Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 02-13-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, February 13, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Ken Maus Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 23, 1989. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Public hearing on adoption of proposed assessment roll for 88-07 project. 5. Consideration of resolution approving MN/DOT preliminary plans for improvements to Highway 25 bridge over I-94, including signals and discussion of eastbound rartp. 6. Consideration of resolution certifying assessment roll for 88-07 project to County Auditor. 7. Consideration of single subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted residential lot into two unplatted lots - West Prairie Partners. L B. Consideration of simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2 (heavy industrial) lot into two I-2 lots - Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership. 9. Consideration of approving final subdivision plat - Charles Ritze. 10. Consideration of Cunny Fresh Foods request. 11. Consideration of reimbursement for damage on sewer backup - Den James. 12. Consideration of authorizing the purchase of fire department equipment. 13. Consideration of adopting recycling plan and authorization to prepare RFP. 14. Consideration of authorizing additional clerical staff appointments. 15. Consideration of authorizing establishment of a Section 125 Plan for employee benefit program. 16. Adjournment. MINUTES RE=AR MEETING - MONTICMW CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 23, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Ren Maus, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of minutes. Motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve minutes of the special meeting held December 12, 1988. voting in favor: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, and Dan Blonigen. Ren Maus and Shirley Anderson abstained. Motion carried. Motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Warren Smith to approve minutes of the regular meeting held January,9, 1989. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. None forthcoming. 4. Public Rearing - Proposed modification of the redevelopment plan for Redevelopment Pro)ect #1 twdification of tax increment plans for Districts i-1 through i-9, and adoption of tax increment I1nanCIng Plan for District 1-8. The public hearing was opened. The Economic Development Director reported that the Monticello SRA has contracted with Business Development Services for the purpose of expanding the existing tax increment financing project area and for the purpose of combining individual tax increment district finance plans into one financo plan. vat Pelstring was present and reported that the proposed action to expand the project area and combine finance plans provides the opportunity to utilize tax increment financing to its full potential. The action also identifies project 1-8 which involves the uce of TIF to purchase land associated with the development of the NSP regional service center in Oakwood Industrial Park. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. After discussion, motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Warren Smith to approve a resolution to modify 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. Motion passed unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-2. S. consideration of conditional use Permit and variances to narking and sideyard aetoacx requirements for Temple Baotist Church. Assistant Administrator O'Neill provided Council with background information on the matter and reported that the Planning Commission { recommendod denial of the conditional use permit and associated l variances. O'Neill informed Council that due to the sale of only two of CU Council Minutes - 1/23/89 the four lots formerly associated with the Church, the Temple Baptist congregation has insufficient land area for maintenance of proper side yard setbacks and insufficient land available for parking. It was suggested by O'Neill that the nearby playground parking area could possibly serve as an overflow or joint parking area for the congregation. After O'Neill's presentation, discussion ensued. Councilmember Anderson noted that Lot 3 should not be separated from Lots 1 and 2, especially with the building so close to the lot line (less than one foot). She stressed that this will be the only chance that the Church will have to acquire Lot 3. Dan Blonigen did not support the manner in which the transaction was conducted but noted that it is not up to the City to get involved with business transactions and that the City cost make a decision regarding the conditional use permit without considering the business transaction that led to the need for the variances. Ren Maus and Warren Smith agreed with this position. Pran Pair noted her displeasure with the transaction and suggested that the developers provide the Temple Baptist Congregation with Lot 3. Ken Maus reiterated that we don't want to lose sight that the applicant is Temple Baptist Church, and not the developers and attorneys. Motion by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Warren Smith to approve the conditional use permit request contingent on the following: 1. Applicant shall properly screen the area in accordance with the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2. Temple Baptist Church shall develop hard surfaced parking area within five years and Uie parking area shall contain at least 26 spaces. 3. Dust control of the parking area shall be maintained. 4. A 20 -Foot easement must be acquired from the owner of Lot 3. The motion included a 16 -apace variance to the 42 -space parking requirement. The motion included a variance to the 20 -foot side yard setback requirement associated with operation of a church facility in an R-2 zone. These variances were necessary to allow the applicant the reasonable use of the structure and land available to the applicant. voting in favor of the motion: Ren Maus, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Ran Pair. Opposed: Shirley Anderson. Motion carried. 0-1 Council Minutes - 1/23/89 6. Consideration of request to lease or lease with option to buy old fire hall building - Bruce Langford. Bruce Langford was present to express his interest in the use of the old fire hall as a billiard center. After discussion, the Council directed staff to work with Langford on potential terms of sale. Council indicated that sale of the building is preferrable to a lease agreement. ' Coir C-,,') 7. Consideration of resolution setting a public hearing on adoption of assessment roll - 88-07 Project - Floyd Markling and Monticello Country Club. Jim Agosto, representing the Monticello Country Club, and Jim Metcalf, representing Floyd Markling, indicated they are trying to come to an agreement on the appropriate split of project costs. It was suggested by the City Administrator that the assessment notice to each party indicate five possible assessment amounts as recommended by the City Engineer. The final decision on the assessment formula will then be decided on the the 13th of February, 1989. Motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt a ( resolution setting a public hearing on said assessment roll for 7:30 p.m., February 13, 1989. Motion passed unanimously. t SEE RESOLUTION 89-3 and RESOLUTION 89-4. 8. Consideration of paying for damage on sewer backup - Ben James. Gene Pyle of Fyle's Excavating and Matt Theisen of City staff reviewed circumstances leading to a sewer backup and subsequent damage to property owned by Ben James. Staff informed Council it is difficult to determine if staff action to clear the obstruction in the city sewer line may have contributed to the damage experienced by Mr. James, in addition, the City's insurance company did not view the City as being negligent in this situation. After discussion, staff was directed to present the case to the insurance company again, and to consider negotiating a settlement with Ben James in the event that the insurance company continues to view the City as not being negligent. No formal action was taken on this matter. 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 repiatted lot to have less than the minimum lot width requirement. A replattinq request to replat an existing lot into four townhouse lots and one common area lot. Applicant, Jay Miller/Fairway Court. Cary Anderson reviewed the site plan and noted that vehicular access in and out of the parking spaces in front of townhome 9 and 10 will be difficult. During the discussion, it was suggested that the townhomes be shifted 15 feet to the rear of the lot which would create additional needed space for vehicular movement in the parking area. Council Minutes - 1/23/89 Motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve the variance request to allow a replatted lot to have less than the minimum lot width requirement and approve a replatting request to replat an existing lot into four townhouse lots and one common area lot. Approval is contingent on shifting structures 15 feet to the rear of the lot. Motion passed unanimously. The variance is justified by unique shape of the lot. Denial of variance would deny applicant reasonable use of the property. 