City Council Agenda Packet 01-23-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 23, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Ren Maus
Council Members: Fran Pair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held December 12, 1988, and
the regular meeting held January 9, 1989.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Public Hearing - Proposed modification of the redevelopment plan for
Redevelopment Project $l, modification of tax increment plans for
Districts 1-1 through 1-7, and adoption of tax increment financing plan
for District 1-8.
5. Consideration of conditional use permit for Temple Baptist Church.
6. Consideration of request to lease or lease with option to buy old fire
hall building - Bruce Langford.
7. Consideration of resolution setting a public hearing on adoption of
assessment roll - 68-0 Project - Floyd Markling and Monticello Country
' Club.
8. Consideration of paying for damage on sewer backup - Ben James.
9. Consideration of replatting request to replat an existing lot into six
townhouse lots and one common area lot. A variance request to allow a
replatted lot to have less than the minimum lot width requirement. A
replatting request to replat an existing lot into four townhouse lots and
one common area lot. Applicant, Jay Miller/Pairway Court.
10. Consideration of additional salary adjustment for water Superintendent
position.
11. Consideration of PSC contract increase at the Waste Water Treatment
Plant.
12. Consideration of gambling license renewal - Legion Club.
13. Consideration of adopting ordinance amendment to cover elected officials
under workmen's compensation.
14. Consideration of entering a 1989 mmintenance agreement with Wright County
Highway Department.
15. Consideration of MN/DOT proposed coat sharing arrangement on signal
installation at River Street and Highway 25.
16. Consideration of participating in the Johnny Elm Seed Program in
Monticello.
City Council Agenda
January 23, 1989
Page 2
17. Consideration of approving plans and specifications for demolition of
Stelton's and Jones property.
18. Consideration of Township cost sharing arrangement for new aerial ladder
truck as part of Joint Fire Agreement.
19. Consideration of authorizing feasibility study for storm sewer
improvements - Construction 5 property.
20. Approval of bills for the month of January.
21. Adjournment.
MINUTES
-. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 12, 1988 - 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: Bill Fair
2. Consideration of establishing 1989 salary adjustments for non-union
personnel and consideration of health insurance benefit for employees.
Mayor Grimsmo noted the difficulty of the situation created by the
unexpected increase in health insurance premiums. He went on to nota
that it is probably not a good idea to switch carriers and that he would
support employee participation in paying $30 of the health insurance
premium increase. Participation by employees might also encourage
individuals covered by another program to drop city coverage. It was Dan
Blonigen's view that City employees should pay a larger portion of the
increase and that union and non-union employees should receive the same
health insurance benefit.
Motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Warren Smith to pay all but $30 of
the recent health insurance monthly premium increase. All employees
receiving family coverage to pay $30 per month toward payment of the
health insurance premium. Voting in favor: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair,
:Marren Smith. Voting against• im)Liun: Dan Blonigen.
At this point in the meeting, 1989 salary adjustments were discussed.
Council requested that the City Administrator develop an employee
evaluation program which would assist the Council in establishing
individual salary adjustments for 1990. After discussion, motion by
Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve an across the board
salary increase of 4.58. voting in favor: Arve Grimso, Fran Fair, warren
Smith. voting against motion: Dan Blonigen.
Administrator Wolfsteller requested that Council consider a separate pay
Increase for Assistant Administrator O'Neill. Wolfsteller reported that
such consideration is in keeping with the employment arrangement made
with O'Neill when he took the position some months ago. Arve Grimsmo
noted that the job performance exhibited by Jeff O'Neill has met
expectations and that a salary increase for O'Neill is warranted. Motion
by Warren Smith and seconded by Dan Blonigen to increase the base salary
of the Assistant Administrator from $32,000 to $35,000. Motion passed
unanimously.
Council discussed a salary increase for Administrator Wolfsteller.
Council indicated that Wolfatellar has done well during his first year as
Chief Administrator. Mayor Crimsmo noted that the Chief Administrator
should be paid a premium to sit on the hot seat. Dan Blonigen noted that
Rick already received a large increase when he took the position, he
agrees that Rick is doing a good job but does not go along with an
increase in excess of the cost of living increase.
0
Special Council Minutes - 12/12/88
After discussion, motion to increase the salary of the City Administrator
from $45,000 to $48,000. voting in favor: Arve Orimsmo, Fran Fair,
Warren Smith. Voting against: Dan Blonigen.
There being no further business, meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff- O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
C
MINUTES
REGULAR METING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 9, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Ren Maus, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Fran Fair
Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
1. Call to order.
2. Oath of office.
City Administrator Wolfsteller administered the oath of office to
incoming Mayor Ken Maus and newly elected Councilmembers Shirley Anderson
and Dan Blonigen.
3. Approval of minutes.
Motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve the minutes
of the regular meeting held December 12, 1988, as presented. Voting in
favor: Dan Blonigen, warren Smith, and Fran Fair. Abstaining: Ken Maus
and Shirley Anderson.
4. Citizen comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
S. Consideration of adopting official City logo.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the LOGO development
committee and Stephen Henning of Henning and Associates are pleased to
present a proposed City LOCO design for Council consideration. He went
on to review the process by which the design of the LOCO was
established. Early in the process it was determined by the committee and
the City Council that an experienced graphic artist should be enlisted to
shape a new City LOGO based on the input of the Committee. Development
of a request for proposal netted the City seven candidates of which four
were interviewed.
O'Neill reported that once Henning and Associates was selected, work
bt:gan in earnest on the actual LOCO itself. The LOGO development
committee met four times with Henning during the process of shaping the
LOGO. The initial meeting consisted of a general brainstorming session
at which time the images and values associated with the community were
assembled. Henning then prepared five designs based on the input he
received at the first meeting. The remainder of the meetings consisted
of committee response to Henning's further refinement of a LOCO concept
selected at the second meeting.
in reviewing the LOGO development process, O'Neill noted that the
Monticello community possesses many unique attributes and is blessed with
a wide array of positive images and values that might be incorporated
1
Council Minutes - 1/9/89
into a City LOGO. He went on to say that it would be impossible to
design a workable LOGO that would incorporate all potential LOGO
concepts. As you can imagine, it was a challenge to narrow the focus of
the LOGO to capture the most important concepts or the "essence" of the
community. Although each person will look at the LOGO and interpret it
differently, following are some of the concepts that the LOGO attempts to
project. O'Neill then pointed out those features of the LOGO that
communicate the following concepts.
Positive values associated with a tightly knit community.
Sense of optimism about the future, and the desire to move forward
without relinquishing sense of community and small town charm.
City location on the Mississippi River and next to the "Little Mountain".
City location as a river crossing point.
City location as a bridge between two major metro areas.
At this point in the meeting a general discussion ensued. Council asked
Stephen Henning if the use of the LOGO should be restricted in any way.
Henning suggested that the City allow the LOGO to be used freely by local
non-profit organizations. He mentioned that it might not be a good idea
co d1low private commercial interests to use the LOGO, and the City
should consider obtaining a formal copywrite. Council commended the work
of the committee and thanked them for the time and effort on the
project.
There being no further discussion, motion by Dan 8lonigen and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to adopt the official City LOGO as presented. Motion
passed unanimously.
6. Consideration of appeal for variance request to allow additional nylon
sign square footage and height - Applicant, First National Hank/Attracts
Sign.
Dale Pogatchnik and Jim Metcalf were present to present information
regarding said appeal. The maximum sign height allowed by the Ordinance
is 18 feet in height. The applicant is proposing to be allowed to
construct the sign with a height of 25 feet. The applicant is also
proposing a pylon sign of 108 square feet where the maximum allowed is SO
square feet. In requesting the variances, the applicant Seeks
approximate parity with the signs installed by other financial
institutions prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
Fran Fair noted that the size of signs must be limited at some point. To
approve this variance request would open the door to a doubling of the
current sign size maximum for all signs in the 30 mile per hour zone.
Warren Smith suggested that we attempt to limit the effect of this
variance request to financial institutions only. Ren Maus noted that
O.;k-
Council Minutes - 1/9/89
limiting the precedent to financial institutions may be impossible. It
might be wise at this juncture to look at the issue in a broad sense and
then consider an ordinance amendment. Mori Malone of the Planning
Commission noted that progress does not necessarily mean bigger signs,
and that approval of the proposed variance request will set a precedent
that will have a long term negative effect.
After discussion, motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley Anderson to
continue the matter and direct the Planning Commission to research
potential amendments to the sign section of the ordinance and conduct
public hearings accordingly. Motion passed unanimously.
7. Consideration of appeal for variance request to allow an additional pylon
sign on a B-3 (highway business) lot. Applicant, Tom Thumb Store.
Sign company representative, Jack Lawrance, was present to discuss said
variance request. Staff informed Council that granting this variance
request would establish a precedent that would allow two pylon signs on
each business property in the community. Council was also informed that
the present request for an additional pylon sign by the Tom Thumb store
comes on the heels of a variance request that was approved a few months
ago which allowed the development of a pylon sign that exceeded height
and size maximum.
After discussion, motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Warren Smith to
table the matter and direct the Planning Commission to research potential
amendments to the sign section of the ordinance and conduct public
hearings accordingly. Motion passed unanimously.
Consideration of replatting request to replat "The Meadows", an existing
residential subdivision plat. Applicant, Dan Frie.
Assistant City Administrator O'Neill reviewed the design of the proposed
subdivision replat and outlined issues that need to be resolved prior to
approval of the final plat. He indicated that the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the preliminary plat with final approval
contingent upon the developer making minor modifications to his plan and
contingent on the applicant rezoning property from R-3 to R-2. Dan Frie
was present and informed Council that he has no problems with any of the
design changes suggested by the Planning Commission. Warren Smith noted
that he strongly supports the creation of a through street connecting
Marvin Elwood Road to River Street.
After discussion, motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to
approve the re -platting of "The Meadows" subdivision plat. Final plat
approval is contingent on rezoning of the development from R-3 to R-2 and
contingent on modifications as requested by the Planning Commission.
Motion carried unanimously.
9
Council Minutes - 1/9/89
9. Consideration of reolatting request to replat an existing lot into six
townhouse lots and one common area lot. A variance request to allow a
replatted lot to have less than the minimum lot width requirement. A
replatting request to replat an existing lot into four townhouse lots and
one common area lot. Applicant, Jay Miller/Fairway Court.
After discussion, motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson
to table this issue pending development of a refined site plan which
shows parking and ingress and egress associated with the development.
Motion passed unanimously. It was the concern of the Council that the
property area might not be large enough to adequately handle parking
requirements associated with 10 townhomes.
10. Consideration o£ simple subdivision request to allow an I-2 lot to be
subdivided into two lo
to.
Applicant, Oakwood Industrial Park
Partnership.
Staff informed Council that the lots created will meet minimum standards
in terms of lot area and width. It was recommended by staff that the
City request that the applicant provide a 30' utility easement along the
rear lot line of both properties.
After discussion, motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to
approve said simple subdivision of Lot 1, Block 3. Oakwryyi
Park, with the requirement that a 30' utility easement be established
along the rear lot line of said property. Motion passed unanimously.
11. Consideration of request by Monticello Youth Hockey Association far
financial assistance.
Jerald James of the Monticello Youth Hockey Association was present with
a request for additional City assistance. James outlined his proposal
and reviewed a survey which outlined the level of support that nearby
communities lend to their hockey programs. The Hockey Association
requested that the City abate $500 annual rental of the warming house,
pay the electric bill, pay the cost of maintaining the rink and warming
house, pay for the cost of repairing the existing tractor, assist with
removal of large snowfalls, and purchase a new snow removal tractor and
sweeper attachment.
Fran Fair asked James how many of the youth that are in the program are
actual residents of the City of Monticello? Dan 8lonigen suggested that
the cleaning of the hockey rink should be coordinated with the School
District since it is likely that the school hockey program with be using
the facility. Jerald James reviewed the benefits provided to the general
public created by the work of the Hockey Association. He informed
Council that the Hockey Association maintains the general skating area
and that the hockey rink is open to the public when the Association teams
are not practicing.
9
12.
r
Council Minutes - 1/9/89
John Simola noted that the rink lights should be on so that the general
public could use the facility during evening hours. He suggested that
the City turn the lights on and off and also pay the light bill.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to direct staff to control the lights, with the City to pay rink
lighting expense, with other issues to be addressed in the future after
consultation with the School District. Motion passed unanimously.
Consideration of making annual appointments.
Official Depositories: Wright County State Bank
Security Financial
First National Bank of Monticello
Newspaper: Monticello Times
Housing 6 Redevelopment
Authority:
1. Tom St. Hilaire
12/91
(5 -year staggered terms)
2. Ben Smith
12/90
3. Bud Schrupp
12/89
4. Al Larson
12/93
5. Everette Ellison
12/92
Flafuiiuy C.vnuni tltlion:
1. Richard Carlson
(1 -year term)
2. Mori Malone
3. Cindy Lenon
4. Richard Martie
5. Dan MCConnon
Health Officer:
Dr. Donald Maus
(1 year)
Acting Mayor:
Fran Fair
(1 year)
Joint Commissions:
Community Education
Warren Smith
Fire Board
Rick Wolfateller
OAA
Ren Maus
Library Board:
1. Ed Solberg
12/90
(3 -year staggered)
2. Dr. Donald Maus
12/91
3. Mary Jane Puncochar
12/90
4. Pat Schwarz
12/91
5. Marguerite Pringle
12/89
Attorney:
Smith and Hayes
It was the consensus of Council to review the current contract with the
City Engineer prior to consideration of appointment.
5
D
V
1
Council Minutes - 1/9/89
Motion was made by Warren Smith to approve appointments as presented.
Motion seconded by Fran Fair. Motion passed unanimously.
13. Consideration of establishing a transportation system development
advisory committee.
Assistant City Administrator O'Neill reviewed the work of the
transportation committee which was established by the Monticello
Community eased Services Committee. Be noted that the transportation
committee believes it has found sufficient justification for City
investigation of this matter and is requesting that the City appoint a
committee to analyze the transportation needs of the City and develop a
public transportation system accordingly. The committee also noted that
federal and state funds are available to supplement local financing of
the system. Dan Slonigen noted that the cost to operate systems in other
communities appears to be quite high and that he would not elect to study
the issue further, as the current system utilizing volunteer drivers is
satisfying basic transportation needs. Warren Smith stated he
understands the desire not to destroy the present network that provides
transportation to the home bound; but at the same time, it is worth
checking into. Ren Maus noted that it may behoove us to explore it
because we have a company in the community that leases and operates
transportation vehicles, and this company could potentially operate the
program on an as -you -need -it basis. Contracting for tran.,mrtation
service would serve to limit financial risk to the City by eliminating
capital equipment purchases that would otherwise be necessary, and
service delivery could be adjusted based on demands.
After continued discussion, motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to establish a five member transportation comoittee made up of
Shirley Anderson, a Chamber representative, Duane Gates, a representative
from the clergy, and Barb Schwientek. Motion passed unanimously.
14. Consideration of setting a public hearing date for the ?to sed
modification of the redevelopment elan far Redevelopment Diistrict No. i,
the modification or the tax increment financing plans tar Tax Increment
Financing District Non. 1-1 through 1-7, and the approval and adoption of
the tax increment rinancing $tan for Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-8, ail located within Redevelopment Pro)ect No. 1.
Motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Dan Blonigen to not said the public
hearing for January 23, 1989, at 7:34 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 89-1.
15. Consideration of Change Order Al on Well y4 - Project 88-04A.
Motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve change
order 41 on Well $4. Motion passed unanimously.
14
0 W�
Council Minutes - 1/9/89
16. Consideration of authorization to purchase set of loader forks.
Motion by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Fran Fair to approve purchase of
loader forks in the amount of $3,900 from Ziegler, Inc. Motion passed
unanimously.
17. Consideration of clerical position resignation and replacement.
Rick Wolfsteller updated Council on the recent resignation of Lynnea
Gillham and the impact on the current clerical staff level. Council
discussed the matter with no action taken.
18. Consideration of bills for the month of December.
Motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve payment of
said bills. Motion passed unanimously.
19. Adjournment.
'Jetr v Neili
Assistant Administrator
L
C
0..?-
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
Public Hearing - Proposed modification of the redevelopment plan for
Redevelopment Project $1, modification of tax increment plans for
Districts 1-1 through 1-7, and adoption of tax increment financing plan
for District 1-8. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The public hearing notice having been published in the local newspaper
January 12 and January 19, 1989, the City Mayor may open the public
hearing to allow interested persons to submit oral or written comment.
Some months ago, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
contracted with Business Development Services, Inc., (BDS), Mr. Pat
Pelstring, to advise, assist, and develop a plan which would increase
utilization and benefits of the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan.
First, to assist with the expansion of the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Plan boundaries (Modification of the Redevelopment Plan
relating to Redevelopment Project No. 1). This would allow the HRA the
flexibility to use tax increment financing in areas previously not
included within the plan boundaries. Some examples are potential
economic development of the Boyle or Hoglund properties, potential source
of revenue for housing redevelopment activities, or potential
redevelopment of scattered blighted areas. Second, to combine the
current seven tax increment district finance plans into one finance plan
(modification of the tax increment financing plans relating to Tax
Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-7). This would allow
for an easier bookkeeping system, a more accessible overview of the
districts financial records, and the potential to free up reserve funds
for HRA project flexibility. Third, to establish Tax Increment Finance
District No. 1-8, and to approve and adopt the tax increment finance
plan. This would discourage commerce, industry, and manufacturing from
moving their operations to another state= to increase local employment,
and to preserve and enhance the local tax base. District No. 1-8
developer, Northern States Power Company, will construct a 5,460 sq ft
facility on the westerly 3.22 acres of Lot 4, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial
Park. The public improvement costs, site preparation, and other coats
1534,0001 will be financed through the annual collection of tax
increment.
Mr. Pat Pelstring will be present at the Council meeting to further
explain the process and benefits of the modifications which were approved
by the HRA on January 3, 1989.
Following Mr. Peletring'e presentation, assuming no public contested
comments, the Mayor may close the public hearing and ask City council to
consider a motion to approve the resolution or deny approval of the
resolution.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To approve the resolution relating to the modification by the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello of the
Redevelopment Plan relating to Redevelopment Project No. 1, the
ME
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plana relating to Tax
Increment Financing District Nos. 1-1 through 1-7, and the establishment
of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-8 located within Redevelopment
Project No. 1, and the approval and adoption of the Tax Increment
Financing ?lan relating thereto.
2. Deny approval of alternative action #1.
C. STAFF REODMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve alternative action A1, thereby
increasing the utilization and benefits of the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution; Copy of Exhibit A to the resolution; Copy of the
public hearing notice.
-2-
Councilmember introduced the following
resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous
consent, and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION BY
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOMENT AUTHORITY IN AND
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NCS. 1-1 THROUGH
1-7 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-8 LOCATED WITHIN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE APPROVAL
AND ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN RELATING THERETO.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Citv Council (the "Council") of the
City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. It has been proposed and adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City (the "Authority")
that the Authority modify, by enlargement of the geographic pro-
ject area and increased project costs, Redevelopment Project No.
1, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amend has been
further proposed and adopted by the Authority that the Authority
odify the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment
Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-7 and establish Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-8 located within Redevelopment
Project No. 1, and approve and adopt the Tax Increment Financing
Plan relating thereto, pursuant to and in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as
amended.
1.02. The Authority has caused to be prepared and this
Council has investigated tho facts with respect thereto, a pro-
posed Modified Redevelopment Plan (the "Modified Redevelopment
Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1, defining more precisely
the additional geographic project area and increased project costs
to be made to Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed Modified
Tax Incremert Financing Plana for Tax Increment Financing
Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-7 and the proposed Tax Increment
Financing Plan (the "Tax Increment Financing Plana") for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-8 (collectively referred to as
the "Plans") .
O
1.03. The Authority and the City have performed all actions
required by law to be performed prior to the modification of
Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of Tax Increment
Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-7 and the establishment of
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-8 and the adoption of the
Plans relating thereto, including, but not limited to, notifica-
tion to Wright County and Independent School District No. 882,
having jurisdication over the property to be included in Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-8, a review by the City
Planning Commission of the proposed Modified Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed Modified Tax
Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts
Nos. 1-1 through 1-7, and the proposed Tax Increment Financing
Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-8, and the
holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as
required by law.
1.04. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary
and in the best interest of the City at this time to modify
Redevelopment Project No. 1, to modify Tax Increment Financing
Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-7 and to establish Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-8 and approve the Plans relating
thereto, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and
Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello, and the
Monticello Development Corporation.
Section 2. Findinos for the Modification of Redevelooment
Project No. 1, Modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts
Nos. 1-1 thruqh 1-7, and the Establishment of Tax Increment
Financinq District No. 1-8.
2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that
the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1
through 1-7 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-8, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1,
is intended and, in the judgment of the Council, its effect will
be, to further provide an impetus for housing, commercial and
industrial development, increase employment and otherwise pro-
mote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as
specified in the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans and Tax
Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts
Nos. 1-1 through 1-8.
2.03. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-8 does meet the requirements of an economic
development district in that it consists of any project, or any
portions of a project which does not meet the requirements found
in the definition of a redevelopment district, mined underground
space development district, housing district or soil corrections
district, but which the authority and city finds to be in the
public interest because:
1. It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing
from moving their operations to another stater or
2. It will result in increased employment in the municipa-
lity; or
3. It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax
base of the municipality.
2.04. The Council finds, determines and declares that the
proposed development, housing and redevelopment, in the opinion
of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment
within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use
of tax increment financing is deemed necessary.
2.05. The Council finds, determines, and declares that the
proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-8 will afford maximum opportunity, be consistent
with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development
or redevelopment of Redeveloment Project No. 1 by private
enterprise.
2.06. The Council further finds, declares and determines
that the City made the above findings stated in Section 2 and has
set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination
in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2.07. The Council determines and declares that Redevelopment
Project No. 1 is hereby modified, that Tax Increment Financing
` hzrzty mcd4ficd -and that
Increment FinancingDistrict No. 1-8 is hereby established, con-
tingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment
Agreements by and between the Housing and Redeveloment Authority
of the City of Monticello and the Monticello Development
Corporation.
Section 3. Adoption of Respective Plans.
3.01. The respective Plans presented to the Council on this
date are hereby approved and adopted, contingent upon execution
of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello
and the Monticello Development Corporation, and shall be placed
on file in the office of the City Administrator.
Section 4. Implementation of the Modified Redevelopment
Plan, Modified Tax Increment Financinq Plans and Tax Increment
Financinq Plan.
4.01. The officers of the City, the City's financial advi-
sor, underwriter and the City's legal counsel and bond counsel
are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of
the respective Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft,
prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all
further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary to
accomplish this purpose.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
duly seconded by Councilmember , and uoon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City
Administrator.
Dated January 23, 1989
Attest:
City Administrator
t
(SEAL)
C
Mayor
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the
establishment of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-8 as required, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are as follows:
1. Find that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-8 is a
,economic development district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subd. 12.
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-8 consists of one
parcels which does not meet the requirements of a redevelopment
district, mined underground space development district, housing
district or soils correction district. The Authority and City
find Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-8 to be in the public
interest because:
1. It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing
from moving their operations to another state; or
2. It will result in increased employment in the municipa-
lity; or
3. It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax
base of the municipality.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the
Council, would not occur solely through private investment within
this reasonable foreseeable future, and therefore, the use of
tax increment financing is deemed necessary.
City staff has reviewed the available financing costs for the
development. Due to the high costs of the public improvements,
the project would not be financially feasible without the City's
assistance.
3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the
general plan for the development or redevelooment of the munici-
pality as a whole.
The Monticello Planning Commission reviewed the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-8 on
January 3, 1989, and determined that the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-8 con-
forms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
4. Find that the Tax Increment Financing plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-8 will afford maximum opportunity,
consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the
development of redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise.
;2
The project to be developed (a facility for NSP), which will
be located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-8, con-
sists of the construction of: the construction of a facility
for Northern States Power.
5. Finding regarding the method of tax increment computation set
forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause
(b), if applicable.
The Council does not elect the method of tax increment com-
putation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd.
3, Clause (b).
6. Finding regarding duration of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-8.
The duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-8 will
be eight (8) years from the date of receipt of the first tax
increment or ten (10) from the approval of the Tax Increment
Financing Plan, whichever is less. Pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City requests 100 percent
of the available increase in assessed value for repayment of debt
and current expenditures.
-6-
O
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
CITY OF MONTICELLO )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting
Administrator of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing
extract of minutes of a meeting of the Council held on the date
indicated with the original minutes thereof on file in my office
and that the same is a full, true and correct transcript thereof
insofar as said minutes relate to Resolution No.
WITNESS my hand officially and the offical seal of the
Council this day of , 1989.
(SEAL)
C
City Administrator
9
hursclay, Jan, 12. 1.989
Area
PublicNi
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF MONTicELLO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOnCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ciry
CNtrncli (the "Council") in and for tee CIN of
Monticello. COumv of Wngm. Stan of Min-
nasota. will holo a putillc hearing on Janus"
20. 1989. at aoaroamotely 7:20 a.m., at C;ry
Hail. 2SO East Broaoway. Moomello. Min -
.060,0. relating t0 the Dro Asad moadico0on.
by emargamem of trio geogracnic Droject area
mm..chased Dialect rnsn, at maHa/yRg and
R000vVaoment AutMonrv'a Rea-inoorrani
Project NO, i ono me soOmval aha saootmn of
Lha Modified Reoov-100-tint Plan rerating
m4;ola. Ne Inaaos40 oroo,fi-l'on, by enlergs-
maRt of the geog'sohm arcioct erns and rM-
cot es.a oroiact costs. of the Modified Tan In.
coli tent Finananq Plena Por To,increment
91-11113
face In w"Min Reaovelopmant Project No. 1,
ane too scorOval ono Notation of Ns To. In-
CTemMt Financing Plan of annigp to Tan fmoN.
ment Financing District No. 1..
Mao located
with RNO.v000ment Project No. 1. Wur
psuant
to Not in accorawco who Minnesota Statutes.
Sections 489.001 to 489.047, inclu.we. a.
smarmed. and Sections 489.174 ,0 469.11M
incluerve, a. amended. A COOV Of the Modified
Redskir. men, Plan far Rsathomem"t Project
NO. i dna To. IndeMfMt Financing Plans far
Toe increment Finshung Olstocta Nos. 1.1
through 1.13. as ortoo.ed to Do aaooted. will
be aft file am sverisoje rot maOlKti0t1 at the at.
lice of tris Clry A0111-01`0101 at Clry Hall not
later
than J*Muary 8. 1989.
The praaarTv comanung dna addition to
Rin svelaorrtent Profs= No. 1 and the ostaOlisn-
mont of To. incremem Finertcing Dismct No.
1.8 is as follows:
Wesnrry 3.22 acro of Lot 4. Block 2.
Oakwood industrial Pak. Moracinlo. Min.
Meson. Wright County.
Ryrther infprmanpn regordlnq the jdoonflca•
.OM of :he parcels t0 as mcluaso m Radevotoo-
man, Pfol.c, No. I and Tar Increment FieVnO
Ing O.sinct No. 1.8 may be actamso tram the
*file* at the Civ AQmma,rs101.
All interested oVlon, mW a00*w at the MeV•
log and present their view. or►dv NO cit wnnng.
Dated: January 0. 1980
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Rick Wottatallsr
Ciry AdmNjattloOr
(Jan. 12. 10, 101391
A
0
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
5. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a church facility to
operate in an R-2 (single family residential) zone. variance requests to
allow 1) less than the minumum sideyard setback requirement; 2) less tnan
the minimum number of off-street parking spaces; 3) no concrete curb
around the parking lot perimeter; 4) no hard surtacing of the parking lot.
Applicant, Tempe Baptist Church. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The location of this request is Block 35, Lots 1, 2, and S. 25 ft of E 1/2
Lot 9, and S. 25 ft of Lot 10, Lower Monticello Addition in the City of
Monticello.
The City of Monticello Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
this matter on January 17. In response to the testimony of local
residents, Temple Baptist Church, Metcalf and Larson, and City staff, the
Planning Commission acted to recommend denial of the conditional use
permit. Although supportive of the reactivation of the facility, the
Planning Commission found that the conditional use permit should be denied
because the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient off-street parking
given the intensity of use. The variance requests were indirectly denied
as part of the action to deny the conditional use permit. Council is
asked to consider this conditional use permit request and associated
variance requests.
Y`
alternative has been developed that Metcalf and Larson and the Planning
Commission has not reviewed. Pastor Sams has reviewed this alternative
and found it acceptable. This alternative, may represent an acceptable
compromise and calls for utilization of the nearby play -ground parking
area as a joint -parking facility. Under this proposal, the Temple Baptist
Congregation would be allowed to utilize the play -ground parking at such
time that the congregation out -grows its parking spaces on-site. This
alternative is noted in greater detail at the end of this memo. At this
point I would like to respond to the letter delivered to Council by Jim
Metcalf.
Jim Metcalf submitted a letter to the City Council which outlines his
version of the Planning Commission proceedings and also outlines other
assertions in attempt to introduce doubt and reduce credibility of City
Staff and the Planning Commission recommendation. At this time I would
like to respond to some of the remarks made in Metcalf's letteer. Without
responding to each assertion in the letter, let it suffice to say that
City Staff has worked hard to create a solution to this problem while
retaining the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance. I believe that if you
talk to the representatives of Temple Baptist Church that they would
Indicate to you that staff has been cooperative and worked diligently to
find a solution to this matter.
Following are a few of the remarken made by Metcalf that are worthy of an
immediate response:
Metalf asserts that the City has denied a building permit for lot 3.
My response is that no one has ever made a formal building
application permit for construction on lot 3 and no one has ever been
denied permission to build on lot 3.
Metcalf asserts that neither he nor the Temple Baptist Church
Congregation applied for a conditional use permit. My response is
that Pastor Sams did submit a request for a public hearing regarding
the conditional use permit request. Sams completed the appropriate
form and paid the permit application fee.
