, he noted
that proportional pay did not mean every salary had to be on the
actual pay line.
Eidem asked the Council if there were any specific questions about
specific positions and/or about the methodology. Some discussion
followed with respect to how City wages compare to the private sector
in the general vicinity surrounding Monticello. It was noted that
in several 'cases the City's employees were in the upper half of the
competitive market. Eidem explained that the City pay plan did not
demonstrate a discriminatory patterl. for female dominated classes.
It was noted that while, in fact, public works maintenance employees
are currently an all male class, a female employee could be hired
in that class and would receive the same pay. Similarly, the clerical
staff, which is a female dominated class, is only slightly lower
than male dominated classes with comparable points. The compensation
is considered equitable and is controlled to a certain degree by
the competitive market in the area.
There being no additional questions, the Council, by consensus, indicated
their general approval to the pay equity plan that will be presented
to the employees and indicated that the process should continuo so
that the final plan may be brought back to the Council shortly after
the first of the year.
The Council then turned their attention to the establishment of a
salary pool for the 1987 salaries for non-union personnel. Eidem
suggested to the City Council that a minimum pool of 4% of the 19BG
payroll be established based on economic foretaste cited in various
professional journals. He noted that the journals projected that
1987 inflation to be estimated at 4%. It was Eidem's contention
that the City should award at leant a cost of living adjustment so
that employees would keep up with inflation. Councilmembor Blonigen
stated that the Council used 4% inflation forecast for 1486 and awarded
that amount as a cost of living increase when, in fact, it appeared
the inflation rata would only be 2%. He was concerned that perhaps
the City had paid more in 1986 than the actual inflation and wondered
if using forecasts was adequate. Eidem responded that using foretaste
did involve a calculated risk, but the risks were not considered
to be great. Eidem stated that he didn't think it was a problem
that salary increases exceeded inflation, for that simply allowed
each employee to better his/her station in life. Eidem noted that
it -as his opinion that that really is the reason a person attempts
to do a good job and stay in a position. A question was raised with
respect to the performance increases that were granted in 1986 and
-2-
Special Council Minutes - 11/24/86
the addition of the dental plan. Councilmember Maxwell felt the
increases granted in 1986 amply rewarded the employees and that the
City should exercise greater fiscal restraint for 1987. Councilmember
Bill Fair indicated that it seemed appropriate to establish a pool
that would allow for a minimum 4% cost of living adjustment to match
the inflation forecast, and that the Council should consider an additional
1-2i available for performance adjustment or merit increase. Councilmember
Bili Fair went on to state that the performance adjustment increases
granted in 1986 were across the board and that if any increases over
and above cost of living were given this year, then, in his opinion,
they should be extremely limited. It was Fair's contention that
granting across the board performance adjustments did not make real
distinctions for superior performance and consequently became simply
an increase without documentation. Councilmember Fran Fair and Mayor
Grimsmo both endorsed Bill Fair's comments that increases should
reflect the forecasted inflation rate, but the notion of performance
and/or merit adjustment should be used sparingly in light of the
adjustment percentages issued in 19e6.
Motion by Bill Fair, second by Jack Maxwell, that a total salary
pool equaling 5% of 1986 salaries (excluding City Administrator's
salary) be established for the granting of 1987 wage increases, said
pool to be $15,020.00. Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor then turned the discussion to the Administrator's salary.
Mayor Grimemo asked Administrator Eidem if he had prepared any data
or a specific request. Eidem indicated he had not anticipated his
salary being considered at this meeting, and consequently had not
prepared a formal request. He did, however, note that on the data
provided with the comparable worth information it was shown that
the City Administrator's position was the lowest paid in the public
sector administratiun in the area. Eidem went on to state that he
felt the rapid growth of the City placed additional demands, visibility,
and vulnerability on top management positions. Eidem stated that
he felt the stream associated with the increased demands of the position
warranted an increase beyond pure cost of living.
Mayor Grimamo stated that he came into the meeting feeling that a
51 increase was adequate. He stated that because of the election
campaign, he had become aware of an anti-Eidem sentiment among some
persons and that that negative attitude was enough justification
to not go beyond the 5%. with that, the Mayor made his own motion
to increase the Administrator's salary 5%. Motion was seconded by
Jack Maxwell. Councilmambers Bill Fair and Fran Fair spoke to the
competitive salary issue. Both felt that the City's Chief Administrator
should receive a wage comparable to the Chief Administrator in the
Hospital District. Bill Fair noted that an increase of 6% weuld
place Eidsm's salary in that comparable range. Couneilmembers Blonigen
and MAxwoll both stated their support of tho Mayor's motion. There
'1-
0-
Special Council Minutes - 11/24/86
being no further discussion, the Mayor called the vote on the motion.
Voting in favor of increasing the Administrator's salary 51: Grimsmo,
Maxwell, Blonigen. Voting in opposition: Fran Fair, Bill Fair.
Motion carried.
There being no further business, the special meeting was adjourned.
Thomas A. Eidem,
City Administrator
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, November 24, 1986 - 7:70 p.m.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell,
Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
2. Approval of Minutes
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to'approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 10,
1986.
4. Consideration of Executing a Cost Sharing Agreement with Wright County
for the Installation of Highway 25 Traffic Control Signals.
Since the Highway 25 project involved improvements to intersections
of county roads, Wright County was responsible for a certain portion
of the cost for the highway improvements, as well as the traffic
signalsto be located at County Road 117 and 7th Street. The County's
funding policy was to pay 1001 of the highway related cost at County
Road 117 and County Road 75, along with 50% of the signal cost at
County Road 117, 7th Street, and County Road 75 intersections.
Based on cost established from the bid tabulations for the project,
Wright County's share of the total Highway 25 construction project
is estimated at $47,987.70. An agreement has been prepared by the
Wright County Highway Department establishing their funding requirements
based on the above pe rcontages.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve entering into an agreement between the City of
Monticello and Wright County regarding the funding for the construction
cost and traffic signals.
4a. Consideration of Acce ptinq Documents to Establish an Escrow Account
and Contracting for tho Construction of a Sower and Chelsea Street
Extension and Authori ^ing the Mayor and Administrator to Execute.
Mr. Jim Metcalf, Legal Counsel for the School District, updated the
Council on the progress being made in acquiring the Boyle property
for the middle school site. Mr. Metcalf noted that the sale is scheduled
to be finalized prior to the next Council meeting and requested that
the City authorira the Mayor and Administrator to execute all necessary
documents that would establish an escrow account that will be used
to pay for the construction of the Chelsea Road extension and sever
line to the new middle school sits. In addition, it was noted that
-1-
Council Minutes - 11/26/86
contracts will be provided to the City for the construction of the
improvements in an amount not to exceed 5350,000.00.
Councilmember Blonigen questioned whether the City would be responsible
for any cost overruns snould the improvement project cost more than
the 5350,000.00 escrow; and Administrator Eidem noted that any cost
overruns would still be the responsibility of Mr. Jim Boyle. Both
Boyle s engineer and the City Engineer have reviewed the construction
cost estimates and feel the 5350,000.00 should be adequate.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute and sign
the required agreements upon final approval being given by the City
Attorney.
5. Consideration of Approving City Partici?ation in the Reconstruction
of the Intersection of County Road 75, County Road 118, and East
County Road 39.
Recently, Public works Director, John Simola, requested the Wright
County Board look into the possibility of a future signal light at
the intersection of County Road 75, 39, and 118. The County Highway
Department recently completed a study of the intersection to determine
whether any improvements were needed and noted that the intersection
has some problems with traffic, but they did not feel that traffic
signals at this time were warranted. Based upon the traffic study,
there appears to be an immediate need for some reconstruction and
re -alignment in this intersection, by moving County Road 39 and 118
to the cast slightly to provide for 90 degree entrances onto County
Road 75. In addition, traffic flow through the intersection could
be made safer with raised channelization along County Road 75 with
right and left turn lanes.
The County has agreed to consider the rs-alignment and upgrading
of this intersection with the construction of County Road 39 which
i■ scheduled to begin in 1987. The additional upgrading of the intersection
would be funded through the County's municipal funding policy, which
would require the City to contribute 30% of the grading, base, and
surfacing cost, along with 501 of the concrete median and 50% of
any additional right-of-way required. If after further study traffic
signal■ vera constructed, the City would share in this cost at 50%.
The estimated cost of improving the intersection without signals
was $87,000.00, with the City's cost being projected at approximately
533,500.00, excluding engineering costs. If after further study,
traffic signals at this intersection would be included in the project
cost, the City's share would approach $70,000.00 to $75,000.00.
Public works Director, John Simola, recommended that the City participate
with the County in a study of the intersection to determine the actual
design that should be considered and to further study the need for
traffic signals at this location. The estimated cost of the engineering
study for the City would be between $2,000.00 and 55,000.00. j
-2-
Council Minutes - 11/24/86
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to authorize the City to participate in the intersection
engineering study per the County Municipal Funding Policy.
6. Consideration of Hiring a Technical Arbiter to Evaluate Financial
Responsibility of Excess Cost Related to Interceptor Sewer and Sixth
Street Station.
At the beginning of 1986-1 Interceptor Sewer Project, Raindance Corporation
was in the process of soil excavation for their development known
as Sixth Street Station located between Cedar Street and Highway 25.