10. Consideration of additional salary adjustment for Water Superintendent position. City Administrator Wolfsteller requested that Council consider an additional 28 increase for Matt Theisen in 1989. Be went on to note that when Matt received his recent promotion, it was agreed that he would be considered for a raise at such time that he successfully completes a probation period. It was Administrator Wolfsteller's view that Matt has met and exceeded expectations and that consideration of a 28 increase is appropriate at this time. After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Warren Smith to grant Matt Theisen an additional 2% salary increase in 1989. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Consideration of PSC contract increase at the waste Water Treatment Plant. Public Works Director Simola informed Council that demands placed upon the waste water treatment plant have increased over 20 percent= and in accordance with the City contract with PSG, the contract amount must increase. Simola informed Council that he is satisfied with the documentation and testing associated with determining the extent of the increase demand and recommends that Council approve a change in contract price for PSG 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. After dis,:uasion, motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve the recommended increase. During discussion, Dan Blonigen noted that he is not sure the actual increase in coat to run the plant is fairly represented. voting in favor: Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Ren Maus and Warren Smith. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. Motion carried. 12. Consideration of gambling license renewal - Legion Club. .Ju le—L Motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve eaid-saguest. Motion passed unanimously. Council thanked the Legion Club for the report on expenditures of gambling proceeds. 0 Council Minutes - 1/23/89 13. Consideration of adopting ordinance amendment to cover elected officials under workmen's compensation. Administrator wolfsteller informed Council that an ordinance must be adopted to legally provide Council with this coverage. Dan Blonigen questioned the need for workmen's compensation insurance and asked if insurance was being duplicated. Administrator wolfsteller informed Council that the insurance is not a duplication and that the City has never had a claim. He went on to note that we have been paying the premiums in the past and the coverage is available. He recommended that this policy continue and that the ordinance amendment specifically including elected officials be adopted. After discussion, motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Dan Blonigen to adopt said ordinance and review need for workman's conpensation for City Council from time to time. Motion passed unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 168. 14. Consideration of entering a 1989 maintenance agreement with Wright County Highway Department. Motion by warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt said maintenance agreement. Motion passed unanimously. 15. consideration of MN/DOT Qrogosed cost sharing arrangement on signal installation at River Street and Highway 25. Administrator Wolfateller informed Council that MN/DOT proposes to install signal lights at River Street and Highway 25 and is asking the City to participate in 12 percent of the project costs. Oounciimember Smith noted that 12 percent is a reasonable amount, and to make an effort to avoid contributing to the cost of the solution to the problem created by MN/DOT would not be constructive. Motion made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve in participation of 12 percent of the cost to install said signal lights with City participation not to exceed $9,600. Motion passed unanimously. 16. Consideration of participating in the Johnnv Elm Seed Program in Monticello. Public works Director Simola described the program which Involves cooperative efforts of the local Boy Scout organization, City of Monticello, and the Johnny Elm Seed organization. For $200 the City receives 100 American Liberty Elms, each approximately one foot high. The Boy Scouts plant the trees in a small nursery and care for them for two to three years. when they become five to seven feet in height, they are then ready for planting on city boulevards and parks. After discussion, motion by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Fran Fair to approve City participation in the Johnney Elmseed Program. Motion passed unanimously. Council Minutes - 1/23/89 17. Consideration of approving plans and specifications for demolition of Stelton's and Jones property. After discussion, motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Pair, to approve said plans and specifications. Motion passed unanimously. 18. Consideration of Township cost sharing arrangement for new aerial ladder truck as part of Joint Fire Agreement. Administrator WolEsteller reviewed the formula for cost sharing associated with township use of the new aerial ladder truck. WolEsteller recommended that Council authorize the Joint Fire Hoard to establish a separate agreement covering township use of the aerial ladder portion of the new fire truck at $125 per time and include $150,000 as a representative value of a new pumper portion of the truck within the formula. After discussion, motion by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to adopt said recoammendation. Motion carried unanimously. 19. Consideration of authorizing feasibility study for storm sewer improvements - Construction 5 property. Staff reviewed the request submitted by Construction 5 property which asks for development of a storm sewer in replacement of a drainage ditch I alongside their property. The request stems from the desire to increase parking area associated with the planned development of an office/warehouse facility. Council reviewed the request and suggested that staff review the site plan and parking requirements and attempt to reduce the length of storm sewer necessary to make the project work. Motion by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to table the matter pending collection of additional information. Motion passed unanimously. 20. Approval of bills for the month of January. Motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve bills as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, greeting was adjourned. r/O' t79 11 Adalstant Administrator 0 Council Agenda - 2/13/89 Public hearing on proposed assessment roll for Project 88-07, Golf Course Road sewer and water extensions. AND 6. Consideration of adopting an assessment roll for certification with the County Auditor covering Project 88-07. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACRGROM: At the last Council meeting, a public hearing was scheduled for February 13 to consider adopting an assessment roll pertaining to this project that served Floyd Markling's townhouse development and the Monticello Country Club with sewer and water extensions. Except for some minor restoration work, including sodding and seeding, etc., the total project has been completed at a cost of $62,184.09. It is assumed that the total project cost will be assessed to the two benefiting property owners, and a notice to that effect has been mailed. Previously, the City Engineer, John Badalich, outlined five alternative methods of assessing this project. In each of his methods outlined in the memo of September 22, a proposed assessment for the Country Club could vary between $6,909 to a high of $51,129. For Mr. Markling's development, the assessment could vary between $11,054 to a high of $55,274. Although all of the assessment methods proposed Dy the Engineer have merit, Mr. Badalich recommended method p5, which would result in an assessment for the Country Club of $23,844.09, and Mr. Markling's development, $38,340.00. This is approximately a 62-388 ratio. Typically, the notice of the assessment hearing includes the proposed assessment for each parcel; but in this particular situation, I have informed both parties of five possible assessments that will be discussed by the Council for consideration. In the meantime, Mr. Markling's attorney, Jim Metcalf, and the Country Club's representative, Jim Agosto, have indicated they will be pursuing a mutual agreement on an appropriate assessment split. If this information is available for the public hearing, the Council may wish to receive their input if the two parties have agreed to a cost sharing arrangement. If no agreement is made, it will be up to the Council to indicate to each party what the assessment will be. After the close of the public hearing, the Council can adopt the resolution certifying the assessment roll for the County Auditor to collect starting in 1990. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to adopt the resolution assessing the benefiting property owners according to the recommendation of the City Engineer. Thin would result in the Country Club receiving a $23,844.09 assessment, with the balance of $38,340 being assessed to Mr. Markling'a development. Council Agenda - 2/13/89 2. If the two benefiting property owners are agreeable to some other type of allocation, the Council could adopt the assessment roll based on this information. 3. Do not adopt the assessment roll. This does not seem to be a reasonable alternative in that the City has to adopt some type of assessment roll if it expects to cover its cost. C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION: I am somewhat reluctant to prepare an assessment roll regarding benefits to a property owner without using some form of established assessment method. By this I mean, the assessment roll should be established on units or front footage or some formula that coincides with our assessment ordinance. In this case, I believe the Engineer's recommendation is based on an average cost per front footage for both water and sewer and relating this to the number of units being served within the townhouse development. Although the Country Club at the present time may not be a major user of sanitary sewer or water, the Council should take into consideration that the Country Club could expand its facilities, including additional dining areas and the possibility does exist that there may be sufficient land for the Country Club in the future to develop their own townhouse sites on their property. As a result, it does seem appropriate to assume the Country Club property does benefit more than only 1/9th of the total project cost. Lacking a better method of assessing, I am inclined to go along with the City Engineer's recommended method of assessment. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of September 22 letter from OSMI Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll[ Proposed assessments for each parcel under five different methods. -2- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WRIGHT ---------------------------------------- The Monticello Country Club, Inc., Appellant, VS. City of Monticello, Respondent. ---------------------------------------- DISTRICT COURT TEN1H JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OBJECTION TO CITY OF MONTICELLO TO: CLERK OF THE CITY OF MONTICEl1A; CITY ADMINISTRATOR OF TtIE CITY OF MONTICE" , MONTICELID, MINNESOTA 55362. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Monticello Country Club, appellant above named, objects to a proposed assessment by the Monticello City Council on February 13, 1989, against appellant for improvement of sanitary sewer and water main extensions find appurtenant work from Golf Course Road to subject property based on Assessment Roll: Method # 4 $51,129.14 Method # 5 $23,844.09 APPELLANT objects to inequitable apportionment of assessment costs between benefited property owners in Methods +4E4 and 0. Further, appellant objects to assessment exceeding the benefit of the improvement to the property. FURTliER, you are hereby requested to provide appellant or his attorney herein with a certified copy of all objections filed in said assessment proceedings, the assessment roll, and all papers necessary to present an appeal to District Court of the Tenth Judicial District. Dated: February 13, 1989 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLENT: James P. Agosto Agosto Itiw Office J �. 142 West Broadway, P.O. Box 896 t, Monticello, MN 55362 / PT JnmeI l'. A•o¢to�'245-4004 Atto ney R�gis[ration#632 01 September 22, 1988 Mr. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway PO Box 83A Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Floyd Markling Property Dear Jeff: Orr Schelen 1 Maveran& = L- Assooauxlnc 2021 Fast Mennee'n Avenue Min neap011S, MN 55413 612.311-SbbO FAX 331.3806 Engineers sumevom Planners 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 Roaa 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 co=on property line of the Markling property and the Country Club property. 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 -sec 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 $8,880. 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 149,595 for Markling's property, or $6.200 per parcel and $8,265 plus $4,300 equals $12,565 assessable cost to the Country Club. c 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 MPCA. 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, 1 believe, is unreasonable. Therefore, in summary, you see we can arrive at a wide and varidble 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 a foot. Monticello's minimum lot 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. i 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. ORR-SCNEIEN-MAYERON ASSOCIATES, INC. �r hn P. Badalich, P.E. ice President JPB/lmt �- �, �4 � �`� �° � � RESOLUTION 89— RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included and hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1991, and shall bear interest at the rate of 9 percent annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment for the date of this resolution until December 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on ouch property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution] and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment of the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax liets of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the Council this 13th day of February, 1989. Mayor City Aomintotrator v PROJECT 88-07 (Markling 6 Country Club) Markling Country Club Method ;1 $55,274.72 $ 6,909.34 Method ¢2 $53,300.65 $ 8,883.44 Method 03 $49,222.25 $12,961.84 Method ;4 $11,054.95 $51,129.14 Method 05• $38,340.00 $23,844.09 *Method recommended by City Engineer. D* Council Agenda - 2/13/89 Consideration of resolution approving MN/DOT preliminary plans for improvements to Highway 25 bridge over I-94, including signals and discussion of eastbound ramp. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Gary Dlrlam and Tony Kempenich of MN/DOT will be present at the Council meeting to review and present the preliminary plans for reconstruction of the Highway 25, I-94 bridge widening and signal project being planned for the summer of 1989. As MN/DOT indicated previously, plans are to start construction possibly this June for widening the Highway 25 bridge into five lanes and the installation of signals at both ramp points to better control the flow of traffic. When MN/DOT began consideration of upgrading the bridge, they looked at the possibility of creating a rasp off of southbound Highway 25 for eastbound traffic on I-94. Their preliminary drawings indicated that a majority of the commuter parking lot would be needed to construct such a ramp and problems existed with the location of the off -rasp from eastbound 94 to Highway 25. Tony Kempenich indicated that they had submitted this proposal to St. Paul officials who first thought the problems of right-of-way acquisition may limit the ability to construct such a ramps and also indicated that even if this type of project was considered in the future, no construction would or could probably be started any sooner than 1994. Even in 1994 at the earliest, this project would have Lo compete wish other areas on a need basis; and there would he no guarantee that the project would even be funded then. As a result, St. Paul officials recommended that MN/DOT consider the installation of traffic signals at both ramp points on either side of the bridge and widening the bridge, which should take care of the traffic flow for at least 10-20 years. MN/DOT officials were concerned of widening the bridge to five lanes without the installation of traffic signals could cause more problems in traffic trying to cross three lanes of traffic. Although I believe MN/DOT has not ruled out the possibility of a clover leaf type design Dome day in the future, this could be 10-20 years away, depending on the traffic need at that time. As a result, they strongly indicated their support in the City continuing to use the parcel of land as a commuter parking lot, as if a ramp is ever constructed, this right-of-way would be necessary. This is not to say that MN/DOT would never consider a clover leaf design 20 years or more in the future. If the commuter lot was developed, it just creates an additional problem that would have to be rectified by additional purchase of private property. At a previous Council meeting, the City approved entering into a cooperative agreement with MN/DOT for the installation of the traffic signals at River Street and Highway 251 and it is MN/DOT's intent to bid those signals with this bridge project and related signals at the name time in early April 1989. This would result in construction starting the first or middle of June1 and it to expected that the project would be completed yet thin fall. -3- Council Agenda - 2/13/89 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. After a review of the preliminary plans for the bridge widening and signal installation, the Council can adopt the resolution approving the preliminary plans and thus allowing tot/DOT to proceed with the bidding. 