Metcalf asserts that staff was arbitrary in establishing the parking
spaces requirement. My response is that establishment of the assembly
hall capacity was based on an on-site survey of the structure and
through in -put provided by Pastor Sams. The parking requirements were
not drawn out of a hat and were based on a accurate interpretation of
the zoning ordinance. In researching the capacity of the assembley
hall, I learned from Pastor Sams how long and how many pews were used
by the Assembly of Cod Congregation and from that information the
assembly hall capacity was calculated using the formula provided in
the ordinance. After calculations were made, it was concluded that
the design capacity of the assembly hall is 150. Pastor Sams
indicated that the number of pews (24) times pew length (12') created
pew space for 150 people. Total parking area is obtained by dividing
capacity (150) by 4. Total parking requirement for the assembly hall
portion of the structure becomes 37. In addition, one parking space
was added for each additional class room in the upper level which
created a total requirement of 42 parking spaces. Metcalf's
statement in his letter that "Mr. O'Neill at no time indicated the
number of parking spaces that should be required under his
interpretation of the ordinance, nor did he indicate that he had
Inspected the building, made any measurements, or made in calculations
of his own" is not true.
Metcalf's assertion that the Planning Commission arbitrarily denied
the conditional use permit and found no finding of fact is not true.
The motion made by the Planning Commission in denying the conditional
use permit, though not referencing specific ordinance numbers, was
based on the Planning Commission's view that the applicant failed to
meet the minimum off-street parking space required at design capacity
of structure and failure to show how the minimum parking apace
requirement could be met at design capacity.
Metcalf's assertion that I suggested the use of Tax Increment
Financing to assist the church with gaining lot 3 is not true.
Metcalf's letter contains other statements that City Staff would contest
but At this time I think it more productive for me to get to the business
of assisting Council with resolving the issue at hand.
Following is information that is similar to that which Planning Commission
reviewed prior to the Public Hearing. Please note that additional
information has been gathered since the Planning Commission meeting and
incorporated into this review and analysis. Also, additional alternatives
have been prepared based on land survey information that, although
solicited long before the Planning Commission meeting, was only made
available recently by the seller.
Prior to the sale of the existing facility to the Temple Baptist Church
congregation, the church property included Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Unfortunately, when the Tule Baptist Church purchased the church, they
were only financially able to purchase Lots 1 and 2. Lots 3 and 4 were
sold to Quintin Lanners for the purpose of developing single family
residences.
According to City Ordinance (3-1 H.), reactivation of this facility
requires that the Temple Baptist congregation obtain a conditional use
prior to operating the facility. Due to the fact that the facility has
not been used for over six months, it has lost its "grandfather" rights
and should now conform to the zoning ordinance, and the zoning ordinance
requires that the congregation obtain a conditional use permit prior to
occupancy.
Issuance of a conditional use permit is complicated by the fact that the
area necessary for the church, parking, and proper side yard setbacks is
not under control of the church at this time. Thus, issuance of the
conditional use permit requires variances to the parking and side yaed
setback requirements associated with operating a church in an R-2 district
(3-5 H. 8 and 6-4 A. 1). The church is also asking for variances to the
parking lot development design standards so that it can phase in the
necessary parking lot improvements over a period of time.
Unfortunately, the parties to the real estate transaction did not do
their homework prior to executing the purchase. No effort was made to
verify a "survey" document on which the purchase was based which showed a
3 foot setback between Lots 2 and 3. The knowledge that this setback was
erroneous was developed by a surveyor working on behalf of the new owner
of Lot 3. No effort was made by the parties to the real estate
transaction to investigate potential permits that might he required prior
to operation of the facility. If City Hall had been contacted, Temple
Baptist would have been informed that the "grandfather" rights of the
previous structure lapsed and, therefore, a conditional use permit would
be required prior to operation of the facility and that such a permit
might likely require church control of l.nts 1, 7 nn�i 3. onowledne of this
fact prior to the sale would have allowed the church to develop a purchase
vo. agreement "contingent on" the church gaining the proper permits from the
City. No effort was made by the church to obtain proper permits prior to
initiating improvements and occupying the structure. Church occupation of
the structure prior to physical survey by the building inspector could
have been disastrous given the age and condition of the existing heating
system.
As of Jan 17, 1989 it was discovered that service to the structure on lot
2 is gained from a service connection located at lot 3. Apparently, when
the church built the addition in 1974, it utilized the sewer and water
service located on lot 3. As a result, development of lot 3 will require
establishement of a new water and sewer connection. The cost for this
procedure could be significant ($3,500-56,000). This situation will also
require that the Temple Baptist congregation acquire an easement that runs
the length of the the service line serving the structure.
Discovery that Pastor Sams had moved his family and was conducting Sunday
services in the structure occurred late in December. In response to this
discovery, the City Building Inspector surveyed the structure for health
and safety hazards and directed the new owner make some modifications to
the structure. In addition, staff provided an administrative permit to
the congregation which allowed the church to conduct services until the
Planning Commission and City Council could convene and consider the
matter.
Following is a summary of the variance requests associated with this
application for a conditional use permit.
SIDE YARDS
According to 6-4: (A)1 of the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance, "Side
yards shall be double that required for the district, but no greater than
30 feet." The side yard requirement in the R-2 District is 10 feet;
therefore, the side yard in this case should be double that amount or 20
feet. According to land survey information, the structure is located
almost on top of the side yard lot line, creating a setback of less than
one foot. Thus, a variance of over 19 feet is needed in order for the
church to receive a conditional use permit. The need for the side yard
variance would be eliminated if the Temple Baptist Congregation controlled
Lot 3.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Following is the summary provided to the Planning Commission prior to the
public hearing. The number of parking spaces required is related to the
design capacity of the main assembly hall. The Ordinance states in
Section 3-5 H. 8 that a church parking area must consist of "At least one
(l) parking space for each four (4) seats based on the design capacity of
the main assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with
such buildings or uses shall be subject to additional requirements which
are imposed by this Ordinance." The proposed Temple Baptist Church
facility has both an assembly hall and classroom areas. For purposes of
calculating space, both facilities need to be taken into account when
establishing required parking area.
Given the design capacity of the assembly hall of 150 seats and given one
parking space for each classroom, the minimum number of parking spaces
adds up to 42 spaces. This estimate is somewhat conservative, as it does
not include additional parking needs created by the basement facilities
which include a kitchen area and other classrooms. The site plan reviewed
by the Planning Commission called for a maximum of 27 parking spaces
which, according to the site plan presented, results in a variance request
of 15 parking spaces. After further analysis it appears that the parking
area might be better suited for development of 26 parking spaces.
Please note that local residents have testified that in the past, the
Assembly of God congregation utilized Lot 3 to supplement the other
off-street parking provided in the front of the structure.
Finally, the Ordinance does not require that all parking spaces be
developed. However, the applicant must show "proof of parking" or an area
that parking can be expanded to at such time that it is needed. If the
Temple Baptist Congregation had control of Lot 3, this area would be
sufficient "proof of parking area", as it in estimated that a minimum of
16 parking spaces could be developed on Lot 3. The church would be able
to expand off-street parking to this area at such time that the size of
the congregation creates the need for ouch expansion.
�A
VARIANCE TO CONCRETE CURB AND HARD SURFACING REQUIREMENT.
According to Pastor Sams of the Temple Baptist Church, the congregation
cannot afford to develop the parking area as required at this time.
However, he has indicated that he would agree to establishing a schedule
for completion of the necessary improvements over a period of time. It
has been suggested that the Temple Baptist congregation be allowed to
develop parking over a five year period. According to Gary Anderson,
another congregation in the community has previously been allowed five
years in which to develop required parking area.
LOT 3 WATER/SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION BEING USED BY CHURCH ADDITION
Additional information gathered on Friday, January 20 contributes to the
conclusion that lot 3, though legally identified as a separate parcel, is
integral to the operation of the church facility. It was discovered that
the church addition located on lot 2 receives sewer and water service via
the service connection on lot 3. This situation complicates the matter
and significantly reduces the value of lot 3 because in order for lot 3 to
be developed, a new service must be established and because a utilities
easement must be established through a large portion of lot 3. It may be
however, that a home can be situated on lot 3 despite the presence of a
utility line crossing from the the middle/front of the lot diagonally to
the mid -point of lot 2/3 lot line.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Deny the conditional use permit request. Deny all variance requests.
indicdte thdL the conditional use permit will oe approveo only at such
.__ time that the congregation gains ownership of Lot 3.
Denial would be based on the failure to meet minimun parking
requirements as defined in Section 3-4 H. 8 of the City of Monticello
Zoning Ordinance and based on the failure to meet minimum setback
requirements as defined in section 6-4 A. 1 of the City of Monticello
Zoning Ordinance.
In a perfect world, this is the best alternative. Staff understands
however that this alternative may not be selected given the economic
considerations as described by the developer and given the potential that
this alternative might hamper reactivation of a blighted structure. If
Council desires to move ahead and grant the conditional use permit, it is
recommended that Oouncil consider approval of alternative 3. Following are
arguments in support and possible inplications of selection of alternative
1.
The aide yard and off-street parking regulations are intended to minimize
the impact of the operation of a church facility on the adjoining
neighborhood. It may be argued by the Temple Baptist Congregation that
the parking requirements should not apply to them because the
congregation is so small that off-street parking will not be a problem in
the near or medium term. This to certainly a point worth considering.
However, the Monticello area to growing, and it is highly likely that the
church congregation size for some other congregation) will grow to match
7 the capacity of the assembly hall. When this happens, the off-street
parking will be deficient and the ourrounding neighborhood will ouffer.
The existing side yard setback of less than one foot creates an unusual
situation for the church and the adjoining property owner. Under the
present circumstances, the roof overhang, window wells, and door step are
located on or over Lot 3. In order for the church to maintain the outside
wall of the structure located on the border of Lot 2, one must stand on
Lot 3. Furthermore, the existence of the utility line connecting the
church on lot 2 with a service connection on lot 3 further complicates the
matteer and is evidence that lots 1, 2, and 3 are integrally related.
Selection of this alternative will protect the long term interests of the
neighborhood by preserving sufficient off-street parking for use by this
facility for years to come. Of course, with this alternative there also
is the political risk of appearing to be "against" the development of a
church and "against" the reactivation of a facility that has been vacant
for some time now.
Although there is no guarantee, denial of the conditional use permit may
result in a chain of events that results in the Temple Baptist Church
acquiring Lot 3. According to the church attorney, the church will not
bring suit against the City if the City denies this permit. Instead, he
will take action against the seller to rescind the transaction.
If this happens, it is possible that a settlement will be reached that
will ultimately result in church ownership of Lot 3, as it is our
estimation that Metcalf and Larson would rather settle with the church
than give up the land previously owned by the Temple Baptist Congregation.
iWsnite the fart that the church does not intend to bring suit against the
City, thin alternative presents the strong likelihood that the City will
•- be drawn into litigation by the sellers of the structure. According to the
City Attorney, the decision to deny the conditional use permit is
reasonable and would likely stand up in a Court of Law.
2. Approve issuance of the conditional use permit; approve all variance
requests. Allow phasing in of developed parking area over a period of
one to five (1-51 years.
2A Approve site plan presented by Metcalf and Larson which outlined
development sufficient for 56 parking spaces.
2B Approve site plan which calls for developement of 26 parking
spaces and grant a variance for the remaining 16 parking spaces
required.
If Council desires this alternative it is strongly suggested by staff that
Cnuncil select alternative 2B as this is the safest and most cost
effective plan for developing parking on lots 1 and 2. The proposal under
2A will create a dangerous situation with cars backing into a traffic
lane. In addition, 2A will be expensive to develop and will require 6
variances.
ti
As rationale for selection of alternative 1, Council could view the
parking issue as being problem only on Sunday morning and Wednesday
night and that by developing all 26 parking spaces, the Temple Baptist
Congregation can sufficiently mitigate the problem.
Council might also support this alternative based on economics as
described by the developer. From an economic standpoint, it could be that
method by which the land was divided and sold to the Temple Baptist Church
is the only feasible method by which this structure could be "brought
back on line". Without allowing the property to be divided as it has, the
structure may have been vacant for years to come. In other words, it may
be the lesser of two evils to allow the church to be reactivated with less
than the desirable amount of parking than to encourage it, because of
zoning laws, to remain vacant.
This alternative will not create an off-street parking problem immediately
but will likely result in long term off-street parking problems for the
area. Under this alternative, the City will be bending the Zoning
Ordinance and reducing the long term livability of the neighborhood to
cover mistakes and oversights made by the parties participating in the
original transaction.
Approval of this conditional use request and variances therein may not be
consistent with previous City decisions to encourage other churches to
comply with the parking requirements in the zoning Ordinance. An approval
will also set a precedent that will open the door to a reduction in the
standard number of off-street parking spaces required for old and new
churches in the community.
e The side yard setback problem could be mitigated if Quintin Lanners agrees
to provide the church with an easement that would allow church members to
enter Lot 3 for the purpose of maintaining the church structure. The
severity of the precedent created might be mitigated by the fact that the
structure already exists.
3. Approve conditional use permit request, allow the Temple Baptist
Church Congregation to utilize the parking associated with the nearby
play -ground as a "joint parking" area. 16 parking spaces are
available at the play -ground which, if used jointly by the Temple
Baptist Church, would be sufficient satisfy parking requirements of
the ordinance.
This alternative may prove to a compromise that all parties might find
acceptable. I have talked to Pastor Sama about this idea and found that
he will support this alternative and the associated conditions..
After additional review of the ordinance it was found that according to
3-5 I. The City Council may consider granting the Tule Baptist
congregation a conditional use permit which would allow the church to
utilize the nearby play -ground parking area as a joint parking area.
According to the ordinance, the City may approve a conditions use permit
for one (1) or more buelesses (City/Church) to provide the required
off-street parking facilities by joint use of one (1) or more sites where
the total number of spaces provided are leas that than the sum of the
` total required for each business should they provide them separately.
7
This proposal meets the conditions for joint use because park use and church
use do not generally occur at the same time and because structure is located
well within the 300 ' maximum distance from a joint parking area. This
alternative requires development of a properly drawn legal instrument, executed
by the parties concerned for joint use of off-street parking facilities, duly
approved as to form and manner of execution by the City Attorney, and shall be
filed with the City Administrator and recorded with the County recorder, Wright
County.
This alternative would require the following motions:
Motion to grant conditional use permit allowing the Temple Baptist
Congregation to utilize said City park parking area as a "joint
parking" facility.
Motion to approve conditional use permit request which would allow
operation of Church facility on lots 1 and 2 block 35. Conditional
ns? permit to contain the following conditions of operation,
Temple Baptist Congregation shall take action necessary to control
parking lot dust prior to development of paved parking lot
surface.
Temple Baptist Congregation shall utilize the joint parking area
at such time that the congregation grows to the size that the
joint parking area is needed. Temple Baptist administration will
direct congregation via posted notices and other communication to
utilize the joint parking facility and to not utilize the street
for parking.
Temple Baptist Congregation will install vegetation and or fence
material necessary to screen the adjoining properties to the north
of the parking area. Installation of screening material shall he
accomplished during the next growing season and shall be
maintained indefinitely.
Property owner of lot 3 will provide a 20' easement along the
easterly border of lot 3 to the Temple Baptist Congregation.
At such time that the joint parking facility is needed by
congregation, the church shall make an annual payment of $10 for
the use of the joint parking facility.
Motion to approve variance which would allow parking lot development
to be deferred. Require parking lot development to be completed by
January, 1994 and such design must accomodate at least 26 parking
spaces without requiring additional parking lot design standard
variances.
Motion to approve variance to the 20 side yard requirement associated
with operation of a church facility in an R-2 zone.
0
This alternative may represent an acceptable compromise to all parties
involved and is supported as a second choice by the City Attorney. Joint
parking facilities are appropriate when the times that the joint
facilities are staggered. In this case, the park does not get
significant use during Sunday morning hours and thus sharing the parking
area should not result in citizens competing with church -goers for scare
parking spaces in the joint parking lot
It should be noted that the this joint parking arrangenent must be
recorded and that this represents a long term committment by the City.
At this time I am not certain of the implications if at some time in the
future, the City desired to change the present use of the property.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of location map; Copy of document/site plan which became basis of
original sale and parking configuration noted with option 2B.; copy of
land survey; Selected excerpts from the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; Copy
of public hearing notice; Copy of public hearing application. Copy of
Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 17, 1989; Other
information.
(L'
C
Mica// & etarnon
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PO. So. •N
]n Wtl1 e*"a V
MOnI1C011q MlneMfgll SS]B7dU
JAMES G. METCALF January 19, 1989 TELEPHONE
BRADLEY V. LARSON (612) 2953232
METRO
(61 2) 421.7797
Monticello City Council
250 East Broadway
Monticello, PD1 55362
Re: Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit Rejected By
The Planning Commission on January 17, 1989
Dear Council Members:
I am writing this letter on behalf of West Prairie Partners, a Minnesota
General Partnership consisting of Bradley V. Larson. John W. Sandberg, and
James t:. Metcalt. The Planning Commission hearing on this matter went on
for 21 hours. In an attempt to save the Council time, I will summarize the
Planning Commission hearing and the position of the respective parties. I
am enclosing a copy of a proposed parking plan which was presented to the
City staff and also at the Planning Commission hearing, together with a
revised parking plan based upon a survey of the property.
Approximately 8 or 9 years ago the undersigned and Bradley Larson attempted
to negotiate with the Baptist Church whereby we would acquire the property on
the west edge of Monticello where the Baptist Church is situated, and acquire
the property where the Assembly of God Church was then situated, engineering
a trade so that the Baptist Church wound up with the Assembly of God property
and we Wound up with the Baptist Church property. That transaction was not
completed because the asking price of the Assembly of God property was too
high.
In the fall of 1988, after being advised that the City was offered the
Assembly of God property, we again attempted to facilitate a trade in the
name of West Prairie Partnere. We initially did not believe that there was
much chance of success because the City was a prospect to buy the property.
However, Purchase Agreements were signed with both churches, conditioned
upon a trade of property and the transaction closed on November 28, 1988.
The essential facts of the transaction arc as follows:
I. West Prairie Partners paid the Assembly of Cod Church its asking
price of $110,000.00;
Y
2. The Baptist Church acquired the Assembly of God property, except for
the Westerly two lots;
Page 2
January 17, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting
3. West Prairie Partners retained the westerly two lots and the property
on the vest edge of Monticello that was the Baptist property.
The Assembly of God Church purchased Lots 1 and 2 in 1960 and Lots 3 and
4 in 1969. They built the education wing of the building and completed the
same in 1974. That congregation moved into its new facility in the fall of
1983.
No survey was obtained on either the Baptist parcel or the Assembly of
God parcel. We believed, as the realtor and both congregations, that no
survey was required. We believed that the westerly edge of the Assembly of
God building was within 3 feet of the lot line between Lot 2 and Lot 3, and
the two lots immediately west (being Lots 3 and 40 could accomodate two
single family houses as long as an appropriate side yard set back was estab-
lished. Since no split or subdivision of a lot was involved, we did not
believe that it was necessary to obtain any permits. Because the existing
Assembly of God property was built and occupied prior to the zoning ordin- -�
once, and its use had not changed, no permits were required.
West Prairie Partners entered into a Contract for Deed with a local
builder, Quintin Lanners. agreeing to sell him Lots 3 and 4 by Contract for
Deed, the contract was dated December 6, 1988. Mr. Lanners had numerous
discussions with City staff and waa informed that building permits would
not be instied to him on Lats 3 and 4 and in addition to that, the church / ✓ _
did not have adequate parking and that he should sell Lot 3 to the church.
The Temple Baptist Church received a letter from Jeff O'Neill dated
December 15, 1988. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your reference.
The City staff act a Planning Commission hearing for January 17, 1989. \ ,
No request was made for a hearing by either West Prairie Partners or the �`•
Baptist Church. It is the position of West Prairie Partners. and I assume
it is also the position of the Baptist Church, that no hearing was required.
At the January 17, 1989, Planning Commission hearing the history of the
transaction, similar to which is contained above was presented to the Plan-
ning Commission and Pastor Sams, cold the Planning Commission of the pro-
posed use of the property. The Baptist Church's attorney, Mr. Harry Ray,
spoke concerning this particular congregation adn other Baptist congregations
that he was familiar with regarding membership, size and growth. -Two other
representatives of the Baptist church testified, two neighborhood property
owners appeared and testified. Janalle Iano and John Haller, and Mr. O'Neill
represented the City.
The two property owners were concerned that there was not enough off
street parking provided. They conceded that there undoubtedly was enough
for the present time but indicated in the future that additional parking
should be available. Mrs. Iano finally indicated that while she still
wanted additional parking provided, that if it couldn't be, she would like
to see the Baptist Church occupy the property. (Mrs. Iano is Richard
Marcie's daughter. which fact. along with the fact he lives across the
street, did not discourage him from participating.)
Page 3
January 17, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting
The various representatives of the Baptist Church indicated that the
present attendance would be approximately 30 people, that traditionally
the Baptist Church, not only here but nationwide, experiences very slow
growth, that it was redesigning its meeting hall and placing permanent
pews that would seat 96 people and that it regarded this adequate for the
foreseeable future. (There presently are no permanent seats.) It was
further indicated that the present on site parking was more than adequate
and would continue to be for the foreseeable future. It indicated that it
would be willing to embark upon a five year program to hard surface the
parking area and bring it into conformity with the ordinance but did not
have funds to embark on that program any faster. Those representatives
further indicated if the congregation grew to be of a size of more than 150
or so, that it would offer either split services or more likely sponsor an-
other chruch to form in the immediate area. Those representatives further
indicated that they planned on completing the parking area, planting trees.
fixing up the building, etc., as fast as they could subject to funds being
available.
Mr. O'Neill reiterated the points contained in his letter dated December
15. 1988. He stated that in his opinion, as well as the opinion of the City
Attorney, that the use of the property was discontinued for a period of six
months and therefore any future use must be made to conform with the pro-
visions of the ordinance, and I assume he was referring to 3-1H. He neglected
::eveeer to tel! the Planning Commission that the folloving paragraph, namely,
3-1-I, states that maintenance is permitted and ignored the fact that the
Assembly of Cod Church continuously maintained the building. Nor did he
state that the ordiannce failed to define the term "discontinued". He
explained to the Planning Commission that the ordinance vas obtained at
great costs and based upon opinions of experts and research and advised them
that the ordinance must be followed or that the City would face problems in
the future enforcing the ordinance if it presently deviated. Essentially,
he told the Planning Commission that they had no other choice than to reject h
the application of the Baptist Church. While Reverend Sams and other repre-
sentatives of the Baptist Church stated that their design of the building •r`:"� "c•
t°
would accomodate approximately 96 worshipping members at any one ttme, Mr. — L
O'Neill relied on alleged telephone calls with the members of the former
congregation and indicated that the building was designed for a greater
number. Mr. O'Neill at no time indicated the number of parking spaces that
should be required under his interpretation of the ordinance. Nor did he
indicate that he had inspected the building, made any measurements, or made
any calculations of his own. Although Mr. O'Neill did not say so, based
upon his letter of December 15, 1988. and conversations he had with Mr.
Quintin Lanonrs. Mr. O'Neill has made it perfectly clear that in his opinion
the Baptist Church ought to be compelled to buy, and Mr. Lanners ought to be
compelled to sell. Lot 3 for additional parking purposes. One of Mr. O'Neill's'
stated theories was that all though the Baptist Church did not have the funds
to buy the lot, it could pay for it by a tax increment fianneing. He never
explained how tax increment financing would be applicable to a parcel that
was exempt from real estate taxes.
Page 4
January 17, 1989. Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission, after approximately 2} hours of continous
testimony, debate and argument, upon motion by Mr. Richard Martie, which
was seconded and unanimously adopted, rejected the church's application
for a conditional use permit. No reasons were given for either the motion
or the vote other than Marcie seating that We have talked about it and he i+
was not comfortable granting it. This action clearly violates a Planning
Commission's authority under the ordinance and also under state lay. Govern-
ing and deliberative bodies are required to give reasons for their actions and
to establish facts to justify the actions undertaken. Further, this action
places the City Council in the position of having to review this matter anew
since it has no facts or findings before it that the Planning Commission heard
and determined.
Delivered with this letter is a copy of a proposed parking diagram based
upon the survey prepared by Mr. Dennis Taylor. This was not presented at
the Planning Commission meeting since it was not then available. It is pre-
sented now to demonstrate that additional off street parking places can be
provided.
Neither the undersigned, nor Metcalf and Larson, nor West Prairie Partners
is undertaking to represent the Baptist Church or commit it to any particular
position in this matter. I am, however, particularly interested in attempt-
ing to resolve it satisfactorily. If it cannot be, there will be some severe
legal consequences if the Baptist Church elects to unwind the transaction.
Any litigation attemptirg to do so would undoubtedly involve both West Prairie
Partners and the City of Monticello. I am interested in determining whether
or not this matter can be concluded on a basis that is fair and reasonable to
all parties as '.ell ac 2 r.. -1'^e ,....: :e: JlZeC.l Y.v- aa.' 'egeweft
for other churches concerning. what attitude they can expect when dealing with
the City to the future.
The following issues ourght to be fully considered:
1. IT OUGHT NOT TO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY TO NEEDLESSLY ATTEMPT
TO RESTRUCTURE TRANSACTIONS. This transaction was put together to enable the
Baptist congregation to acquire another facility at no initial cost. The
Baptist Church presently does not have funds to immediately begin improving the
parking facilities on the property and the suggestion by several Planning Com-
mission members, as well as the City staff, that it ba cumpelled to buy the
lot next door fails to consider economic reality. If that congregation had the
funds, the lot could have been included, and undoubtedly would have been in-
cluded. in the transaction.
2. ANY REQUIREMENT. FIANNCIAL OR OTHERWISE, CAN BE PLACED ON A DEVELOPER
OF PROPERTY OR A PROPERTY OWNER. It appears quite obvious from the City's
position that the developer, West Prairie Partners, should be compelled to
transfer without consideration an additional lot to the Baptist property
so that the City's interpretation of the zoning ordinance can be satisfied.
Based upon my experience with the City over the last several yearn, this
attitude appears to be commonplace. In this particular transaction, In
order to develop what was formerly (and hopefully will not be again) the
Baptist property on the west edge of Monticello, it was necessary for West
Prairie Partners to recover as port of their acquisition costs the reasonable
{ value of Lots 3 and 4 adjacent to the Assembly of God property, sell off the
structura located upon the Baptist Church property, and than develop the
remainder of the former Baptist property. The economics of the situation
dictaco what is possible. The way the City is presently operating, very
little, if any development will be possible.
Page 5
January 17, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting
3. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF NOT ALLOWING THE BAPTIST TO OCCUPY
THE ASSEMBLY OF GOD PROPERTY. When we first contemplated this transaction, we
figured that it would be a benefit all the way around, particularly to the
neighbors of the Assembly of God property. This property was continuing to
deteriorate and if left in that condition, would eventually require more and
more money to rehabilitate and possibly dictate a non -religious use. It's
only apparent reasonable use, and economic use, would be for a church. Other
uses have been proposed, but it was apparently felt that all would be
detrimental to the neighborhood. The Baptist's acquiring and occupying the
property appeared to us to be beneficial to all concerned. Further, two
houses being erected to the west appeared to make more sense than a parking
area which was not needed, and could not be developed because the church had
no money, or, to put a four-plex upon it. When the Baptist Church completed
the transaction and displayed a willingness to want to work with the City and
upgrade the property, it was not met with an inquiry as to what it would
legitimately expect to accomplish and how long it would take, but was met
with every obstacle Mr. O'Neill could throw in its path.
4. YOUR DECISION ON THIS MATTER WILL RAVE ON OTHER CONGREGATIONS IN THE
COMMUNITY. Of the existing congregations, to my knowledge only the Catholic
Church and the Trinity Lutheran Church have made an effort to provide adequate
off street parking. I do not know whether either of these congregations meet
the requirements of the City Ordinance or even if they are obligated to do so.
If both of them made improvements to the properties since 1974, I assume the
ordinnnr:e nnnlies to thq7. Thnre nre two cnngrnSnttons, the EpIsenpnl Church
on 4th Street and the Lutheran Church on 3rd Street that have no apparent off
street parking whatsoever. The Methodist Church has limited off street park-
ing on the southerly edge of its property. I believe it, was placed there by
a combined effort of the church and a neighboring business. It chink that
these congregations, as well as congregations that may subsequently be formed,
ought to be encouraged to provide off street parking and also be assured that
the City wil work with them and attempt to accommodate any reasonable proposal
they have. If any other congregation carefully reviews the manner in which
the Baptist's are presently being treated, I don't think they will be favor-
ably impressed.
5. THE CITY'S FAILURE TO SPECIFY WHAT PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE REQUIRED.
The various representatives of the Baptist Church who spoke indicated the size
of the existing congregation, approximately 30, and the proposed capacity,
somewhere between 90 and 100. Those gentlemen also represented a genuine '
interest in attempting to resolve the situation, limiting the amount of growth.
and the time in which the growth occurred, so it would not become a burden upon
the neighborhood. The City never bothered to indicate what the parking require-
ments would be under the ordinance as determined by the City Administration,
nor that it had made any independent evaluation of the promisee. Its basis for
a rough calculation was made only on alleged phone conversations it had with
members of the previous congrogatlon. The Baptist Church people left the
Planning Commission meeting without any idea of what the City's requirements
were.
6. NO GUIDANCE, SUGGESTION, OR DIRECTION BY EITHER THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OR CITY STAFF. Ono of the Planning Commission members indicated that it should
not be the function of the Planning Commission to consider this matter and if
f
L
Page 6
January 17, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting
there were any changes, the Council could do it. Based upon its performance,
or lack thereof, on January 17, 1989, there is no reason for it to exist. The
City staff suggested nothing other than the lot to the vest must be acquired.