The interceptor sewer was planned for construction at the northerly
end of this property prior to Raindance Corporation starting their
building program. Raindance Corporation had requested that the City
allow them to begin soil corrections for their building located close
to the interceptor sewer line before the interceptor sewer was completed:
and as a result, the City took extra steps to make sure that the
On
replaced over the interceptor sewer pipe would be sufficient
end not cause any problems for a future building.
During the construction of the sewer line, the City hired Braun Engineering,
along with its own engineering consultant, OSM, to ensure that proper
soils were replaced during the sewer construction; and it was recommended
by the engineers that some of the unsuitable soils be replaced with
new material to ensure that the City could not be held negligent
in the future. A problem aroso in that Raindance Corporation had
agreed to special conditions for their early start, one of which
required Raindance to pay any extra cost, if any, for special backfill
requirements in the interceptor sewer line trench. Because of the
replacement of unsuitable materials, the City has incurred extra
coat between 520,000.00 and $30,000.00, which Raindance Corporation
does not feel responsible for. Raindance Corporation felt the materiel
that was excavated was suitable for compaction in the interceptor
aswer line trench and would not have retroed any problems for their
naw building; and as a result, do not feel the extra cost should
be charged to them.
Representatives of Raindance Corporation, Braun Engineering, the
City's Consulting Engineer, and City staff, along with the contractor,
L 6 0 Rahbein, have met to try and work out who, if anybody, should
be responsible for the extra cost incurred. To date, no solution
has been arrived at; and it was recommended by the Public works Director
that if one more additional meeting did not solve the problem, a
technical arbiter be hired by the City to evaluate the circumstances
surrounding the extra cost and determine who should be liable for
the cost.
After further discussion by the Council, it was their consensus that
the City staff should meat with all parties one more time to try
and work out a solution; but if an agreement cannot be reached, the
Council would hold a special meeting with all parties involved to
try and arrive at a solution.
Council Minutes - 11/24/86
7. Consideration of Approving the 1987 Fire Contract with Silver Creek J
Township.
A current fire protection agreement with Silver Creek Township expires
on December 31, 1986, and a new contract has been submitted to the
Township for their approval. The new contract calls for an annual
flat charge of $7,625.00 per year on a 3 -year contract, which has
been approved by the Silver Creek Board.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried authorizing the City to enter into a new contract for fire
protection services for three years with Silver Creek Township at
an annual flat charge of $7,625.00 per year.
8. Consideration of Executing the 1987 Law Enforcement Contract with
the Wright County Sheriff's Department.
For the past three years, the City has contracted with Wright County
Sheriff's Department for lav enforcement coverage based on 6,905
hours of patrol coverage. The hourly rate for 1987 has been set
at 518.50 per hour by the Wright County Sheriff's Department, which
would total 5127,742.50.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, secondad by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to ratify the contract with the Wright County Sheriff's Department
for law enforcement protection for 6,905 hours of coverage at 518.50
per hour. %
9. Consideration of Authorizing Inter -fund Transfers for the 1986 Budget.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the following transfers.
1986
Item -Purpose Amount Transfer From Transfer To
Amend Budget-Porsonal Services 5 2,425.00 Contingency General
Amend Budget -Personal Services 525,000.00 Contingency LCMR
Amend Budget -Personal Services 5 41000.00 Contingency Water
Amend Budget -Personal Services 5 2,500.00 Contingency Sewer
Contingency Fund Balance- 527,700.00• Contingency General
Close Out Fund
To cover deficit created in 571,350.00 General OAA
1985 -Naw Twp. Aid Agreement
To close out surplus balance 526,896.66 1975 G.O. 1980 G.O.
in Debt Service Fund Maint. Bldg. Library Bond
To close out construction S 1,610.08 Hart, Bdvy, 1984 G.O.
fund balance to Debt Service Cedar Const. Impr. Bond
Fund
4- O
Council Minutes - 11/24/86
1986
Item -Purpose Amount Transfer From Transfer To
Transfer approved by Council $27,925.00 Capital Outlay LCMR Fund
7/28/86 for sprinkler, S 6 W Revolving
hookup, electrical service
for NSP softball complex
•Figure is approximate - depends on final tax collection in December, 1986.
10. PSG Monthly Report.
Mr. Steve Sunt, Plant Manager at the wastewater Treatment Plant for
PSG, Inc.,. reviewed with the Council the monthly report of the operations
at the wastewater Treatment Plant. Af_cr discussion, the report
was accepted as presented.
11. puarterly Liquor Store Report.
Mr. Joe Hartman, Manager of the Liquor Store, was present to review
with the Council the third quarter and nine month financial statement
of the Liquor Store.
Total sales for the first nine months were up approximately $29,750.00,
with gross profit up approximately 519,000.00. The net operating
income was also up almost 524,000.00 to $62,700.00. It was noted
by Mr. Hartman that if the fourth quarter equals last years sales,
sales for the year will exceed 51 million. The Council accepted
the financial report as presented.
12. Consideration of Bills for the Month of November.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of November an presented.
RSCk wolfateylor
Assistant Administrator
O
Council Agenda - 12/8/86
4. Consideration of Authorizing Final Closeout and Payment for the Construction
of 6th Street. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Engineer has established final pay quantities for the 6th
Street improvement project between Cedar Street and Highway 25.
He has established a total of all pay quantities of $84,700.00.
The original contract for this work was $66,152.00. The overrun,
which amounted to 518,548.00, was primarily due to the more extensive
soil correction work than was originally anticipated.
It is our intention to deduct from Veit Construction Company an amount
of 5845.69 for sealcoating of Cedar Street which was required due
to damage done to this street from heavy equipment during the construction.
In addition, we are deducting $242.00 for density testing of the
paving operation, as the contractor failed to give proper notice
prior to the start of his paving operations. This leaves the total
amount of the project to be 583,612.31. The total paid on this project
to date is $75,664.00, leaving a balance due of $7,948.31.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Alternative 41 is to authorize final payment to Veit 6 Company, Inc.,
for project 86-6 in the amount of $7,948.31.
2. The.sacond alternative would be not to authorize payment. This
does not appear to be practical, as the City Engineer has verified
that Veit Company has performed the work.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that City Council authorize final
payment as outlined in Alternative 01 in the amount of $7,948.31.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the final pay estimate from OSM.
M15TRUCTIIN PAYMENT VOUCHER
Estimate Voucher No. 3 Uinal
------ -------
Date Decmber 4, 1986 For Period Ending November 30, 1986
-----------
Oct
------- act Number 86-6
------------ —
---------------DD-----------'-----•- ---------------- — ---- —'
Class of L'ork Street Construction and Appurtenant Vora
To Veit 8 Co., Inc.
-------- '----------------- --- — -- — --- 1400 Veit Place
Location Cis Street Rogers, Mn. 33374
For City of Monticello, Uript County, Minnesota
----------- —
A. Original Contract Phount • 66132.00
0. Total Additions 1 0.00
---------------
C. Total Deductions f 0.00
0. Total Funds Encumbered -- f 66132.00
E. Total Value of Uork Certified to Date t 83612.31
---•
-----------
F. Liss Retained Percentage 0 'L s 0.00
8. Liss Total Previous Payments s 7;664.00
-----------------------
H. Approved for Payment, This Report S 7948.31
' ------ .................
�1I. Total Payments including This Voucher It 83612.31
-----------------------
d. Balance Carried forward s -17463.31
.........................
AFPROAiLS
J
ORR-SCHELei-MAYERM 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
...................................... -
Pursuant to our field obstruction, is performed in accordance with our contract, we hereby certify that the materials
ire Satisfactory and the work properly performed in accordance with the plans and specifications and that the total
work is 103 % complettd as of November 30, 1986 Ve hereby recontad payment of this voucher.
Signed : Signed
......................... »... »........ .......................... ..... .-».....
Eonitruction Observer
.....................................................................................—...............__._......__.......
This is to certify that to the bill of my knowledge, information, and belief, the guar,titiu and values 04 wort
certified herein is a fair approsimle estimate for the period covered ty this voucher.
Contractor : Vert a Co., Inc. signed By
..............................................................................
Dale : Tille
........................................... »._.....................................
............................................—»»_........».......»—_..».»... — .....
_......
City of Monticello Approved for Payment
r her ---- ------ ---
._.»..._...� p
D..ked 8r : Authorised Re resentative
Date e
Dale r —.».----• ..............». .......
Page 1 of 2 -»� W-3736.00 r1
:atimate Voucher 140. S 6 Final
.ate December 4, 1986
reel Construction and Appurtenant Work
:a Street - Project No. 86-6
:r the
.ty of Monticello, Wright County, Mintsota
Contractor : Veit 8 Co., Inc.
1400 Veit Place
Rogers, Mn. $5374
.antract Date : April 22, 1986
Work Started
: April 23, 1986
-ark Ccrpleled : Novem:er 30, 1986
Completion
Dale
June 15,
1986
Contract
Total to
Date
all
Unit
Guantity Unit
Price Total
Price
Quantity Total Prict
.................................... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.orm,n Excavation
C.Y.
2000
LOD
6000.00
3410
1023C.00
:ranular Borrow
C.Y
7000
4.00
26000.00
11600
46400.00
.,ggregaly Bast, Class S
Tn
630
5.00
3:50.00
333
1915.09
:2331 Bituminous Base Course Mixture ( loci.
:i:minous Material for Mixture )
Ton
280
22.00
6160.00
225
4950.00
:2341 Bituminous gearing Course M:xtere t loci.
';luminous Material for Mixture )
Ton
170
25.00
4250.00
IIB
3200.00
?ilminous Material for Tack Coat
Gal.