2. If the Council has a problem with the designs as proposed, they could delay action on the resolution which may delay any project for an indefinite period of time. 3. Council could indicate support for the bridge widening portion of the project but deny support for signal installation and request ramp construction be part of the project. This alternative seems inappropriate at this time since it is apparent that the ramp would not be constructed any sooner than the year 1994 and more than likely later than that. In the meantime, traffic congestion will only get worse if the City waits another 5-10 years before any improvements are made. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the preliminary design layout for widening the bridge and the installation of traffic signals be approved to allow MN/DOT to proceed with its bidding procedures. The staff is not convinced at this point that the City should be considering relocating its commuter parking lot unless the Council is convinced that at no time in the future (10-20 years) would the City be interested in a clover leaf ranp for eastbound I-94. If the Council feels this option should be kept available, it seems prudent to hang on to the commuter parking lot, making it easier for MN/DOT to design a clover leaf in the future. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A partial copy of bridge widening plant Copy of resolution approving preliminary layout design. -4- PLANNED CONSTRUCTION Mo ADT", /7,5,70 t" .tvr . 3L, soo - . In RAMP E �• \\ •. \• t '., _ ti ": .=1:. :. � _' moi. _ 570SB 1 't .r i- Y �' 7r die 4..Iri-.'': i�i.•n['1 1, I I ��. `570 -' -W.N 11 t Fe a- ,0 t ': i.•r7 ;� .,ift. I�j` Aii, b�r.-,, 'yam '� 'C • .:r. �1' .. �PfQo���,.3�'•.Sso': `��;to.i- _ -,,. •� ter'.-.:..' �•.. ; ;_. '' - • , ,': , , . �. . MP O. ,• :,'. 1•f•1,: i:.' 1.'i % •r�' �,t••. , :. J. ': ..' �i.ptot� � ...j.'�•� — 1'}•i.'1 h•�I 1�, 1•, .'•. ''^ • U 34, PLb 'Y� ;. {� �l' ' ,. •-: •L t �.�., •,_ S y/t•�1'1 •., i^h�.d• , '' ��p.'��'tr'..� �?�Qe,.ti! �• .. , � .� ,, '14' li' Ir"'yt� 6 ,I 14' . ' � 14' •�` �� � •h '�. •',1 • ' , _ �• ::. �: j�•t" -t-.•TAT �^ I'.. w` r .�Jt�• ,. ... ... r. .� •� 1�:', .,f•,�'��'a"^'Y �.�.: .. i. .._ ;/: •7 i'9�,.;•�a: "' 1 Jl•'J1'f' . .. •:I"ls. ..a'J.:,��`f�Z�.�`', ,.:, ;r. .rsL 4..A.;k-wig-i-Ito,, 10..A•rj111+f.d ^'�'. ..a.'-.n. ,l2•."• �.. _. ��~�W l/tO 1• •fir ._.,�_. R E S O L U T I O N FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL At a meeting of the City Council of the City of Monticello, held on the day of , 1988, the following Resolution me. offered by soconded by , to alt' WHEREAS the Comm1941oner of the Department of Transportation hew prepared a preliminary layout for the Improvement of a part of Trunk Highway Number 792 renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 94 within the corporate limits of the City of Monticello, at T.H. 23; and seeks the approval thereof, and WHEREAS said preliminary layouts are on file In the Office of the Department of Traneportatlon, Saint Paul, Minnesota, being marked, labeled, and identified an Layout No. I S.P. 6680-I10 (94-792) at T.N. IS. NOW, THEM, BE IT RESOLVED that sold preliminary layouts for the Improvement of aAid Trunk Highway with the corporate limit• be and hereby are approved. Upon Na call of the roll the following Council Members voted In favor of the Resolution The following Council members voted against It■ •doptiont whereupon the Mayor and/of the preslding officer declared the Resolution adopted. Dated . 1988 N.Y., Attest City Clark STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WRIGHT CITY OF MONTICELLO > I do hereby certify that at told r4tlna (of which due and 149.1 smile* was given) of the City C.... 11 of Montlrlle. Mlnm.. eta, mm the _ day of 1988, at which a eta Jorlty of the umber of amid Coupe 11 .4f. present, the I ... got.$ rselullne .as adopted. Div.. undo, my hand and .-I this day of , 1988. City L[.,a RW141de.R1 l./ Council Agenda - 2/13/89 7. Public Rearing - A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted residential lot into two unplatted residential lots. Applicant, West prairie Partners. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: West Prairie Partners requests a simple subdivision which calls for dividing the property previously arced by the Temple Baptist Church congregation into two lots. The structure that remains will occupy a property area equal to a standard residential lot (12,000 sq ft). The area that remains will be developed at some time in the future. Staff and the BRA will be working with the developer to establish a housing plan that incorporates the entire area. At this time our focus is on development of R-2 densities as dictated by the zoning for the area. At the recent meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission recommended approval of the simple subdivision, as the request meets all requirements as identified by the City Ordinance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve simple subdivision request. 7.. Motion to deny simple subdivision request. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval is recommended, as the proposed subdivision creates two lots that both meet minimum requirements. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map outlining proposed subdivision. -5- CFO ti . �,��'• �„'� ,,� J9 ,jl��i 'amu 3"�� \ :AMVE1«O1 o if •� j rr�.m �,'a s�ivin C.' Council Agenda - 2/13/89 8. Consideration of simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2 (heavy industrial) lot into two I-2 lots - Oaxw000 Industrial Park Partnership. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership is proposing to subdivide Block 1, Lot 6, Oakwood Industrial Park Addition, in the city of Monticello. The proposed lot, when split as noted on the enclosed plan as Parcel B, will contain approximately 2 acres. The minimum lot area under I-2 zoning is 30,000 sq ft of lot area. Parcel B lot width on the south side is in excess of the minimum lot width required, which is 100 feet. As you will note on the enclosed site plan, there are some existing drainage and utility easements which we would like to have changed and incorporated as shown on the enclosed site plan. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the staple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2 (heavy industrial) lot into two industrial lots. 2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing 1-2 (heavy industrial) lot into two industrial lots. 3. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2 (heavy industrial) lot into two industrial lots with the following conditions: 1) The drainage and utility legal descriptions be drafted and recorded as shown on the enclosed drainage and utility easement plan. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed lot to be subdivided known as Parcel B and the other existing part of this lot known as Parcel A do meet or exceed the minimum lot area and lot width as required under I-2 (heavy industrial) zoning. The applicants should have legal descriptions prepared for the drainage and utility easements and have them recorded as shown on the enclosed drainage and utility easement plan. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed subdivision requests Copy of the site plan for the simple subdivision requests Copy of the drainage and utility casement plan for this simple subdivision request. -6- moi: t 7 �•� `1 R;'(�(/47�T7 �:an,'J]t• J' '"'w ...... p �T C j • , � � .�( �t y` ♦ r. , 'tea `�c � -17 71, t //ISN �I .1'.. Wqy �pJ 9 G� a sexist subdivisi i iyidros �� 7 • o• : an existing I.2 (has trial ! o +t •. r'r�*// into tvo industrial to I 1 t r .- akvood Industrial DTV ark Np 94 J t _ -•��� , ` , Mfrs �� � a G . .- .! i �;.3^' .Y:� :iT•. �;tl.r':.=r ��; Qp u�i:.L „"^. L_]t...4 :4: ••' -, i,:,,,�. .. - , F / 1 ✓. rites .otter � t\, Q ,�^ f. r, _`A::%w.;; ::•"^' �Id: npt:�i•�p s.`. :r. - - tj i ar :F:+r.:»:_' � :: ' ) � „1 % " r.:'•i y'`S,•q•' a rr!'rt �"•'•"� .: ♦;; - I • C •.I' "'':y'�:'•- :, �• `�j,: . 6,' t;{�i: ;:=� „� �l �P 'I t__ ^''•.. fiR• } _t,�^.st.:��y';;'.,•,, .,•1.+1.111 i ♦. _.4t+ "y j'1'$.;:' rf 4r• g. -,.r. .�,•-f_t-tw tii;`t �,` - '' I" � '^"-:.i•_�t caw'j• • r _ `t i:•.a--..:.-i*:* �= : a fi;�a ` .; •.. - • •ao . �','.. :� : ria: .. `v p. .S.ems:,•.; � .� fel to ,.+.. r'.v :� rr.. r�.ai'`. .- r-♦.