While neither the Planning Commission or City staff can be authorized to
speak for the Council, (although it is arguable that they in fact do so in
variance matters), It would appear to be appropriate that either could make
suggestions to the Council that certain matters be changed or diviated from
and the reasons for doing so. While doing this they would make quite clear
that it was still subject to the Council's ratification and approval. This
type of conduct would encourage a reasonable working relationship with applicants.
What in fact occurs is that both the Planning Commission and staff take the position
that the ordinance must be strictly adhered to and if you don't wnat to do it, quit
wasting our time and go directly to the Council. A combative, adversarial condition
is normally created. This is obviously inappropriate and must be corrected. And the
power to correct it rests with the Council.
In conclusion, I think the Council should adopt the following:
1. A conditional use should be granted although it is more than arguable
that it is not required since the present use is grandfathered in. I believe
that the Baptist congregation would readily agree to any reasonable conditions
the Council wishes to impose upon the use of its property and in doing so the
issue could be finally resolved. (I realize the ordinance provides for a
six month discontinuance, but it does not define it. However, ordinances
have to hn. renconnhle and fnirl•: nnnlied. In this inctnnrn I do nnr helic•:a it
is but I see no purpose in arguing about it, or having a court rule upon it,
when the matter can otherwise be resolved, immediately and completely.)
2. That according to the proposed and revised off street parking diagram.
there are adequate parking places to accommodate the long range requirements
of the Baptists. The Baptists will exceed the parking requirements, more so
than any other existing congregation. The parking plan can be in two phases.
Phase one can be the development northerly of the structure within 5 years.
Phase two can be southerly of the structure. developed when the need arises.
3. That the Baptist have shown a willingness to adopt a plan that would
provide for the parking lot to be blacktopped and curbing installed over the
next five years, which as I understand it, is similar to proposals made two
other congregations. The Council should approve such a plan.
4. The encroachment problem on the vest edge of the property can be
immediately and finally resolved by an casement for caves drop and maintenance
of the westerly side of the building.
I don't believe any of the proposals contained above are unreasonable or
at odds with either the spirit or letter of the ordinance, or are inconsistane
with the manner in which other religious corporations have boon treated. If
I can answer any questions that any of you have, or provide other information.
I will gladly do so upon your request.
Sincerely,
METCALF b LARSON
By:
James G. Metcalf
JGM:ds
Conditional use request to allov a church
facility in an R-2 (single and two family
j
residential) zone. Variance requests
J'y, i� " �'• R to allow 1) less than the minimum sidayard
•a - / tback requirement; 2) less than the
min - number of off-street parking
spa s;' 3 o concrete curb around the
•••,o••r �•. +� ; \ pa !ng lot' pe eter; 4) no hard surfacing
o the parking loo.
,� •� � '�, pl Baptist Ch
.
®r _t e r s..
/ •w � � . Area. A/[«nf%o! Are3.
011
L'
O•
1._ %/��.• /,: ?,. lam- ` �� �/ �;�r'` �^. ,
,• �• ,� �. • ire? ,. ;?. Sa.:��r.,
wM
TI 8q /
\� p
it •4
COPY OF SITE PLAN WHICH BECAME. THE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL TRANSACTION
Z.
a �
v \'d
(actually vacant)
A �
n �K�
� v
(Actually nt]' 3 r
F -• S e }al
Set -back Ac :uatiy less thenyY
n
i�.•
7 .,Ole 7 .. .I• 1 1
_I Nk
�• 'J A I:,•I prI�7I 7717v17t1 a•,lotl�:
r_ I III
(PARKING AREA NOT VERIFIED BY ACTUAL SURVEY)
n4
jj
/!/CI
e
1
:.sr T• .Y•.�l Ui.�wY 1••1� .
I �e�
The site plan above became the basis of the original transactions which
witnessed the sale of lots 3 and y to Quinton Lanners and the sale of
lots l and 2 to the Temple Baptist Church. Actually, the Temple Baptist
Congregation 'traded their existing facility for the faeality lrcated at lots
1 and 2 block 35.
101
`
y.
; ; '"'.+a
.;.-"..`•..,,,� v, it
1
,
Pyr`
` �� • (�
a � _
. t
/rr(JJI
• Q
�h
f
NINNt ,c �
6
pHrjMF
rr • {
�. ` 21.8, • }�� 1 �.- ��,-" °�i.• � +`,ti
J Ai,��1LtcF�. S,__�Lr'- _....-. inti ._. .a:•: •'lerrtr_r.A.-•. .� �._,
}� Y. tip?-.••"�1 '1�!1 •t• Rh , �V.'�j �'�7�� . ,yT•� Lr� � ;� . { r t t .• r �',. t•v � ' 7':+'�
c t'
�./�•t�r�urF`F��Lib�kli��.�1 �,�✓�'�. �;. � ., � .a •n � rr'u� p i ;Y•':
r+ ers •R � ^s z • •+" � ti t
�yf',e�`i..N�V+�-
��� *.��'isa? �r}`+i .:� + �.{ �. �'W�L�.vdity ! t -•p 1 +. ' r r.. ' l'. t f , •: L;
r
�n 4►'�i l�nr' ��R �t L�7r Sry �t y��Fut �o y r e v`a.
tG3 Soazding or 'ranting of rodma
one (1) person.
6-4: CO."DITIONAL USES: The following are conditionsl uses in an
-R-11"- District'.(RequZaza ccndZt-4onc2 use penmit baaej�
ulpo)� PAOCZduitas iec jopth in, and -teStd—azed by 12
oS t,Li4 Oad-btaitce.)
(A) Public or semi-public recreational buildings
and neighborhood or community centers; public
and private educational institutions limited
to elementary, junior high and senior high
schools; and religious, institutions such' as'
churches, chapals-, temples and synagogues., provided.
that:
ALP_
1. 'Side yards ahall,bw double that requirid
for th:district, but no greater than thirty
(30),f,
ILI
2.-.Adequate, screening'froz, abutting resWanti-ii
uses Ises andliand- sca-1 -ping - is i provided in compliance
with Chapter 3 j, Section this 6rdinance
Adequate of!-a trest pairking land access,
is ijiovided on the site oran latc(firilit - iY
abutting, directly across -a public itiiet
of alley t*'rihi-principal� use in compliance
-%iithXh&pt*r 3. Section 'S of `this Ordinance,
and that such perking in adequately soreen*4
and landscaped, from surrounding and abutting
uses in compliance with this
Ordinance.
4. Adequate off-street loading-and service
entrance* are considered and satisfactorily
Met.
(8) Governmental and public utility buildiftc5 and
a)
(5
.
When apublic recreation site has core
'• than one (1) use designation, the areas
�- rust be divided for deta=ining the required
,- par?ing spaces.
5. MOTELS, MOTOR HOTELS, HOTELS: One (1)
space per each rental unit plus one space
for each ten (10) units and one (1) space
for each e=ployee on any shift.
6. SCHOOL, EL'c:L ITARY AND JUNIOR H_G:i: At
,,east one (1) parking space for each classrooc
plus one (1) additional space for each
If_.ty
(50) studs.^.0 cacacity.
7. SCHOOL. HIGH SCHOOL THROUGH COLLET AND
PRIVATE AND DAY OR CHURCH SCHCOLS: At
least one (1) parking spats for each seven (7)
• students based on design capacity plus
one (1) for each three (3) classroogs..
S. CHURCH, THEATRE,AUD I TORIUM: ((Pt least
one (1) parking apace for eac!T-our (4)
seats based on the design capacity of the
rain asse�ly hail. Facilities as may
be provided in conjunction with such buildings
or unao shall be subject to additional
recciremento which are i=:osed by this
Ordinance.
9. BASEBALL FIELDS, STADIUMS: At least one (1)
parking sFace for each eight (8) seats
of design capacity.
10. COMMUNITY CENTER, PHYSICAL CULTURE STUDIOS,
LIBRARIES, PRIVATE CLUBS, LODGES, MUSEUMS,
ART GALLE.4IES: Ten (10) spaces plus one (1)
for each one hundred fifty (150) square
fast in excess of two thousand (2,000)
square feet of floor area in the principal
structure.
11. SA:IITARIU:1S, CONVALESCENT HOM.', REST HOME,
NURSING HONE OR DAY IIURSERIES: Four (4)
spaces plus one (1) for each throe ( 3 )
bads for wnlch accoeaodatione are offered.
12. ELDERLY (SE:NIOR CITIZEN) HOUSING: Reservation
of area equal to one (1) parking space
par unit.
C.
up to 500 square feet per dwelling
unit may be subtracted from the minimum
area requiremnt3, so as to allow up
to not more than one dwelling unit
per acre.
�''
L( (d) C7hera comcercial, industrial and institutional
L•— uses clearly demonstrate affirmative
designet_orta toward the preservation
and enhancement of desirable natural
site c-aracteristic3, ardinarce required
0 ,c- % paved parking spaces may be reduced
Y=and installation deferradunti- such
!'1tf time as the need for the fell cocpleaent
.,/ of rarkiac. The need shall be determined
1 in con.for=ance with the "proof of parking"
plan so approved by the City
9. USE OF LanOSCl.PI71G FOR SCREFNING: Where
natural materials such as trees or hedges
are approved in lieu of required screening
by means of wall or fences, the density
and species of such plantings shall be such
to achieve 90 percent opacity year -around.
10. USE OF LanDSCAP-TNG FOR SC.4EEnI)CG - WTERSi.1TE
SURE -
(a) The City of Monticello recognises the
value of Int3r3tate Highway axposure
to coc=arcial and industrial developers.
The City also wishes to avoid the undesirable
corotomy of fully exposed building
aides and rears, and wishes to provide
natural visual variety to the travelers
on the Interstate. natural visual
variety will alleviate the boredom
for travellers and will project a clean
and pleasant image of the city of Monticello.
Commercial and industrial developers
of lata/parcols having substantial
expoaure to the Interstate shall be
required to landscape/scraen to provide
60% opacity year -around, at least 601
of said screening to be of natural
cater:als.
(b) Residential development on lata/parcoLs
having substantial exposure to the
Interatsta shall be required to landscape/screen
to provide 90 percent opacity year -around,
at Least 754 of cold screening to be
Cof
natural materials.
3-5 (H326 3-5 (1)1(d)
1 J( 26. HOSPITALS: Two (2) spaces per each bed.
4 +�t (I) JOINT FACILITIES:
41n
1. The City Council may, after receiving a
report and recommendation from the Planning
Commission, approve a conditional use permit
for one (1) or more businesses to provide
the required off-street parking facilities
by joint use of one ( 1 ) or more sites where
the total number of spaces provided are
less than the sum of the total required
for each business should they provide them
separately. when considering a request
for such a permit, the Planning Commission
shall not recommend that such permit be
granted nor the Council approve such a
permit except when the following conditions
are found to exist:
(a) Up to fifty (50) percent of the parking
facilities required for a theatre,
bowling allay, dance hall, bar or
restaurant may be supplied by the
cit-stroot parking facilities provided
oy types or uses specified an a primarily
daytime use in Subparagraph (d) below.
(b) Up to fifty (50) percent of the off-street
parking facilities required for any
use specified under (d) below as primary
daytime uses may be supplied by the
parking facilities provided by the
following night-time or Sunday uses;
auditoriums incidental to a public
or parochial school, churches, bowling
alloys, dance halls, theatres, barn
or restaurants.
(c) Up to eighty (80) percent of the parking
facilition required by thio section
for a church or for an auditorium
incidental to a public or parochial
school may be supplied by off-street
parking facilities provided by uses
specified under (d) below as primarily
daytime uses.
(s*) For the purpose of this sectioi. the
following uses are considered as primarily
daytime uses: Banks, business offices,
retail stores, personal sorvlcs shops,
household equipment or furniture shops,
clothing or shoo repair or service
shops, manufacturing, wholesale and
similar uses.
OK
V
3-5 [I]1(e)
1 (e) Conditions required for joint use:
i. The building or use for which
application is being made to
utilize the off-street parking
facilities provided by another
building or use shall be located
within three hundred (300) feet of
such parking facilities.
ii. The applicant shall show that
there is no substantial conflict
in the principal operating hours
of the two (2) buildings or
_s es for which joint use of
off-street parking facilities
is proposed.
iii. A properly drawn legal instrument,
executed by the parties concerned
for joint use of off-street
T' parking facilities, duly approved
as to form and manner of execution
by the City Attorney, shall
be filed with the City Administrator
-nd r- .hc Cz.: ty
Recorder, Wright County.
3-6: OFF-STREET LOADING:
[A] PURPOSE: The regulation of loading spaces
in those zoning regulations in to alleviate
or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way
and so to promote the safety and general welfare
of the public, by establishing minimum requirements
for off-street loading and unloading from motor
vehicles in accordance with the utilization
of various parcels of land or structures.
[B] LOCATION:
1. All required loading bertha shall be off-street
and located on the same lot as the building
or use to be served.
2. All loading berth curb cuts shall be located,
at a minimum, fifty (50) feat from the
intorsoction of two (2) or more street
right-of-ways. This distance shall be
measured from the property lino.
C , 3. No loading berth shall be located closer
than fifty (50) foot from a residential
district unless within a structure.
3-6 [B]3
L
A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of
Monticello Planning Commission on January 17 19 89, at
7:30 p.m.. in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matters_
PUBLIC HEARING: A conditional use request to allow a church facility in
an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. Variance
requests to allow 1) less than the minimum sideyard setback
requirement: 2) less than the minimum number of off-street
parking spaces; 3) no concrete curb around the parking
lot perimeter; 4) no hard surfacing of the parking lot.
Location is Block 35, Lots 1,2, & S. 25 ft. of Ey Lot 9,
and S. 25 feet Lot 10, Lower Monticello Addition in the
City of Monticello.
APPLICANT: Temple Baptist Church
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all
persons desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting.
NOTE: Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval
or denial of the City Council, and will be heard on Monday, January 23
19 89. at 7:30 p.m., at the Monticello City Hail.
Gary An9Trdon, Zoning Administrator
YUbLIL rtAlM16 AY)'LILAI ►Uft
)tames of property owner: within 150—fee: [ See attached
vlease explain the reason for the Public Hearing request:
Co., 4. //al -C,/ rA.tr 02e p/:.� ? 7b:l.. tri /ir. f r-/.r�i,. /. _ .i• t... r
:;ize of plat to be subdlvided; acres
,%.Ime of firm preparing :Ubdiv ISICA plat:
ate
...................................... ... ............
Iror City use only)
Catu appltcatton rac.ivedl Pacai7t Hums:; 70/2C 7!
)
Oats of public Haarinq at the Plannlrnq Cowaaaionr /��lx� Alae.
nueision of Planninq Commi.4sion
1 0 .a's attac:lu.
It .t variance. was there an Appeal) o Y..r 0 twat tr ee, attach a C07y of ,Jthe Appoal.
Oaty of Counell conslderatlonr 1193A15 L;IC: 7!3n/�l�
OeCtaion of the Counclll
1 See attaChud
Carwu nt s :
r sea attatltC4
` Oatu •sl publication: //rh9•.o /lzi4i.ttaena copy of the Tublle N.:ringnotleo)
Oats �1 Mailing1 /�;;�SzY (at,acs a copy of the afrlrtavtt of ma llln;)
:
y
TYPE Of NEARING:
0 CONOITIONAL USE - fee S125.00 + expenses- .
QRE:CNING - fee 5250.00 + all necessary consulting expenses.
C3 YARIANCE - fee 550.00 for setbacks or $125.00 for others
+ expenses.
Cj 0THE3
Applicant(s):
Applicant(:) address: v/9Fa�tyt� ��pao�
Applicant(s) phone(s): Hone: Off Ica
94-3 SSS
Address of property: y/9 E9.Cfi�t�S�O?�f
LC -,al description of property: LotS /-ham ; Block 3s
/
; Subdtvfsic-��ir�%%.�%i{cp��
othereS,�SF-l-nf`E� L�i'q�;sr�s�>i Lof,!(j
�r/./,'f Gv
tee ac.t
�
Currently zoned: /c7 - Proposed toning:
)tames of property owner: within 150—fee: [ See attached
vlease explain the reason for the Public Hearing request:
Co., 4. //al -C,/ rA.tr 02e p/:.� ? 7b:l.. tri /ir. f r-/.r�i,. /. _ .i• t... r
:;ize of plat to be subdlvided; acres
,%.Ime of firm preparing :Ubdiv ISICA plat:
ate
...................................... ... ............
Iror City use only)
Catu appltcatton rac.ivedl Pacai7t Hums:; 70/2C 7!
)
Oats of public Haarinq at the Plannlrnq Cowaaaionr /��lx� Alae.
nueision of Planninq Commi.4sion
1 0 .a's attac:lu.
It .t variance. was there an Appeal) o Y..r 0 twat tr ee, attach a C07y of ,Jthe Appoal.
Oaty of Counell conslderatlonr 1193A15 L;IC: 7!3n/�l�
OeCtaion of the Counclll
1 See attaChud
Carwu nt s :
r sea attatltC4
` Oatu •sl publication: //rh9•.o /lzi4i.ttaena copy of the Tublle N.:ringnotleo)
Oats �1 Mailing1 /�;;�SzY (at,acs a copy of the afrlrtavtt of ma llln;)
:
y
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
January 17, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Cindy Leann, Richard Martie, Dan
McConnon.
Members Absent: Mori Malone
1. Meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Carlson at 7:33 p.m.
2. Public Rearing - Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a
church facility to operate in an R-2 (single family residental) zone. A
variance request to allow 1) less than the minimum side yard setback
requirement; 2) less than the minimum number of off-street parking spaces;
3) no concrete curb around the parking lot perimeter; and 4) no hard
surfacing of the parking lot. Applicant, Temple Baptist Church.
Chairman Richard Carlson opened up the meeting for a staff presentation an
the proposed conditional use request. Mr. Jeff O'Neill', Assistant City
Administrator, explained briefly to Planning Commission Members and members
of the audience that were present the Temple Baptist Church conditional use
request and the variance request. In Mr. O'Neill's explanation, he
indicated the previous use by the former tenant, Monticello Assembly of Cod
Church, had been discontinued as a church facility at this site for a
period longer than six months. Therefore, a new conditional use
application would be necessary for another church to go into this
facility. Mr. O'Neill also explained to the Planning Commission members
each of the variance requests that the Baptist Church was requesting.
Chairman Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from the
public. Mr. Brad Larson, one of three partners in the Prairie West
Partners, was present to explain the background which led up to the Temple
Baptist Church purchasing the former Monticello Assembly of God Church
property. Mr. Larson's concerns were that the original use of the property
by the former tenant, Monticello Assembly of God, had not been continued in
that there was still some type of activity that occurred there. In
Mr. Larson's opinion, the non -conforming use was not discontinued for a
period of over six months. Mr. Larson explained each of the variance
requests which were also to be considered by the Planning Commission.
The first address was the side yard setback on the westerly portion of
Lot 2 adjacent to Lot 3. Mr. Larson had proposed an easoment to cover the
area that would be affected by the encroachment of the building roof and
the basement egress window well openings which encroach onto Lot 3. In
Mr. Larson's opinion, the encroachment easement would adequately cover any
of the encroachments which the building has onto Lot 3. In addressing the
minimum number of parking spaces as shown on the enclosed site plan,
Mr. Larson had indicated this site plan showed 27 total parking spaces
which could be accommodated on site, where the City Staff had indicated a
total number of spaces would be 42 total spaces. Mr. Larson indicated the
Baptist Church meets 80 percent of its design capacity. They then have two
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 1/17/89
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion by
Richard Martie, seconded by Dan McConnon, to deny the conditional use
request to allow a church facility to operate in an R-2 (single family
residential) zone. Motion carried unanimously with Mori Malone absent.
Reason for denial: Applicant, Temple Baptist Church and/or the developer,
West Prairie Partnership, failed to meet the minimum off-street parking
space required at design capacity and failure to show how the minimum
parking space requirement could be met at design capacity.
The general consensus of the members present was to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
C
I
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 1/17/89
church services instead of one church service. Therefore, a design
capacity of 150 seats at 80 percent of design capacity would be 120 total
seats, divided by the one parking space per four seats, which would equal
30 spaces required; therefore, as shown on the site plan, generating 27
total spaces on site and then only 10 percent short or 3 parking spaces
short of 80 percent of design capacity. As to the hard surfacing of the
parking lot with the curb and gutter around its perimeter, Mr. Larson
indicated that two existing churches in town, the Trinity Lutheran Church
and the St. Henry's Catholic Church, were allowed to phase their parking
lots in over a period of years. He felt that as the Temple Baptist Church
membership grew, they could phase in the project and complete the hard
surfacing of the parking lot with curb and gutter around its perimeter at
some point and time in the future.
Mr. Jim Metcalf, another partner in the West Prairie Partners, was present
to elude Mr. Larson's statements on the continuance of the existing
Monticello Assembly of God Church use with the statement that other than
normal maintenance of the building or structure related to the
non -conforming use was permitted as under Section I in the Zoning
Ordinance. Pastor Merrold Sams was present to explain to the Planning
Commission members the capacity of the classroom sizes. The Sunday school
would be 92 seats and the total number of seats within the church portion
would be 96 seats. Pastor Sams stated that they are a very small
congregation and that it takes many years to build up to a congregation of
the size noted by the City staff, being 150 seat capacity. At 80 percent
of their total capacity, the church adds an additional church service to
their existing one service each Sunday. Pastor Sams indicated their intent
was not to cause any problems with the City in their relocation and that
they do intend to stay and grow at this new facility.
Concerned residents in the area, Mr. John Heller and Mrs. Janelle Iano,
addressed the Planning Commission members separately in their concerns that
they had with the proposed conditional use request. Their concerns mainly
addressed an existing parking problem with the St. Peter's Church
services. With no off-street parking there, there is parking near the
residences by people attending church service. The residences wanted to
stress the lack of maintenance that was done by former owners that had not
been properly maintained and questioned the developer as to why they did
not have a certificate of survey performed on the property before they
purchased the former Monticello Assembly of God Church property.
Chairman Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing portion of the
meeting and opened up any discussion for the Planning Commission members.
Discussion amongst the Planning Commission members was that they were not
in opposition of the proposed use of the building by the new tenant. Their
main concerns dealt with the location of the church property in
relationship to the west side lot line of Lot 2 and the failure to
accommodate the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required by
Ordinance. Commission members also recognized on the enclosed site plan
that very few additional parking spaces could be generated with the given
amount of land which the Temple Baptist Church now owns.
�0
o V4..,,
The sellers of the property have also asserted that they acted to divide the
site because it was their understanding that the City somehow supported the
concept of separating Lots 3 and 4 from the original set of parcels. This
assertion derives from the City's response to a proposal submitted to the City
by Dan Coeman which outlined the sale of the facility to the City for use as
civic/senior center. As part of the proposal it was suggested that the City
purchase the entire property area and then defray the project cost by then
selling the two vacant lots. Although the City did not reject this idea in
terms of developing the property for use as a civic center, I believe it was
clear that any decision by the City to subdivide the property depended on the
use intended for the structure. At the time the proposal was submitted, the
use had not as yet been defined and parking requirements had not been
established. Therefore, the proposal to divide the total property area had
potential. In response to the proposal, Rick wolfsteller recommended that "If
the staff is directed to counter offer or continue negotiations, I believe the
Council may want to hold off on selling a portion of the property for
residential development before the uses are determined and the parking
requirements are met." It seems to me that the sellers made a large leap to
assume that the City, by not rejecting the concept of splitting the property in
conjunction with development of a civic center would then also support
splitting the property with reactivation as a church.
C
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
Consideration of request to lease or lease with option to buy old fire
hall building - Bruce Langford. (R.W .)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Bruce Langford of St. Michael, Minnesota, has recently inquired as to
the possibility of leasing or leasing with the option of purchasing the
old fire hall building for a billiard room operation. Mr. Langford has
been searching in Monticello for a site to establish a billiard room with
some video arcade games and possibly including a small snack bar
facility. He is initially looking for a site that would accommodate
approximately 15 pool tables and felt that the garage portion of the fire
hall would be adequate for his needs at the present time.
Before Mr. Langford would get too involved with a proposal, the Council
must decide whether it is interested in leasing the fire hall site or
continue with marketing the property for sale only. I believe in the
past an individual has expressed interest in leasing the building, and
the Council had determined at that time that they were not interested in
renting, only selling the building if the right offer came along. If
this is the decision of the Council, Mr. Langford may still be interested
in purchasing the building if that was his only alternative. At the
present time, Mr. Langford would not need the facility until sometime
this summer and would also not have to require usage of the Food Shelf
area. Of course, it ne was to actuaily purchase the builuiiiy, the Fuuj
Shelf would be required to move.
one of the problems with getting involved in a lease situation is that
for any type of retail or commercial activity, the building will need
extensive remodeling. If the City does the remodeling, the lease
payments would have to reflect our added cost; or if the individual who
leases the property does the remodeling to suit his needs, I am assuming
they would expect a certain period of time rent free to recapture their
cost. The end result may be that it is still best to only seek selling
the building as is rather than getting into the rental business.
Currently, the City to utilizing the garage portion of the tire hall for
the Water Department equipment and supplies. With the eventual purchase
of the NSP property next to our maintenance building, this would
eliminate our immediate need for the building, although the Public Works
Department could still find use for it as long as the City owned it.
Although the property has been for sale for a number of years, the City
has not been actively marketing the property other than the for sale
sign. occasionally, the staff gets inquiries on the building, and I
believe it would be beneficial if the staff knows whether the City is
willing to accept terms on the sale or !.s looking for a cash offer only.
'Chis would be helpful in marketing the property to those that are
interested if the intended use is appropriate.
vaD
t
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to consider leasing the building with
terms and specifications to be determined after negotiations with
Mr. Langford. Under this option, the Council should decide whether
they are willing to invest in remodeling to the client's
specifications or whether the renter would be required to do all
remodeling.
2. The second alternative would be to continue marketing the property
for sale only and not consider offers of renting or leasing.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although the staff is not opposed to renting or leasing of the fire hall
for an appropriate use, we can see problems in this arrangement in that
it may be better to sell the property as is rather than getting involved
in remodeling for office or commercial usage, etc. Even if the renter is
agreeable to incur the initial cost to remodel for their needs, they
would expect a period of time rent free to recapture their cost, and thus
the City is not actually gaining any money other than we may have a
property that is more saleable in the future. During the past few years,
the City Public works Departments have been able to utilize the building
for storage of equipment and supplies, although the need won't be quite
as great with the penoing purchase of the NSP property. if the Council
is concerned about immediately occupying the building for some other type
of use, leasing or leasing with an option to buy is a means of
accomplishing thiel but I believe it is preferrable to just advertise the
building for sale and establish the terms, if any, that the Council will
consider in the future.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of a proposal from Mr. Langford if available prior to the agenda
being mailed.
-5-
t
To the members of the 7.101MCELLO CITY COUirCIL,
'PR
OPOSAL: To discuss options on straight lease, lease with option
to buy, or outright purchase of the old fire hall. To discuss and
hopefully come up with some agreable terms and conditions that
will lead to further discussions and ultinately a signed agreement.
'MO=OSE,'] USE: To be used as a billiard an amusement parlor. Wffuld
install 20 1/2 x 9p, 6(4x8), 2(3 1,2 x 7 bar tables). Also would
upto 6-8 video games. These nos. represent minimum use of space.
In the operation of this facility I would also hope to fill a
partial need in the comunity for a teen center, or place of gather-
4-- 7ith co nt.alad a..mospher. In trying to iuuaie and discussing
my business plans with various citizens i have found this need has
been raised more than once.
In closing, I would like to say thank you for listening and hope
we can come to a satisfactory conclusion 3o as to start operation
on or before AUGUST 1, 1989.
C
Sincerely,
truce A.
Langford
0
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
Consideration of resolution setting a public hearing on adoption of
assessment roll - 88-07 Project - Floyd Markling and Monticello Country
Club. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In September of 1988, Mr. Floyd Markling purchased the former Bette
Grossnickle property adjacent to the Monticello Country Club and
petitioned for sewer and water extensions to his proposed 8 -unit
townhouse development. John Badalich, City Engineer, prepared a
feasibility study to service this property and had estimated the total
cost at $62,200, which included sewer and water extensions to the Country
Club property line. The Country Club was not part of the original
petition; and after the public hearing was held by the Council on
September 26, the plans and specifications were approved, and the project
was ordered.
During the public hearing on the proposed improvement, the Council
discussed methods of financing and assessing benefiting property for this
improvement. Although the Country Club representatives did not adamantly
oppose the project, their main concerns centered on the estimated
assessment their property would incur as part of this project. John
Badalich prepared a memo outlining four or five methods that could be
used by the City in determining an appropriate assessment for each
property owner. The options ranged from a low of $6,90 for the Country
Club to a high of $47,512 as the Country Club's share. Mr. Badalich's
recommendation was a split of approximately 38 percent for the Country
Club and 62 percent for the Markling townhouse development. When the
Council ordered the project to proceed, it was the general consensus of
the Council at that time that the assessment formula would be established
after completion of the project.
The project has now been completed to the stage where an assessment roll
would be proper. The only project cost that will be completed in the
future includes sodding, seeding, and erosion control estimated at
approximately $3,500. By Monday night's meeting, OSM will be providing
all additional engineering cost related to this project; but it is
estimated the total project will come in at about $61,000.
Normally, I would not be providing this much information for the purpose
of only setting a public hearing date for the assessment rolls but in
this case, the Council had not established which method it would use in
assessing the property after completion. If the public hearing on the
adoption of the assessment roll is scheduled for February 13, the staff
normally mails out a public hearing notice to the affected property
owners and indicates a proposed assessment figure two weeks in advance.