90
1.00
90.00
77
77.00
.oncrt4 Curb and Gutter 9-618
L.F.
BCD
5.00
4000.00
OSB
4290.00
:• Driveway Entrance
S.Y.
70
23.00
:610.00
70
1610.00
.adding ( Incl. Topsoil J
S.Y.
2000
1.20
2407.00
1500
1800.00
:2• R.C.P. Class III
C.F.
186
22.00
4092.00
184
4048.00
:5• A.C.P. Class 111
L.F.
60
24.00
1440.00
55
1320.00
standard Manholes
Ea.
1
950.00
950.00
1
950.00
:itch Basins
Ea.
3
930.00
2790.00
3
2190.00
uranular Trench Material
L.T.
30
18.00
540.00
30
540.00
.urb and Gutter Removal
Lump Sum Bid Item 1-1
L.S.
1
300.00
300.00
1
300.00
Pelocatt Hydrant
Lump Sun Bid Jim 1-8
C.S.
t
280.00
280.00
1
280.00
%.aJutt Valut Box and Extension Rod
Lump Sm Bid lies 1-C
L.S.
1
100.00
100.00
1
100.00
Total ............................................./
66152.00
•
84700.00
NSeal Coating Cedar Street Deduct 845.69
Loring and Testing Bituminous Base Deduct 242.00
Total to Date.................................................................1 83612.31
0
Page 2 of 2 068-3736.00 V
Council Agenda - 12/8/86
5. Consideration of Continuing with City Computer System Selection. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
on Tuesday afternoon, November 25, we received ten proposals to supply
the City's computer system. After we completed the bid opening,
we sent the proposals along with Anne Carroll to analyze in depth.
As we anticipated, the proposals ranged greatly in price and in the
various elements offered. For instance, some companies included
the cost of maintenance and supplies and installation into their
overall bid, while other companies kept those items separate. It
has been Anne Carroll's job to separate all of those various elements
into their appropriate categories so that a reasonable comparison
can be made among the bids. In addition, Anne Carroll compared to
the original request in an effort to evaluate how closely each bidder
came to the original request for proposals that was sent out. At
this point, Anne has reduced the number of serious contenders to
two. She is currently arranging for on-site demonstrations for staff
members (and Council members if you so desire) so that we have an
opportunity to evaluate the various software and hardware elements
being proposed.
As we informed the Council in the beginning, this is a major expenditure
for the City, and it is our desire to keep you totally informed as
we go throughout the process. we also indicated at the beginning
that at each particular crossroads or junction the Council would
have an opportunity to review our process and indicate their preference
for going ahead or stopping. This is one of those significant crossroads.
A detailed summary report 1s being provided by Anne Carroll for your
review. If we wish to continue with the process, no action is necessary
by the Council. If, however, you wish to "abort" the mission, a
formal motion should be adopted terminating our search efforts.
One informational note: As we indicated in the beginning, we have
prepared the RPP to address all of the major functions we identified
in our work sessions. That, in essence, became our computer wish
list. The proposals, addressing all of the elements we had cited,
are higher than what we had originally projected for basic computer
services. After the completion of the demonstrations, it will be
essential for Anne and City staff to evaluate cost versus benefit
for the various alemants. Those elements that cannot generate their
own exponse in savings will need to be wended out and a refined system
acquired. we are all vary wall aware of this process, and we are
not trying to pass through to the Council any hidden coat. City
staff'a objective has not changed since the very beginning. That
is, we desire to inetall a system that will increase our productivity
and efficiency, but not by a sophisticated plaything that has little
or no usa. 1 do not believe anyone on staff has allowed themselves
to lose site of our automation objective.
-2-
Council Agenda - 12/8/86
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. By consensus, indicate a willingness to proceed further.
2. By motion and vote, terminate the process.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that we continue further.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Anne Carroll's report.
-3-
a�
CARROLL, FRANCK & ASSOCIATES
TRAINING. ENGINEERING. AND PLANNING 533 LAUREL AVE.. ST, PAUL, MN 55102
W2.22&0151
TO: City of Monticello
FROM: Anne Carroll�V_
RE: Review of computer system proposals received
DATE: 2 December 1986
PROPOSALS RECEIVED
At the bid opening on 25 November 1986, the City received proposals from the
following vendors:
NCR/Eden Systems
Hewlett-Packard (HP)/,Minnesota Municipal Leasing Corporation (MMLC)
National Computer Systems (NCS)/Rodin and Associates
McDonnell -Douglas
Data Management Design, Inc. (DMDI)
Computoservice, Inc.
Computer Concepts and Services (CCSI)
UNISYS (formerly Burroughs and Sperry)
Ameri-Data, Inc.
Wang/Information Development Consultants (IDC)
VENDOR EVALUATION
Purpose
The first review identifies the vendors who offer the most comprehensive software
capabilities, in relation to the needs specified in the RFP. The object is to
eliminate, at least for the present, those vendors who do not propose to provide the
majority of the items requested. While it is possible to reconsider these vendors at
a later date if no other vendors prove acceptable, that is usually not necessary.
Evaluation Procter
The primary focus of the vendor evaluation is on software, not hardware: Once we
have confirmed that the proposed hardware meets the basic specifications and the
reference checks verify hardware reliability and ease of use, hardware need not be
used as a decision-making criterion. From the perspective of user functionality, the
various hardware products proposed by vendors at this scale are nearly identical,
and in itself, the hardware offers essentially no value to the user. It is the
software that provides the computer capabilities -- the hardware is simply a means
to access those capabilities.
Vendors were asked to present their software offerings using the forms provided in
the RFP. This allowed straightforward °apples to apples' comparisons between
vendors.
MO -01: Review of Verdnr Proposals
2 December 1986
Page 1
Each vendor's capabilities were scored, and staff will participate in demonstrations
from the top vendors.
Selection of Tap Vendors
The top vendors were selected based on their ability to provide comprehensive
software capabilities. You will recall that even though the implementation of the
software may be staged, it is important to try to find a vendor who can be the
sole source of all software for the City, thereby assuring long-term system
integration and coordinated maintenance.
The following vendors were eliminated for the reasons stated:
Lacking) most or all
Lacking most or all
property activity software
public works software
HP/MMLC
NCS/Rodin
NCS/Rodin
McDonnell -Douglas
Compu toseryi ce
Compu toservi ce
CCSI
Unisys
Unisys
Wang/IDC
That left NCR/Eden Systems, Data Management Design, and AmeriData as offering
the most comprehensive software capabilities, all scoring over 858 and within 48 of
each other.
At this point, the issue of software cost became a decision-making criterion. This Is
not usually an issue at such an early stage in a system evaluation, because costs
usually cluster within 20-30% of each other. In this case, however, the cost of
AmeriData software was 100% higher than one top vendor, and 50% higher than the
other.
Compared to the other vendors, AmeriData's software capabilities were not
relatively 50-100% better, so AmeriData was eliminated from further evaluation.
The top vendors at this point are NCR/Eden Systems and Data Management Desic,6
General Information on Top Vendors
NCR/Eden Systems: NCR and Eden Systems jointly bid this project. NCR is an
international provider of computer hardware (and cash registers, of course). They
provide hardware support and maintenance from their Minneapolis office. Eden
Systems is based in Seattle, and has a variety of governmental and non-profit
software Installations, primarily in the western states. They provide software
MO -01: Review of Verrinr Proposals
2 December 1986 Page 2
support and maintenance to their customers via modem.
Data Management Designs (DMDI): DMDI provides the software which runs on Wang
hardware. Wang is an international provider of computer hardware. They provide
hardware support and maintenance from their Minneapolis office. DMDI is based in
Reston, Virginia, and has a variety of governmental and non-profit software
installations. They are primarily in the eastern states, although the Science Museum
in St. Paul installed their software in 1984. They provide software support and
maintenance to their customers via modem.
Reference Checks: For each vendor, several existing clients have been contacted.
We asked about quality of software, ease of use, training, software and hardware
support and maintenance, and general relationship. Both vendors received very
positive reviews.
WHERE WE GO FROM HERE
Demarstratiom
We are currently arranging software demonstrations from NCR/Eden Systems and
Data Management Designs. Staff and the consultant will attend, and Council
members are invited. These will be on the 12th and 15th of December.
Following the demos, participants will select the vendor of first choice, and the
consultant will prepare the Vendor and System Recommendations for the Council.
Vendor and System Recommendation
This report will be presented for the Council's review at its first meeting in
January, and will include the following:
Results of the system demonstrations
Staff analysis and recommendation of vendor of first choice
Request to enter into contract negotiations with the vendor of first choice
Council will be asked to approve staff's request to enter into contract negotiations
with the top vendor. These negotiations will take 30-45 days, and will yield the
following for Council review:
Summary of recommendations In date
Itemized list of software and hardware to be acquired
All costs
Staging plan
Acquisition method and plan (result of negotiations with financing source)
Specification of any software modifications required
MO -01: Review of Vender Prnpnsals
2 December 1986
Page 3
Conditions of contract, including timing, performance requirements, testing and
acceptance, etc.
Training plan and costs
At that point, Council will be asked to review the contract with the selected
vendor. If approved, the system (first stage) will be ordered. First stage
implementation would be a)petted in March or April.
AAO -01: Review of Verdm Proposals
2 December 1986 Page 4
Council Agenda - 12!8/86
6. Consideration of Revised Bid for City Hall Coiling Sealing. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Back on July 14, 1986, this agenda item was up for your consideration.