-.r._i.:;y�iw "v-r• y t.';^t1 � •;•� 4�:� �• '4�1i:i4 i1'.,• .7: fir• �. I.i/•►IAS � •,�y;' `•71...: '.....'..'..'^.: ..i: a-• 'i:i_ �tt..a._:�'9''. 1... c.,:±.:.:. 'r:-t v� '. '- t,.,:r^.•s:.\;;. .t� • v-t' i i.- �.{'. _ �."�-"'• ti•z: +r::-t"'=i:.� 2 a..:.i -i,s• _:t �vr_`F''ir:s3- :.5:- r 1 4 a. .-v 'Y...•-+s -w J t"-S ,r -• ,•� {s,3:2: .y. .•.''y"it,'.."3.: riaoiaia Pise an. i -o �•yV /,..1• ;�t,I.•L .Lt;q+i`h:•rr.r.�ii zu, :.1. ti.:7.r'• �•4'- •r•,::.:: iia}.,... .•!. ♦ r'. r.� �,,.F..y .ice 0. •:•fol. ♦ _ "�i•°�- 11 __ d ,.o v;`i.oa •fit^: ahmew o ' y.j;.. -ai-2',�:' atFF;�, x� 'd.;-}, :ct--. « � • v.' 'I 'i ti' +r' ^-�.``� -'�. 'itn.iie=ia s r :.t•,: y •�r��},,� -#_�� ,c` ��.," e � �-„r•. ,i,•. _� :t'. �, �...�-"' ` �d:rt s, L»+�Cr!t �� f :�w. .c _dlr%� :i +A77• � .� .,.: _,i`."., l •s_ fet% ¢e i+ ,ts�i'1:�:�t;. ��f •,3M�`_atry ,1. � .a: e+••••"��.�Y""t'+-it�-` y�+*,�'�. �, Si o' 4ti� r,. sx.-�asv. teg6nd:`r..�-,•':'• �a. iM: +.• +w• i''t? i.'7t: uvY,t`7wr*MrtT+,�� »; ^.t.','.`•-r.t' ^7:i w a. .IG!•?4rtR• .TJ'�•T..ii la 4ei'fl ahr. 5 s.`Yt.; r.•ei}..r,.,. rjl:•°?: , d': 4�t:!- � •.1,� •' �. � ��"i =.E t. ',�.-.r'a^�, :,. 4 NrY 4V M"+•• a ham. t1Nw'.-, �..{f1b'C- ♦ 6tit anti i[e33t ,t ;lir: .7 ::_.r.., .,�,,.`Sy»,'"'-'�:,...•'z.-. ,.:0�� •�.-L�•:::1. �..:a ..�iaV.�iCr6G,`BT• .3 .t•� 11:7'' 1 -" .:'l /ni Pi1np • t•nc 1 •, - :r.:"S. .,t-�.`�»?u:'�:`i .n:a.. �':„ a t� r.-.:,�ewis... �_ -'� ...:"��ti�: amt.. Qf tet.ot •u' .. t t• . ± _ 1 1{ Y aanrawi sa `o0nc I C `' . r I4 siPlmm�p. i nt. 1 yy j gi '••r.cortl. • '*'•"- '� '` r ti Thaa Pers Qt Lot ' � / tY anw riGerQitl i j t• tel tQ�al earl i n{ aV f 1:[.111111t1 1111tn. •ri t.MY✓IY (+uY I(!I+" Me! %ul Ir A \ � f•rt! inincw 4eV }'a. --(u P0- � � t♦fl lnea .ef :)A.. ... !� .. _�C'ySr a�(,•/fidt urr _... �.,.�.:.. 1 i en ♦ e..rinp al f �. 'w-! .i •t/• t � tart! ansn:♦ taa �f�y��rn•+r•�1�_�•M ' Ny t �y� Vi} •rntlal Intl+ :1 t � •"'....._..�3. '+"".. ♦ � 1 .eyyryi 4. 3ti ♦�� rUa,.i ♦,rF♦• . ft J TGYLCR LAND SURVEYC Sit wCrr WOAC�. PO Soy AMTIC&=. ~93M 3336. P -ow fell) 1".33810 ft J Council Agenda - 2/13/89 Consideration of approving final subdivision plat - Charles Ritze. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Charles Ritze is back before you with his final plat for his proposed new subdivision plat to be known as Ritze Manor Second Addition. The one change that you will note on the final plat that is different from the preliminary plat is that they have created an Outlet A to take care of the land area in dispute between Mr. Charles Ritze and his neighbor to the north, Mr. Reinhold Yager. we end up with 25 feet of lot width at the public right-of-way to come into the property known as Lot 1. This is a rather unique configuration of this lot without sufficient lot width at the public right-of-way. The development or the use of this residential property is rather limited for residential use. The existing hard surface for Hilltop Drive is extended approximately 10-12 feet into this 25 feet of lot width at the public right-of-way, Hilltop Drive. The applicant, or a developer/builder, will be responsible for petitioning to the City to extend the hard surfacing of Hilltop Drive to the easterly portion of this 25 feet of lot width. Such costs of the road hard surfacing extension are to be paid for by the applicant and/or the builder/developer of this Lot 1 prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a proposed new house on this lot. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the final plat request for a proposed new subdivision plat. 2. Deny the final plat request for a proposed new subdivision plat. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Outlet A was created to minimize the dispute between the two property owners, Mr. Charles Ritze and Mr. Reinhold Yager, as kind of a compromise. with the unique configuration of this lot, the developer, Mr. Ritze, is pretty much limited to the use of this residential property. The 25 feet of lot width on the public right-of-way will accommodate ingress and egress to the property line to Lot 1 and still be within the setbacks needed on either side of the lot line to accommodate a hard surfaced driveway into Lot 1. Any costs for extension of the existing Hilltop Drive hard surfaced roadway shall be paid for by the applicant and/or the developer/builder prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a proposed new house to be built on Lot 1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed final plat request; Copy of the final plat for the Ritze Manor Second Addition. -7- , '' � 1\ tart plat Aeviaua°g a°p=OSad neY subdivislOn r plat- tiit"-a. cjtarlas t ..... y� ' \\ \ rjr v T �.\ xt 7"; "__,:�+�'�k�•••t^�: �• [ ••_ �i� _ _ `� a� � 1 • S' ! ' ji' t��, 1' J,�•.ti,.. `� ' ... �'h\, / �; ��,''•"ir"1�yr,•. :w.'. �j��f, Ik,yi,,,,,, _ ,t•.'���' '4+.r',�:"�J•��J._-�'i�:tt� r, i f.�•.'."`�+•'"^,•1,,,,,� �`�,•�''v (`�\� �a , /����4. 114"�� Y!•^ ,; �'��'�• tK:' �'.aiy�"•]t r�•,.�'��� �J •7 . ` J } 1 '•"N" , . :.Yvve,+++....JJJi ,j r-"�.a^'.-;; {i,"::!,';"'� � V ,�olp, t'}'i',rr•• = '".� .' r• ',.ter. .., }. +`^S•i.-�.� t K �,. •;J�w �'r. n!1,,�,r�,��1.� �\r'f.7�.� �i'".��. •t , v�lty 4i�}3'''i 'f'J,�y,+�i'.•{� •. it��l,•/� .i S•�.r. •�1'�• �r•� � .}[ilii+{'?'�".�i � j"''•�`i' r ' + roar+ av! Y r..++ rr'YJ riff ' _,_ r " N9B•i3.7B'E 3/260 - - V z A _ wo .I)IO —tee -y '•.' i OUTLO.T _.�,�1.•!�d Ysrra•_ � �s • �- s;'? l� � . a[ A r•q�-- MI!'N•rl�d NY 1l MIr'Y! I y' • '— yd�YD 71� ` ar ISYN a.r � 'sig � r���', rL J �': ,`c�.; * r.;.., Cij���:�}_�'•; �ii:�•....t.... ta;;��:.. � � ���;,�: \�•:^;•_ir;-' � _ :.c.' - _- f•� ' � � .... "_"... ..� .i .,. �► Y • •• 3' ._. - •... , ..' "tel �i..��„t•ru. pirzf BLOCK ONE i ;3 IN r INc9\ IN u �J a� council Agenda - 2/13/89 10. Consideration of Sunny Fresh Foods request. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On Monday evening, January 16, 1989, I received a call from the night shift foreman at Sunny Fresh indicating the presence of some small specks in the water at Sunny Fresh. The foreman had noticed some tiny specks on the pure white eggs during their washing or cooling process. Although the quantity was very small, the eggs had to be pulled, as they were not marketable with the specks on them. The Water Superintendent checked out the water at Sunny Fresh that evening and found no additional problems. The following morning, particles again appeared; and upon further checking, we found that there were, indeed, some minute particles in the water coming into the Sunny Fresh building. The particles appeared to be specks of iron or manganese. The Water Department then proceeded to flush the mains in the downtown area, which alleviated the problem. The specks in the water at Sunny Fresh are an extremely rare occurrence. To my knowledge, there has only been one other time in the last ten years that this has occurred, and it was during the winter. Although we have no positive proof as to what caused the specks in the water, the following gives the most likely cause of the problem. All of the water mains north of Sunny Fresh in the downtown area are of old vintage. They are cast iron mains with no cement coating and have been in the ground since at least the 1940'x, many decades before the City began treating the water with polyphosphates to hold the iron and manganese in suspension. These pipes most likely have a build-up of rust and scale, as well as particles of iron and manganese encrusted to the inside surface. These materials are firmly embedded to the pipe surface and generally will not dislodge during normal conditions. In the wintertime, however, the frost plays an important part in the bedding of the pipe. As frost moves down, the cast iron mains are subjected to changes in temperature, as well as possible movement from the freezing of the soil above. As this occurs, the pipe is sometimes jarred which causes some of this material to break loose. Exactly where this occurs is unknown. The problem with this area is that Sunny Fresh uses approximately 1/3 of all the water being used in the entire city during the winter months. Therefore, during the wintertime they pull extremely large amounts of water through the old small diameter pipes in the downtown area. If some type of shock occurs to loosen some particles, even several blocks away, the enormous draw from Sunny Fresh will pull those particles toward their service. This is the moat likely cause of the specks. To alleviate this problem from occurring in the future, Sunny Fresh has installed pre-filtere in the areas where the specks, if they occur, could present a problem to their products. Although Sunny Fresh has not given us a written indication as to the cost, previous discussions indicate they spent in the neighborhood of $4,000 and have some continuing lease costa associated with the filters. -8- Council Agenda - 2/13/89 In researching this problem, I spoke with James Plahn of the Minnesota Rural Water Association of which the