As a result, an assessment formula or one of the options recommended by
the City Engineer should be affirmed in order that the assessment roll
can be prepared. I, again, asked John Badalich to review hie letter of
September 22 outlining the options available to see if there was any new
information he felt would alter his recommendation. At this point,
Mr. Badalich feels comfortable with hie favored recommendation of
-6-
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
approximately 38 percent of the cost being attributable to the Country
Club and 62 percent to the 8 -unit townhouse development. I believe the
Country Club was not favorable to this percentage allocation; but there
certainly is rationale for the Engineer's recommendation.
Although this can be determined at the public hearing, there certainly is
rationale for deferring all or a portion of the Country Club's potential
assessment until they are required to hook up to the sanitary sewer
system, which would be three years after completion. This would be based
on the fact that they did not petition for the improvement, nor did they
seek the improvement, but received the benefit as the result of another
development request.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution setting the public hearing for February 13 and
establishing a method under which the project shall be assessed for
public hearing notices.
2. Adopt the resolution setting the public hearing without affirming an
assessment method. In this case, I will send a public hearing notice
to both affected property owners indicating the total project cost
and the amount to be assessed but not listing a particular assessment
%j amount for each parcel at this time.
3. Do not set a public hearing date for the assessment roll.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
With the project being almost complete, the public hearing for the
assessment roll should be scheduled as soon as possible in that
townhouses are already being built and will soon be available for
occupancy. In regards to the assessment method, this becomes more
difficulty but I am inclined to go along with the Engineer's
recommendation for lack of a better alternative. This would result in an
approximate 38 percent share being paid by the Country Club and
62 percent by the townhouse development. With the Country Club expanding
to 18 holes recently and also the possibility of the Country Club itself
being expanded in the near future, I believe the Country Club will
require the use of the City's sanitary sewer system shortly. It should
also be remembered that the Country Club has a lot of acreage available,
and possibly in the future they may also be interested in developing
property for townhome Bites. If this ever happened, it would not seem
reasonable to only assess their present facility only 1/9th of this
project cost. unless additional information is provided at Monday
night's meeting by the Engineer or the affected property owners, it seems
reasonable to follow the Engineer's recommendation for assessment ratios.
D. SUPPORTING nATA:,
Copy of September 22 letter from 09'1 on assessment optional Copies of
resolutions.
-7-
Oon
Schekn
��yy Alaveron&
ASkCWLCS. DW
2021 Ult Henncpm Avcnuc
Minnc�paiis. MD: 55+13
September 22, 1488
W-331 b 6600
FAX 331-3606
Ens, ce r
Mr. Jeff O'Neill 5Uncyo15
Ptannc,s
Assistant Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
PO Box 83A
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Floyd Markling Property
Dear Jeff:
As a follow-up to our telephone conversation regarding the assessable cost of
providing sewer and water services to the Floyd Markling property on West County
Road 39 in Monticello, the following are several scenarios that can be used in
arriving at a reasonable assessment.
The estimated project cost including indirect costs for furnishing these
utilities to the property is $62,160. This project would benefit the eight
parcels proposed on the Markling property and also the Monticello Country Club.
We anticipate extending the sewer and watermain through the cul-de-sac to the
common property line of the Markling property and the Country Club property.
t
Method One
This method would be an equal sharing of the assessable cost based solely on a
Per parcel basis. That is, eight parcels in the Markling property and one
parcel for the Country Club. Therefore, $62.160 divided by nine equals $6,907
per parcel. Markling's total cost would be $52,253 and the Country Club.
$6.907. An easement would be necessary for the utility extention from the cul-
de -sat to the north property line of Markling's property.
Method Two
Using the analogy that townhouses are similar to multiple dwellings whereby a
multiple dwelling unit receives a 3/4 parcel assessment. Therefore, 3/4 times
eight units equals six units for Markling. Country Club, one unit, for a total
of seven units. Markling's assessable cost is then $62,160 divided by seven,
times six equals $53.280 or $6,660 per parcel, and the Country Club assessment
is $8,8BO.
Method Threee
What is the additional cost Of the total project cost to extend sewer and water
from the cul-de-sac to the north property line? This extension only benefits
the Country Club and the balance of the project benefits both parties.
Estimated cost of this extention is $4,300, including indirect costs. The
assessable cost then is, using the equal parcel basis. $62.160 minus $4.300
equals $57.860 divided by nine equals $6,429 per parcel for the eight townhouses
and $6,429 plus $4.300 equals $10,729 for the Country Club. Next, using the 3/4
cost per parcel rationale for multiple dwellings would then be equated to
$49,595 for Markling's property, or $6,200 per parcel and $8,265 plus $4,300
equals $12.565 assessable cost to the Country Club.
Method Four
This scenario would be based on water consumption of a residence compared to a
country club usage of its members for sanitary purposes, showers, bar and food
service. A residential unit is usually calculated at 75 gallons per capita per
day, or approximately 225 gallons per household per day. According to the MPGA,
a country club is calculated at 22 gallons per member with no meals, but you
would add 10 to 20 gallons per day per member if showers are available. For
this calculation, we will use 35 gallons per member per day. Average membership
of country clubs is 300 members. We can say that during the course of a day,
there are six tee times per hour for a foursome times 10 hours per day equals
240 members. Using 240 members times 35 gallons per member per day equals 8,400
gallons per day. Equating this to residential units, this will equal 8,400
divided by 225 equals 37 residential units. Therefore, 37 units for the Country
Club plus 8 units for Markling, equals a total of 45 units. Taking the $62,160,
dividing by 45 units equals $1,381 per unit. Markling's assessable cost would
then be eight times $1,381 or $14,648. The balance of $47,512 being the Country
Club assessable cost. This method of calculation, I believe, is unreasonable.
Therefore, in summary, you see we can arrive at a wide and variable range of
assessable costs, from $1,380 per unit to $6,907 per unit for Markling. For the
Country Club, the assessable amount could vary from $6,907 to $8,880 to $10,729
to $12,565 to $47,512 at the maximum.
Based on assessment figures we have developed over the years for Monticello, an
8" lateral sewer assessment averages out to $28.50 per foot. A lateral
residential watermain assessment is $24.75 feet ^:cr., X11 's ,..ini .at
width is 80'. Therefore, using the figures noted above. the assessable cost
would be 80 times (28.50 + $24.75) equals $53.25 times 80 equals $4,260. For a
100' parcel, this would amount to $5,325 per parcel. Using $4,260 times 8
parcels, this would give an assessable cost to Markling of $34,080 and to the
Country Club $28,080. Using $5,325 times 8 parcels equals $42,600 for Markling
and $19,560 for the Country Club. The average of the two is $38,340 for
Markling or $4,793 for each of the 8 parcels. The Country Club share would be
$23,820.
Jeff, take your pick. 1 favor the latter split, $23,820 for the Country Club
and $38,340 for Markling.
If you have any questions in this regard, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
OHR-SCHELEN-MAYERU14
ASSOCIATES, INC.
h P. BadaliCh. P.E.
ice President
JPB/lmt
�4
NOTE'
FkJRNISH 6 INSTALL I.. WATER AND
A'SANITAFr SCWLR SERVICES.
/7' H v D. L LAD
�6"G,V.
_-PLUG END BLOCK 6" DIP
-SO' PEPV.ESMT.
0
COURSERVV NOTE 1 THIS CONTRACTOR TO SAW CUT , REMOVE B REPLACE
BITUMINOUS MAT AS SHOWN IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE
S.A.N. NO. 34) wIN WRIGHT COUNTY PERMIT.
24' TRAVELED
ROADWAY ONLY
K
TAC.COAT
• 11/2" 2341 Wt.AR (MODIFIED)
3"2351 BASE
ISEE RIGHT' I
� B° CLASS 0 AGGREGATE BIOSE
NOTE: VERIFY WITH ENGINEER 2" 2341 WEAR OUTSIDE OF 24'
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION a TRAVELED ROADWAY WITN
NOTE: PROTECT IN PLACE BIT.FOR THE EXACT LOCATION 1 6� OF CLASS S
PflMwAY f. COPT tsT:ZTi DF SERVICES.
f SHOWN FOR REMOOV
AL. 1 2
TINY O. LEAD IL0*Iva t
REMOVE 8 atom'.
{ E
I = 3' VGN^(INCDENTALI gyp' H10'
V >S AiT OWT I I ) `l Lq9& ak Aw__
EjPE`OEI3TAL IyM.H, 1-2 22•V2•BENO I// �M 1.1 8+25 40'LT. 1
y �` 'It- 'y�_I�;,, •-- Y/ tT_�•iT •avt YErT
PV C.
0 1 P 4+10bl,� • / T T
1:.; ...,L... :CS -,.wi yT: :'•�. w.w..% +r+s±�-•:►�� •W..yA,y"' ��Ir •~•�.
`P C;, END B IUXK fTAwr o ..141n R �'n '• p\9cK
Ek6 TLL aSTIA.lsT4A.,?� A `H'o ~NOTE:
H I f REMCNE A SE:'
Op' _ CONNECT TOD
g i ` TOWureL`
J
LUMP
1.1
OA)DT A NOTE , CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMP ACCESS LM -
ROAD BETWEEN C ! A N 39 AND
FRONTAGE 0040 IS NECESSARY,
CLASS S AND R£STORATICN WILL
■E PAID At UNIT PRICES 4p'
Y CLUB MANOR
' BREAK 1%TO to MN, AT ELEVATION
S MOWN B GROUT AT NO •OUITIO NAL
COMPENSATION
NOTE : TRAFFIC CONTROL , SIGNADE. AND TEMP ST -PASS TO SE 1%
RESOLUTION 89 -
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, a contract has been let and the costs determined for the improvement
of sanitary sewer and water main extensions and appurtenant work from Golf
Course Road to serve property owned by Floyd Markling and the Monticello
Country Club, and the contract price for such irprovements is 548,361.76
and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements
amount to $13,203.58 so that total cost of the improvement will be
$61,565.34
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the City is
hereby estimated to be $0.00 and the portion of the cost to be
assessed against benefited property owners is estimated to be $61,565.34.
2. The City Administrator shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be
specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot,
piece or parcel of land within the District affected, without regard to
cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such
proposed assessment in his office for public inspection.
Adopted by the Council this 23rd day of January, 1989.
Ken Maus, Mayor
Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
0
RESOLUTION 89 -
RESOLUTION SETTING A HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on January 23, 1989, the City
Administrator was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of
improving sanitary sewer and water main extensions and appurtenant work from
Golf Course Road to serve property owned by Floyd Markling and Monticello
Country Club, and
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has notified the Council that such proposed
assessment shall be complete and filed in his office for public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. A hearing shall be held on the 13th day of February, 1989, in the City
Rall at 7:30 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment, and at such time
and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement.
2. The City Administrator is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing
on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper
at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice
the total cost of the improvement. He shall also cause mailed assessment
roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings.
Adopted by the Council this 23rd day of January, 1989.
Ken Maus, Mayor
Rick Woltateller
City Administrator
NO
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
8. Consideration of paying for damage on sewer backup - Ben James. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On Monday evening, January 9, I received a call from Mr. Ben James of 412
East Third Street, who inquired as to whether the City crews would come
out and help alleviate a sewer backup problem at his residence. During
our discussion, I informed Mr. James that the City of Monticello does not
normally clean out individual sewer lines and that he should first check
with his own plumber, such as Gene Pyle or Schluender Plumbing, to make
sure that the problem was not in his line. At that point, Mr. James did
not indicate that he was incurring any type of serious sewer backup in
his basement, and the conversation ended. The City had not received any
other complaints of a similar problem in the neighborhood, and this is
standard procedure where an individual home owner is to verify that their
own sewer lines are not the problem before the City crews normally will
check on main lines.
The next day, Tuesday, at approximately noon, Mr. Gene Pyle had called
City Rall requesting that the Sewer and Water Department check the main
sewer line on Third Street, ns they felt there may be a problem within
our system. Matt and Tony immediately responded and verified that a
blockage had occurred within the line and proceeded to obtain the jet
machine to clear the obvious blockage. Enclosed with the agenda package
is a summary of the sewer backup problem that Matt had prepared and also
a summary of the events that took place in Mr. James' recollection. To
make a long story short, Matt was able to clear the line in Third Street,
which eventually solved the problem, but in the meantime, Mr. James
suffered damages as a result of a few inches of sewage backing up into
his basement.
After receiving the summary from Matt and also talking personally to
Mr. James, I contacted our insurance agent, Jon Franzen of Poster,
Franzen, Carlson Agency, who submitted the information to the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Company, the City's liability insurance
carrier. Unless there is an obvious situation where the City was
negligent in causing the sewer backup, the League's insurance company
does not normally cover these damagea, and the insurance adjuster so
notified Mr. Janes. As you can see from the summaries presented of the
events, there may be a disagreement amongst the parties as to when the
damage occurred and how fast. It is certainly the City staff's opinion
that the usage of the jet machine to dislodge the blockage in the main
did not cause anymore damage than had already occurred in Mr. James'
basement, and this is where the staff disagrees with Mr. Pyle's letter
summarizing the events.
Although the staff certainly sympathizes with any property owner who
experiences a sewer backup, we are somewhat uncomfortable with the
precedent it may net if all claims for damages are paid by the City when
we do not feel there is any negligence on our part. It can be argued
that an individual should be able to expect uninterrupted ser -ice, but
problems can &rise. The City has a routine maintenance program,
-s-
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
including jetting of all sewer lines annually. This particular line, as
you will note, was actually cleaned in August of 1988. The City has
noticed some root problems in the past in this area, and we are assuming
that this may have caused something to lodge in the pipe causing the
blockage.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Depending on the outcome of additional information being supplied to
our insurance company, Mr. James is requesting City reimbursement for
all of his costs estimated at approximately $6,300.
2. The second alternative would be to consider partial reimbursement for
the damages. In either alternative $1 or $2, the Council should be
aware of a precedent that may be established if the City voluntarily
reimburses for any sewer or water damages that technically the City
is not negligent or liable for.
3. The third alternative would be deny any liability or reimbursement.
C. STAFF RECDMMENDATION:
Although the actual decision will have to be made by the Council, the
staff is uncomfortable with direct reimbursems-nt for All damages in this
case because of the precedent it would set and the fact that we do not
feel the City was negligent in causing the damages. Should the Council
decide to reimburse partially or fully Mr. James' damages, it should not
be based on the City staff's negligence, but merely a City gesture to
mitigate the James' losses. Hopefully, the insurance carrier will
reconsider their denial of the claim; but at this point, I do not believe
they will unless we can specifically pinpoint to the City being negligent
and causing the damages. In reviewing the events, it still appears that
Mr. .lames' own sewer line may have been partially blocked due to the fact
that the sewage increase in his basement occurred over a long 28 hour
period of time. If his line would have been clearly open, and the City's
main was blocked all along, Mr. James should have experienced a rapid
increase in the backup, as all of the sewage along Third Street would
have flowed directly into his basement. If the Council considers any
type of reimbursement, we may need a better itemization of the actual
losses to verify the actual damage. Some of the expenditures such as
installation of a sewer cleanout would certainly not he appropriate, as
it is not the City's responsibility to install cleanouts in individual
homes.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Summary from water Superintendent; Summary of events from Mr. James along
with itemized bills incurred; and Copy of denial from insurance com;pany.
-9-
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
Additional information on agenda item g8. (R.W.)
If the City Council determines that the City should consider some type of
reimbursement to the James', I would recommend that no specific dollar amount
be determined at this meeting but only authorization given for the staff to
negotiate a settlement covering some of the damages. This may help eliminate
setting a precedent for paying all damages on all future claims; and the staff
has reason to believe the claims submitted at this point may be excessive. The
reason is, with only a few inches of backup occurring in the bedroom and living
room of the home, both Matt and John Simola, who viewed the site after the
water receded, did not notice any indication that the water level was very high
in these rooms; and as a result, the staff questions whether all this
furniture, etc., was really damaged totally. In addition, it doesn't appear
that either the James' or Gene Pyle did anything to mitigate the damages, as if
the sewer was backing up for over 24 hours, many of these items, especially
clothing and other items on the floor, could have been moved to avoid being
damaged. This is the main reason the staff feels if a decision is made to
consider reimbursement of some sort, this should be negotiated prior to a
dollar amount being specified. If it appears the James' would not be agreeable
to this, the City would always be defended by our insurance company should a
lawsuit arise because of this.
-10-
City o/..EiceCto
Office a the
Oily Aormmtratw
January 13, 1989
Phone: 16121 295.2711
Marro: 16121 333-5739
Mr. Jon Franzen
Foster, Franzen, Carlson Insurance Agency
Box 188
Monticello, MN 55362
BE: Sewer backup — Ben James Property
Dear Jon:
As we discussed, enclosed you will find a memo from Matt Theisen,
Water Superintendent, detailing the known circumstances surrounding
the sewer backup that occurred January 10 at the Ben James residence,
412 East Third Street, in Monticello.
As we discussed, there may be some legitimacy in contacting our
insurance company to see if there is any coverage for the damages
that occurred as a result of the sewer backup since we do know that
the sewer main was blocked. I believe there may be sortie disagreement
over when the actual flooding of their basement occurredy as you
Q noted, you had discussed this situation with Mr. Gene Fyle of Pyle's
Excavating, and he indicated that the City's sewer rodding jet
machine may have caused increased damage to the James property
because of the cleaning activities which has water pressure used.
After further discussions with our Public Works Department, it is our
understanding that after Fyle's Excavating had withdrawn their sewer
rodding equipment from Mr. James' sewer line is when they noticed an
increase in flow into the house. This is when they called the City
to seek additional help in checking the mains. We do not believe
that the jetting of the sewer was the cause of additional flow being
pushed into the basement, but that it was already occurring before
Mr. Pyle contacted the City Hall. Although the jet machine o�—
cause pressure on the blockage within the sever line, this would not
have forced additional flow into the basement other than what was
already occurring. As soon as the blockage was relieved, the natural
flow would have been down stream from the James' house and not
forcing it into their sower line. Until the actual blockage was
eliminated down stream from the James' property, there would not have
been any additional pressure forcing sewage into their house. It is
certainly our understanding that the majority of the damage occurred
after Fyle's removed their sewer snake from the cervico line but
before the City crews actually started cleaning the main line.
r•
250 East Broadway • Monticello. MN 55362.9245
Mr. Jon Fran2en
January 13, 1989
t Page 2
Although the City does not oppose a claim against our insurance
carrier for this unfortunate situation, the procedures that were
taken by the Public :locks Department were appropriate; and we
certainly do not feel our actions contributed to their damage, as it
occurred prior to our being involved.
After submitting the claim to the insurance company, please contact
me should you need additional information. Mr. Steve Kessler of CAB,
Inc., has already been notified of the situation by phone.
rely,
C7
Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
181/kd
Enclosure
cc: 1St
P.S. ;he City has noticed a root problem in this section of the
sewer main in the past during routine cleaning. We have been
experimenting with chemical treatments along this sewer l.ne,
and it is assumed that "roots" were the cause of the blockage,
even though it was cleaned August 1988.
I
11
9 70: Rick Wolfeteller
FROM: Water Department
SUBJECT: Ben James' Basement Sewer Back-up
DATE: January 12, 1989
On January 9, 1989, Pyles Excavating went to 412 East 3rd Street to rod sewer,
sewage water just 1" around floor drain, but could not because there was no
clean out in basement (house built around 1960). Ben James had the Plumbery
put in a clean-out. At 10:30 a.m. on Jaunary 10, 1989, Gene and Brad Pyle
rodded sewer. Sewage was only on the floor in the utility room. Pyles put
100 feet of rod in house service, they thought sewer went out back of house and
then to front= hit nothing. They then put on longer rod and went in 140 feet.
When pulling out the flow continued to increase coming into the basement, at
that point Pyles then called City Hall and had Matt paged around 12:00 p.m.
Matt and Tony were at the sceen around 12:20 p.m. We then pulled manhole cover
on 3rd 6 Wright and noticed that manhole had 4 feet of sewage in it. We then
went to shop, got the sewer jet and set up on 3rd a New Street and jet the 8
inch line. By this time the sewage was around 3 inches in the utility rooR and
1" in rest of basement. When jetting I hit a blockage at 56 feet in from 3rd a
New. After getting through blockage sewage went down.
Tony and Paul jetted that line August 10, 1988 with proofer and hit nothing,
but did get 6+ tennis balls out of that line. School is hooked up to that
line.
w
T.i�e'o3o-
14-
G1�°''1-t-=-'r--Ca%•�I a.l �/�lan-�__�ar..�Ja�'1-- �+-►�►7-'l�-Su/' � �.[+::
--- �•-Ar[e---•--'Q-�Je'n'f' _ �o —Set--'-f-•fiy--i.�.Sur�nrt we.N// -
cay4 4r otic . JOMkye ...�_ wof �d ti•+y � o l,' 49 -- —
v. !ov e -e.wer 6 e, k uP �� ma or
--- - �bYS' - 5er�; ce b�.,, _. �')•e Claw„
- - . krow i n y ,, K, ,y � �,., s _ �lar•.ale,/ �y I -,k --- -
-
Air l2 An - 8--
- 7!f* -W -�5�0- - -- - -- - - -- -/
`-,4-
�0. G l� � .M� �+•.0 w' L.�y7 �a
/� /�
�
Q�p�M.9 f�:d �1.0'�9 _ /4!►�
..r, Amy - _ .._. _
• •--clti.. y� s
.,.
mz
,�-•�.'� ,. , ...� �_ ,.:� �•�
it „ _ .�i� wv.o.•,�p ��
c
CU
January 18, 1989
Mr. Ben James
412 E. 3rd Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Dear Mr. James,
Enclosed is the bill for our services on January 10, 1989 at your
residence. We feel the problem was not caused on account of your
sewer line. When we arrived at your residence about 10:30 a.m. the
backup was contained mostly in the utility room. At 11:45 a.m.
we made a call to City Hall for Matt to come and assist.because at
that time we determined we had a different kind of problem with the
sewage rising in that area. He arrived at about 12:10 and
determined that a city sewer main was blocked, at which time we asked
him if he would like us to pump out the manhole to reduce flow, he
stated that he would get the equipment to open the blockage and
at 12:45 the line was opened and working properly again but not
until the water had risen throughout the basement. The problem
of sewage in this residence causing damage greatly increased while
using this "Jet machine" because of the way it works, it forces
water into the line at a high pressure and being the city main- line
was not completely open it forced a large volume of additional
sewage into the residence.
We would like to go on record as saying the city Water S Sewer
personal responded quickly and worked through their noon break and
that in the beginning there was backup in the basement in a confined
area. while ,jet rodding the line it spread throughout the
basement and in our opinion much more damage was done becnuse the
manhole had not been pumped before using the "Jet machine."
Trusting this helps you understand the problem we faced at your
residence and if you have any further questions feel free to
contact us.
Fyyle's Excavating 8 Honey Wagon
Eugene Fyle
Owner
C
071
C
SEND TO ADDRESS INDICATED BELOW:
Purcell Plumbing
& Heating
0 Annaixtals, MN $5302
Phone 274-8825
Larry Aimefl, Alow Liceno Na 3079M
"
flop"Llul MBERYAO
PLUMBING HEATING CENTER
Hwy. 25 & Sandberg Rd,
220 Saridtiera Road
LAN Monticello. MN 55362
Phare 295.5445
Bill to: 934 N j Nw:
Address:
Date jos INVOICE N! 4740
MA:kld.1
1-731
3800
N
0
MECHANICS
HELKRS
0
TAX
A 1.5% frWK0 ChN90 wa b* WC*d
I "T. -T.
LABOR 3 aO IJ
III batIfto affo 30 Osys
M. ch" 111 50 coma
TOTAL 7�
N
0
C
LARSEN
Furniture & Carpet
PHONE 295-2150
M�CEII� 2
i
Gnlorrwr'!
Order No. /�•! Dole �� 19 rh.
l Add—,
r 10,11" I w" I coo Ia..wIoN.Cal rtos! L.oarl 1
l Wer+ OISCI��IrON �niC! uMWr+r li
O' - • - 9.
IP -
TOTAL
All cla— and�rw—ed ggood! MUST brr occompomed by rhn b-11.fat
4682 c..dby
13
FYLE'S EXCAVATING & HONEY WAGON
Route 2 Box 76
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 55362
(612) 2952511
--%a-�'r_,l�
aan�r.' J aeoa. au�oa aacR dery
DESCRIPTION
- PRICE AMOUNT
fow
I
I
I
I
I
- I-
I
i
low dtarce d -t%% Du enOnm—on - - ---
.�uen_2o-am.w+taw TAX i
,acanao ev �
TOTAL
1668 All
MUST1aim* and ret-med goods I
0a cCOM08nied 0V Ih a bill ':n' ^ L v flit
(_ Red /,.ce pfar f
C/o/hes S6706
�-QD
oe s-
__
---wa.�-b� ---- - ---- ---
�—
- -- 300--
l�-a� - ---
0
--�s —--------- ------
- ss�;� �. S�—-----------\\----
Boa- �" _._------------.
--- ..}rA��1 Saf_�(/ir.'St�*as�C<s0^�J
--/gyp - - -- ----•----._.. .---
- -- ---. _rill / � S�. md3---�e.co/'o-�,�►tS
- /O D - • - - --- -�- - -- �
_
o_
O 2
_
• - -- Ccl�'cl,;y �b�ConF�oor�. --
� �i s� - - --
Shee�
C
LO
�.i✓Low � j ro-sl� P�'C fc u� � .ZS -oo
- -- = - - -- ----- - 93v. 35'. --- --..
c
Loss 1.4ja9E
3z.?- 2y,
/5--
y3. 3 S-
� �r 3
qy/ rj. oS
i
r rrS- S/7oU
MOMT/ MOTEL— an AMEN PM
L—W. +Ata ngm.av 25-00. 6.2, uwnke+xf. M—.—. 55352
512 295 npD—$nubr eM W J IJ.w, 5w ,
t
GAB Business Services Inc
60025th Avenue S Suile 107
P O So. 1251
St Cloud Minnesota 50902
Telephone 612.251-0272
amdce Locauon
January 16, 19V,
Ben James
412 East 3r; Street
Monticello, MN 55362
GAB File: 56539-34155
Insured: City of Monticello
D/Claim: 1-10-89
Type: Sewer backup
Dear Mr. James:
This will acknowledge our phone conversation of 1-16-89. As I
outlined to you, I represent the league of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust, the Liability carrier for the City of Monticello.
In regards to the above captioned claim, I advised you that I did
not feel there was any negligence on the part of the City of
Monticello. Since I feel there is no liability, I am respectfully
denying your claim.
Yours very truly,
�vp ve �6% e
Supervising Adjuster
SK:mas
cc: City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Attn: Rick YoLfsteller
R
OK
r I F 1 M . I •,. + J J } A s tat �= _ 3421
Il Auinpr+[.A �Y
af 4ic^}::�': o- YAnS - �;' i oM • �"_ �,�p Np, [.,.a .+m.
auto 2, cx 2 °"s "' '
{... 1 Nim. First intt4l N•[I RAI i C1 agCI ORINi I Or diRF OGR
A1. i22:�avlio lain '�5 c2 � ,�-- � j p.. ; t . I J 5
(61G} [�:i'+S=�GO A"�Y.�.��...f A— ISJ1.s Np. Snerp ?rAp..`ip.ISM.+G �StYtJ6 {iNR
I Aopt.R Strut Apt.
—(f!-art{.'.'Sljyy.LJ.II 71 �Qs — � ( Prp0.01 f �avpppctt•F�nlalw NIT
I'•�n RlMORN t•Ut LUARANt7w :CI1F Stn. 7
10
V' MvcP *lll NTR WRII4lAGI `y�/�.�/t ip• iimpla[Rp "I SMCIIIfJI— GN Z.
All RY[.SE %A5 Kw CONnatt, tq'.�rt•t'LLO. /11.). J&0 1 IC14.. .coo
TYPE OF SERVICES
ARm-9 Comp•.,
BY COVE NO.
SMOKE L M M
•01 Gara1 C1..n 1.9
IEutmla AAtlrlit
w2 0`4.'.'. CI -1.0
Ia.Oaa,C•ntrm
-
109 St AOtOrootinq
!CIIY
f10 St Piaao4tinq
qi5 9on'.Atinp
5t•1. 219
lU C-1 SJnitltlnq
I '
828 Ya Jlt; C.'0Aq Cinq.
N8 P•pa MNntlnmt.
+ROt.aws N.—
:72050th Slmq.•
nnonl o�tenv
JT00i tact R.ttGr•Ntln
Vs'— -wico Ciuntn9
4I1 S.DWnlr.Ctlnq
i..-- r.-AR.T
1A.tlrftt
'TTE L Dd
J C1ty .
SMOKE L M M
ACCT NO i
SUMMARY
No. B-840421
HO rJY
BUILDING-Txt.
_ —r—f+SYSTEM
ROOM
CARPET
r{
CC,, O,_
O,_r90PT
I40•
TOTAL BFOUG MT�
F r5RSRO O
I '
801
3 7
1i.•aL!
SOFT
I
1�i •t
1 BUILDING
825 uAv e£a .- R. 1
...
.....:..
CONTENTS
«
828 WALL a
CEILING CLN.
171
SUB -CONTRACTING
i
_ t--, T'..T -.--
;'L:a
•1} Y"_ �rRt•i doll. PRL°
TAL
1
GENERAL OESCRIPTIONOF LOSS.
Oat. at Loa . OJt. pt SA . • v 8v
5t•W sip
TYPE OF
OAMAGE
4it�. d! TILB .Oitt[R
OFT 476 SO FT 878 50 PT
1
L--
SOOTL M N
'TTE L Dd
ODOR L M N
SMOKE L M M
TYPE OF SERVICE
SUMMARY
BY CODE NO.
801 CPf: CLN,:' t +,
M:1J71PA *T
802 FURN. CLN.
� _
TOTAL BFOUG MT�
F r5RSRO O
I '
804 ODOR CONTROL
3 7
1i.•aL!
rOTAL, $O FT I
i I
1 BUILDING
825 uAv e£a .- R. 1
...
.....:..
CONTENTS
«
828 WALL a
CEILING CLN.