At that time, a discussion was hold and a motion was made, seconded,
and unanimously carried to approve the awarding of the contract in
the amount of 52,984.60 to seal the entire Monticello City Hall roof
decking and beams.
In further discussion with Mr. Charles Lindberg, owner of Lindberg
Painting 6 Decorating, Mr. Lindberg indicated he had only proposed
to do the interior roof beams and not the decking for the specified
amount of $2,984.60. I apologize for the misinformation that was
given to you that it did include the roof decking as part of their
bid.
For your consideration tonight is the possibility of awarding the
contract to Lindberg Painting and Decorating for the resealing of
the interior wood roof decking and wood beems. As you will note
on the enclosed proposal is a description of what Mr. Lindberg is
proposing to do with a figure not to exceed $4,897.00.
As you will note in Mr. Lindberg's bid proposal, there is a 4 -step
process for accomplishing the sealing of the interior roof beams
and decking. Also before you is an option of the actual finish to
be applied on the roof decking and beams, whether it be two coats
of lacquer finish or two coats of sealer.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept the proposal for the sealing of the interior roof decking
and beams for an amount not to exceed $4,897.00.
2. Deny the proposal for the sealing of the interior roof decking
and beams for the figure not to exceed $4,897.00.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recognizes the incorrect information which was submitted
from one of its staff members, myself, at the July 14. 1986. City
Council mooting. The City staff would like to recommend the Council
consider accepting the proposal submitted by Lindberg Painting S
Decorating. with the proposed application, the number of steps in
the application, and the proposed desired finished product when completed,
and with s figure not to exceed $4,897.00, we feel this would be
a fair amount of money to spend to accomplish the finished product
which we aro looking for.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the bid proposal dated December 2, 1986, from Lindberg Painting
C Decorating.
-4.
r
PROPOSAL
Lindberg Painting & Wallcovering
(Since 1902)
•
A'..
118 East Broadway
MONTICELLO. MIN 55362
PITTSBURGH'
- I—riot
Phone (612) 295-3030
PAINTS
To The Citv of Monticello
Date
December 2, 1905
We are pleased to Quote you on the following• subject to the conditions and terms stated herein:
Job Address Monticello, Minnes,ita
Description of work: Ceiling decKing and beams: Apply one coat of wood bleach #A, when set,
or nearly dry apply one coat pB solution. This will be applied by spraying. When dry,
we will check for water stains that may be present and (eat er these out by using a palm
sander. When the deckina and beams are read'r, we will aoply twc coats of laquer wood
finish. This will give decking and bea=s a satin finish look, or apply two coats of
umbrella. This will protect wood, deck, and beams but will look like raw wood. You can
splash water on it and it will bead up and not penetrate the ~rood. The finish &iso to be
applied by spraying. The desired finish look will be determined by the council. The
laquer finish will give the wood a little deeper tone. The umbrella will leave the wood
almost the same, very little change in tone. Walla, carpets and equipment to be
._..__protected. Lindberg's will propose to do the sob for ff f.0 . We wall be willing to
go on a time and material basis not to exceed d'yr,49700, If there is a savings by
doing this, a credit will be given.
Yhia concern agrees to furnish all labor a^d mato r{a1 workmen's compensation Insurance
for the stove work and will do everything In a nest workmanship manner for the sum of
�su,f 7_�%u f4�ri[i9���u.r-r,�(�•yi�v[ Sri/fYi Y
c=dc=e aC 0
Eserptlonr.
Terms Paid goon oomnletion Delivery
b— of acceptance
I hereby sires to accept the pttposal as he"Its statad.
Purchaser
AOeeptttd by: CHAIIL118 LINDBL80
Council Agenda - 12/8/86
7. Consideration of Bank Shell Designs. O .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Council last discussed this subject on May 27, 1986, at a regular
Council meeting. At that time I presented information about the
approximate value of the old structure and recommended asking for
bids to obtain cost information for MN/DOT. At the same time, it
was recommended that the new band shell be located in Ellison Park.
After some discussion, Council members discussed relocation, and
it was the consensus that the new band shell be built in Ellison
Park but that the City should not be in a hurry to build a structure
identical to the old one, but to look at other designs or alternatives
for a structure. Currently there have been some discussions going
on between the City and MN/DOT as to the value of the old structure.
In addition, Tom has asked me to look at some existing designs and
anticipated costs for a wood structure rather than a concrete structure.
In researching this, we found that a bare bones wood structure flat
on the ground could be purchased pre -fab for approximately $10,000.00.
Placing the structure on an elevation and providing a stairway could
add a few thousand dollars more. In addition, to actually build
a structure, one could estimate labor costs would be at least as
high as the material cost; so we're probably in the area of $20,000-525,000
for a plain Jane type of wood structure.
In looking for an out of the ordinary type of structure, I located one in
a small community in northern Minnesota; this structure,rathor ornate
and unique,is laid out in Biwabik's city park. It has quickly become
well known throughout many of the towns in the area and is commented
upon for its warmth and uniqueness to the area. The City of Biwabik
is currently looking at a renovation of the park and the main streets
into an Alpine theme design. This gazebo is merely a small part
of the overall design. The gazebo, I believe, is made out of native
cedar and is quite ornate. It is placed on a concrete slab with
a very vide concrete sidewalk loading to the structure. The concrete
itself is also ornate in that it is red in color through the use
of an add mixture trowelled into the surface prior to final set.
At this time, the structure is not complete in that it will receive
several different stains and also soma unique trim boards and special
colored stenciling. The structure was designed as part of the overall
renovation by Rafferty, Rafferty, 6 Mikutowski, an architectural
firm from St. Paul. The cost of the construction is estimated at
535,000.00, which includes all of the final staining, stenciling,
and the concrete work, but not the design cost. Mr. Mark Flaherty,
the Director of Development for the City of Bivabik, indicated when
the job was lot that the city looked toward having the structure
built by a craftsman rather than a regular or rough -in carpontor.
I asked Mr. Flaherty it we would be able to obtain plans for the
structure. 1io indicated that was impossible and sent me a small
sketch which I have included for your review along with his Setter.
-5-
Council Agenda - 12/8/86
In discussing this with Tom Eidem, he felt that if we were to use
the plans and design of the architect, we would need a release from
him.
While I don't feel an immediate need to build a structure, we are
coming to a crossroads again with the State of Minnesota as to what
value they will give us for our old structure. And I feel we should
at least press on and determine the direction which we intend to
take with the structure. Certainly we have both ends of the scale
here now with wood structures that could be built anywhere from 520,000-
$35,000.00. The Council, I believe, should give us some additional
direction as to what type of structure and cost they would feel comfortable
with.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Alternative Y1 is to do nothing and attempt to gat $20,000.00
or $22,000.00 from the State of Minnesota for our old structure.
2. The second alternative would be to select a pre -fab wood structure
and bid the erection of a structure, possibly coming in in the
$20,000-525,000 range.
3. The third alternative would be to pursue the City of Biwabik's
design, attempt to obtain rights to their plans, and bid ouch
a structure expected to cost in the neighborhood of $35,000.00.
e. The fourth alternative would be to solicit or develop rough sketches
for the unique structure and have an architect develop those
into a set of buildable drawings. It would then go out for bide
on the entire structure and have it built. The coat of this
could range anywhere from 530,000-550,000.00, depending upon
the uniqueness of the building and the materials used.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although I was personally impressed by the structure in Biwabik,
others may not be, so the staff provides no recommendation on this
agenda item other than to ask for the Council's direction.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of latter from the City of Bivabik; Copies of the pictures
if possible; Copies of the pictures from the catalogs and cost shoots.
-6-
n
CITY OF BIWABIF
BOX 829 BIWABIR, INL\TI'ESCytA 88708
OFFICEOF: DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT
December 1, 1986
John Simola, Pubiic Works director
Monticello City Hall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN. 55362
Dear Mr: ,Simola:
As per your request of last Friday, enclosed is the following
information on the Biwabik Gazebo.
1. Sketch drawing of the structure.
2. Photo of Gazebo - Note that it is not fully finished. We
will use three shades of opaque gray stain on the wood sur-
faces. We will then use a special stencil paint tecnique
to add bright colored fruit forms on the trim boards (trim
boards are not yet placed on the gazebo). This treatment
will be in keeping with our Alpine Theme for design.
3. The Gazebo is just a small first phase in our renovation of
the park into an alpine "Town Square."
4. Architect on the project is Rafferty, Rafferty S Mikutowski
253 East Fourth Street
St. Paul, MN. 55101
Craig Rafferty is the principal on the job.
5. Cost of the Gazebo construction is $35,000. There are a
lot of complex angular cuts in such a structure. It takes
a craftsman and not just a regular carpenter to do a good
job.
I hope you will find this information useful.
5 i�yC/�
Mark C. Flaherty
Director of Development
Enc 1 osures
0
me%t
"T NO IT",
P46F IN. %
KtTA6 CPP
a Stl0.e.
nET o 6.
RaePING (%
D°M1MERS
WeeD Srkr-CN
AS p P AI,J
4i1N(.L:I
fflovlDe PAINT STEWIL
Af. Pt A- METE,,- b;,% M, Si:
1xS
fir
GV(LVED 110,41-1 bET wEEN
we�D I' PONS - I. VA ,,j ATE
NAhd J L o.o. P6Y•WD W1 EDo2 T%IM,
WOOD ILA1614jr.
rd
Ztilr bD.'E`-
Pest
zv�
EI
SILL
boa
�i I ` i 11 I a i✓ i I MG wool)
,�I�/ 6�o IN6.
ooeo n cog o0 0oddo om q m oa gyv CST aETo.ic -
%)
.6 ND -
>aiv6. PIt°vto; • AqQ% SfAiN: too.