City is a member. Jim indicated it is almost impossible to guarantee the purest quality of water in municipal systems. The possibility of some rust particles or iron or manganese being in the water is possible in most systems throughout Minnesota. These particles in no way affect the safety of the drinking water and go unnoticed unless higher qualities of water are needed. To check into this further, I discussed our problem with Mark Daleider from Feedrite, the firm that supplies all our drinking water treatment chemicals. Mark indicated that he felt it was somewhat common that food processing facilities use some type of filters in areas where water quality is critical. He gave a case in point such as the Gold'N Plump processing facility in Cold Spring, Minnesota. Their plant was experiencing specks of rust, iron, or manganese in the water which was getting onto the white meat on the chicken; and the meat was being rejected by the Health Department. in this case, Gold'N Plump installed final filters just before the washing area and took care of the problem. What is significant about this case is that GO W N Plump has their own well and still found it necessary to filter the water in critical areas. It may not be possible to entirely remedy the situation without filters, but there are a couple of things that the City could do. We could undertake a major mechanical cleaning of the old water main lines in the entire downtown area. In order to do this, it would necessitate shutting down much of the town to install "pig" launching and retrieval devices at various locations. A pig is a pneumatic device which is propelled through the water mains to remove some of the materials which are not entirely fused to the sides of the pipe. Once this is done, the pipe should remain free of problems for several years in the future, but there is no guarantee that something m uldn't still slough off of the side of a pipe during a frost heave, etc. In addition, this would be extremely costly and would disrupt water service for much of the community for many weeks. Another alternative that we could look at to lessen the possibility of this reoccurring is to have Sunny Fresh relocate their water service. If they were to pull their water from the south side of their building, they would be pulling off of a much newer system. With the exception of approximately 200+ feet of old city water main, all of the system is new to the south of their building, and it feeds from much larger cement coated ductile iron pipe. The likelihood of a disturbance in the old water mains in the downtown area being drawn into the Sunny Fresh building from the water main to the south would be significantly less than their current operation. If this were to become a possibility, the City should look at replacing that section of water main from 5-1/2 Street north down Locust Street to the Sunny Fresh property. If Sunny Fresh requoeted replacement of this line, staff considers it a reasonable request. Since this water main crosses the railroad and involves replacement of an antique fire hydrant, it to possible that the replacement could cost $10,000. -9- Council Agenda - 2/13/89 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to reimburse Sunny Fresh Foods for the cost of installation of final filters at their processing plant. 2. The second alternative would be to obtain quotes on cleaning of the mains in the entire downtown area and look further into the possibility of doing it this summer. 3. The third alternative may be to install new water main on Locust Street to serve the Sunny Fresh facility. This should lessen the possibility of a reoccurrence of the particles. This alternative could include the City paying for the water main replacement, or sharing the cost, or assessing the cost to benefitting property owners. 4. A fourth alternative could be to continue as we are and indicate that we are providing the best quality of water possible; and that should any industries require a higher quality of water, they must do their own final processing in -plant at their own cost. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the opinion of the Public Works Director and Water Superintendent that the City of Monticello is providing water to this community that is first and utmost safe to drink and that is of a substantially high quality and that is certainly not below the standard of the industry. We have a very good maintenance program which consists of flushing twice annually, and only on rare occasions such as this are any problems noted with the water quality. Even in this instance, the water quality was such that it affected only Sunny Fresh and for a very short period of time. :he question that needs to be answered is, "Is the City responsible to provide water that is 100 percent free of rust scale or other mineral particles at all times?" It is our opinion that we are not responsible for that high a quality of water and, therefore, recommend alternative 14. The City staff, however, would recommend also alternative 13 should the request come from Sunny Fresh to replace that section of water main and establish a new water service to lessen the possibility of this happening again. This alternative, however, does not 100 percent guarantee the water quality that they are looking for, and the filters may still be needed. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the January 18 letter from Sunny Fresh. -10- •; Sunny Fresh Foods - • - Egg Products 206 W. Fourth 5t., Box 428 Monticello, Minnesota 55762 427.7450, 612.295.5666 January 18, 1989 Monticello City Hall 250 E Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Water Quality Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: On Monday night, January 16, 1989, we began to notice flecks of an unknown substance in our water in the Hard Cook Department. r To assure product safety and quality for our customers, we ceased V production. (three hours early)' we assumed that the particles were coming from our own plumbing. we flushed all of our lines for several hours until we thought they were clear. Upon starting our operation on Tuesday, January 17, 1989, we noticed the particles again and immediately ceased production. We called Monticello Public works Director, John Simola. He tested water throughout the city and found problems throughout the downtown area. John told me that the problem occurred due to frost heaves disturbing the old water mains in the downtown area. The long range solution he opined, lies in connecting our plant into a now water main, which lies south of our building. Until the city is able to do this, it is necessary for us to assure ourselves of clear water in our food processing areae. We have therefore installed five filters (one in Hard Cook, one in Liquid processing, and three in Further processing). The cost for these filters, installation, production interruption, product loss, and other costs duo to this unreliable water supply, are costs a facility like ours should not expect. Pleaoe advise us of your plans to provide us with a reliably clean water supply to assure us of the clear water we need for our operation. Yurther, may we ask your consideration in re-imbursing us for these extraordinary costs necessary because of the unreliable water quality. Respectfully, .. Doug Lut anen DL/slm Council Agenda - 2/33/89 11. Consideration of reimbursement for damage on sewer backup - Ben James. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last Council meeting, Mr. Ben James appeared before the Council to request consideration of payment for damages he incurred for a sewer backup at his property on January 10, 1989. You may wish to refer to item p8 in your Council agenda package from January 23 for additional background. But the Council's decision at that time was to continue submitting the information on the sewer backup to our insurance company, League of Minnesota Cities, for their review and consideration. Mr. Steve Kessler, Supervising Adjuster for GAB Business Services, again reviewed the additional information and did not feel there was any negligence on the part of the City of Monticello and continued to deny any claim. It has been the League of Minnesota Cities' policy that unless negligence can be proven against the City, these claims have been denied in the past; and they feel strongly that they would prevail in court. Based on the Council's discussion at the last meeting, I met with Mr. Ben James on Wednesday, February 8, to review his damage claims and to possibly negotiate an amount he would be willing to accept, if the Council considered any kind of payment reimbursement. In reviewing the claims first totaling over $6,000, I explained to Mr. James that many of the items, including clothing, furniture, etc., even if damage beyond repair would normally be reimburseable by an insurance company would he on a depreciated value depending on age and conditions. After reviewing the