µ '
SUB -CONTRACTING
r
—, 838 FLR. MAINT.
_-, �'�• =dn
rC
t•.
*ra_nr_d i :JAS+r ,F,:-sK
� 1 � I�
� _
TOTAL BFOUG MT�
F r5RSRO O
I '
TAX
3 7
1i.•aL!
rOTAL, $O FT I
i I
1 BUILDING
rOTAS.uvr.= I
I
CONTENTS
J 1 F••M I.. ... .
.+ .• r?�C
I
' Icr-..,,�. -' _.,_' 'T
SUB -CONTRACTING
_ t--, T'..T -.--
;'L:a
•1} Y"_ �rRt•i doll. PRL°
TAL
1
�' 1 fi,l
1.11.7.1.
tOTAL SALEB
1£IT Y, -{Ili
... r I �IA
'1 Yip .{18.M4iFr
�L 7
P.AY TNIS
A11r'11`t
+
t
SHORT WRITE
FROM: �� A Pte. MEMO West Bend Mutual
Insurance Company
TO: t t 15 So. Main St. west Bena. wt 53095
PHONE 01e-334-5571�--�
/moi' a SUBJECT:
4-u.e2o �Jx,u. SJ'3G.Z
DATE:
s.su
SIGNED
REPLY I OVE OF REPLY I 'v//% REPLY To
SIGNED
REPLIER DETACH CARBONS AND RETURN TO SENDER
A
SECTION I -EXCLUSIONS
e Co net ins. -if for loss caused directly or
indirectly by an; of me tciiowmg. Stun loss is
eycfuded regarC'.ess of any other cause or event
Contributing concurrently or in any sequence to
the loss.
a. Ordinance or taw, meaning enforcement of
any ordinance or law regulating the corstruc
tion. repair, or demolition of a building or other
structure, unless specifically provided under
this policy.
b. Earth Movement, meaning earthquake in-
cluding land shock waves or tremors before. dur-
ing or after a volcanic eruption: landslide:
mudffow: earth sinking, rising or shifting:
unless direct toss by.,
(1) fire:
(2) explosion: or
(3) breakage of glass or safety glazing mate-
rial which is part of a building storm door
or storm win0ow.
ensues and then Ne will pay only for the ensu•
ing loss.
This exclusion does not apply to loss by theft.
c. Water Damage, meaning:
(1) flood, surface wale,. waves. tidal water.
overt:ay.' of a tody, of water. or spra/ from
any of these, whether or not driven by
wind.
(2) water which backs up through sewers or
drains: or
(3) water below the surface of the ground. in-
cluding water which exerts pressure on
or seeps or leaks through a building, side-
walk, driveway, foundation, swimming
pool or other structure.
Direct loss by fire, explosion or theft resulting
from water damage is covered.
d. Power Failure, meaning the failure of power
or other uAlity service H the failure takes place
off the residence premises. But, it a Peril
Insured Against ensues on the residence
premises, we will pay only for that ensuing
loss
"s•3 Ed 4,84
e_
e. Neglect, meaning neglect of the insured to
use all reasonable means to save and pre-
servepropertyat and after the timeof a loss.
f. War, including undeclared war, civil war.
insurrection, rebellion, revolution, warlike act
by a military force or military personnel.
destruction or seizure or use for a military
purpose, and including any consequence of
any of these. Discharge of a nuclear wea-
pon will be deemed a warlike act even if
accidental.
g. Nuclear Hazard to the extent set forth in the
Nuclear Hazard Clause of Section I—Con-
ditrons.
h, Intentional toss, meaning any loss arising out
of any act committed:
(1) by or at the direction of an insured; and
(2) with the intent t0 cause a loss.
2. We do not insure for loss to property described in
CoveragesA and 8 caused by any of the following.
However. any ensuing loss to property described
in Coverages A and 8 not excluded or excepted in
this policy is covered.
a. Weather conditions. However. this exclusion
only applies it weather conditions contribute
in any way with a cause or event excluded in
paragraph 1. above to produce the loss:
b. Acts or decisions, including the failure to act
or decide. of any person, group• organization
or governmental body:
C. Faulty, inadequate or defective:
(1) planning, toning. development, survey
ing. siting:
(2) design, specifications, workmanship. re -
Pair. construction. renovation, remodel-
ing. grading, compaction:
(3) materials used in repair, construction.
renovation or remodeling; or
(4) maintenance:
of part avail of any property whether on craft
the residence premises.
Copyright Insurance Se•v.ces Office Inc . 1954
Page 7 of 15
This coverage aDDlies oniv to loss assess-
ments charged against you as owner or
tenant of the residence premises.
We do not cover loss assessments charged
against you or a corporation or association
of property owners by any governmental
body.
The limit of 51,000 is the most we will pay
with respect to any one loss, regardless
of the number of .assessments.
Condition 1. Policy Period. under Sections I
and 11 Conditions. does not apply to the
coverage provided by this andorsement
SECTION I - PERILS INSURED AGAINST
The following perils are deleted from Form
HO -6 2. Windstorm or Hail: 6 Vehicles: 11.
Failing Objects; 12. Weignt of ice. snow or
sleet: 13. Accidental discharge or overflow of
water or steam: and replaced by the following.
2. Windstorm or Hail.
This peril does not include loss to the in-
side of a building or the prcpierty con-
tained in a building caused by ran. snow,
sleet. sand or dust unless the direct force
of wind or hail damafes the building causing
an opening in a rdodr wall and the rain.
snow, sleet, sand or dust enters tnrougn
this opening
This peri; includes loss to watercraft and
their trailers. furnisnings., equipment, and
outboard motors, only while inside a fully
enclosed building.
6. Vehicles.
This peril does not include loss to a fence.
driveway or walk caused by a vehicle
owned or operated by a resident of the
residence premises.
it. Falling Objects.
This peril does not include loss to the it
side of a building or property Contained in
the building unless the roof or an outside
wall of the building is first damageo by a
failingobject Damage to trio falling object
itselfis not included
12. Welght of Ice, snow or sleet which
causes damage to a building or property
contained in the building
This peril does not include loss 10 an
awning, fence. patio. pavement. swimming
pool, foundation, retaining wall, bulkhead.
pier, wharf, or dock.
HO -25:
(Ed. S-6"
13. Accidentaldischarge or overflow of wa- Ur
ter or steam from within a plummng. HC
heating. air conditioning or ai:tomatic fire ar.
protective sprinkler system or from within 141
a housenold appliance. We also pay for
tearing out and replacing any pan of the
building which is covered under Coverage
A and on the residence promises, if
necessary to repair the system or appfi-
ence from which the water or steam es-
caped
This peril does not include loss
a to a building caused by constant or re-
peateo seepage or leakage over a pe -
hod of weeks. months or years:
b. on the residence promises. if the unit
has been vacant for more than 30 con-
secutive days immediately before the !
loss. A unit being constructed is not
considered vacant'
G to the sy Stem or appliance from which
the water or steam escaped:
d caused by . or resulting from freezing
except as provided In the per o
freezing below: or
e. on the residence promises caused by
accidental discharge or overflow which
occurs away from the budding where
the residence promises is located
The following sentence is added to the peril.
Accidental Discharge or Overflow of Water
or Steam, in all Forms except HO- 1 and HO -e:
In this peril, a plumbing system does not in-
clude a sump. sump pump or related equip-
ment
SECTION I • EXCLUSIONS
Under Exclusion 3. Weller Damage, paragraph
b. is deleted and replaced by the following
b water which backs up through sewers or
drains or which overflows from a atjmp:
or
tin Form HO -3. this is item t.c.(21.)
SECTION I - CONDITIONS '
Under 2. Your Duties After Loss, paragraph
f.(3) is deleted and replaced by the following
(3) submit to examination under oath, while not
in the presence of any other insured, and
Sign the same:
HO.350 f?d 9-87i
C:c:r g Insurance Serviel!s Office inc.. 1887 paae 2 of S �
L
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
Consideration of replatting request to replat an existing lot into six
townhouse lots and one conn area lot. A variance request to allow a
replatted lot to have less than the minimum lot width requirement. A
replatting request to replat an existing lot into four townhouse lots and
one common area lot. Applicant, Jay Miller/Fairway Court. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Jay Miller, represented by Mr. Dennis Taylor, Taylor Land Surveyors,
will be before you requesting to replat his existing previously approved
two subdivided lots into one six -unit townhouse lot and one common area
lot, and the other subdivided lot being four townhouse lots with one
common area lot. On the northerly portion of this subdivided lot,
Mr. Miller is proposing to construct six townhouse units with a common
area around them. As you will note on the enclosed site plan, the lot
width of the northerly portion of this lot shows a lot width of
64.25 feet, where the minimum required by ordinance is 80 feet of lot
width. However, at the 30 -foot front yard setback line, Mr. Miller does
exceed the minimum 80 feet of lot width at the 30 -foot setback line. In
looking at the townhouses as they are situated on the northerly portion
of this lot, Mr. Miller has demonstrated that he can fit six townhouse
units on this lot and still stay within the minimum setback
requirements. As the townhouses are situated on the northerly portion of
this lot, Mr. Miller has contracted the services of Mr. Dennis Taylor,
Taylor Land Surveyors, to come up with a proposed driveway and parking
layout. Units 6, 7, 8, and 9 as proposed would have no problem
maneuvering in and out of their off-street parking spaces in front of
their garage units. Units 10 and especially 11 will encounter a
maneuvering difficulty when backing out of their off-street parking
spaces in front of their garage units. The movement of traffic will only
be southerly backing up into the driving aisle in front of unit 19 to
successfully complete an egress to the driveway portion to service these
townhouses. With no vehicles parked in front of the garage units,
maneuvering the vehicles out of the garage units can be done adequately
as shown on the enclosed site plan. By this proposed layout of the
townhouses situated on this lot, we end up with an enormous amount of
hard surfacing in front of the six townhouse units. In looking at the
south portion of this lot, the lot will accommodate four townhouse units
and one common area lot around these townhouses. The layout for these
four townhouses on the south portion of this lot demonstrates a similar
layout to what you see in Colony by the Greens Second, Third, and Fourth
Additions. Each of the townhouses in these additions have separate
driveways to service each individual townhouse unit. These four
townhouses as shown on the enclosed site plan do meet or exceed the
minimum setback requirements.
city staff feels that some serious consideration should be given to
Mr. Miller revising this site plan to show the eight townhouse units
being placed on this previously approved subdivided one lot. Prior to
the platting of the final plat of the Par West development, this lot,
Block 5, Lot 1, along with Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, of Block 4, were
designated lots to accommodate up to eight townhouse units. However,
mm
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
the lot in question, for which Mr. Miller has received approval for
simple subdivision, can accommodate up to ten total townhouse units.
With the layout that Mr. Miller has proposed, he meets the minimum
requirements of the Ordinance of the ten townhouse units on this lot.
City staff feels the developer is taking advantage of the large size area
of this existing lot to accomplish two additional units, when eight
townhouse units and one common area lot around these eight townhouse
units would fit quite nicely.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
'/1. Approve the replatting request to replat an existing subdivided lot
into six townhouse lots and one common area lot.
2. Deny the replatting request to replat an existing subdivided lot into
six townhouse lots and one common area lot.
✓ 3. Approve the variance request to allow a replatted lot to have less
than the minimum lot width requirement.
4. Deny the variance request to allow a replotted lot to have less than
the minimum lot width requirement.
�5. APicove time repldtcing request to replat an existing subdivided lot
into four townhouse lots and one common area lot.
6. Deny the replatting request to replat an existing subdivided lot into
four townhouse lots and one common area lot.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The developer has chosen to replat the recently simple subdivided lot to
accommodate six townhouse units and one common area lot around these
units on the north portion of this existing lot, and also to replat the
southerly portion of this existing lot into four townhouse unit lots and
one common area lot around these townhouses. The developer has not
demonstrated any hardship in the creation of ten total townhouse units on
this platted lot other than he has excess land area which he would like
to develop to the fullest extent, which would allow a six unit townhouse
building on the northerly portion of this lot and a four unit townhouse
building on the southerly portion of this lot. City staff feels the
layout of the proposed parking/driving area as drawn by Mr. Dennis Taylor
does encounter some maneuvering problems cn units 10 and 11. For a
vehicle/vehicles parked in front of the garages on townhouse units 10 and
11, the only maneuvering they have is to back up into the driving aisle
in front of unit 19 to accomplish maneuvering back out of these townhouse
unite. with these six townhouse units situated on this irregularly
shaped lot, there is a lot of area that has to be hard surfaced to
accommodate a parking/driving circulation within these six townhouse
units. A similar layout as the other four townhouse building units as
constructed could be accomplished with each individual townhouse unit
-12-
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
having its own driveway to service their townhouse units by moving these
six townhouse units as proposed onto the northerly part of this lot
southerly and adding two more units to this to accommodate eight total
townhouse units on the previously existing platted one lot.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed replatting request; Copy of the
proposed layout of parking and traffic circulation; Site plan for
proposed replatting request; existing site plan.
-13-
A replotting request to replat an existing
lot into 6 townhouse lots and one common
i - �•'` area lot. A variance request to allow a
•� �' replatted lot to have less then the minimum
lot width requirement.
A replatting request to replat an existing
lot into d townhouse iota and one common
area lot.
f .moi` Jay Miller/Fairway Court
'-'-------------------------
- \ '4
� I �
_________-__..I
NX
L T
1; •` C � r
FT�Y \.
Wit'.:{ �'�'�,:.'` ���� ! !� •r �.t.t, t ' 1 ,S • `
�} •,J:r'`�'.�;;,-�.� ��"'� tet: J '� �� .0
i�
� f�'
� {
��
,� i
,,, „ P� �
.��
�� P;��
quo
o
3 �i
�� �'�
- pa� ;off t'�� .;Y,� �
.. .. .. ,� � tt r. � .e. ..N,,, �.. .
►� ,• a � .. �_ .peg, � ,
�,;� :, � ,
a�.� ,
,.,: �,.
��, rt�♦ ... r � ti
.� � �l
� .r 0 00'•x• v �'
�� �� �Y.� N ,�a
to
v
- ���� - �..�'i Pr��. �.n6'• �/"J fir„ - •,_
• �G'::'�� rr ;N88�as'o2 Ea: .99' . • ''yqh' ,\ ..,wit.
'Q ooa,
'U' ! KM M_ 00 MOO. :rO R� �4'rp00 NBB•d�802,"f � •� '
0F _ , 18.00. NB9'?BW f
.+• �' g $$ 'g !n NBB't14b?:E
�.� 4:$
7.09
r.00 eeor;; •yrs{' Ja. n
rl NeB•26Li7 E e1.ao' E �,w h 2 8:• a ��
NBB'00
44 06M$,05
26A?
:' �, 6'L,'OCK I a .M NBB•?BpOP:E .ONE ~ •.� .
''Q osuw.0
17 swa wi.:,ri �I�,r•itwwr ' :h:<,- ` u4
- , •- S88•26'02,W 4-9.0$'-r
L
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
10. Consideration of additional salary adjustment for Water Superintendent
position. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On April 11, 1988, the City Council appointed Matt Theisen as the new
Water Superintendent effective June 1, 1988, to replace retiring Walt
Mack, who had been with the City for over 20 years. Matt has worked for
the City since the summer of 1979 as Walt's right-hand man working in the
water Department and the Sewer Collection System and was very
knowledgeable about our existing systems. Both John Simola and myself
recommended that Matt be appointed to the position, as we felt he was
extremely conscientious, enthusiastic, and would make an excellent
superintendent.
At the time Walt resigned, his annual salary was $28,723 per year; and
during our discussions with Matt, we recommended to the Council that Matt
receive an annual compensation at $27,00 per year, as new employees
appointed or hired in a supervisory position normally must complete a six
month probationary period. With the appointment being effective June 1,
it was our intent to review Matt's performance after his six month
probationary period which would have been coinciding with salary
negotiations for 1989. We had indicated we would be reviewing and
recommending any adjustments other than cost of living at this time and
had assumed that the merit/performance adjustments could have been made
the first of the year had one been warranted. with the elimination of
the merit adjustments for 1989, we feel there are justifications for the
Council considering a position adjustment for Matt at this time, as Matt
did accept the position at $27,000 per year with the understanding that
the Council would review his performance after the six month probationary
period.
Had there been a merit or performance pool established for 1989, both the
Public Works Director and myself would have recommended that the Council
adjust Matt's salary in addition to a cost of living raine. During the
past six months, Matt has, in my opinion, done an excellent job as Water
Superintendent. And although his management skills and supervisory
skills will improve, we recommend that the Council consider an additional
position adjustment of 2 percent, or approximately $575 per year, in
addition to the 4-1/2 percent cost of living that was previously
authorized. This would place his salary at $28,790 for 1989 as compared
to $30,015 had Walt remained in the position.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve a position adjustment of
$575 (2 percent) for the Water Superintendent upon satisfactorily
completing the six month probationary period.
2. Thesecond alternative would be to not adjust the position other than
the coat of living raise previously authorized.
-14-
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and myself that the
Council consider a position adjustment of an additional 2 percent for
Matt -s position based on his satisfactory completion of the probationary
period. Although we are not recommending Matt receive the same salary
that Walt would have received in 1989, we both feel that Matt would have
received a performance/merit increase above the cost of living had one
been established for 1989. I feel that Matt has been doing an excellent
job as the new Water Superintendent, and he will only improve in the
future.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
t
-15-
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
11. Consideration of PSG contract increase at the Waste Water Treatment
Plant. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Our contract with Professional Services Group for operation of the
Monticello Waste Water Treatment Plant states that "any change of twenty
percent (208) or more in any of these characteristics (flow, BOD, total
suspended solids), based upon a twelve (12) month moving average will
constitute a change in scope." The change in scope of services requires
either a credit or additional compensation depending upon the change.
Since PSG took over in September of 1986, we have seen a change in over
20 percent in all three loadings to the plant. In June of 1987, the flow
was less than 80 percent of the base figure used in the contract. This
means we should receive a credit for that period of time. Additionally,
during the period of November 1986 through July of 1987, the total
suspended solids at the Waste Water Treatment Plant were less than
80 percent of the base figure, thereby indicating the City should also
receive a credit for total suspended solids. The BOD to the waste Water
Treatment Plant, however, went over 120 percent of the base amount in
December of 1987 and has not gone below the trigger of 120 percent since
that time. This means PSG is due additional compensation for being more
than 20 percent of the base line for BOD. For BOD, the range over the
trigger of 120 percent has ranged from a low of 2.2 percent in December
of 1987 to a high of 20.3 percent in September of 1988. Since that time,
there has been a slight tapering off of the loadings to the Waste Water
Treatment Plant due to seasonal variation as well as reduced loadings
from Sunny Fresh Foods.
Although our contract with PSG indicates a change in scope of services
has been demonstrated after a 20 percent change, no methodology was given
as to how one would arrive at the actual dollar amount values for the
change in services. Over the past several months, we have been doing
detailed analysis with PSG based upon the variable costs for treatment at
the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Basically what this means is that there
are certain hard and permanent costs associated with the operation of the
Waste Water Treatment Plant that do not change when loadings diminish or
increase. We did not want to concern ourselves with these costs when
looking at a contract increase. We did, however, look at all the casts
associated with the change in flow, total suspended solids, or BOD to the
Waste Water Treatment Plant and arrived at the following costs for
changing scope of services due to loadings.
-16-
9
a
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
$/percent change beyond or below the trigger
Loading Characteristics versus base/per month
Plow $31.20 per percent per month
TSS $25.46 per percent per month
BODS $41.30 per percent per month
Based upon the above rates as determined by City staff and PSC, PSG has
an amount of $7,285.01 due them from the commencement of the contract
through December of 1988. Our estimate for 1989 through the end of the
contract period, which is December 31, 1989, based upon an increase of
10 percent at the end of 1989 in BOD, due to such things as the addition
of the xjellbergs Mobile Home Park and other expansion, would result in
an estimated increase for the 1989 year of $10,050.61.
These changes or additions in scope of services are not expected to
increase our user rates. Prior to the final calculations being made, the
City staff estimated $8,000 for 1988 and $20,000 for 1989, and built
those costa into our rate calculations. These amounts do not result in a
rate increace.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve a change in contract price for
PSC due to a change in scope of services at the Waste Water Treatment
Plant. The change in scope of services shall be based upon $31.20
per percent of flow per month over or below the trigger, $25.46 per
percent of total suspended solids per month over or below the
trigger, and $41.30 per percent per month over or below the trigger
for BODS.
2. The second alternative would be to not approve this change in scope
of services or the amount but to continue further negotiations. This
does not appear to be in the beet interest of the City of Monticello,
as the staff's opinion is that the figures in alternative I1 are fair
and reasonable compensation for change in scope of services.
C. STAFF RECOMiM1ENDATIONS:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works
Director that the City Oouncil authorize compensation for the change in
scope of services as outlined in alternative $1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of the lotter and supporting data from PSCC Copy of Appendix C
from the contract with PSC.
-17-
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
4I t 176 N. SneIIin Avenue • 307 Libert Bank BId • St. Paul, MN 55104
9 Y 9• (612) 6427252
C January 16, 1989
Mr. John Simola
Director of Public Works
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
SUBJECT: Waste Water Treatment Facility
Operations b Maintenance Contract
Scope Change
Dear Mr. Simola:
The contractual agreement between PSG and the City of Monticello
executed on August 25, 1986, covers the potential that the scope
of services may change during the contract life. The estimated
contract costs were based upon influent characteristics as
defined in paragraph C.4. A minimum 20% change, as specified in
that paragraph of the twelve (12) month moving average of those
characteristics, has occurred which triggers a contractual change
of scope. In the evenL of a "change in the scope_ of services
provided", paragraph 4.5 allows for a commensurate adjustment in
the base fee.
In discussions with your office, the separation of the costs for
the scope change was accomplished specifically for:
1. variable costs associated with the change in characteristics
2. characteristic changes beyond the 20% trigger points
3. the proportioning in of the fee to the rates calculated and
the removal of repair and maintenance items which are
covered in another manner
The attached items address the details of the effect of the scope
change and the various coats - credits and debits - associated
with each one. The reconciliation covers the time period from
the commencement of the contract through December, 1988.
The specific actions requested are:
1. approval of the retroactive costs for characteristics beyond
the 20% trigger, point in the amount of 57,285.01
2. approval of utilizing the specified methodology for monthly
adjustments for characteristics beyond the 20% trigger
points
If you have any questions on this, please let me know.
Sincer ly,
John P. Micketts
regional Operations Manager
MONTICELLO, MN WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
CONTRACT CHANCE OF SCOPE
January, 1989
The following and the attached sheets represent ,information, methodology
and calculations utilized in determining the change of scope information
on the Monticello, HN Wastewater Treatment Facility Contract Operation 6
Maintenance Agreement. In order to present the information in a fashion
useful for discussion and approval, the order utilized is data,
discussion and then calculations.
The attached graph presents the historical loadings to the Monticello
WWTF. This presents the moving average on a 12 month basis for the
characteristics of flow, total suspended solids (TSS) and total
biochemical oxygen demand, 5 -day (TBOD). As will be noted in the chart,
the flow and total suspended solids experienced a decrease early in the
contract. This decrease dropped slightly below the specified 207E
trigger point for these characteristics. After that decrease, an
increase can be noted In TSS and TBOD. The TBOD values commenced
exceeding the 20% trigger point for the twelve (12) month period ending
in December, 1987. The second attachment deals with the specific values
and timing on these points.
In the attachment titled '"Monticello WWTF Loadings (Corrected per
November 15, 1988 Meeting)", a column has been added tailed -%OlU
Trigger" for each characteristic. This column helps establish the
'i percentage per month that the characteristic is over or under the
trigger. The columns titled "Cumulative" help reconcile these
percentages through December, 1986.
At the bottom of the attachment titled "Monticello WWTF Loadings
(Corrected per November 15, 1988 Meeting)", a cost calculation is made.
The calculations utilize a rate per percentage change developed in the
attachments titled "Historical Cost Summary 6 Loadings Analysis". These
attachments utilize the variable costs for each of the characteristics
along with the contract specified characteristic values to determine a
cost per percent change per month beyond the trigger values. These
values for this contract are:
1. 091.20 per % change in flow beyond the contract trigger values on
1212 month moving average basis using the base value of 0.540 MCD
2. 025.46 per % change In total suspended solids beyond the contract
trigger values an a 12 month moving average basis using the base
value of 960 lbs.lday
9. 541.90 per % change in total biochemical oxygen demand, 5 -day
beyond the contract trigger values on a 12 month moving average
basis using the base value of 1,566 lbs./day
These values and their application constitute the Methodology to be
utilized each month for the remainder of the current contract. The
application of these values will be on the 12 month saving averages for
the characteristics for the period where triggers have been exceeded.
S.
b
db
N
1
Monticello W TF Loadings
12 month moving averages
--2500 - - - - - - - - - + 9202
—B 5yy
2000 -- — 5101V
1500
i 1000 ---�
[7 e ZI <<l C;Y-r
.j 500 � ~��•—,..-=,—T—.:-�----. .. .. :� .: ,-:. .--, :.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .: ..
0
y W
N CUd
Ci
U 0�1 CO U
tl
.� 'j c' +tea
'd
°� "' O
w CJ
? u
o
�! O?
Q
Updated:
09 -Jan -69
Monticello W.0 Loadinm (Cerrected per November 15, OR Meeting)
Contract Values 1 irigg:re:
Ave-
High-
0,5480
0.65766
Avr
High- 1,152
960
Ave-
High-
1566
1.679
Lou-
0.436?
Low-
0
Lor-
1,253
FLCII
12 no 1011)
TSS 12
a IN
TROD
12'to tON
«..«««««.....»......•»....•
Ave. Trig3er
................
tg/I Lba. Ave. trigger
«......... «....«..... .......«..•.««.........«»....•......•
agyl L03.
Ave. Trigger
1995 Jul O.SII
24S 1.044
356 1,517
......
.......«.
Aug 0.515
2:4 981
379 1,659
$ep 0.539
323 1,4S2
336 1,510
Oct 0.614
191 979
353 1,838
M•v 0. e9
201 952
377 1,786
Dec 0.445
2SO 9E5
464 1,795
19:6 January 0.384
219 idl
303 970
February 0.403
157 654
507 1,704
March 0.495
169 760
252 1,040
April 0.672
161 902
276 1,547
May 0.826
127 675
218 1,502
Aro 0.599
0.548
201 1,002
959
403 2,010
1,573
July 0. 392
0.538
231 75S
934
SS9 1,828
1,599
August 0.342
0.523
180 513
695
443 1,264
1,Sm
September 0.379
O.SIO
203 642
628
44S 1,407
1,558
Dctcber 0.411
0.493
144 494
787
Cusmlative 400 1,371
1,519
November 0.465
0.484
158 613
7S9 -0,9571
-11.40% 449 1,741
1,SI5
December 0.429
O.48J
191 701
737 -3,1921
-14.652 372 1,328
1,476
1987 Jammry 0.445
0.488
215 798
74S •2.351 8
-17.051 502 1,988
- 1,561
February 0.447
0.492
190 7D8
732 -3,702 1
-20.452 345 1,772
- 1,533
March 0.470
0.490
250 990
749 -1.971 1
-22.461 484 2,023
- 1,615
April 0.471
0.473
ISS 710
731 •3.12t 1
-25.541 434 1,819
• 1,638
May 0.501
0.446
Cwulstive 222 932
743 •2.621 1
-26.211 S43 2,420
- 1,714
Jura 0.492
0:437 -0.272 1
-3.251 204 637
729 -4.062 1
-32.21% 36'7 1,6G
- 1,680
July 0.457
0.442
256 976
747 -2.152 0
-34.401 431 1,753
- 1,674
August 0.535
0.458
222 991
T87
364 1,732
- 1,713
September 0,472
0.466
264 1,039
620
381 1,600
- 1,729
October 0.517
0.475
211 910
OSS
496 2,139
1,793
November 0.458
0.474
185 707
863
S69 2,173
1,629
Cumulativ
Ormber 0.406
0.473
251 MO
875
692 2,343
1,914 2.222 4
26.672
1918. January 0.477
0.475
251 939
891
692 2,753
1,971 6,3021
33.092
4 Feb 0.557
0,404
1D5 889
994
470 2,183
2,045 10.6221
43.21%
Nor 0.490
0.+17
AS 761
886
470 1,952
2,040 10.2411
53.60
Apr 0.511
0.490
717 797
089
499 2,127
2,06S 11.1821
SSM
May 0.513
0.491
238 1,018
IS
S18 2,216
2,041 10.7921
76.:52
Jun 0.422
0.485
236 038
856
597 2,101
2,089 13.4211
89.592
Jul OATS
0.+35
232 1,112
907
S42 2,599
2,160 17.9311
107.162
pug 0.440
0.408
330 law
930
S49 2,041
2,186 19.6011
127.10
Be? 0.465
0.487
276 1,070
933
447 1,734
2,197 "All1
147.672
Oct 0.410
0.414
364 1,457
978
515 2,062
7,191 19.9021
161.161
Nov 0.459
0.484
29S 1,129 1,013
491 1.110
2,166 11.3411
116.252
Ox 0.451
0.410
231 1791,016
300 1,N5
2,092 13.5621
200.07%
Rate/Uhloge: 131.20
125.46
141.30
Total I
Changa-
(I1D1.35)
(1175.95)
x,162.31
+ : Project LMractmrlatic
17,:16.01
- : 0!002 Nat'l om - -41LI Dour
are corrected -o TNOD uu'l a 0.9 fxt:r
.: Data distorted due to Vwr Process return Ilse repair
1 lacludes recycle
1M Anwry, value used is tho Oecseber va:uo for
wads and the Febuary value Is the March figures
1 : Contract trigger exceeded
Monticello, MN WIP
Historical Cost Su wary
6 Laadings A clysis
Adjusted to 601 6 120: values for Flaw, TSS I EDO
Revised: 19-Jan•69
The previus attadwnt de•-criLMS the apFroadi to appartioning mats between the
various components of a treatment plant and ata specific functions which they fill.