�.
ATS%6 �INICNcU
st;6Ecre %Y Pt4MIT 'r.
tTAN�1�IN6' 1NG�u0tD
it a 2!;-v use
d0'
• W£ to 5TL. Wz -r- co JE
13
X/ \
CC,OAOL 514"ir.L.C9
'w r""
PLA5 Cdi-'-J5
L COU
♦ ERI FY 005 . I GM FX)
FRONT L F-
0. 1FINDER BRIDGE
SO.n 4' wtb. 6' W.m 6' wkm
40
610272
6,0567
s 9620
42
10723
11030
10234
u
1,126
1,u3
„175
.6
11$39
11822
1,823
48
11631
13693
12496
s0
,2279
13613
13223
52
129M
14330
1.010
64
,3312
15029
,u 75
56
14592
15747
tsms
515333
23342 24339
16529
,6003
60
16034
,7280
15769
62
1.940
,6247
17555
64
167+2
17016
,6246
66
tabs{
16066
20700
68
17096
18670
21255
70
17874
19461
22216
72
1047,
,9978
23197
74
19332
22462
TINS. PIMYi Y..K.73M n W�.00y.•.Ot•M.
78
,9635
23509
25269
TB
20663
24515
26315
60
21508
24991
26925
62
22043
26075
26055
8.
24631
27135
29284
88
25959
26218
30-15
b8
2624629004
31650
90
273U
3017-
32356
92
27912
31318
36527
94
29130
32483
37258
96
30252
33120
38801
98
30683
34463
40229
100
32039
38129
41594
8r.t0ei 4." 6'm. Y+0- w 0 W WVM 0-r. Prc.v.nb
un m VNWPO flow
..a,mbW 7Ma ONCIs .r. IM180 n m. /bb DO..
P.B. I
16.17 i
26.271
A* (2b27f
P.9•
�26s7i
'26
28.21 f
�'I7
2627 f
tI 2627 r)
29 27
i 26.27
�2ea/f
12621 )
he•l
v
PIONEER BRIDGE
THE GAZEBO
so-
.' wm 6' wta
B woo
so
I si9+69 3,9604 1
6,8506
62
16201 1863,
+9060
64
+6777 19237
19696
6619535
2000.
20.73
68
20066 205.8
21014
70
20596 21088
21575
72
21+30 21829
22545
7.
2,702 22210
23574
76
22277 22011
2.669
79
22609 23807
25704
60
23342 24339
2630+
62
23912 2542.
21.08
6.
24w 2647+
31Cs,
882.976
27539
31727
ea
25553 I631,
33+05
90
zW-O 29+62
326
92
27183 32600
338+4
9.
28389 336.2
365:3
%
191,183W50
37619
96
30,05 36856
Mel
100
3,2.7 37350
4725
snag..4'aroW-W,a'...ne W 060'm W, Y. P`C4a 4nar�n ad . -..7W,,
ISa+ne4a
TINS. PIMYi Y..K.73M n W�.00y.•.Ot•M.
obt mnp r.umg.PY ..cubo { 109 I
.5
1. ,s'O•..W I
MoN i 1
1W
FFQRG�iE A
91
1.
he•l
v
THE GAZEBO
with yDw Choice of Lsminsil" Pine Of Steat Columns
and Pine or Western Ceder Decking
L.mwwe PIM 6..m. L.m.n.u. PIM e..7.. LA—sums w,. e.mm. L.m.uu s vN. B..,P. 04mw:1 to ONO
iT L.. NOW Pl,u YM L.Y,Y,.uO vow
NW, stow C.Nm4m, am m sIN. CYumn. wo 9"aftc RW FM 4m
Cewm.. PON, C.Nmni Y.n Wss n v0-. Doodle wnurn Ca-tY Rms%e."
IC...,0-mv
D.mp
.c
OM.lne
weight
14•
+ 12.79! 92.996
, 62.793 62.60! 6 m
3700
,6'
I
3,696
3 696 ..22! 116
.200
26-
f4.225
6,905 7.595
6916 7.$96 267
7500
u..
D.-,~ PnC.
%I
14
Op,.7n.i F,oOr I s 595
7I
,200 I
18'
III
I Oa.nY F,tw, t 696 i
,490 I •..terve. my.1M..W...afeay. V--0' 4PM,R uw m. wuNI-9511.—
IY
Opt uw Fb., 1.905 I
2100 , 11 size
21 TYPE OF G4ZC80
,.•
r.ag4 or acorn ,Op
�! 31 7 PE OF COLUMNS P.mn.m0 Ow d 0-10-0
"PE OF DECKINC Ib,M & w.N.,n CMF)
�Ov.vnv
OP'—' i»re,us PY aCnbn f
1 !i 5.114LE P.C.AGE OR NO'd IIIGLC P-C4nGT
i.'
"
obt mnp r.umg.PY ..cubo { 109 I
.5
1. ,s'O•..W I
1W
1
!IOF, w.Y O.nCM. Por 4KtrCM'. 1.6 1
91
1.
25'
fOM-6 .-mg. OY ancn 229 f
66 i
,a 25'o ... a*
25,
1
om—1 O ". PY —C 199 f
Bg
{a 2s' 0•••m
he•l
v
GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
Support columns shall be 6 x 6 South.
Yel. Pine, C.C.A. pressure treated to .4 f
lbs./cu. h. retention w/30 -yr. warranty:
Rafters shall be K.D. 6 x 6 Doug. Fir,
Structural grade roof decking shall be
2 s 6 select deck K.D. West. Red Ced.:
Roof shingles shall be al -5X red ced.
shingles laid with 5' exposure: Fascia
shag be 1 x 6 tight knot K.D. West. Red
Ced.: Connector plates shall be 5 x 12Y4
prime coat w/11e x 2112 screw drive nals:
Top and bottom rads shall be prebuilt
of Doug. Fir: Implant mouldings shall
be white pine or ceder,' Ornamental
brackets sha3 be Doug. Fu: Cupola shall
be pre -built.
POPtnall DESIGNS
Mand 91..
04AM 27
OGA''J ii
GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
Support columns sha3 be 6 x 6 Scuth.
W. Fine, CCA preswro treated t3.4
ft. retention w/Myr. warranty,.
Lam, archco droll be kiln-driod, p!ue
Lm, & mirJ. to AITCtrds . architeccual
appcaranca �•ao, cca'.cd & wrapped:
Ra,f ecekin3 chell be 2 x 6 cdect deck
ryada k" n dried Wca. Red Cad, or 12
t uth.1.1.P:nD,onnteVed,voa•pvd.
Gn En.1xa; Roofin3 mat&&;] chaJ be
RL•nv-!e 2250 f.bcr fscs &nC'.ct. A'
tic ra:cd wi �J yr. warrnty, pLeed wcr
150'(0 & laid w,Siila'D' wf edge:
r-1:c:3cF hoz x8t�tknAUndt:cd
l'c9, r;�rcea;rp?�:cid;a:]
Ce3 x 12 x � e c:ce1, prmo ra:cd. u,+.'�
s.l'ac_:,w�rv.na:a.;13p mat.Dv;3).
PnPrl Aa W bIGNS
Mead au.
_�� ��_ _ All deslDna andspKlllutlor `_ "�1�.
Wubien to change without —Me
{.
1 This octagon Gazebo would grace the towns of any estate or open
space recreation area. Provides a pleasant rest site for the hiker or
`�•, family picnic. Rails we standard.
�rid.._
All dsdgns and spaclllc 11on►
wbJnct to chance without noes
I;, w
Idasl for wn•pockn pahW, gall course rain Whetters. senior citizen
n' wsalhec shades. lakeside plcnln, large formal gardens. Three slava •'7
provide cholcas for say wttlags. Floor system. calls, and benches
sbowa ars optloaol. -LZ
4;mm p i
472.00
' Insulated Gtass " Wood Ow - Insulated Glass
Page Model
Size Shown
Cedar Deck Pine Deck
6 Summer Raven
20 Diam.
4,975
6 Summer Raven
28 Dram.
6.900
0 Gazebo
16 Dram.
3.798 3.539
6 Gazebo
21 Dian.
5.025 4.520
*-sc' 6Crazebo'.'= :_. ......
25 Dam:
7,107-` "6.432
'Building specifications and blue prints available upon
request.
**Separate literature available
upon request.
11 ! OX•D•2 40'
R
11 OX -0-3 40'
PRICE UST 166
Panels
359.00
Weather 6eazer Peach
Cstabp Pape Nl"
11 OX -WD -3 30'
510.00
11 I LP•WD-1
180.00
11 0X•0.2 30'
11 I LP•WD•2
• Insulated Glass " Wood Door • Insulated Glass
I
11 ' LP.WD•3
11 I LP -Plain
11 LP•0.1
11 LP02
Rails Bench
Included in Price
Inciaded in Pace
110. ea. 125. ea.
130. ea. 150. ea.
190. ea. 175. ea.
1 Side
Enclosed
$377.00
347.00
527.00
227.00
600.00
759.00
11 - LP -D-31
472.00
' Insulated Gtass " Wood Ow - Insulated Glass
I SPECIFICATION FOR LP
1 Sides enclated w10n 1 If 8 cedar pane8ng applied
2 Sides erKlosed, cedar paneling applied on exterlbr, insulation applied, interior cedar paneling precut :,m not applied.