list, Mr. James agreed to disregard any claim for inconvenience and most of the items that were actually stained or damaged, including clothing, some furniture, and other miscellaneous items. In return, he requested that the Council consider carpet replacement, the sewer rodding bill since he felt it wasn't his problem, the motel and meals associated with having to abandon his Muse for a few days, and the cleaning bill by Service Master. As you can see from the list attached, these bills would total $2,177.76; but in addition to this, Mr. James feels the lost wages incurred by his wife from teaching piano lessons and his own wages for taking vacation for two days should also be reimbursed by the City. If this amount for lost wages is added to the previous expenditures, this would round out to $2,500, which he would be agreeable in accepting in lieu of further litigation. I believe most of these expenditures were definitely cash outlays that Mr. James had to incur, except for the lost wages. Although Mr. James was required to take vacation for two days, I believe he was actually paid wages; and I cannot support any payment for this claim of $322.24. Regardless, it to Mr. James' opinion that $2,500 is the lowest amount he will accept based on our discussions. He hopes that this is agreeable with the City Council to got the matter over with; but he has also not indicated that he would pursue other litigation it a ditterent offer was made by the City Council. -11- Council Agenda - 2/13/89 Now that you are aware of a dollar amount that would be acceptable to Mr. James, the question becomes whether or not the City should set a precedent by reimbursing any homeowner for damages from providing utility services when the claim has originally been denied by our insurance carrier. Although Mr. Kessler, the adjuster, did not have a problem with the City reimbursing an individual for some of his losses, our insurance agent, Jon Franzen, did not recommend the City Council do this strictly because of the precedent that it will set in the future. -his may seem like a small dollar amount to settle this natter, but it could lead to many more claims in the future. I also contacted the City Attorney, Tom Hayes, who also in his opinion did not feel it was a wise decision to reimburse for any damages. Although I know I certainly would be upset if it was my home that was damaged, there are pro's and con's to offering any kind of payment in lieu of an insurance company settlement. I also have concerns over setting a precedent whereas this Council or future Councils may be faced with similar requests because of this action. If the City is really negligent or liable, and even if a court of law would determine such, our insurance company would have to defend us in a lawsuit and if they lost would have to pay the claim. Looking at it from this point, if the claim was denied entirely, the worst that could happen is, I believe, the insurance company would incur costs for defending the lawsuit and also would be responsible for the payment if the lawsuit was lost. On the other hand, after reviewing the damages and claims submitted, if the Council wanted to make a reimbursement without admitting any liability or guilt, I could support approximately $2,175 of the amount requested. Again, this would cover the carpeting that we know was destroyed, along with the actual bills incurred for lodging and food and the cleaning of Mr. James' house. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Offer a reimbursement to Mr. .lames in the amount of $2,175 or $2,500 as requested by Mr. James. 2. Negotiate further with Mr. James and offer to reimburse a lesser amount of his damage claim. 3. Deny any reimbursement or liability based on insurance company's rejection of the claim. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: T believe the staff overall does not feel the City was negligent in the way it responded to this problem, nor did we cause additional damage. Although we question why the insurance company does not offer some type of settlement, we are also concerned over a precedent that may be set for any payment at all. If the Council feels there were unusual circumstances in this case, I can support an amount around $2,175 ` provided Mr. .lames agrees to signing a waiver accepting this dmount ds -12- Council Agenda - 2/13/89 full payment for damages and the statement indicates the City is not admitting any guilt or negligence and is making the payment out of sympathy or as a goodwill gesture. And additionally, the release form should note that Mr. James would not pursue any further legal action as a result of this payment. D. SUPPORTING DATA: List of items negotiated for payment between Administrator and Mr. James; Second copy of letter from insurance adjuster denying claim. -13- (LAB S,*,W s4, ".s the eo0 25th Arena! 9 Smte 107 PO awl 1251 St Cloud uunneton 56102 TONNOOM 612.2514= 6rMo 4,otdgi January 27, 1989 Sam James 412 East 3rd Street Monticello, MN 55362 GAB FiLe: 56539-34155 Insured: City of Monticello D1CLaim: 1-10-89 Type: Sewer backup rys.... Dear Mr. James: The City of MonticeLLo forwarded to me your 5 page statement along with the Letter from Eugene FyLe and your various bills. I reviewed the matter again and still do not feel there is any negLigence on the Dart of the City of Monticetto. Since I feel there is no Liability, I am maintaining a denial of .your claim. L SK:mas - cc: City of Monticello 250 E. Broadway MonticaLLo, MN 55362 Attn: Rick WoLfstaLLer Yours very truly, Steve Kesster 'Supervising Adjuster I I P I 1. A .. I . I I A , I ov ' - �• .�r 'r,.1n•.••w _• Mconl.cl '.:V ]421 , of ?f'.C:aiC+.2o - °uifaio ,a• r..1 c:.- ,•e �.n. ' RDufa Z, Scm 19 ^n� s- 3Pn� Bim; . /-/9 - �: 1— _ i_ jr—T.•tl .+^�� V.1 Flr[I 1n111.1 l'•s110, iL'in a-3C2-cIloco. s—IstlYNo.Stlr.YnO.I3tl•K. Str1Y UN ba/.O 5.1n.t Aq, wyr -iTtl.;' T• r9` �/, T"'ar. �.: I I+OeeC1. I I1+••1K1.'Pa Y IYn1 $t.rAdtto". n, nor ulutlalrto It, Sun /•� Lo , nor 4spop SI S Ws I+1•rA•GI cOmnn•O OO 3••un[A[1an[ VN CL. ut .raR+ sw to• co.n.Ct . Al, r�•,c�, r�7. <y7v : ew... Icop TYPE OF SERVICES A4l t1M ro anon GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LOSS. By CODE NO. ' W I L.1 p.t t.lYn1M iByPnb. Aaa[... Sot Pu t`CIYn1M w•wcAA• oww Soo st•ucwo•nn. �Glr 51.1• LO .lo 51.a.•Oa[In• .t 1900Aeeen• SI3 CtlY1 s•n111.a. 131 W.e A C.1en9 CIM. Aa1u.1.•'. "+.In• j Sas -_ M.Int•n.nt. .33 0­S—.c- Pnon. ow oro auntl e..1w•uo" c• �oao•nr ��• .673 nou[►w1a• P..n1M m.11r.n •ll t1.•mnvsr.M _ i.•a.m O.[. at Lon _ D.n of S.I+•w Swwr By -,nr 31.1• _ LO - ' �� . ACCT. NO • NO: 8-840421 "1, "'"• TYPE OF . SOOT L M N ATE L Ala> -n• r i.n, "• DAMAGE DOOR L M N SSAOKE L M N BUILDING c-­­` OP — �SVSTlM TneCosa140. :,SUMMARY _ av moa No. ..AOOY +•• cAAPtT _ CO'.`+r OL C[ t`1 as -rlLt - .-oras, ,[..�......�. so" .ol so FTreo. soFT�.t. so FT .36 so Fr �1901CPf:CW.•' � p�q/%77,P[� = All 'T X In :I1 - 802 FURN.CLN. C, f? x iii .1b t/ !sem -.aJ.'��rr.�'7..ii11�1sS�tra'�.!'' '�:'°p!`'R•iir•: �ir /p { 7� "I^'r •� -' - ��� BOi000RCONTHOI �•y Dn 17r 93 •.•.. .FIN. 710• r, w /n r in I I f In . 11 ''+utur+t on.aR ..1•�N...A:,..tl.n.rlw 7nn�=OTHER . wALL a 825 CaIuND CLN. ...,� eae FLR. MAI�NT.. lyI TOTAL SROUGN7 cnPWAFO I i I I TAX rOr.t.30 PT I 1 •- I I I BUILDING _ •OrAl uYi r'+ I I I I MCONTENTS +SUB•CONTRACTING •R! TOTAL L114 • i 1 ` i .: 1 ; >\1 . , .•'. _ bu Ly Tu TOTAL SALU L1 :.4C3 It •-[Ni -+ ' 1- u. vi• moi_ wi� •I1�rF•:A P6.47A.zpav . • .r•r•11n coo . 70 s!S Y 3. 3 S'" x 3 0. 03 Z 9S'- y7oo MONTI MOTEL-- an AZlC�! LOON.$ •11N ""7 71—Mr N2 um -oft M-44ou 5132 5122M �m—*W W W i +iww, w y LARSEN Furniture & Carpet PHO NE245.21M - MON `CEt10, MILAN. 53362 dd— C 50109, 1 Q*10 I con. Io"+cs`c» I WAIL I..pOUTI ) IOTA{ J` AU oo— owe ,«iernsa go", mvT IN a wms.r m ,.. 4682 bcdbv FYLFS EXCAVATING & HONEY WAGON Route 2 Box 76 MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 55362 (612) 245-2511 O,ja=RIPTION II ( palca f AMOUNT i 1 R t i I 1 SIMPRJ Clrq� at 1N% DM mantle On I TAXI I I TOTAL ! 1 • 16 6 8 Ct yank� . 1 v t II ., _�--- �. i \, ,� i Council Agenda - 2/13/89 12. Consideration of authorizing the purchase of fire department equipment. (R.W. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the 1989 budget, the fire department included $5,000 for the purchase of 800 feet of high volume 5 -inch hydrant hose. Pire Chief, Willie Parnick, has been researching the best price available for this item and has determined that the fire department can purchase this quantity through the City of St. Paul Joint Consortium that the City belongs to at a price of $4,192. Mr. Parnick will also be in attendance at the Council meeting to answer any questions you may have regarding this purchase. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Authorize the fire department to proceed with the purchase of the hose at a price of $4,192. 