As the attached Monticello 4MITF Lallings spreadsheet shams, there are three periods
which nut be addre!seo:
1. Flaw to the plent going below the flow trigger on Jun, 10Ws 12 month moving ecerage.
2. TS9 to the plant gocng below to TSS trigger ter the Nouesber, iSSS throu3h Vuly,
1997 12 month moving average.
3. SIRS to the plant going above the 6005 trigger commencing with the December. !997
12 aantti moving averap.
Each deals with a 12 month period and the volumes or pounds Par 12 months must be considered.
Those calculations are:
FLOP:
••601 Value : 0.43% MCD
--June. 1987: 0.437 MCD
--Difference : 0.001C MCD
--Total Olt.: O.S414 MC over the past 12 months
183:
••807 Value :
TM I/day
Diff. to Contract Ualm
--Nov., 1966:
759 0/day
9,3:6 panda, for past 12 months
--Dec., 1986:
T37 Way
SSO additional pounds
..Jan., 1587:
74S a/day
700 additional pounds
--Feb., 1997:
732 Ilday
995 additional pounds
.-Aar., 1987:
749 Ilday
S86 additional pounds
..Apr., 1987 :
T39 I/day
0 additional pounds
..may, 1987 :
743 I/day
781 additional paads
••Jun., 1987 :
729 1/day
1,169 additional pounds
••Jul., 1s$? :
747 O/day
639 additional pounds
•.Total DIP.:
10,015 ponds for the under contract period
EMS:
••1202 Value :
1,679 Way
Diff. to Contract Value
--Dec., 1987:
1,911 Way
12,75 prardm for past 12 months
••Jan., 1988:
1,978 Way
3.15 additicrsl panda
••Feb., 1980:
2,OV5 0/day
4,121 additional parade
.-mar., 1988:
2,040 Ilday
4,970 additional pounds
••Apr., 7918 :
2,065 Ilday
5,579 addltiowl pounds
--May. 1589:
2,048 Ilday
5,231 additional pounds
••Jun„ I"6 :
2,019 I/day
6,306 additional pounds
••Jul., 1929 :
2,150 $,day
8,772 additional pounaa
••Wag., 1588 :
2,116 t;day
9,516 additional pounds
--Sop., 1916 :
2,197 I/day
9,543 additional paung
--Det., 1588 :
2,191 I/lay
9,64 additional paeds
--Nov., 1988:
2,166 o/day
bili admtidwl Fouada
--Dec., 1918:
2,092 uday
6,513 additional Foods
--Total Dlf.: 95„91 pends for the over contract Period
0
Based upon a meeting with the City on September 22, 1988, the user charge system in
place ma developed by an engineer and Is annually updated to reflect the apportionment
of costa to flaw, EMS and TS9. The figures used are 401, 202 and 302 respectively.
The following summary is used to produce the above adjustments but at the various
rates wing this approach:
1. The original contract dollar values are:
a. 40 month fee of 6200,000 =
660'000 Cost/year
b. 40 month direct cost of IE89,334 :
!205,000 Cost/year
c. Total 40 month cost is 1883,334 =
1265,000 CaWyear
d. BM costs covered In direct cost :
225,000 Cost/yeer
2. The original contract loading values are:
a. Average flow = 0.548 BTA
b. Average 8005 : I,556 lb/day
c. Average TSB : 980 Ib/dry
Bred q= these amounts, the following dollars occur using the indicated rates
in effect on variable costs when the contract cw ftced (with the attaehed p! ilaeopMj):
Total
1/2 flange
Total 2 Bose D/O
beyond Trigger
Ties Amount Units Trigger
_ _ _---3,Z5
w basa/month
Total$
i
1. Flow (0.541) K.
171.20
(1101.75)
2. T83 (10,045) Pounds- -34.40
125.46
(1875.95)
3. ROCS 95,298 pounds. 200.07
141.30
68,262.71
17,2A5.01
•Oalues given are free the onset of the contract for this Change Order 61.
Assuming that the current moving averages aro going to Increase by 10% at the end of 1989,
an average Increase of 51 can be expected in 1989. If this is true, the flow and TM
will not aced the trigger values at 801 or 1202. The BOD volume will continue to
arced the trigger values. The astlaetd amount for INS 1s scathly adjustments
would te:1 average Increase: 5.001
Baginaleg BOD: 2,092 1 lb/ay
Ending BOO: 2,197 1 Ib/a/
Bus 800= 1.879 1 lb/ay
Difference to bast : 20.211/month
months : 12 Uta/i : 141.70 Estimate : 110,050.11
of
APPENDIX C
.� NPDES PERMIT AND
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
C.1
PSG will operate so that effluent will meet the requirement
of NPDES permit no. NN 0020567 (copy attached). PSG shall
be responsible for meeting the effluent quality requirements
of CITY•S NPDES permit unless one or more of the following
occurs; (1) the Project influent does not contain Adequate
Nutrients to support operation of Project biological processes
and/or contains Biologically Toxic Substances which cannot
be removed by the existing process and facilities; (2)
dischargers into CITY6S sewer system violate any or all
regulations as stated in the current water and Sewer Ordinance
and have a direct detrimental effect on the project; (3) the
flow, influent 8005 and/or suspended solids exceeds the
project design parameters which ars 0.91 million gallons
of flow per day, a daily peaking factor of 1.5 time flow
and sustained peak of 1.4 MGD, 6207 pounds of BODS per
day, 3225 pounds per day of suspended solids. The daily
peaking factor is determined on a daily basis. All other
design parameters will be determined on a 30 -day moving
average. (a) if the Project is inoperable or can operate
only at a reduced capacity on account of construction activities,
fire, flood, adverse weather conditions, labor disputes
L_
other than PSG, or other causes beyond PSG -s control.
C.2
In the event any one of the Project influent characteristics,
suspended solids, 8005 or flow, exceeds the design parameters
stated above, PSG shall return the plant effluent to the
characteristics required by the NPDES permit in accordance
with the following schedule after Project influent characteristics
return to within design parameters.
Characteristics Cxcesding Recovery Period
Design Parameters By Maximum
10► or Less 5 days
Above 101 Leu than 20► 10 days
20► and Above 30 days
Not withstanding the above schedule if the failure to met
effluent quality limitations Is caused by the presence
of Biologically Toxic Substances or the lack of Adequate
Nutrients in the influent, than PSG will have a thirty
(30).day recovery period attar the influent is free from
said substances or contains Adequate Nutrients.
C.3
.....��'�
Y't/o PBC shall not be responsible for lines or legal action u a
,'
result of discharge violations within the period (and subsequent
•�1`/1
recovery period) that Influent e) exceeds design paramtese,
..
O
',!��I b) does not contain Adequate Nutrients, c) contains Biologically
1 I= Toxic Substances, or if the plant is inoperable.
C.4 The estimated Coate for services under this Agreement are
based upon the following Project characteristics: -
0.548 Millions of gallons per day flow
1566 Pounds per day BOD
960 Pounds per day TSS
Any change of twenty percent (20%) or more in any of these characteristics,
based upon a twelve (12) month moving average, will constitute a change
in scope.
-Figures based upon 12 month moving avg. 7/1/85 - 6/30/86.
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
12. Consideration of Gambling License Renewal - American Legion Club. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The American Legion Club's gambling license operation at Monticello
Liquor will be expiring April 1, 1989, and the Club has submitted a
license renewal request. Before any license or renewal is granted, the
City has 60 days to object to the issuance by the State Gambling Board,
which would expire January 29, 1989. Original approval for this gambling
license was granted a number of years ago, and the City is not aware of
any complaint regarding this operation.
Enclosed with the agenda you will find a summary of the past year's
revenue, expenditures, and donations made by the Club from their gambling
activities. As you may recall, the City established a policy of
requiring this information before renewing future gambling licenses in
order to give the Council an idea of where the profits are used within
the community, etc. Providing that all the information on their
application complies with state law, the State will automatically grant
the license renewal unless it receives an objection from the City Council
by January 29, 1989. If you have no objection to the renewal of this
license, then no action is required.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Take no action, State will automatically renew the license.
2. Pile an objection with the State of Minnesota. This would deny the
license renewal.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that no action be taken by the Council and that the
license be renewed unless the Council is aware of some circumstances you
feel would warrant. denial.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Summary of last 12 months operation, including revenue, expenditures, and
donations.
-is_
r°d Charitable Gambling Control Board
IRN-475 Griggs -Midway Bldg. For Board Use Only
1621 University Ave. PaiO Amt:
St. Paul, MN 55104.3383 I Check No.
•+lir (612) 642-0555
Date:
GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
LICENSE NUMBER: •.4.11611-111 / EFF DATE:
14/11182
r AMOUNT OF FEE: 151, it
1. Applicant -Legal Name of Organization
2. Street Address
AR111(AR 116108 POST 161 BOBT1FFll0
114 !Is Strret
3. City, State. Zip
a- County
5. Business Phone
Ronticlllo. RB S5761
Yriant
1 51? 1 ;15.2574
6. Name of Chief Executive Officer
7. Business Phone
6. Name of Treasurer Or Person Who Accounts for Revenues
B. Business Phoria..
....- • . .. .r La;o Flit A, -.1y
1 ;.z 1 I"
10. Name Of Gambling Manager
11. Bond Number
12. Business Phone
Robert Toy
SIDS6ibi
( I. ;� •a
13. Name of Establishment Where Gambling Will Take Place
14. County
15. N0. of Active Members
Ron icella tiquor Ronticello
Yrigb:
7H
16. Lessor Name
Monthly Rent:
Ranlicilllo llouor
117.
1
StBT ,3, •C (_'
18. If Bingo will be conducted with this license, please specify days and
times Of Bingo,
DOye Times Days
Tinier
I Days Times
19. Has license ever aeon: ❑ Revoked Data: ❑ Suspended Date: ❑ Denied Date:
20. Have internal controls boon submitted previously? X yes O No (11 'No,' attach copy)
21. Has current lease bean filed with the board? 1d9 yes ❑ No (If -No. attach Copy)
12. Has current sketch boon filed with the board? P' yes G No (it -No.- almch CODY)
ZGAMBLING SITE AUTHORIZATION
By my Signature below, local law enforcement officers or agents of the Board aro hereby authorized to anter upon Cho site, at any time. gambling is
being Conducted, t0 oboorve Cho gambling and t0 enforce the law for any unnuthOnzed game Or practice
BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION
By my Signature below, the Board is hereby aulhoIROd IO MOM the bank records of the General Gambling Bank Account whenever necessary to
fulfill requirements of current gambling rules and law.
OATH
I hereby declare that:
t. I have read this application and all Information submntOd to the Board;
2. All information submitted is true, accurate and complain:
3. All Other required information hag boon fully tllDClpspd:
4,1 am the Chief olocuiivo officer of the organization:
5. 1 assume full rospoinsibitlly for the fair and lawful Operation OI all activlios 10 be corv]uctod:
6. 1 will fanlitiorize myself with the lows Of the State 0f Minnesota respecting gambling and rules Of the board and agree. it licensed. IO abide by those
laws and rules. including amendments thoroto.
23. Official Logan Name of Organization Signature (Chief Executive 011icotI Onto ]Title" �r-s7msn�J�"'
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICB BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY
I horaby aCknOwl0dgO receipt of a dopy Of this application. By acknowledging receipt. I admit having been Samoa with notice that this application will
be reviewed by the Charitable Gambling Control Board and if approved by the Board, will become effective 60 days tram the data or rocwpl (noted
below), unless o resolution of the local governing body is 1303300 which spoclfiaatly disallows such activity and a copy of that resolution is received by
mo Charilable Gambling Control Board within 60 days Of the below noted Onto.
24, Cily,CDunty Name (LQ� el Governing Body)
.i-. Jr �/lf.'T'+41CCLL U
Signature of Person Receiving Application:
Ir a ...� . Onto Received phis data bagns.60 day pored)
Name of Pardon Delivering Application to Local Governing Body:
CG -000n -w (ares)
Township: If aIle is located within a township. please complete items 24
and 25:
25. Signature of Poison Rocowmg Application
Title:
Township Name
White Copy -Board Canary -Applicant Pink -Local Governing
AMERICAN LEGION POST &260
JANUARY 1988 -DECEMBER 1988
T YA! 5
GROSS SALES: $2,777,150.00
PRIZES PAID; $2,:97,914.00
GROSS PROFIT $379.236.0
EXPENSES: STATE TAXES PAID $47,696.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTALS
TOTAL LAWFUL PURPOSE EXPENSE ( DOES NOT APPLY TC 55/45) $-17,696.00
iOiAL GROSS LESS LAWFUL EXPENSE. S33; ,5;G.00
EXPENSES wages $95,001.00
Eau! ement.ACyertismg, Insurance. etc. $47,458.00
License $100.00
Rent $8,850.00
Inventory UW. $44,381.00
TOTAL EXPENSES: $195.790 00
NET PROFIT AFTERALL EXPENSEl
R 1:5,750.00
LAWFUL PURPOSE CONTRIBUTIONS
BUILDING EXPENSES ( MAINTENANCE, LOANS, TAXES, ETC)
$214,475.00
MONTICELLO-B;O LAKE HOSPITAL
$16,000.00
BRAIN SCIENCE RESEARCH
$9,734.00
LEGION BASEBALL
$4,258.00
LEGIONVILLE (SCHOOL PATROL)
$6,266.00
INDIVIDUAL SCHOLARSHIPS
$14,067.00
YCUTHPROGR.AMS(4-H, CUB SCOUTS, BROWNIES ETC.)
$4,900.00
EMERGENCY AID (DISASTER VICTIMS)
$833.00
COMMUNITY SERVICE (LIONS, NUPSINO HOME. FIREMEN ETC.)
$9,186.00
SPORTSTEAMS& PROGRAMS
$3,168.00
PATRIOT15M PROCRAMS(FLAO DONATIONS,PROGRAMS,ETC.)
$3,727.00
LEGION PROGRAM (Y.A. HOSPITAL. SPONSORSHIPS, ETC.)
$1,51 1.00
EDULAT ION (URUO G SAFETY AWARENESS, ETC.)
$5,971.00
99CT - FEDERAL TAX
$61,560.00
TOTALS $355.656.00
EXPENDITURES EXCEED PROFITS DUE TO PROFIT CARRY-OVER FROM PREVIOUS YEAR(S),
THIS REPORT IS RELATIVELY ACCURATE. BUT IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE AS AN AUDIT.
0/0�
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
13. Consideration of adopting an ordinance amendment including elected
officials for workmen's compensation coverage. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part of the City's worker's compensation coverage, the City has in the
past paid a premium for covering the Council and Mayor under our
workmen's compensation policy. It has recently come to my attention that
if the City has not adopted a resolution or an ordinance that
specifically states that elected officials are covered under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, there may be a problem in collecting should a
councilmember incur injury in performing their duties. .It has been
recommended by the League of Minnesota Cities that if a city intends to
provide this coverage for its elected officials, an ordinance or
resolution be adopted specifically stating this.
In checking our resolutions and ordinances, I can find no indication that
it is specifically stated that the coverage was available for Council
members although we have been actually paying the premium for a number of
years. If it is the Oouncil'e desire to be covered under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, it is recommended that the attached ordinance be
adopted.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
U� 1. Adopt the ordinance as proposed. This would coincide with Minnesota
Statutes which specifically indicate that an ordinance or resolution
must be adopted to provide coverage for elected officials.
2. Do not adopt the ordinance or specifically exclude elected officials
from coverage.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As I indicated, the City has always been paying premiums for workmen's
compensation coverage for the Council members, and I was not aware that a
specific ordinance had to be adopted to legally provide this coverage.
Although normally the premiums are based on the annual salary of an
individual, the premiums have been fairly high in the past because the
insurance companies have always based the premiums on a minimum salary of
$108 per week. This normally resulted in premiums of over $1,650 per
year to cover a five -member council. If the Council feels this coverage
is unnecessary, a motion should be passed to specifically exclude the
Council members from the coverage if desired. Since we have been paying
the premiums in the past and the coverage is available, I would recommend
that this policy continue and that the ordinance amendment specifically
Including elected officials be adopted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of ordinance amendment.
-19-
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT THE FOLLOWING SECTION
PERTAINING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS BE
ADDED AS FOLLOWS:
1-5-12 Worker's Compensation - Elected Officials:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 176.011,
Subdivision 9, Clause 6, the elected officials of the City
of Monticello are hereby included in the coverage of the
Minnesota Worker's Compensation Act.
Adopted this 23rd day of January, 1989.
Ken Maus, Mayor
Rick woltsteller
City Administratot
9
League of Minnesota Cities
December 29, 1988
183 University Ave. East
St. Paul, MN 55101-2526
(612)227.5600(FAX:221-0986)
To: City officials and agents
From: LMCIT
Re: Coverage for injuries to elected officials
The workers compensation statutes provide benefits to an
•employee" who is injured while working. M.S. 176.011, subd. 9,
(5), provides that an elected official is considered to be an
'employee' for workers compensation purposes only if the city
has passed an ordinance or resolution to that effect. An
elected official injured while performing his or her duties
would not be eligible for workers compensation benefits unless
the city had passed that ordinance or resolution.
If the city wishes to provide workers compensation coverage for
elected officials, it is preferable to use an ordinance rather
than a resolution. Resolutions are often recorded only in the
council minutes; years later it can be very difficult and
time-consuming to track down a resolution. We've seen a number
of cases where a city has been paying premiums for workers
compensation coverage for elected officials for years, but now
can't find any ordinance or resolution specifying that elected
officials are covered. An ordinance will generally be easier to
keep track of permanently, since it is also recorded in the
city's ordinance book as well as in the council minutes. The
following wording can be used for this ordinance: 'Pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 176.011, subdivision 9, clause 5, the
elected officials of the city and those municipal officers
appointed for a regular term of office are hereby included in
the coverage of the Minnescta Workers Compensation Act.'
If the city does not wish to cover its elected officials for
workers compensation, it might be wise to pass on ordinance to
that effect as well unless you are absolutely certain that the
city has never passed a resolution to provide coverage. That
resolution could have boon passed as long ago as 1967, when the
law was first amended to permit cities to opt for coverage.
In the past, the cost of workers compensation coverage has
discouraged many cities from covering their elected officials.
LMCIT has now taken a couple of steps to address this issue, as
outlined on the following pages. The L4CIT Board would also
like to hear from city officials as to whether they would favor
amending the statutes to make workers compensation coverage
automatic for all elected officials.
N
1. REDUCED COST OF WORKERS COMPENSATION COVERAGE
In the past, LMCIT has calculated workers compensation premiums
for elected officials coverage using the formula prescribed by
the rating association for private insurance companies. Under
this formula, premiums were based on an imputed minimum salary
of $108 per week. The rate for the 'Municipal employees, class
of $5.88 per $100 of payroll was then applied. This resulted in
premiums of over $1650 to cover a five -member council.
For 1989, LMCIT will use a lower rate of $2.91 per $100 of
payroll for elected officials. This rate will be applied to an
imputed salary of $70 per week, rather than $108 as in the past.
These two changes will reduce the cost of covering a five -member
council to $530 in 1989 - a reduction of over two-thirds. In
the opinion of the LMCIT Board of Trustees, this revised rating
approach will more accurately reflect the actual risk.
2. ACCIDENT POLICY OPTION
LMCIT has also arranged with CIGNA to offer a second even less
expensive option through which cities can provide some
protection for their council members against the risk of being
injured or killed in the course of performing their duties. For
a cost of $12.75 per person per year, the city can purchase an
accident policy which provides benefits for death or a disabling
injury arising out of an accident which occurs while the council
member is traveling to, participating in, or travelling from a
regularly scheduled council meeting, or while conducting
official council business on behalf and at the request of the
council.
The policy provides a death benefit of $100,000. It also
provides a schedule of lump sum benefits for loss of a hand,
foot, or eye.
The policy also provides a short-term disability benefit of $400
per week. Disability benefits are payable for a maximum of 26
weeks, after a three-day waiting period. Disability benefits
would be paid if as the result of a covered injury the
individual cannot do at all the substantial and material duties
of his type of work.
It is important to understand that this coverage differs
significantly in many ways from the benefits that would be
provided by workers compensation. Some of the more important
differences are:
- Tho accident policy does not pay for medical costs. The
individual would have to look to his own health coverage
to pick up these costs.
t
2
- Disability benefits would continue for a maximum of 26
weeks. By contrast, workers compensation benefits would
continue as long as the disability lasts.
- Benefits are payable only if the individual is totally
disabled from performing the duties of his regular
employment. Unlike workers compensation, the policy
provides no benefits for partial disability.
- Death and disability benefits are paid according to a
fixed schedule. Workers compensation benefits, by
contrast, are based on the individual's actual earnings,
from both his regular employment and his council pay.
- Workers compensation includes various other benefits,
such as rehabilitation, retraining, etc.; the accident
policy does not.
- Workers compensation benefits are tax-exempt; some or
all of the benefits paid under the accident policy might
be taxable.
Obviously, there are many 'borderline' situations where it might
be debatable whether a council member is 'conducting official
council business on behalf and at the request of the council.'
For example, a mayor or council member might be asked
individually to attend a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce or a
service club to discuss and explain city policies or proposals
L_ the council is considering. Cities might want to consider
adopting a resolution specifying whether the city considers such
activities to be within the scope of duties that the city
.expects its elected officials to perform.
I
For questions concerning the CIGNA accident coverage, or to put
the accident coverage into effect, contact Jaime Frischmann, The
Brehm Group, 1500 International Center, 920 Second Ave. So.,
Minneapolis, Mn. 55402; (612) 229-7385. Enrollment for the
accident coverage will be open through March 1, 1989. In
succeeding years, there will be an annual open enrollment period
for cities during February of each year.
0
Dear member City.
The league Of "Innestits Cities is pleased to
offer through I.C. Field and Company and C16AA, a
shoft-Itre disability and accidental death 1
dismemberment benefit lot your city council
members. The schedule is as follows:
EVINT BENEtff
IOUs 1400 per mess for duration
Disability of disability after A I
day waiting period to a
seaimue of 26 seeks
toss of Life full liehtfit 1100,000
toss of too or note full feneftt 1100,000
Mwabcr s
Loss of Ont "amber one-half lenetit 150,000
'ne/ber' amens hand, toot, sight of aye. toss at
hand seine severance at or above the still and
loss of foot tains severance at or above the
ankle. Severance is defined as the complete
separation and dismemberment of the limbs of the
body. A covered person will be daod 'totally
disabled' It during the wasting period and for
the subsequent 26 ease$ he cannot do ►11 the
substantial and material duties of his job,
The benefits will be paid for injuries caused by
an AccTdeat which hipping *bile 6 person is
covered by the policy sad which directly, and
fro* n0 Other cause, results an any of tet losses
listed above within a year after the accident
occurs for the AM benefit slid within 30 pays
for In* disability bsmtit. it the accident
results In the covered person`s death, the
benefit will be 0010 to the Note boatficUrl,
piseesbntenl and disability payments will let
Valle to the covered111111116k
flenoitls are not payable for losses resulting
fro*: suicide or attempted suicide, deliberratet/
self•iniltcttd injuries, war or acts of ear,
full-time duty in the Armed Forces, bacterial
laterite" not caused by an accident cut or waned,
or food poisoning, sickness, travel or flight in
an aircraft Involved in tests or experiments.
lengths sill be paid for accidental death or
dismemberment or disability occuring shite
council members are travelling to, participating
in, or travelling from a regular or spocial
testing of the council or other city bead,
cowailmion, or cossittee of which ilia individual
is a member, or *bite conducting official cOOnctt
business on behalf and It the request of the
council.
this fare is Intended as a brief benefit
description and the policy sill determine the
bsnefil payable.
pilose fill out the reveres side of this fore
along with a Checl for the first Annual Orestes
calculated as shoe". Premiums should be
submitted using the retain envelope or called to
the plan administrator it:
The $tells group
970 Second Avefars Smith
Sults 1500
Minneapolis, flinnesele SS402
All checks should be side PApble to the Itself
Croup. premises rived to be be received by_
115181 In order for coverage to be effective
31A
ENROLLe1141 FOR"
Please return this lore along with your payment
so that em may give credit to the proper city.
flavor and All Council members
Number of Council Members x 317.1s
1 _ _ _ premium due.
CITY:
ADDRESS:
If
O
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
14. Consideration of entering a 1989 maintenance agreement with Wright County
Highway Department. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello performs routine maintenance such as snow and ice
removal on certain portions of County state -aid highways within the city
limits. These maintenance tasks are performed by the City of Monticello
in order to maintain a higher level of service. In most cases, our crews
travel these sections of road during maintenance of other city streets
and often have the roadways cleared before County crews begin. The
County recognizes that the cities often wish to perform maintenance on
County state -aid highways within their own city limits. Therefore, they
reimburse cities based upon typical County costs for each mile of roadway
the cities maintain.
The reimbursement comes to us in the form of a check each December.
Costs for any given year are based upon the County's actual cost the year
before and are computed in each agreement. For example, in 1988 we
received a check for $3,177.46 based upon the County's 1987 average
annual cost.
A copy of the proposed agreement is enclosed for your review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve the maintenance agreement as
presented.
2. The second alternative would be not to approve the agreement and to
revert to having the County maintain those portions of the County
state -aid roads within the City of Monticello. It is the staff's
opinion that this would result in a lower level of service to our
residents.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council opt for alternative
number one and approve the maintenance agreement with Wright County.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the 1989 agreement and letter from Wright County.
-20-
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright County Public Works Building
Route No. 1- Box 97-B
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
I * JCL T.H. 25 and C. R. 138 WAYNE A. FINGALSOM. P.E.
Telephone (612) 682-3900 COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
December 22, 1988
Arve Grimsmo, Mayor
City of Monticello
Box 815
Monticello, MH 55362
RE: 1989 Maintenance Agreement
Dear Mayor and Honorable Councilpersous:
It is once again time to renew our annual municipal maintenance
agreement for tha maintenance activities and the ronds listed an the
enclosed agreement.
You may remember that the costs used In computing the reimbursement
for the maintenance agreements is the highest average annual cost per mile
for either the rural or municipal roadway segments to the previous year.
This to consistent with state—aid procedures. In most cases maintenance
activities are more costly in municipal areas therefore these are the
a routine meiatonanco costa that are used in computing the coat par mile for
reimbursement. To give you on idea of the cost for each maintenance
activity we have shown the 1987 average coat per mile for each activity in
the 1989 maintenance agreement.
I have enclosed two copies of the 1989 agreement for your review and
approval. Please return one copy of the signed agreement and retain the
other copy for your files.
Lastly, I have enclosed a check reimbursing your city for the
maintenance activities covered under our 1988 agreement.
if you have any questions concerning this please don't hesitate to
sontact our office.
Sincerely,
Wayne A. Piagalson
Wright County Highway Engineer
by, Dave Moacabollo
Project Engineer
enclosuro: (2) 1989 Municipal Maintenance Agreements
(1) Check for 1988 Maintananco Week
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made aad entered tat. by and between the City of Monticello
hereinafter referred to as the "City- Cud the County of Wright hereinafter referred
to as the "County".
YIIFRF.AS, Chapter 162, Mlosesota Statute#, permits the County to designate cartel* road$
t . and .treats within the City on County State Aid Highways, and
L'HERF.AS, the City has concurred to the dealgnation of the County State Aid Highway
Within Its limits at Identified to County Board's resolutions of August 28, October 8,
N—bar 5, December 3, December 27, 1957 and January 7, 1958, sod
WHEREAS, it to deemed to the best latecest of all parties that the duties and
responsibilities of both the City and the CouOtY ss to malnttnaaCO on Geld County State
Aid Highways to be clearly defined.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED with regard to gold County State Aid Highway nalatenance:
That the City will be responsible for routine maintenance 00 the following highways.
MAINZ.
PLAN ROAD SEGMENT MILES COST/MI.- TOTAL COST -
1. CSAH 75 From Willow St, to E. Jet. CSAH 39 3.74 538.51 2,014.04
(includes four Isae Portion.)
2. CSAR 39 Fres City Pub. Worts Bldg. to 0.32 134.63 A3.08
W. Jot. of CSAH 75
A. CSAR 58 Free T.U. 25 to CSAH 75 0.465 1,602.77 745.29
A. CSAH 59 From Velour Street to CSAH 75 0.234 1,602.77 375.05
TOTAL r7ff r—T"—S
That the routine maintenance shell Consist of the following' (MOtuL. Plan)
1. (CSAH 75) - Snow and Ice removal
2. (CSAH 39) 252 of the #now and its r000W61
4. (CSAH 58 A 59) - Patching, crack -sealing, drainage maintenance, now sod Ice 1
removal. and tree trtmatug A brush removal.
f
-Rated om 1987 wets&$ ...nal costs.
y That when the City deams it desirable to remove $now by hauling, It $hall do so at its
ow expense. The City *hall also be responsible for all *DOW and Ice removal oa Sidewalks
and other boulevard related maintenance enfolds the curb or street area.
That the Couoty will be responsible tot all other maintenance .
That to December of 1989 , the City shall receive psYmaot from the County for their
Work. Thlo amount Cho a 4sad on the 19 Be aversgo annual cost per die for routine
mdotaoonce on Municipal Conary State Atd Highways. The aver*&* annual cast par mil* will
reflect only those costs associated With the areas of routine N4lntanaOC4 for which the
City to responsible.