Octog-
1 S*
Paam
Enclosed
Camlog Pap Nadal
11 OX -WD -1 40'
5:86.00
11 OX•WD•2 40'
35600
11 OX•WD•3 40'
537.00
11 OX•Plam 40'
209.00
11 OX•0.1 40'
592.00
11 ! OX•D•2 40'
762.09
11 OX -0-3 40'
475.00
11 OX•WD-1 30'
359.00
11 OX•WD•2 30'
330.00
11 OX -WD -3 30'
510.00
11 OX•Dlam 30'
180.00
11 0X•0.2 30'
644.00
• Insulated Glass " Wood Door • Insulated Glass
I
wdr
System
1.270
2.490
815
1.270
11.800
2 Sides
Enclosed
Insulation
$491.00
594.00
641.00
377.00
•'845.00
871.00
530.00
2 Sblea
.nclew
h::utWen
$503.00
608.00
645.00
31&00
830.00
878.00
543.00
448.00
876.00
275.00
828.00
SPECIFICATIONS FOR OCTAGON PANELS
1 Side enclosed. 518 exterior rough plywood Sawed, reverie board & hation applied on eltenor m 1 r0 cedar paneling
2 Side enclosed 510 exterior rough plywood sawed. reverse rough sawed. or 1 x8 cedar paneling, plywood board 6 applied. inr-elation app4eo, in
terror paneling pre -cul but not applied,
HPB 35' 6 45' and OC 34'.44' will need 2 panels per section.
OPTIONS FOR SHELTER8 6 BUILDINGS
* Steel columns * Bat' S:`,3e
* Cedar Shakes & Shingles Fictr Svslains
* Pre -built Screened Louvers Concession Ainlavvs
* Various Types of Windows >} IV13dite Interior 93rtitions.
CUSTOM DESIGN AVAILABLE YOUR PLAN OR OURS
v
Council Agenda - 12/8/86
8. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Joining a Joint Purchasing
Consortium. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Fire Chief, Willard Farnick, recently received information from an
association called The Minnesota Fire Agencies Purchasing Consortium,
which the City Fire Department is able to join. The purpose of the
organization is to reduce cost, improve quality, and establish standard
specifications for services, supplies and equipment through a joint
purchasing program throughout Minnesota. The purchasing consortium
currently has 87 fire departments as members. The organization currently
has prepared specifications and received contract bids for numerous
items purchased by fire departments such as breathing apparatuses,
coats and boots, fire hose and couplings, along with radio equipment.
The purchasing agent for the organization is Mr. Dick Monn, who is
the purchasing consultant for the City of St. Paul and County of
Ramsey.
Any Minnesota Fire Department is eligible to join the purchasing
consortium upon adoption of a resolution by the City Council and
membership dues of $25.00 per year. The organization actually prepares
all specifications for each type of equipment or supply item and
receives a bid or contract price that all organizations are eligible
to purchase the items for. In a recent conversation with the purchasing
agent for the City of St. Paul, it was his opinion that the City
of Monticello would not receive a lower price from a supplier they
have a contract with if the City were to bid individually. Although
there are possibly many items in the future that the fire department
may be interested in purchasing through the consortium, the primary
reason at this time would be to purchase the now pagers through this
organization, as Motorola Company does have a contract with the consortium
on pagers. The purchasing agent also noted that the State of Minnesota
has even used the contract price from the consortium for purchasing
Motorola equipment items, as they could not gat a lower price than
what the consortium had. Upon joining the purchasing organization,
the City of Monticello is free to use any of the contracts that aro
currently available, or they can soak their own equipment through
their own bids if they desire.
In addition to membership in the Minnesota Fire Agencies Purchasing
Consortium, the City of Monticello also can elect to enter into a
joint powers agreement for purchasing with the City of St. Paul which
has over 300 currant open and contracts available to the City.
There is no coat for joining the City of St. Paul joint purchasing
agreement, and the City may find itams available at a lover coat
in the future.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to adopt a resolution to join
the Minnesota Firs Agencies Purchasing Consortium at an annual
membership fee of 525.00
-7-
Council Agenda - 12/8/86
2. The second alternative would be to join both the Minnesota Fire
Agencies Purchasing Consortium for $25.00, and to also enter
into a joint powers agreement with the City of St. Paul purchasing
department.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff's recommendation that the City join both the Minnesota
Fire Agencies Purchasing Consortium and the joint powers agreement
with the City of St. Paul. with the fire department currently in
the process of purchasing new pager equipment and their desire to
obtain Motorola equipment, it appears the purchasing consortium would
have the best price available to the Monticello Fire Department on
this type of equipment due to the bid price already received from
the consortium. Even without considering the possible radio purchase,
the $25.00 fee seems a small price to pay to be able to purchase
other fire department equipment at the lowest price available. Although
each item may be hard to determine without actually going to separate
bids, the purchasing power of a large organization consisting of
87 separate departments and the City of St. Paul would appear to
have the best price available from the vendors. Also, the fact that
the State of Minnesota has purchased, for example, their radio equipment
from Motorola through the consortium seems to indicate the organization
must be receiving competitive prices. If the City elects to 8180
enter a joint powers agreement with the City of St. Paul, we will
be receiving a listing of the over 300 contract items that would
be available to the City of Monticello.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution authorizing fire dopertment to join the Minnesota Fire
Agencies Purchasing Consortium; Resolution authorizing a joint purchasing
agreement with the City of St. Paul; Fact sheet on some of the contracts
available.
J
-e-
RESOLUTION 86 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JOINT PURCHASING AGREEMENT
WITH CITY OF ST. PAUL
WHEREAS, two or more governmental units, by agreement entered into
through action of their governing bodies, may jointly or cooperatively
exercise and any power, common t0 the contracting parties, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello desires to enter into a purchasing
agreement with the City of St. Paul for the joint purchase of equipment,
material and supplies as needed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
471.59, commonly referred to as the "Joint Powers Act," the proper
City officials are hereby authorized and directed to execute a joint
purchasing agreement with the City of St. Paul, a copy of said agreement
to be kept on file and on record in the office of the City Administrator.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello
this 8th day of December, 1986.
Arve A. Grlmsmo, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas A. Eidam
City Administrator
6)
RESOLUTION 86 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JOINT AND COOPERATIVE PURCHASING
OF FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT BY THE MINNESOTA FIRE
AGENCIES JOINT POWERS PURCHASING CONSORTIUM
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Monticello as follows;
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello maintains and operates a fire department,
and;
WHEREAS, there exists a need and desire of fire departments throughout
the state of Minnesota to achieve economies of scale that can be
accomplished through cooperative and/or joint purchasing of fire
department supplies and equipment, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello considers it to be in the beat interests
of the City to participate with fire departments in the state in
cooperative and/or joint purchase of fire department supplies and
equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Monticello, through
its fire chief, does hereby authorize the participation of its fire
department in cooperative and/or joint purchase of fire department
equipment and supplies, through or with other member departments
of the Minnesota Fire Agencies Joint and Cooperative Purchasing Consortium.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello
this 8th day of December, 1986.
ATTEST:
Thomas A. Eidam
City Administrator
Arve A. Gtlmamo, Mayor
J
JOINT PURCHASING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 8th day of December, 1986, by
and between the City of Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and the City
of Monticello.
WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul and the City of Monticello, pursuant to
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 471.59, are authorized to enter into
agreement to exercise jointly the governmental powers and functions each
has individually; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul and the City of Monticello desire to combine
their purchasing functions for the purchase of equipment, materials, and
supplies in order to secure more favorable prices.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties hereto as
follows, to -wit:
1. That the City of Saint Paul shall, pursuant to the procedures set forth
in the Saint Paul City Charter and applicable State Statutes, make joint
purchases for both the City of Monticello and the City of Saint Paul
of whatever same or similar equipment, materials, and supplies are authorized
and requested by both the City of Saint Paul and the City of Monticello.
2. Each party shall make payment directly to the vendor according to established
procedures.
1
3. Neither party shall assume any responsibility for the accountability
of funds expended by the other or the iasuance of a purchase order by
the other party.
4. Each party shall be separately accountable for its own expenditures
of public funds made hereunder.
5. After bids have boon received by the purchasing department of the City
of Saint Paul and awarded, each party shall enter into its own contract
or agreement with the vendor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Saint Paul and the City Of Monticello have
executed this agreement the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MONTICELLO CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Mayor Mayor
City Administrator Department of Finance and
Management Services
Approved as to form:
Assistant City Attorney
u
?Qfit2$oLt r2u bCL1C1a '
r6tt6AD140 CwU6tT206 '
0cteb.r 1, 1786
'
toymcT t2tT0t
7
SATS
8.ct.r i...
ffi6IB1
g.utiosadr. [atl:eN
.Si.
AC'not tfdpolla
011!61186
8.71.41-7:
Prq.tlrrwtirtl
tettlr.N 65/30/"
ooa.r Crr[atr.title
tnatbiy App.rattlt (6cmI
'
b7 caa...ti— U.
p4 w.1t:
A5237 -n efPL-d 13107/41
"-now lag01ta
CMSrperega - "d.cly
'
ep.cit[catif.. tq! rN
bid.
-
Tdd7 {rethK CNtraet
w e.t..tiea '
017-713-1153
.ella0le
(261-4AbC") Atted.d.
Acno0 t6g028m
it. L.*[.inatN 4t61"}
'
M. Gulatis[ Cl.a.q)
Gat., P -t. 6 w.u;
N- A-4.6 te:
12 cath eftn.ir
Mtd C.atral, iea,
puibl..
t..tlgt 6772141-211!
ALTloo uQVLta R
t.pin.: 12/]1/"
11/15/" -
-
C.aayisttLea - tadiqSij�
Il -H A-4" W
t0alptat:
Ryel,Arii1
thfra.r Ct.rnit' Cfater
t
t1..ft (612) 441+4430
Ibterela C�ketOn Ar
Upirw
tlfetrb.it. lae.
1271!717
tbna till! 92.1347
12 r nt.riae
'
PuDI.
r3 r. wa .ad
ASl..d
GYpll.{./uaptrr.
tat
♦' s" uYpIN tle VltheN
1.pir.et
A..rdr —
84124141
Ce...7 n'. • Lf.p Cat.
rb-.. (Hl) 6134M
1-117" LhrgY{h Y
1-172^ th»yt t-ltl" ?)pain
Lnpitq.t
Av.rd. rat
6771]141
,
CI.n7'. 8.t.t7 {4.[►. I...
'
rbnat no-ss8-iNl
k3sal-1!
LaR1L6/ltatt11u
Cltr�.7 a 1.4.7 riV [P,lae. -
8+►It..t "'+'"
rbn.t AW534-6611
63117/66
{N,
p.r{fn7 6"!4.84
bpp tin:
YP.eifiut}a. b.{.2
"n68 UOVILa
d ... lased
.
heat
&WI -21 VApirat 6n.6hr 31/" ACT186 twita
M.rdnt Iln
s1 11/15186
Pbne: 422-!4!'4431
of bYau. Ci.raa ..dCNlNr.t6►aeifltatI...
N/.{
ACTIO ugrl11a
bav)epN
Light., 6ndt
or M.:tism. hiy
As72"1 110110smlape
r+r.ty H.ke., lrrip[!t
N.etieY..(r. m-
116611tH
""n
67115!86
site?
'
Tni.4-heV rgtllrehrt.,
6;;A 611611/17
-
P.ter C..... L.athtteNlpb
» L
trw h»ids Md� hNAr -"a
et . tut N 4!3.24 nN.
4172A86<Uel
204 ties it
•
4.Irt1. c sad.. M 31113
'
6o10ttmY u6S 6/ tBPWi
Council Agenda - 12/8/86
9. Consideration of Ratifying 1987 Salaries/wages for Non -Union Employees. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the special City Council meeting held Monday, November 24, the
City Council established a salary pool of $15,020.00 to be awarded
for 1987 salaries, excluding the City Administrator. In my agenda
packet to you for that meeting, I emphasized that the economic forecasts
for 1987 projected inflation for 1987 to be 44. It was my contention
that any cost of living adjustments awarded should reflect that forecast.
The salaries and wage increases that I have proposed I felt needed
to be defensible to the employee, to the Council, and to the taxpayer.
As always, within a given class of employees, I selected the highest
paid employee, determined what the dollar amount would be for that
position based upon a 4% increase, and then awarded the same dollar
amount to each employee in that class. Since any discrepancy that
might exist between two employees within a given class is based primarily
on the length of service, I utilize a constant dollar figure so that
the spread does not increase. In addition to the 4% inflationary
adjustment, I utilized the findings of the comparable worth study
to make marginal position adjustments. As I noted at the special
meeting, a significant adjustment was made to the Director of Economic
Development to bring that position into conformance with the findings
of the pay equity study. No merit adjustments were granted this
year. In my estimation, there is sound rationale for any increase
over the actual 4% awarded based on either the comparable worth information
or on the changing nature of a position.
The fallowing in the rationale I used when offering salary adjustments.
All four clerical people were increased 5.44 par hour. Of that 5.44,
$.38 reflects the 4% coat of living adjustment, and the remaining
5.06 accounts for the increased work load occurring in City Hall
generated by our additional growth. This is a 4.6% increase. 011ie
Koropchak, Roger Mack, Walt Mack, Gary Anderson, and Joe Hartman,
were increased 51,070.00 annually. This reflects a 4% cost of living
adjustment. In addition, 011ie Koropchak received $830.00 to got
that position into conformance with the comparable worth law. Roger
Mack received an additional 5210.00, and Walt Mack received an additional
$35.00 in order to bring those positions more in conformance with
the comparable worth structure. Rick Wolfateller and John Simola
received $1,382.00 for their cost of living adjustment. In addition,
Rick was granted $345.00 and John 5303.00 to reflect the added management
responsibility generated by Monticello's increased growth.
Karon Hanson's salary was not yet established due to a difference
of opinion regarding her employment status being full-time or part-time.
In order to accomplish salary ratification for this meeting. I will
be withholding Karen until we can solve this matter. Her salary
will coma back before the Council vary likely in January.
-9-
Council Agenda - 12/8/86
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: J
1. The Council may ratify the salaries agreed upon between the Administrator
and the employees.
2. The Council may reject the agreed upon salaries and set them
at some other level.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
I respectfully request that the City Council ratify the salaries
agreed upon between the Administrator and the employees.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A tabulation of existing salaries, proposed increases, and 1987 salaries.
Pi
-10-
IN
C
r�
1986
Increase
1987
Rick Wolfsteller
$36,530
$1,730
$36,260
John Simola
$33,470
$1,685
$35,155
Roger Mack
$26,550
$1,280
$27,830
Gary Anderson
$26,755
S1,070
$27,825
Walt Mack
$26,250
$1,105
$27,355
Joe Hartman
$25,500
S1,070
$26,570
Olive Koropchak
$22,900
$1,900
$24,800
Clerical
$8.90-9.56
.44
$9.34-10.00
IN
C
r�
Council Agenda - 12/8/86
10. Consideration of Conveying a Small Parcel for Driveway Purposes to
Northwest Clinic. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part of the Highway 25 project, the City of Monticello, in conjunction
with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, established a new
access for the Northwest Community Clinic off of the alley between
Maxwell Realty and the Northwest Community Clinic. As part of this
project, the City of Monticello purchased the north 36 feet of Lot 10,
Block 52, adjoining Highway 25. This property was purchased for
$2,146.00 from Con and Steven Johnson.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation, at their own expense,
provided blacktop surfacing and curbing as necessary to provide an
access across this piece of property to the Northwest Community Clinic.
It is now our intention to sell the north 26 feet of Lot 10 to
Dr. Brion and his wife so that they may legally own access to the
clinic. The sale is recommended to be at $1.00 and would thereby
put the liability for this access on the clinic. The City would
continue to own the 10 -foot alley access across Lot 10. This Is
meant merely as a housekeeping item for the Highway 25 project.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize sale of thin small piece
of property for access to the Northwest Community Clinic for
$1.00.
2. The second alternative would be not to sell this piece of property
to the clinic. This does not appear practical, as the City should
not own a private access to businesses.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the City, an a housekeeping item,
transfer ownership of this access to the Northwest Community Clinic
as outlined in Alternative 61.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the dead and copy of the map. �� n
�� iry
_s..w<w. aet–mrntumorra rb.YYuAuo a...wmas au.a.ne»/ v...c:... L. .�.s-..
talpwelbe � VYWNrP
M MNI TYIYIY
No delinquent taxes and winter entered; Certintste'
of Rest Estate Value t 1 fried ( ) not required
Certificate of Real Estate value No
19
County Auditor
s
by
DeoutY f+
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON- i –UC2T j
Date: .19 6.4_ I{
(reserved for recording data) e
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. CITY OF MONT1CkLLO, A llfnnes0ts M-111-42-1
Carnor.gtiml a _r=p— rte.. urMe: the taws of
Minneeor. . Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to Pt IL Ann mar , ',h
MART BRItN- h,,b,ne —A vires ,Grantees i
as joint tonants, row property In wtishr County, Minnesota, described as follows: 1
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 10, Block 52. Towsaits of
Monticello, thence Southerly along the East line of Lot 10. 26.0 feet;
thence Westerly to the West line of Lot 10 to a point there= being
26.0 feet South of the Northwest corner of sold Lot l0, said line
hour ter described as Line A; thence Northerly sLou$ said Wast line
26.0 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 10, thence Easterly along
said Worth lice to the point of beginning.
AND
i
An eamement for purposes of ingress and egress being 10 feet Southerly of
and parallel to Lim A.
n
( 111 ww.A eine b mete, eNeYw M eMi
together with all hmeditan ants and appurtenances belonging thereto.
CITY OF HaNTIC11,131n i
at
By
14
By
Ito
SPATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF _. Wa1CIQ _ . _
I-
The foroping was acknowledged before me this, _ , day of., - , Lgja� ,
the, -_ –_"'-_ •. and__..,R_ of , the CITY UY IIt1NTICEI.I.O ,� - �.sK.
undo: she taws of .
NMANIAL FrAler Oa eeAL a)a *Tuts MIA N ■ ANa)
bLea1t,,LmAw�.r.r.l6wgR.ew RaRnawW Aiamwi Lae*YtMi'-J��
b limw�ll�WMiieAi W ��mrn. 1ew�lw W YIII.r•W Y1wW) �
Or, sed Mrs. Florian* iArt"
Route A. Bos look
Mosticailo. NN 55362
TwM INlrANAYT YN NAtTesaI/NAYm wee wNaaYl
""CALY a IMSON
Attorneys at Low 4
Y.O. gas 446 1
919 West Ilreadway
mmticeli*. Mgl 55962 }
1
i
" ••mss*`.
l
fes•,+ � • ;... `� : / / �� 1' - ' �r ' .� ."".+..�.�it.\�`•�i..'-
,
- p rJ++ • )tAFt
HIGHWAY NO. 94 t
GENERAL FUND -- DECEMBER
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
ICMA Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded.