ADOPTED,
19
ATTESTt
Mayor
City Clark
CEgtIFtCATtON
I hereby Certify that the *bow is a true sod Correct COPY Of 6 resolution duly passed,
adopted and approved by the City Council of said City On 19i
City Clark
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED,
Noma of City
COUNTY or
Chatresa or the !Ward
ATTESTt
County Coordinator
ly
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
15. Consideration of MN/DOT proposed cost sharing arrangement on signal
Installation at River Street and Highway 25. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
over a period of several months during the fall of 1988, the Council had
been discussing with MN/DOT the problem that existed at the intersection
of River Street and Highway 25 regarding improper sight distances for
traffic on East River entering Highway 25. As a result of the sight
problems, MN/DOT had proposed a number of alternatives to solve the
problem, including closing off access to East River Street, a median
across Highway 25 to eliminate cross traffic, and other solutions. The
Council did not agree with the closing of River Street; and based on the
concerns of the abutting property owners, insisted that MN/DOT solve the
problem with the installation of signal lights if necessary. Although
reluctant, MN/DOT finally agreed to this solution and began the process
of designing street lights for this intersection.
I have been in touch several times over the past few months with Gerald
Kreutzer, Assistant District Engineer out of Brainerd, regarding the
progress. As you will note, as a temporary solution, a barricade has
been placed at the intersection on East River Street prohibiting traffic
entering Highway 25 from this point. Mr. Kreutzer indicated that the
plans are now completed for the signal construction, and they are in the
r process of bidding the project in early or mid-February. Although I have
not received the set of plans, Mr. Kreutzer indicated they will be mailed
shortly, and along with the plans will be a request for a cost sharing
arrangement with the City in the amount of approximately 12 percent of
the total estimated cost, which is $70,000 to $80,000.
Previously, the Council had indicated to MN/DOT that signals appear to be
the only solution; and it may have been assumed that the entire cost
should be MN/DOT's expense since it was their design error that caused
the problem. I had expected MN/DOT to request some participation from
the City in this construction in the neighborhood of 10 percent, and this
appears to be close to their request. MN/DOT's rationale for requesting
12 percent is as follows. MN/DOT will be applying for 75 percent federal
funding for the signal, and the remaining 25 percent has been their
policy to split between the City and the State. This is where the
12 percent City participation is being requested. Mr. Kreutzer also
indicated, and I also agree with his rationale, that if the design error
had been realized before the bridge project was started in 1985, and a
signal would have been warranted as the only solution, the City would
have been asked to participate in the signal cost in that our city
streets (River Street) intersect with this intersection. As a matter of
fact, the City's participation could even have been a lot higher had the
design error been noted originally, and a 10 percent to 12 percent
participation in the neighborhood of $8,000 to $10,000 may be a
reasonable City cost for this signal.
-21-
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
I am putting this item on the agenda without yet actually receiving the
letter and the formal cost participation agreement due to the fact that
MN/DOT plans on letting the bids in February, prior to our next meeting.
If the agreement is received prior to the agenda being delivered, I will
include it with the agenda package.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to agree to participate in the cost of
the signal construction at the 12 percent level requested by MN/DOT.
Agreeing to this level of participation would ensure that the project
would be bid in February and constructed yet this spring or summer.
I had always expected a MN/DOT request of this nature, and 12 percent
may not be an unreasonable request due to the fact that if the
signals had been part of the original proposal, the City's cost may
have been higher.
2. Agree to enter into a cost participation agreement but at a specific
percentage amount or dollar amount smaller than requested by MN/DOT.
3. Do not agree to any cost participation and inform MN/DOT that the
entire signal cost is expected to be borne by them.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although the staff is not looking for ways of spending City funds
unnecessarily, we can certainly see rationale for MN/DOT's request at a
12 percent level. I understand and concur that if the design error had
been noted during the original planning stages, the City would have been
required to participate at a minimum of 12 percent and possibly more in
the actual signal construction cost. I believe MN/DOT is being
reasonable in their request, although the Council may feel otherwise.
Although MN/DOT representatives would not officially indicate this, if
the City refuses to participate in the construction cost, it's very
possible the signals will still be constructed at entirely the State's
cost. The project would probably be delayed, as the District Office
would again have to affirm through higher levels that the State would pay
the entire cost. If a delay in the construction to agreeable, the
Council could refuse to participate at all; but construction may be
delayed until sometime this fall or in 1990. The option certainly exists
to offer to participate at a set dollar amount or set percentage at any
figure you desire. Mr. Kreutzer did not indicate that MN/DOT would be
agreeable to a lesser figural but it does seem very likely that the
project will proceed even without our participation but possibly be
delayed for a while. Although I have not heard of any complaints
recently regarding the present traffic movement at the intersection, I am
assuming the City Council hao not charged their position in requiring the
signals to be installed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of letter from MN/DOT and cost participation agreement if available.
-22-
4
10
NEsor9
nDo y° Minnesota Department of Transportation
a
x
;F'i'r OF TRP N55 District 9
901 Laurel St.. P.O. Box 978
Brainerd. Minnesota 56401 (218) 828-2460
January 17, 1989 Quality Service Through Individual Commitment
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway, Box 83A
Monticello, MN 55362
In reply refer to:
C.S. 8605-34 (TH 25)
Signal at Jct. TH 25
and River Street
In Monticello
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller:
I am enclosing a copy of the signal plan and a January 6, 1989 request to
our Central Office to prepare a traffic control signal agreement between
the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the city of Monticello. As
we discussed on January 10, the agreement for the signal at River Street
will be similar to Agreement No. 6315T that was executed in September of
1986. The cost estimate for the signal is $80,000 and the city's share will
be approximately 12 percent.
We plan to let the project in February or March. Depending on weather conditions
and materials delivery, we expect the signal to be operational in mid -summer.
It will be necessary for Monticello to pass a resolution approving the agreement
prior to the letting of the contract.
Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely
A4
Gerald N. Kreutzer
Asaistant District Engineer
Enclosures:
Signal Plan
January 6, 1989 Memo
cc:
L. F. McNamara/W. N. Yoerg - 413
Donald L. Raisanen/E. W. McCulloch - Brainerd
GNK/eg All EcualOnporrunrly Employer
DEPARTMENT : Mo/DOT Field Operations Division STATE OF MINNESOTA
Office, Memorandum
DATE : January 6, 1989
To : Tom Campbell - 309
Traffic Engineering
FRom : E. W. McCulloch - Brainerd {fn
D13trict Traffic Engineer
PHONE : 828-2660
sueaECT : S.P. 8605-34 (T.H. 25)
Jet. T.H. 25 6 River Street
I.D. 86030025.0686830
in Monticello - Wright County
REQUEST FOR SIGNAL AGREEMENT
Please prepare a Traffic Control Signal Agreement between the State
of Minnesota, Department of Transportation. and the City of Monticello.
It is our recommendation that the agreement should include the following:
The coat of the traffic control signal system vill be 76% funded
with F.A.P. funds from the Federal Government (FHWA has indicated
that they will consider Handing this project. If not, State will
accept this portion also), 12% funded by the State, and 12% funded
by City of Monticello.
The State will design and perform the inspection.
The City shall install or cause the installation of an adequate electrical
pover supply to the service pole or pad including any necessary, extensions
upon completion of said traffic control signal system.
Upon completion of the contemplated system, the State shall maintain
and keep in repair the traffic control signals. The City's responsibility
shall be to relamp. clean and paint the traffic control signals and
maintain the street lights at its cost and expense.
cc:
Dick Pientka - 309
Ron Bray - Brainerd
EWM:mc
14
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
16. Consideration of participating in the Johnny Elm Seed Program in
Monticello. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Johnny Elm Seed Program is sponsored by the Elm Research Institute,
which is a non-profit organization located in Harrisville, New
Hampshire. The Johnny Elm Seed Program or concept began with a boy scout
from Sebago Lake, Maine, when he first completed a project by surveying
mature Elm trees and providing information to tree owners on protecting
their Elms and planting young disease resistant American Liberty Elms in
his home town.
The memberships in the Elm Research Institute for cities the size of
Monticello cost $200 per year. For the $200, the City receives 100
American Liberty Elms approximately one foot high each. These Elms are
planted in a small nursery and cared for for two to three years. when
they become five to seven feet in height, they are ready for
transplanting to selected locations throughout the city. The trees are
guaranteed for a 10 -year period of time. Although they are disease
resistant, it is possible for them to contact the disease during the
first 10 years. If a tree does contact Dutch Elm Disease, it will be
replaced at no charge from the Elm Research Institute.
The City can operate its own nursery and use these Elm trees to reforest
the city. In many cities across the nation, however, the Boy Scouts get
involved in a community service project whereby the Scouts would operate
a small Liberty Elm nursery and take care of the City's nursery as well.
For this they would be eligible to purchase trees at half cost from the
Elm Research Institute. I have talked to Darrell Tindle, the local Scout
Master for Troop 1270, about the Johnny Elm Seed Project. He has shown
an interest in it, and it is possible that we could work something out
with the Boy Scouts if the City would enter into such a project.
Basically what I am asking the Oouncil to look at is joining the Elm
Research Institute at a cost of $200 per year and to select a small piece
of ground to establish a nursery for these 100 trees we will receive each
year for the next five years. I would then like to discuss with Troop
#270 the possibility of having the Boy Scouts do a community service
project In Monticello and also take care of the trees in our nursery.
Roger Mack will be available at Monday evening's meeting if you have any
questions about the species of tree. fie has discussed it with the Elm
Research Institute of New Haffpehire, and he is in the process of
researching the species further. To date we know of two program
operating in Minnesota; one in the City of Oslo by a Cub Scout Pack, and
one beginning in the City of Plymouth by the Boy Scouts. The program has
been approved by the National Office of Boy Scouts of America and is
slowly beginning to take off in various cities across the nation.
-23-
I
Council Agenda - 1/23/69
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to authorize joining the Elm Research
Institute at an annual cost of $200 per year and pursuing the
possibility of working with the Boy Scouts in a community service
project to utilize American Liberty Elms in the city of Monticello.
We may choose to participate only one year and plant only 100 trees
over the next several years.
2. The second alternative would be not to join the Elm Research
Institute but look at the possibility of purchasing Liberty Elms
directly from some other supplier in a larger size or smaller
quantities as needed. This would preclude us working with the Boy
Scouts on a community service project.
3. The third alternative would be to not look any further into the
possibility of reforestation in the city with American Liberty Elms.
C. STAFF REDDM9ENDATION:
As Public Works Director, I would like the City to look into the
possibility of using the American Elms in reforestation of parts of the
city. I personally like the idea of a variety of species of trees rather
than just the Ash, Locusts, and Maples which we have been planting
recently. If this American Liberty Elm is as disease resistant as
information indicates and is really derived from the American Elm rather
than the Chinese Elm, it could be a tree to benefit the City for years to
core. I, therefore, feel we should continue to look into this program
and join the Elm Research Institute. Roger Mack is continuing hie
research into the tree and will have additional information for Monday
evening's meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the letter to the Boy Scouts of America! Copy of the application
reservation form for Elm Research Institute.
-24-
A program for Cut) Scouts. Boy Scouts, and Explorers
National Office
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
1325 Walnut Hill Lane, Irving. Texas 75038.3096
Telepnone: 214-659-2000
.„OUTING/USA
September 1985
SUBJECT: JOHNNY ELMSEED - A COMMUNITY SERVICE PROJECT
FROM: Camping/Conservation Service, 5214
TO: Scout Executives, Regional Staffs, Division and
Service Directors
PURPOSE:
Provide details of the Johnny Elmseed Proaram to local councils and give
source of additional information.
BACKGROUND:
The concept began when a Scout from Sebago Lake, Maine first completed a
project by surveying mature elm trees, providing information to tree owners on
protecting their trees and planting young disease resistant American Liberty
Elms in his hometown. The Elm Research Institute is a non -.profit research
oraanization that has developed an elm fungicide for mature trees as well as
the new disease resistant strain. The project, as described in rnu ;.:,dcnea
brochure, has been endorsed by .the Conservation Committee and other related
divisions.
DETAILS
The plan calls for a neighporhood survey to find existing elm trees, the
establishment of a small tree nursery and finally the planting of young trees
in public areas around the community. All contacts between a unit and the Elm
Researcn Institute are done directly without the necessity of council staff
involvement. When followed closely, the plan provides excellent Opportunities
to teach community service values. There are potential Life or Eagle services
projects also. The actual planting of trees will generate good picture
opportunities for news releases and give high Scouting visibility. This is a
community Droblem that stirs strong public interest.
ACTION REOUIRED
Announce in council bulletin or newsletter. Request additional copies of the
brochure from ERI for distribution at Roundtables. The contact person at ERI
is Barbara O'Brien. Phone 1-300-FOR-EL14S.
6"A
t
FREEAmerican Liberty Elms
RESERVATION FORM
Our city wishes to accept your offer of bee disease -resistant American elms to help replace the trees we have lost to Dutch elm
disease. We understand a Municipal membership in Elm Research Institute entities us to receive up to 100 American Liberty elms
per year for five years at no charge.
Based on your recommendation of allowing a minimum of 4 sq. h, per tree, we have selected a small plot (20' x 20' or larger)
for our Johnny Emseed nursery. We understand you will ship our first 100 trees in Spring 1989 and by arrangement with Boy
Scouts of America have them planted and cared for without cost to us. After 2.3 years, when they are 5.7 h. they will be ready for
transplanting to selected locations throughout the city. Should we lose a tree to Dutch elm disease, it will be replaced under your
10 -year warranty at no cost to us.
In addition to the 100 free trees per year, we understand our membership entitles the city or any of Its residents or organizations to
purchase additional Liberty elms for our nursery at one-half the regular price; further that the Scouts tending out nursery will
receive one free tree for each one purchased, as their reward for assisting us in this valuable community service prolan.
We are proud to add our name to your list of over 100 Johnny Elmseed Nurseries and enclose our voucher number for Municipal
membership. We understand the first 100 trees to be shipped to us in (March) (April) (May) 1989. Please send us our Johnny
Elmseed Nursery certificate suitable for framing and appropriate public notices which we may post to enlist the aid of our citizens
in this national drive to replant America's most beautiful shade tree.
ELM RESEARCH INSTITUTE I N V 0 I C E
Harrisviiler New Hampshire 03450
1 800 367.3567
rnhn 4i=n
Public Works
T O : 250 E. Broadway
Monticello MN 55362
MUNICIPAL MEMBERSHIP SCHEDULE:
PopuLtwn undn 5,000,.....1200 par y-
5.000-50.01)0 ...................$300 per yaer
50.000.500.000 ................$400 per yen
— 500.000 ...................3500 par yeet
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL
I 1959.89 Elm Rereorrh Mmwe MunklpW M—benhip
C � �
VOUCHER OR P O. NUMBER SIGNA PURE
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
17. Consideration of approving plans and specifications for demolition of
Stelton's and Jones property. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last meeting, the City Council authorized preparation of plans and
specifications for the demolition of the Jones Manufacturing building and
the Stelton's Laundromat building. It is my understanding that Joe
O'Connor will be demolishing his own building based upon the
specifications for the Jones and Stelton buildings. Mr. O'Connor will
have to obtain a demolition permit and provide proper insurance.
The plans and specifications for the demolition of the Jones and Stelton
buildings have been completed. The City staff prepared the plans and
specifications after a complete and thorough examination of the buildings
by Jack Warner, Chief Structural Engineer for OSM. Essentially, the
plans and specifications call for the complete demolition and removal of
the Jones building and the capping of the services in that area, and the
removal of 3/4 of the Stelton's Laundromat building. The east wall of
the Stelton's Laundromat building will remain intact, as it is a double
brick wall which serves as a common party wall for the Mini Mall. An
engineering inspection will be made during the initial demolition to
determine that the wall can stand on its own. The spec's would allow for
a change in the demolition fee should it be necessary to remove or
stabilize the party wall.
After the demolition, the party wall itself will need some attention.
The wall is basically brick with stucco or plaster surfaces In the lower
most portions. The party wall agreement, which will transfer from the
existing owners to the HRA, requires that both parties share in the
maintenance of the wall. Consequently, the wall may have to be plastered
and painted or aided, and the HRA will have to share in those costs.
The bid opening date for the project will be February 10, with the
demolition of the buildings to begin on or about March 1. I have
included the special conditions and the advertisement for bids with your
packages. The remaining general conditions of the plans and
specifications are available at City Hall for your review. We have given
the contractor 30 days to coffplete the work once it begins.
During the initial investigation, Jack Warner recommended that we send
samples of some dust bearing insulation and the linoleum tile from
Stelton's Laundromat to the laboratory for tenting for hazardous
materials such as asbestos. The floor tile in Stelton's Laundromat was
found to contain a small quantity of non -friable asbestos. I spoke with
Dick Schillering of the Technical Assistance Department of OSHA about any
special requirements during demolition. He stated "None are needed," as
the asbestos materials are small in quantity and tied up in the the and
will not move. They can be disposed of with the concrete.
-25-
t. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
L
t
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
1. The first alternative would be to approve plans and specifications
for the demolition of the Jones Manufacturing building and Stelton's
Laundromat and to authorize advertisement for Lids to be reviewed at
the February 13 meeting.
2. The second alternative would be to hold off on the advertisement
and/or modify the plans and specifications as requested by the City
Council.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and HRA that the
City ODuncil approve the plans and specifications and authorize
advertisement for bids. If at the February 13 meeting the Metcalf/Larson
project is not further along, we can delay the award for 30 days and/or
cancel the project at that time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the advertisement and special conditions of plans and
specifications. The remaining portion of the plans and specifications
are available at City Hall due to bulk.
-26-
INVITATION FOR BIDS
JONES MANUFACTURING BUILDING AND
THE STELTONS LAUNDROMAT BUILDING DEMOLITION
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
The City of Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority will receive
sealed bids, in duplicate, at the Monticello City Hall, 250 East Broadway,
until 10:00 a.m., on Friday, February 10, 1989. All bids will be publicly
opened and read aloud.
All proposals shall be inked or typewritten on forms to be supplied by
the City.
Copies of the plans and specifications may be obtained from the
Monticello City Hall at 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota 55362.
A cash receipt, bidders bond, or certified check in the amount of five
percent (58) of the total bid, payable to the City of Monticello, shall
accompany each proposal and shall be forfeited in the event the successful
bidder fails to enter into a contract. The successful bidder will be required
to furnish and pay for a satisfactory performance bond.
Bids will be considered by the Monticello HRA on Monday, February 13,
1989, at 1:30 p.m., and will make the final award. The City reserves the right
to reject any or all bids or to waive any informalities in the bidding.
By the Order of the Monticello Housing
and Redevelopment Authority
Olive Koropchak
Director of Housing and Redevelopment
Authority
t
SECTION II
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
INDEX
2.01
Descriptions
2.02
General Conditions
2.03
Designation of Parties
2.04
Insurance
2.05
Compliance with Laws, Building Codes, and Regulations
2.06
Bonds
2.07
Responsibility for Condition of Structure
2.08
Vacancies
2.09
Examination of Documents
2.10
Examination of Site
2.11
Completion - Liquidated Damages
2.12
Adherence to Specifications in Bidding
2.13
Safety
2.14
Sequence of Work
2.15
Subletting
2.16
Progress of Work
2.17
Clean Up
2.18
Protection
2.19
Salvage of Materials
2.20
Evaluation of Bids
2.21
Approval and Final Acceptance
2.22
Method of Payment
2.23
Permits
C
05
SECTION II
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
-1-
17
2.01
DESCRIPTIONS
a)
These specifications cover the demolition and site preparation of
the Jones Manufacturing building and the Steltons Laundromat
building in Monticello, Minnesota, all as herein specified.
2.02
GENERAL CONDITIONS
a)
The special condition provisions shall supercede the foregoing
General Conditions (Section I) wherever the two are in conflict.
2.03
DESIGNATION OF PARTIES
a)
The word "Owner", "City", and/or "Architect", as used in these
specifications, refers to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
of the City of Monticello, Minnesota.
b)
Where the term "Contractor" appears, it refers to the prime
contractor having direct contact with the owner.
c)
The word "Subcontractor" refers to any individual, firm, or
corporation who has, with the approval of the Owner, contracted
with the Contractor to execute and perform in his stead all or any
part of the contract of which these specifications are a part.
2.04
INSURANCE
a)
No Contractor nor Subcontractor shall commence work under this
contract until he has obtained at his own cost and expense, all
insurance required by this Article, such insurance to be approved
by the Owner and maintained by the contractor until final
completion of the work.
b)
Workman's Compensation Insurance
The Contractor shall take out and maintain for the duration of this
contract statutory Workman's Compensation Insurance and Employee's
Liability Insurance as shall be required under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
c)
Public Liability Insurance
Tne Contractor onali cake out and maintain during the life of this
contract such Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance as
shall protect him from all claims for bodily injury including
accidental death as well as from all claims for property damage
arising from operations under this contract. The minimum limits
which are required are: $500,000 for injuries including accidental
death to any one person, and $1,000,000 for injuries including
accidental death resulting from one accidents Property Damage in
the amount of not lees than $500,000 per accident and the same
amount in the aggregate.
-1-
17
Section II
Special Provisions
d) Automobile Insurance
The Contractor shall carry Automobile Insurance on all automotive
equipment owned, rented, or borrowed in the minimum amounts of
$500,000 for injuries including accidental death to any one person,
and $1,000,000 for injuries including death resulting from any one
accident. This policy must also provide $1,000,000 property damage
coverage.
e) Contractual Liability Insurance
The Contractor agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Owner, the
Engineer, and their agents from every claim, action, cause of
action, liability, damage expense or payment incurred by reasons of
any bodily injury including death, or property damage resulting
from the Contractor's operations on this project.
f) Owner's Protective Liability and Property Damage Insurance
The Contractor shall provide Owner's Protective Liability and
Property Damage Insurance in the name of the Owner, insuring
against bodily injury and property damage liability in the limits
set forth above for which they may become legally obligated to pay
as damages sustained by any persons, caused by accident and arising
out of operations performed for the named insured by independent
contractors and general supervision thereof.
g) Builders Risk -Fire and Extended Coverage Insurance
The Contractor snail procure and maintain in behalf of himself, the
utility, and his subcontractors, insurance against the perils of
fire, extended coverage, vandalism, and malicious mischief.
h) Insurance certificates evidencing that all the above information is
in force with companies acceptable to the Owner and in the amounts
required shall be submitted to the Owner for examination and
approved concurrently with the execution of the contract. In
addition to the normal information provided on the insurance
certificates, they shall specifically provide that:
1) A certificate will not be modified except upon ten days' prior
written notice to the Owner.
2) Coverage is included for blasting, collapse, and underground
hazards.
2.05 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, BUILDING CODES, AND REGULATIONS
a) The bidder is assumed to have made himself familiar with all codes,
state laws, ordinances, and regulations which in any manner affect
those engaged or employed in the work, or the materials or
equipment used in or upon the improvement, or in any way affect the
-2-
0/7
Section II
Special Provisions
-]-
conduct of the work and no plea of misunderstanding will be
considered on account of the ignorance thereof. The provisions of
such codes, laws, or ordinances are deemed to be a part of these
specifications and the Contractor will be bound by the provisions
thereof.
b)
The Contractor shall and also by a Surety agree to indemnify and
save harmless the Owner and all of its officers, agents, and
servants against any claims or liability arising from or based on
the violation of any such law, ordinance, regulation, or decrees,
whether by himself or his employees.
c)
If the Contractor shall discover any provisions in the Contract, or
these specifications or any direction of the City or Inspector
which is contrary to or inconsistent with any such law, ordinance,
regulation, or decree, he shall forthwith report its inconsistence
to the City in writing.
2.06
GUARANTEE BONDS
a)
Before entering into contract, successful bidders must furnish
Surety Company bond in full amount of contract with suitable
penalties provided therein, guaranteeing faithful performance of
contract and payment of all obligations arising thereunder in
accordance with terms thereof. Form of bond and surety thereon
subject to approval of Owner and shall cover work done under
contract for period of twelve (12) months beyond date set shown in
original contract for completion of same. Bond maintained in force
for twelve months after completion of the work and acceptance by
the City. This contractor shall pay premium for bond.
b)
Attention of sureties is particularly directed to following
conditions: final inspection and acceptance of work shown on
drawings and specifications, forming part of contract, shall not be
binding or conclusive upon Owner if it subsequently appears that
Contractor has willfully or fraudulently or through collusion with
any person or persons supplied inferior materials or workmanship,
or has departed from terms of hie contract. In any such case,
Owner shall have right, notwithstanding such final acceptance and
payment, to cause work to be properly performed and satisfactory
material supplied to such extent as in opinion of City may be
necessary to finish work in accordance with drawings and
specifications, at cost or expense of Contractor and sureties on
his bond, and shall have right to recover against the Contractor
and his sureties cost of such work, together with such other
damages as Owner may suffer, and cost of default of Contractor in
premises, as though ouch final acceptance and final payment has not
been made.
-]-
Section II
Special Provisions
2.07
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDITION OF STRUCTURE
a)
Prospective bidders are hereby advised, notified, and warned that
the City of Monticello and its agents, employees, and servants make
no representations as to the conditions of the structures for which
bids are invited, nor any part or portion thereof, nor any
installation therein of any nature whatsoever, and furthermore, the
City takes no responsibility for any change in such structure,
portion thereof, nor any installation of any type whatsoever
therein contained between the time of initial viewing by the
prospective bidder and the entry into a contract between the
successful bidder and the HRA of the City of Monticello.
b)
All bidders are hereby notified and warned that all bidders offer
such bids at their own peril with respect to changes occurring in
such structure or portions thereof, or any installations therein,
and no modifications will be made or permitted by the City or from
the City to the successful bidder in consequence of any change
hereinabove referred to.
2.08
VACANCIES
a)
The premises will be vacated at the time of notice to proceed.
2.09
EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS
Ta)
It shall be the duty of each Contractor to check carefully and
verify all contract documents and report any discrepancies or items
which are not clear as to intent, to the City in ample time so that
corrections may be made without delaying the work or involving
additional expense. No extras will be allowed because of the
Contractor's failure to comply with the above.
2.10
EXAMINATION OF SITE OF WORK
a)
It will be required and expected that each Contractor, before
submitting a proposal for work required under these specifications,
will visit the site, make a thorough examination of conditions,
take all necessary measurements and thoroughly familiarize himself
with all existing conditions and all of the limitations pertaining
to the work herein contemplated.
b)
The submission of a proposal shall be considered assurance that the
Contractor has visited the site and made thorough examination of
the conditions and limitations.
-d-
/7
Section II
Special Provisions
c)
No extras will be allowed because of the Contractor's
misunderstanding as to the amount of work involved, or his lack of
knowledge of any of the conditions pertaining to the work based on
his neglect or failure to visit or make examination of the site or
make thorough examination of the conditions and limitations.
d)
It is also expected that in the event that any of this
specification is not clear or in the event there are any
discrepancies, these will be brought to the attention of the City
and a decision in writing will be rendered as soon as possible by
the City.
2.11
COMPLETION - LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
a)
The Contractor shall commence work within five (5) calendar days
after notification to proceed, and he shall complete the work
within thirty (30) calendar days of such notification.
Notification to proceed should occur on or about March 1, 1989.
b)
From the compensation otherwise to be paid the Contractor the City
may retain a sum of Fifty Dollars 050.001 for each calendar day
that the work remains incomplete after the completion date, which
sum is agreed upon as a proper measure of liquidated damages which
the City will sustain per diem by failure of the Contractor to
complete the work at the stipulated time, and this sum is not to be
construed in any sense as a penalty.
c)
No extension of time will be given for the completion of the work
except for delays authorized by the City. Extension of time will
only be granted upon a written request from the Contractor to the
City.
2.12
ADHERENCE TO SPECIFICATIONS IN BIDDING
a)
Each proposal shall cover all materials and equipment as designated
under the various sections of these specifications with only
alternates as requested. Alternates not specifically asked for
will be considered only at the option of the City. Each bidder
shall adhere to the proposal form provided in the specifications
without changes.
2.13
SAFETY
a)
Each Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to protect
life, limb, and property during the progress of the work and shall
comply with all new and existing safety and health standards and
laws.
-5-
Section II
Special Provisions
b) The Contractor shall use every precaution to protect the public
from personal harm. The Contractor shall erect suitable barriers
to prevent people from falling into holes or being struck by
falling debris.
2.14 SEQUENCE OF WORK
a) The sequence of the work shall be at the option of the Contractor
and subject to the approval of the City of Monticello. Work shall
be carried on simultaneously at as many points as will, in the
judgement of the City, enable the work to be completed safely
within the prescribed time.
2.15 SUBLETTING
a) The Contractor shall submit the names of all subcontractors to the
Owner for approval.
b) These subcontractors shall not be allowed to start work on the job
until such approval has been given.
2.16 PROGRESS OF WORK
i
a) The Contractor shall so organize his work that all trades are
coordinated and that all of the work can be completed with the
least possible conflict on or before the date specified.
2.17 CLEAN UP
a) Upon completion of the work listed herein, the Contractor shall
remove all tools, equipment, scaffolding, debris, and unused
materials from the site and the entire premises shall be left in a
clean and workmanlike manner to the satisfaction of the City of
Monticello.
2.18 PROTECTION
a) This Contractor shall send proper notices, make all necessary
arrangements, and perform all other services required for the care,
protection, and maintenance of all public utilities, including mail
boxes, fire plugs, telephone and telegraph poles and wires, and all
other items of this character on and around the building site
assuming all responsibility and paying all costa for which the City
may be liable.
b) The Contractor shall provide and maintain guard lights at all
barricades, railings, obstructions in the atreeta, roads or
sidewalks, and at all trenches or pits adjacent to public walks or
roads.
-6-
/7
Section II
Special Provisions
2.19
SALVAGE OF MATERIALS
a)
All salvageable materials within the building (except where
specifically noted) at the time of notice to proceed shall become
the property of the Contractor.
2.20
EVALUATION OF BIDS
a)
In evaluating the best bid for the City, the following items will
be considered:
1) Price quoted in the proposal.
2) Qualifications of the Bidder. Evidence shall be furnished to
the City that the bidder has the necessary facilities, ability
and financial resources to perform the work in accordance with
the specifications.
2.21
APPROVAL AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE
a)
Upon the completion of the work herein specified, the Contractor
shall notify the City in writing that the work is ready for final
inspection. After final inspection, the Contractor will be
notified of final acceptance or of additional or corrective work
required for final acceptance.