74.67
23452
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
90.04
23453
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
170.00
23454
Liquor Fund - Investments
75,000.00
23455
GAB Business Services - Reimb. to Ins. Co. for claim
100.00
23456
Olson Electric - WWTP repairs from August
948.31
23457
Wright County State Bank - Purchase C. D.
225.000.00
23458
Corrov Sanitation - November payment
6,378.00
23459
Dave Stromberg - Animal contract service
287.50
23460
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at library
206.25
23461
James Preusse - Cleaning city hall
337.50
23462
YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment
529.17
23464
Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control payment
275.00
23466
Mr. Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.u0
23467
Mr. Dan Blonigen R Council salary
125.00
23468
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
23469
Mr. William Fair - Council salary
125.00
23470
Mr. Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
23471
Dept. of Employee Relations - Medicare W/H
19.70
23472
State Treasurer - PERA W/H
1,313.02
23473
Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H
2.522.28
23474
Wright County State Bank - FWT
2,074.00
23475
Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H
1,988.00
23476
Commissioner of Transportation - Est. city share of traffic
signals 6 est. 1/3 share of Hwy. 25 project
62,951.21
23477
Professional Services Groups - WWTP contract payment - Dec.
22,083.35
23478
Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase
400.000.00
23479
Veit 6 Co. - Payment on 6th St. project - Final payment
7,948.31
23480
Lynnea Gillhom - 1986 mileage
52.00
23481
Unocal - Gas - Water Dept.
40.81
23482
011ie Koropchak - Misc. expenses
39.00
23483
Gary Anderson - Misc. mileage
50.36
23484
MN. Assoc. of Civil Def. Directors - Annual dues
20.00
23485
Liquor Fund - Reimb. for Work. Comp. Ins. refund
156.00
23486
Local 049 - Union dues
105.00
23487
North Central Public service - Utilities
1,406.69
23488
Tom Eidem - Expenses
18.66
23489
Road Machinery 6 Supplies - Truck rental for Christ. liter
249.00
23490
National Life Insurance - Ins. premium - T. Eidem
100.00
23491
Maus Foods - Dog food
13.92
23492
Seitz Servistar Hdwe. - 22 fluor. bulbs, mise.
155.90
23493
Rick Wolfateller - Misc. mileage
41.00
23494
MN. Pollution Control Agency - Boyle sewer ext. permit fee
80.00
23495
Payroll for November 26,152.30
TOTAL GENERAL DISBURSEMENTS - DEC. $839.651.95
LIQUOR FUND -
AMOUNT CHM
LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR DECEMBER - 1986 NO,
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
582.64
12766
Eagle Diet. Co. - Liquor
4,241.02
12767
McDowall Co. - Furnace repair
283.06
12768
State Capitol Credit Union- Payroll ded.
170.00
12769
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
2,395.22
12770
Quality Wine - Liquor
1,386.45
12771
Gruys, Johnson - Computer fees
110.00
12772
State Treasurer - PERA W/H
178.72
12773
Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H
309.78
12774
Wright County State Bank - FWT
267.00
12775
Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H
197.00
12776
Eagle Diet. Co. -.Liquor
4,339.51
12777
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
1,580.22
12778
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax due - per audit
919.30
12779
KMOM Radio - Adv.
100.00
12780
MN. Bar Supply - Misc. mdse.
37.53
12781
Granite City Cash Register - Register tape
111.65
12782
Monticello Times - Adv.
238.40
12783
Stromquist Dist. - Misc. mdse.
38.30
12784
Cloudy Town Dist. - Misc. mdse.
177.75
12785
Thorpe Diet. - Beer
8,520.85
12786
Monticello Office Products - File folders
5.95
12787
Grosslein Beverage - Beer, etc.
9,253.29
12788
Seven Up Bottling - Misc. mdse.
233.25
12789
Kolles Sanitation - Garbage contract payment
91.50
12790
Bernick's Pepsi Coca Cola - Misc. mdse.
271.35
12791
Day Dist. Co. - Beer
760.95
12792
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse.
317.55
12793
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer
2,149.08
12794
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
72.25
12795
Dahlheimer Dist. - Beer
12,990.95
12796
North Central Public Service - Utilities
152.00
12797
Northern States Power - Utilities
176.64
12798
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
1,969.50
12799
Quality Wine - Liquor
1,066.36
12800
Service Master - Clean steps and carpet
281.00
12801
Coast to Coast - Store expense
4.84
12802
Maus Foods - Store expense
20.97
12803
Jude Candy 4 Tobacco - Misc. mdse.
524.97
12804
Leifert Trucking - Freight
477.39
12805
Payroll for November
3,433.46
TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - DEC.
$60,437.65
r
CITE OF HIMCELM
'!lmthly'Ou11d1ng
Dcp�ncpOrL
:\,
1
Month of Noyembe]490
PI7i1QT3 and USES
e
•
-9am• I W , 'L•.i I*" ITihi• toot
PP7UUT3 ISS= Month OctoboX �
Honthmcvamber Leet Tear To Date To Date
• .
RE1IO77Tf1AL
lhusber . 20
Valuation $1,551,920.00
5
1171,560.00
7 94128
1187,400,00 f 5,761,270.CC 6,057,670.00
Fess
7,691.97
709.50
7,040.10 ', 79,t54.8
40,141.00
Surcharges
775.95•
60.76
198.70 1,877.7
4,078.41 -
COME tc1AL
Number
474
2,
IB
"
Valustlon 1,092,500.00
.47,000.00 4,029.660. 1,640.920.00
Foos
5,457. 97
254.00 16,421.41 ,.
17,815.14 '
Surcharges
546.75
', 71.50 7,019.60
1,070.45
blw1 [IIUAL
Ihueber
, 1
4
Velu.tlon000.00
.
770,506.00
_
Feee
670.50
1.775.77
Surcharges
97.90
165.75
PWNSINO
.I
Ihusber
17
7
6 7T
e0
-
Fee
566.00
49.00
185.00 7,671.00
7,925.00
Surchargee
6.50
1.00
4.00 41.00
40.00
0T71EIL9
"
1hlmber
1
1
Valuation
456,900.00
10,000.00
" Fees
7,795.07
100.00 ,
Surcharge,
776.75
6.00
LTOTAL
110, PMMITS
41
a
is 19)
+e7
-
T MAL VAU)ATION 7,645.410.00
151.560.00
479.400.00 10-257,830.00
}•0T* M
11,710.54
1,479.00
7,589.10 57497.11
64.716.91
TOTAL SUACIIAecc9
1,111.70
159.76
715.70 5.166.75
6,780.11
CUMMrr 19Mm1
.
PUUGT NAnM8
Number
4E1174IT
SE %a
:VRQIARGg_ Valullltln fi a Tcer
ails
Ln at rest
•
Single Family
7
1 598.40
1 65.40 1 110600.00 1939
DupleA
17
4
Nut ll-familye
e
Commercial
6
t0
Industrial
9
0
•
Res: Garages
11
10
Slone
0
0
Public 6u11dlne
0
1 ,
ALTE]UTION CR REPAIR
Due111n8,
1
111.10
8.76 10.760.0ci 44
70 '
commercial
11
T6 '
Industrial
1
670.50
97:50 1/5.000.00 f
• I
0
PWHDINO
1
All types
7
49.00
1.00 f0
76
AGc[870m1 STRUCTURES
Oulm.ln/ Pool,
-
1• .. 1
0
•
Oeee.
4
0
TDMPOMAF P[g1UT
1 ,
0
0
7
0 I
Dt"OUT209
TOMO
f
•1,479.00
16q.16 716',660,06 711
1/1
IRDIVIDUAL PEPMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
MONTH of aes*MmeZ 19$6
TOTAL Rt'V6RU9 S 1.566.26
,f
I
sese . _
'ERMIT(
DESCRIPTION
P� NAMULOCATION• (VALUATION
(PERMIT
SURCNARGEI PLUMBING SURCHARGE --
'1UM6ER
86-991
Dingle family Dw611 tng
6 "John RSller/206 rovtn Longley 0rlve
6 37,700.00
6 306.10
6 20-05I 025.00 6 .50
8,-992
tif3ariM 6oilOing Rexbv.
Row"02v States vc~/a. 0*.9d. 975
195.000.00
670.50
97.50•
66-993
sa.se 6 Oerago a"i63ng
11Ray. Srmp Bihar/424 M. Rlv6r at,
6,330.00
59.30
3.16
66.994
-
finial O!t Oasam6nt
Ox. Chrta 6 ".2 motlhew Cirrl4
1.410.00
14.30
-70 -
B, -B95
Knish Ott eu®ent
x John R=116x/209 govt. tonglay Dr.
3,000.00
30.50
1.50
66-996
single rosily Dw6ll ing
SF Pyle Ver -hen, Const/214 Jam Livres;
or.53.100.00
222.30
36.55, :4WOO .50
' .TOTALS
6316.560.00
61.360.00
91511.26 p49. 00 51.00
TOTAL Rt'V6RU9 S 1.566.26