2.22
METHOD OF PAYMENT
a)
Pull payment will be made within 15 days upon completion and
acceptance of the work.
2.23
PERMITS
a)
The Contractor shall obtain a City demolition permit for the
demolition of the building. The cost of the this permit will be
waived. All other permits regarding transportation or disposal
shall be the Contractor's responsibility.
-%-
C
SECTION III
DEMOLITION
INDEX
3.01
General
3.02
Scope
3.03
Utilities
3.04
Protection
3.05
Site Preparation and Compacted Backfill
3.06
Clean—up
3.07
Disposal Site
L
C
01'-1
L
SECTION III
DEMOLITION
3.01 GENERAL
a) BUILDING DESCRIPTION - JONES MANUFACTURING
BASIC ARCHITECTURAL
STYLE: The subject is both a concrete block and
-1-
0
steel rectangular shaped building on
slab, flat roofed.
Designed to accormeodate a commercial
service business.
ACE/HISTORY:
Constructed in 1948. For the past
several years, the building has been
utilized by a jewelry manufacturer.
SIZE:
24' x 87' - 2,088 sq. ft.
2' x 16' - 32 sq. ft.
Total: 2,120 sq. ft.
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL:
Roof:
Built-up tar and gravel, flat roofed,
concrete and wood planked.
Walls:
Concrete block and steel, with minor
signs of cracking and/or loosening of
grout.
Foundation:
Not visible, but assumed to be poured,
reinforced concrete to below frost grade,
and poured concrete floors.
Doors:
Front entry door is metal framed with
glass. Two service entries on the south,
and one service entry on the north: all
metal doors in wood frames.
Windows:
Class store -front windows on the west.
Four aluminum combination, double -hung
windows on the south, and two aluminum
combination windows on the north.
INTERIOR FINISHES:
Meagre store -front has carpet floors,
panel walls, and an acoustical T -bar
ceiling. Tine remainder of the building
has an asphalt tile or concrete floor,
panel or concrete block walls, and an
acoustical T -bar or unfinished ceiling.
-1-
0
Section III
Demolition
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT:
Heat:
Gas-fired, forced -air heater for the
majority of the building. A wall
furnace, gas-fired, in the rear portion
of the building.
Air Conditioning:
Central air unit - not connected.
Electrical:
Metered services, fluroescent fixtures
throughout.
Plumbing:
One two -fixture restroom, one
three -fixture restroom, 30 -gallon water
heater (gas-fired), supply and waste
lines to city sewer and water.
FUNCTION:
The building functions adequately in its
present condition and layout.
OVERALL CONDITION:
Fair -to -average. Appears that only minor
route maintenance and upkeep have been
performed over the years.
b) BUILDING DESCRIPTION - STELTONS
LAUNDROMAT
GENERAL ARCHITECTURE:
Built in 1910 and remodeled in 1930.
Currently utilized as a laundromat and
dry-cleaning facility.
PLAN:
Simple. Washing machines and dryers
located in front, and dry-cleaning
services located in the rear.
STYLE:
Basically one-story; flat, slightly
eloping roof] concrete block walls.
SIZE:
27.5' x 1061, or 2,915 sq. ft. of gross
building area.
FINISHES:
Floors: Concrete throughout, with some asphalt
tile.
walls: Interior walls are concrete block and
panel. Exterior walls are concrete block
or brick with a plaster or stucco finish
on the interior.
Section III
Demolition
Ceiling, Roof: Ceilings are drywall - unfinished and/or
acoustical T --bar. The roof is slightly
sloping. Appears to be or has been
leaking; water damage through the roof.
The roof is supported with 4 steel "I"
beams tied to the exterior walls and
possibly beams from adjoining buildings.
Windows, Doors: All older single -pane windows in wood
frames. Glass store -front. Front
service door is wood. Rear service entry
is metal with a metal frame.
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT:
Plumbing: A 1/2 bath with water and sewer
connections.
HVAC: Two forced -air natural gas furnaces. No
air-conditioning.
Electrical: Appears to be 200 -amp with various
offshoots.
OVERALL CONDITION: Poor. The physical appearance of the
building and the overall condition of the
property with the water damage (leakage)
indicates that the improvements are near
the end of their economic life. I don't
believe that any repairs to the structure
are economically feasible.
3.02 SCOPE
GENERAL The Monti Truck Repair building will be removed prior to the start
of this contract. The east wall and footings will remain and for
the purposei of this contract shall be considered part of the
Steltons L&Indromat building and shall be removed in its entirety
with the denolition of the laundromat.
a) Work includes the demolition and removal of the existing buildings
as shown on the site plans. This includes all walls (except as
noted), footings, support columns, and floor slabs. The only
exception is the east wall of the Steltons Laundromat building for
the length of the Mini Mall building. In this area the wall is
Section III
Demolition
believed to be double brick but is a common wall and is intended to
be stripped of plumbing, electrical, and miscellaneous brackets,
but left in place. It will be necessary to carefuly cut the beams
at the wall surface and patch and replace brick as necessary where
demolition leaves openings. The chimney shall also remain. It
will be necessary to saw cut the walls at the north and south ends
where they abut the Mini Mall walls to provide a neat appearance.
all damaged block or brick in these areas shall be replaced as
needed by the demolition contractor.
(/)7
At the start of the demolition of the laundromat building, the
contractor shall open the roof along the east edge for inspection
by the engineer. If at any time it is found the wall cannot stand,
needs to be demolished or supported, this work shall be deemed as
extra and shall be performed in accordance with Section 13 of the
General Conditions.
b)
All debris, including rubbish, boilers, furnaces, pumps, brick,
concrete, plaster, wood, wire, glass, steel, pipe, sign
foundations, and other like materials shall be removed from the
site and properly disposed of.
c)
All concrete slabs, curbs, platforms, walks, and drives "within the
pro rt (except the street boulevard sidewalk and curb or other
gsend curbs where noted to be saved) shall be removed.
d)
The Contractor shall have a roofing subcontractor reseal the wall
cap of the Mini Mall building after demolition of the Steltona
Laundromat building at no additional cost.
3.03
VrILITIES
a)
All water services shall be shut off and securely capped at the
curb stop by the Contractor. The Contractor will backfill the
excavation and replace the area with like material as was removed,
if suitable. This work shall be inspected by the City's Sewer and
Water Superintendent prior to backfilling. *Sidewalk removal shall
be limited to only that necessary to accomplish the capping.
b)
The newer services shall be plugged at the property lines. The
disconnected sewer service shall be uncovered at the property line
and there plugged and sealed tightly with an approved bulkhead.
This work shall be inspected by the City'o Sewer and Water
Superintendent prior to backfilling. *Sidewalk removal shall be
limited to only that necessary to accomplish the capping.
• NOTE:
Sidewalk removal necessary for service disconnects will not be
replaced under this contract. The City will make arrangemento for
others to replace the sidewalk. The demolition contractor shall
fill the sidewalk removal areas flush to adjoining walks with
granular fill.
(/)7
Section III
Demolition
c) Electric services will be removed by NSP prior to demolition. The
contractor shall protect cables and poles which serve other
buildings.
The gas service shall be disconnected by North Central Public
Service prior to demolition. A main line does, however, run down
the alley to serve other buildings. This will be located and must
be protected.
e) It is the Contractor's responsibility to properly disconnect and
plug any water, sanitary sewer, or storm sewer services encountered
during demolition which are not shown on the site map.
3.04 PROTECCION
a) The Contractor shall arrange his demolition operation so as not to
damage the following:
1) The boulevard sidewalk. It is anticipated that during south
wall and footing removal some sidewalk may be damaged on the '
boulevard. Any damaged boulevard sidewalks (other than for
service termination) shall be repaired at no additional cost.
e 2) Any or all curbs bordering the property.
3) Street lights.
4) The Mini Mall building. It is anticipated that extreme care
will be used when working near the east wall of the Steltons
Laundromat building. ibis will include some handwork and saw
cutting of block or brick. Any damage to the Mini Mall
building (including the common wall) shall be repaired at no
extra cost.
c) Care shall be taken to control dust by watering*; fire by arranging
for fire control and extinguishers; and to keep passersby from
entering the site, a temporary fence shall encompass the demolition
area once demolition begins.
• NOTE: The ceiling insulation above the sheetrock in the laundromat
building was found to be very dusty. Special care will be needed
for workers and to control the duet from this material.
-5-
,T
r�
Section III
Demolition
d) Fire Protection
1) A 1-1/2 inch hose line shall be connected to the hydrant
nearest the demolition area at all times during demolition.
The hose can be used for dust or fire control. During
freezing weather, the Contractor shall arrange and pay for the
draining of hydrants if necessary by the Water Department upon
completion of each day's demolition work. The Contractor
shall remove ice from sidewalks and streets whenever water
from his dust control operations creates icy conditions within
the street right-of-way.
2) The fire department shall be notified immediately if a fire is
discovered.
3) No material, obstruction, or debris shall be placed or allowed
to accumulate within fifteen (15) feet of any fire hydrant.
All fire hydrants shall be accessible at all times.
4) Whenever a cutting torch or other equipment which might cause
a fire is being used, the Contractor shall keep fire
extinguishers nearby and ready for instant use.
e) Rodent Extermination - The Contractor shall provide inspection of
the butioings ey a professional exterminator, and if deemed
necessaray by this individual shall effectively cause the
extermination of rodents on the included properties before
commencing demolition work. The methods to be used for the
extermination shall be approved by and under the direction of the
Owner. However, the Contractor will not be allowed any additional
time for the completion of the demolition work if slow -acting
poisons are used.
f) The Contractor shall remove all debris from the property over City
approved haul routes.
3.05 SITE PREPARATION AND COMPACTED FILL
a) The site shall be prepared for the fill by removing the ;oundation
walls and floors as indicated in 3.02 a). All miscsllan-ious debris
shall be removed from the interior prior to the fill.
b) The resulting excavations shall then be filled with clean granular
material and compacted in thin lifts at a satisfactory m3isture
content as to achieve a minimum of 958 of standard proctor
density. If required by the City, one compaction test per lift per
4,000 aq ft shall be taken by an approved testing laboratory.
Costs of all required testing shall be borne by the Contractor,
including retesting if necessary.
R
i
Section III
Demolition
c) The fill shall continue to the existing grade and shall be shaped
to meet the adjoining surfaces. Demolition rubble will not be
permitted in the backfill.
3.06 CLEAN OP
a) The site will be left in a clean and level condition, satisfactory
to the City.
3.07 DISPOSAL SITE
The Contractor shall properly dispose of all materials in a state
permitted demolition site.
at
LI
T--
1® Iii ►® M►IM 1C8 (XW ►® La
b
Ov
Lo iff Lo Lim aff
CITY MAP
a iv a Y Ls1tY
4
66 1 _
}(�' Total Site
o�25'
0 Area 3,960 sq. ft. 24'
87' - 30'
Q _
(n 24' Jones' Manufacturing
i P 2,120 sq. ft.
- Locust` 90,
Street 1
i Ria!
P,RCa•
Monti
j Vacant Lot Truck
I Repair
,I
i N i PeOP L',#;
- ite5'
Broadway Street R/W
12
' �7
,\O 13 7
2 S e •, v 12 / J
so
• ,r
• 3T^ ., b to '�..... � ' " 2 S n g
IS tl 1 ' •• MGy
2 ! '•r ,,,.. '9/BTG �"'•,, w'QY-�.... '".,
to
i 1 ��' i„ Si 4 � • 4" T
31
I y
• �.. \ 2 I'S o T
` �,, g I • � 33 � ..v
4
e !t• \C « dw 1 2 rvQ
1� l 9 8 • T` • `� a •, / S ;.�.'//�'j01/
6 !
2 0
talc /7.5'
/s
Total Site
' Area: / -
4,537.5 sq.ft. /
qParking
Stelton's /
`0 Laundromat
165'
and iy
_ \ Dry-Cleanin' /
%
A.
2,915 sq. ft, t
• Monti 106' ti r
■ Vacant Land Truck '■
Repair
/..r
Locust +'
Street a o /
Raw
a
- R
1 - 27.5' /
PROr? l,Na .2
Pao —%kf c7— cuQe
Broadway Street R/W
q12
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
te. Consideration of Township cost sharing arrangement for new aerial ladder
truck as part of Joint Fire Agreement. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the December 12 Council meeting, authorization was granted for the
Joint Fire Board to investigate alternatives, including a separate
agreement, that would cover a cost sharing arrangement between the
Township and the City on the purchase of the new aerial ladder fire
truck. In preparing the estimated 1989 fire department allocation for
Monticello Township, the inclusion of the $280,000 fire truck in the
formula of the Joint Agreement would result in an increase of
approximately $4,700 per year for the Township. The Township
representatives on the Joint Fire Board felt that the ladder truck would
be primarily used within the city limits, and the Township should not
have to contribute towards its initial cost within the formula of the
contract. Recently, Mr. Ted'Holker and Mr. Ken Scadden, Township Board
Members, met with the Joint Fire Board representatives and myself to
discuss the new ladder truck and its use within the township. It was
pointed out to the Township representatives that although the aerial
ladder truck was more costly than a normal pumper, the Township should
view the new truck as being a replacement of an existing pumper the City
owned, and it still has the capabilities of a normal Eire truck. As a
result, there is benefit to the Township even though this pumper would
not be the primary one used within the township under normal situations.
Using this rationale, the Joint Board reviewed the possibility of
including within the Eormula the value of a replacement pumper only,
which was estimated at $150,000, versus the aerial ladder truck at
$280,000. Using this approach, a separate agreement covering the aerial
ladder portion of the truck could be developed between the City and the
Township which would require an additional payment of $125 each time the
ladder truck was used in a situation other than just as a pumper.
Fire department members Morn Flicker, George Liefert, Scott Dougla3, and
myself met with the Township Board on Tuesday, January 17, to review the
discussions held by the Joint Fire Board concerning the inclusion of the
fire truck within the formula as a normal putter replacement valued at
$150,000. I believe at first the Township Board did not realize that the
ladder truck was also a pumper and should be considered as a replacement
vehicle. They appear to be comfortable with inclusion of a normal value
for a pumper truck without the ladder within the formula and agreed to
establish a separate agreement as proposed to cover the use of the added
features ouch as the ladder if it was necessary to Eight a fire within
the township. I also believe this is a reasonable approach for the City
to take in that I believe we all agree the aerial ladder portion of the
truck will be more beneficial within the city limits than in the township
for the near future. I have included with the agenda the estimated cost
for the Township in 1989 under three examples. The cost to the Township
without inclusion of the fire truck wan estimated at $26,471. Including
the total value of the now truck within the fe)rmila would result in an
�f annual payment of $31,208, $4,737 attributable to the new fire truck.
-27-
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
1
-28-
The recommended approach would include a new fire truck valued at
$150,000 resulting in an immediate increase of $2,028 for the truck and a
separate agreement that would call for a $125 payment each time the
aerial ladder is needed within the township.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1\
1. Authorize the Joint Fire Board to establish a separate agreement
p;
covering township use of the aerial ladder portion of the new fire
�i
truck at $125 per time and include $150,000 as a representative value
of a new pumper portion of the truck within the formula.
2. Do not include any portion of the new truck within the formula and do
not authorize its use within the township.
3. Include the total cost of $280,000 in the formula and require the
Township to pay their proportionate share of the total value of the
truck.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the discussions with the Joint Fire Board and at the meeting
with the Township, I believe there is merit in establishing within the
formula a value of $150,000 as a replacement cost for the pumper portion
of the new fire truck. It is certainly reasonable to assume that the
i.
aerial ladder portion of the truck is more necessary within the city
limits than for the township at the present time: and the extra value of
the truck associated with the aerial ladder portion can be covered by a
separate agreement as proposed. Alternative #1 is recommended, as the
Township will pay its fair share of a normal pumper coat of $150,000 and
also provides for additional payments if the added feature of the ladder
is necessary to fight a fire within the township. The idea of not
allowing the fire truck to respond to a township fire would place a
burden on the fire department by not using all available equipment if
necessary and could cause liability problems for both the Township and
the City. The recommended alternative, I believe, is the best compromise
for both parties.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of 1989 estimated Township fire department cost under three options,
Copy of separate agreement recommended.
1
-28-
!f
MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP
ESTIMATED 1989 FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS
*(with the new fire truck - basic pumper valued @ $150,000)
amortized over 25 year life
1989 Operating Costs (budget)
Without capital outlay or Firemen's
Relief
Amortization of Capital Items
(A) Beg. Total 1/1/89 (est.)
PLUS: 1989 budgeted capital outlay
PLUS: New pumper valued @
(B) Bldg. costs 1/1/89
(without land)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS 1989
LESS: Outside est. revenue - 1989
Net est. 1989 costs to be allocated
Monticello Township 6 (est.)
$ 53,975
$192,827
11,950
204, 20 yr. _ $ 10,239
$150,000 25 yr. _ $ 6,000
$577,583 25 yr. _ $ 23,103
$ 93,317
$ (9,000)
$ 84,317
X 33.86
**Addition of a pumper truck valued @ $150,000 instead of aerial ladder truck @
$280,340 results in a $2,028 per year increase.
"Aerial ladder" portion of a new fire truck above base
pumper is $130,340.
Initial costs $130,340
if useful life is 20 yrs. 20
T- yr.
If assumed it was used 52
(1) once a week T-= per time
Could have separate agreement that would indicate a $125 charge if aerial
part of pumper was necessary to be used at a township fire.
ESTIMATED 1989 FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS
(without new fire truck)
r_
l
1989 Operating Casts (Budget)
without capital outlay or
Firemen's Relief
$ 53,975
Amortization of Capital Items:
(A) Beg. total 1-1-89 (est.) $192,827
Pius: '89 budgeted capital outlay 5 11,950
$204,7777 20 yr. -
S 10,239
(8) Building costs - 1-1-89
(without land) $577,583 25 yr. -
S 23,103
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS 1989
$ 87,317
LESS: 1989 est. revenue -
outside calls 5 contracts
$ (91000)
Net estimated 1989 costs to be allocated
$ 78,317
Monticello Township 9 (est.)
X 33.88
ESTIMATED 1989 COST
S 26,471
t
9
MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP
ESTIMATED 1989 FIRE DEPARTMENT, COSTS
(with new fire truck)
1989 Operating Costs (Budget)
without capital outlay or
Firemen's Relief S 53,975
Amortization of Capital Items:
(A) Beg. total 1-1-89 (est.) $473,167
Plus: '89 budgeted capital outlay S 12,950
$48� 20 yr. e $ 24,255
(B) Building costs - 1-1-89
(without land) $577,583 25 yr. m S 23,103
TXAL ESTIMATED COSTS 1969 $101,333
LESS: 1989 est. revenue -
outside calls b contracts $ (9,000)
Net estimated 1989 costs to be allocated $ 92,333
Monticello Township 6 (est.) X 33.86
$ 31,208
•Addition of new truck in formula results in $4,737 more annual coat
to Township.
ADDENDUM 10 THE JOINT FIRE BOARD AGREEMENT
BETWEEN IME TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
Article VII of the Joint Fire Board Agreement authorizes either party to
purchase and pay for capital equipment outside the Agreement, and said property
shall be the exclusive property of the respective governmental unit.
The City of Monticello in 1988 purchased an aerial ladder/pumper vehicle
pursuant to this provision with its own funds in the amount of $280,340 and
agrees to establish a value of $150,000 for the pumper portion of the vehicle
pursuant to Fair Share Formula Provisions of Article V.
The Town of Monticello also hereby agrees to reimburse the City the sum of One
Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($125.00) for each time the "aerial ladder" feature
of this vehicle is used within the Town of Monticello. This amount shall be in
addition to any contributions required by the formula contained in Article V.
The Town shall be billed on a quarterly basis for these charges in addition to
any quarterly payments due under the basic agreement.
The cost of storage, maintenance, and insurance of the fire fighting equipment
noted shall be jointly paid for out of the joint operating fire account.
The dispatching of and/or its equipment features utilized shall be at the
discretion of the Chief of the Fire Department, or authorized fire department
member in charge.
`44. The City shall not be liable to the Township for any loss or damage of any kind
resulting from the failure to provide use of the aerial ladder features of this
vehicle.
This agreement shall expire December 31, 1990, or at an earlier date when, for
a sufficient cause, the City or Town shall notify the other in writing at least
180 days of the desire to terminate the agreement herein.
In testimony whereof, the parties of the agreement have hereunto set their
hands and seals this day of , 1989.
TOWN OF MONTICELLO CITY OF MONfICELLO
Chairperson Mayor
Town Clerk City Administrator
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
(" 19. Consideration of authorizing feasibility study for storm sewer
improvements - Construction 5. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The November 14 City Council minutes read: It was the consensus of the
Council that using tax increment financing for the installation of a
storm sewer was undesirable.
After notifying the developers, Gus and Gary LaFrombotse, of the City
Council's decision, they asked the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to
reconsider their request to use tax increment financing for the
installation of a 60 -inch storm sewer along the easterly 516.51 feet of
Outlot A, Construction 5 Addition, City of Monticello, and for the
installation of a 30 -inch street storm sewer along 285 feet on the
westerly aide of Lauring Lane (northerly border of Outlot A). Mr. Gus
LaPromboise listed his reasons of why this is a good use of tax increment
financing:
1. Increased aesthetic value.
2. Potential of 40-60 jobs.
3. wants to be treated the same as other developers.
4. Benefits to the City were previous extension of Lauring Lane and
donation of park land.
5. Sufficient tax increment to retire the debt service.
6. Local taxpayer =at compere with subsidized rental.
7. Better utilization of land.
8. Increase in local tax base.
9. Potential business expansion of 16 leased bays.
10. Some storm sewer maintenance to City, but not o lot.
11. Not feasible to reduce the project.
The project includes the construction of a 18,180 aq ft office/warehouse
(9 bays for lease), the construction of a 13,900 aq ft office/warehouse
(7 bays for lease), construction of two block mini storage facilities,
one 5,600 aq ft and the other 8,400 sq ft. Total estimated market value
is $1,174,000 with a projected annual tax increment of $46,000.
The HRA reconsidered the use of TIP with the stipulation the developer
will construct the facilities as presented on plan, therefore requesting
the City Council consider authorizing a feasibility study and cost
estimates for the installation of the 60 -inch storm sewer along the
easterly 516.51 feat of Outlot A plus connection to the current storm
sewer under I-94 and the installation of a 30 -inch street storm sewer
along the 285 feet of the west side of Lauring Lane. Estimated coat for
the feasibility study by John eadalich of OSM is 91,200.00
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To authorize the feasibility study for the storm sewer improvemento.
C
-29-
IL
Council Agenda - 1/23/89
2. To deny authorization of the feasibility study for the storm sewer
improvements.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends authorization of the feasibility study to determine the
merit of the storm sewer improvements because the proposed development
plans meet the objectives of the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-30-
r
r
GENERAL FUND -- JANUARY - 1989
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities
2,069.11
26357
Coast to Coast - Supplies for all Depts.
368.20
26358
MN. Conway Fire S Safety - Wrenches for Fire Dept.
78.98
26359
State Building Insp. - Building surcharge - 4th qtr.
1,284.77
26360
Wright County State Bank - FICA due for 4th qtr. - 1988
93.00
26361
Northern States Power - Utilities
6.501.83
26362
Smith 6 Hayes - Legal fees
2,158.34
26363
Monticello Agency - Bond renewal for R. Wolfsteller
50.00
26364
Government Training Service - Reg. fee for S. Anderson
100.00
26365
MN. City Mgmt. Assoc. - Annual membership dues
35.00
26366
MN. Animal Control Assoc. - 1989 dues
20.00
26367
Ziegler, Inc. - New caterpillar
79,500.00
26368
MN. Deputy Reg. Assoc. - 1989 membership dues
140.00
26369
Finance Dept. - 3 - 1989 directories
39.00
26370
MN. GFOA - Membership dues
10.00
26371
PERA - Pera payment
1,437.07
26372
Wright County State Bank - Tax payment
4,851.74
26373
ICMA Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded.
586.17
26374
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
90.04
26375
PERA - Ins. premiums
27.00
26376
MN. Pollution Control Agency - Reg. fee - T. Strande
60.00
26377
MN. Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
1,198.00
26378
MN. Chapter of GRCDA - Reg. fee for J. Simola
35.00
26379
VOID
-0-
26380
Monticello Fire Dept. - Misc. expenses for 1988 - reimb.
468.56
26381
State of MN., NDC - Reg. fee for 0. Koropchak
325.00
26382
Kenneth Shultz - Land payment - 5 acres for water tower
20,000.00
26383
Wright County Treasurer - Sheriff contract payment
12,049.14
26384
Turnquiat Paper Co. - Paper towels for city hall
22.22
26385
Motorola. Inc. - 2 Motorola radios
1,066.00
26386
Hedman Sales 6 Service - Signature block - for K. Maus
190.00
26387
Carrow Trucking - Land fill charges
1,724.80
26388
Latour Construction - Payment 06 - Sewer, lift station, etc.
61,519.37
26389
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax
513.n2
26390
Adam's Pest Control - Library contract payment
42.00
26391
Northern Oxygen Service - Fire Dept. supplies
12.30
26392
Ramier, Gries, etc. - Legal for Rnindnnce Corp.
45.00
26393
Griefnow Sheet Metal - Mtce. Bldg. repairs
26.50
26394
Jeff O'Neill - Mileage expense
262.54
26395
U. S. Postmaster - Postage for mnchine
500.00
26396
Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage allowance for inn.
300.00
26397
Service Master - Clean carpet at city hall
279.00
26398
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded.
210.16
26399
Little Falls Machine - Repair wing post
3,825.00
26400
Copy Duplicating Co. - Library copy machine mtce.
36.00
26401
PSGI - Contract payment for Jan.
22,083.35
26402
Norwest Investments - Computer payment for Jan.
2,407.61
26403
MN. Dept. of Health - Water analysis fee
299.27
26404
MN. Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
611.00
26405
SWC4 - 1989 budget contribution - Cable Comm.
6.636.00
26406
Taylor Land Surveyors - Surveying fees
377.50
26407
Earl Anderson - Signs
388.75
26408
Jim Hatch Sales - Vehicle supplies
413.75
26409
ICMA Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded.
618.88
26410
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
90.04
26411
Monticello Fire Dept. - Salaries
-1-
1,415.22
26412
GENERAL FUND
ICMA - Subscriptions
Principal Mutual - Ins. premiums
AT&T Inf. Systems - Fire phone charges
Local 949 - Union dues
Sylvia Peppers - Animal control reimb.
Olson & Sons Electric - Misc. repairs & inst.
Jerry Hermes - Library janitorial
Patty Salzwedel - Animal control contract
Wright County State Sank - FICA, FWT & Med. W/H
PERA - Pere W/H
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Jan.
TOTAL GENERAL DISBURSEMENTS - JANUARY
AMUUN'r CHECK NO
74.25
26413
6,589.03
26414
3.96
26415
115.00
26416
20.00
26417
3,467.66
26418
227.50
26419
473.00
26420
5,160.33
26421
1,541.91
26422
1,663.98
26423
$258,827.85
J
LIQUOP. FUND
DISBURSEMENTS FOR JANUARY - 1989
Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse.
Grosslein Beverage Co. - Beer
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer
Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer
Pero - Pero W/H
Wright County State Bank - FICA, FWT L Med
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
Pero - Ins. premiums
NCR Corp.- Mtce. agreement for 1989
Coast to Coast - Store expense
Bolles Sanitation - Garbage service
7 Up Bottling Co. - Misc. mdse.
Leifert Trucking - Freight
Quality Wine - Liquor
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse.
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
Principal Mutual Ins. - Ins. premiums
Wright County State Bank - FICA. FWT 6 Med
PERA - Pero W/H
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT- Jan.
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
6
W/H
W/H
AMCUNT
204.32
579.96
11,425.52
10,845.15
13.322.45
184.93
536.80
250.00
9.00
1,672.00
19.32
137.00
197.40
528.52
1,059.13
282.30
329.15
250.00
728.18
590.49
201.28
168.42
3,744.33
JANUARY DISBURSEMENTS - LIQUOR $47,265.65
c
CF—VCR
NO.
14224
14225
14226
14227
14228
14229
14230
14231
14232
14233
14234
14235
14236
14237
14238
14239
14240
14241
14242
14243
14244
14245
14246
ADDITIONAL INFoRMATIDN ITEMS
January 19, 1989
(R.W.)
Fire department personnel have recently requested permission to utilize
the Stelton Laundromat building and Jones Manufacturing building that the
HRA is acquiring for the elderly housing project as a training site
before demolition. They are interested in possibly using the Jones
Manufacturing building for a smoke training exercise and also Stelton's
mainly for experimenting with cutting holes in the roof. In Stelton's
Laundromat, they would not be starting any type of fires but would like
to get experience in cutting holes through the roof in a commercial
building as a training exercise since they normally don't combat
commercial fires. Assuming the timing can be worked out, I see no
problem with this being accomplished unless the Council directs
otherwise.
2. Senior Citizen Lawsuit Update.
The status of the Karen Hanson vs. City of Monticello lawsuit is
progressing, as the City has answered interrogatories and supplied
information requested by Ken Holker, Karen's attorney. The City
insurance carrier has also engaged the law firm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly,
and Lindgren in Minneapolis, who has been working with Tom Hayes, City
Attorney, in regards to this case. Mr. Tracy Eichorn -Hicks, the attorney
for Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, is handling most of the lawsuit at this time.
In consulting with Tom Hayes, it may be necessary for the City Council to
meet in a special closed session with Mr. Hayes and Mr. Eichorn -Hicks for
the purpose of reviewing the lawsuit status and possibly recommendations
from the attorneys on future actions of the City. The attorneys
representing the City may have suggestiono or options the Council may
want to consider in an effort to settle this case or at least provide an
up-to-date suimnary of the activities to date. If all of the Council
members have a few dates that are available for a special closed meeting,
you could let me know on Monday night, and I could try and arrange this
with both attorneys.
)jj7
�i