2. Deny the request. C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information supplied by the Fire Chief, the staff sees no reason to oppose this purchase since it was included in the 1989 budget if the item is necessary. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. O -14- Council Agenda - 2/13/89 13. Consideration of adopting recycling plan and authorization to prepare RFP. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The recycling committee has been moving ahead developing a recycling plan by which to meet the Wright County target dates of April 1, 1989, for plan submittal and July 1, 1989, for operational start of a curb side recycling program in the city of Monticello. The plan submitted with this agenda item has been in the works for the past 18 months, first with the assistance of Oouncilmember Bill Fair, and now with 0ouncilmember Dan Blonigen's assistance and input. We have developed a plan that we hope will be acceptable to the City Council. Please review the enclosed plan prior to reading the remaining agenda information. The following is a proposed schedule for plan implementation. Plan approval by City Council February 13, 1989 Approval of RFP by City Council March 13, 1989 Plan submittal to Wright County Solid Waste Task Force April 1, 1989 Proposal due date April 5, 1989 Council review of proposals 6 award April 10, 1989 Begin media campaign 6 first nail out with water and sewer billing April 15, 1989 First voluntary recycling day July 6, 1989 First mandatory recycling day October 5, 1989 The City of Monticello's curb aide recycling plan does involve some significant costs to the City of Monticello. If one looks merely at the surface, these costa appear to be significant] and one has to ask why recycle) If you look at the broad spectrum of the environmental issues such as protecting our ground water and preserving natural resources, one can get a better picture of the overall cost of not recycling and continuing to waste in the future. As time goes on, the cost for garbage disposal is expected to rise significantly, as well as the cost of cleaning up our environmental problems from past dumping or landfilling. The following are anticipated current costs for various sections of the plan. 1. Contractor Costs. The coats of contractor curb aide recycling does vary from community to community and location to location. My best guess currently to that we can expect to pay somewhere between $.50 and $.75 per household per month. we have in the city of Monticello, based upon a 1989 estimate, 1,837 living units. If we use the $.75 per household figure per month, this would cost us $1,378 per month, or $16,536 annually. If we were able to have a very vigorous recycling program and pull out 15 percent by volume, we would abate 870 cubic yards per year. The current landfill charges (not total landfilling cost) are $9 per cubic yard, which would equate to a $7,830 annual savings. Thio would mean an increaso in garbage services to the City of Monticello of $8,706 annually. -15- Council Agenda - 2/13/89 2. Recycling Containers. Individual pickups Container costs single tamiiy 906 mobile homes 185 individual apts 32 duplex, tri-plex, s 4-plex units 137 townhouse units 72 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL PICKUPS 1,332 X 3 per household - 3,996 containers X $6.08 $24,295.68 Apartment Buildings 2-6 unit (12) 4-8 unit (32) 7-12 unit (84) 2-16 unit (32) 1-18 unit (18) 16 bldgs. (178 units) X 3 0 48 X $48.90 $ 2,347.20 (3-90 lb. roll around containers/bldg.) D 5-24 unit (120) 1-26 unit l 26) 1-30 unit l 30) 1-31 unit 1 31) 2-36 unit 1 72) 1-48 unit 1 48) 11 bldgs (327 units) X 6 . 66 X $48.90 $ 3,227.40 (6-90 lb. roll around containers/bldg.) TOTAL CORMINER COST - $29,870.28 X 50% (city or homeowner cost) $14,935.14 As can be seen by the above, there is a significant cost for container purchase. It has been demonstrated in the past that the containers are an integral part of a recycling system. There are soros communities, however, that are using a single container at households which holds three paper bags. There is generally a higher success rate using the three individual, stackable containers. It is anticipated that approximately $2,400 coming from Wright County as a grant would be applied toward the City's portion of the containers. The committee recommends, hwover, that additional containers be purchased to allow for the city's growth over the next 36 months. It in anticipated that the $2,400 would just about cover those costs. Again, as outlined in the plan, the residential portion or share of -16- Council Agenda - 2/13/89 the containers would be billed over a period of one year to the homeowners. This would be a total of $9.12 or a little over $2 per quarter. The smaller apartment buildings would be paying about $73.35 for their share of the containers; and the larger apartment buildings needing a double set of containers would be paying $146.70 for their share of the containers. Again, this would be billed to them over a period of four quarters on the sewer and water bill. 3. Signs, Promotions, and Advertisement. For the first year, we estimate that promotional and educational activities could cost $2,000. The second year should drop to less than half and probably remain at or near $1,000 annually. 4. Administrative Costs. The committee is proposing to the City that we purchase a hand held scanning system for recording the individuals who recycle. In order to determine who does not recycle, we must record who does recycle and calculate by process of elimination who is not recycling. without a hand scanning method, it is our understanding that it generally requires the contractor to have another man along to record the address of the person who is recycling and the item that is being recycled. This individual would then take it back and prepare a hand written or typed list which could be submitted to the City. The City then must go through this list, compare it to a master list, and break out those people who are not recycling, and then prepare billings for same. This is a labor intensive operation, and we feel that the contractor would add a significant amount of money for this additional man, as has been demonstrated in other communities. In addition, there is a possibility of errors due to the wrong address being written down for where the container is picked up, or just errors in transposing addresses from thought to paper or from paper to paper. The credibility of this system is poor. In addition, significant amounts of time would be needed at City Hall to prepare separate billings. With the hand held scanning system, the City would purchase two scanners to be used by the recycling contractor and computer software to integrate individual bar codes with master file lists. we would then receive a simple list of who is not recycling, and the list could be coded alphabetically or by water and sewer account ID number and could easily be transposed into our utility billing system. The bill would then be automatically printed and sent out with the water and sewer bill. The drawback of this system is its cost. It will cost $10,000 to $12,000 to implement this system. The City of St. Louie Park system, which is very similar, took two years to amortize based upon their cost estimates. I would estimate that labor saving -viae, our system would take significantly longer to -17- 14 Council Agenda - 2/13/89 amortize if, indeed, it would. The overriding factor here is the credibility of such a system. The recycling committee felt that if the plan was to have a penalty for not recycling, then this accurate type of checks and balances should be used. 5. Revenues. The above items have discussed the possible costs to the City. Now let's take a look at the possible revenues from such a system. If 10 percent of the individual pickups would not recycle, we would receive $11,172 in revenue for the first year. If three of the apartment buildings did not meet the recycling quota for a year, with an average number of 18.7 units per building, we would receive another $3,366 in revenue, for a total of $14,538 annual revenue. This would quickly make up the difference in cost for recycling and in the future would enable us to lower our overall refuse collection levy in the general fund. I have used the 10 percent estimate for not recycling, as our questionnaire indicated that 90 percent of the people in the city of Monticello would recycle if given the opportunity to do so. The only other revenue expected at this time is the approximately $2,400 coming from Wright County, which as I stated earlier would be used to buy spare containers for future growth in the city. In summary, the City's cost for 1989 for startup and operation for the last six months would be as follows: Increased collection 6 disposal cost for the last 6 mos, of 1989 $ 4,353.00 Container purchase 29,870.28 signs, promotion, 6 advertisement 2,000.00 Administrative scanning system cost 12,000.00 TOTAL STARTUP COST $48,223.28 Revenues F68 o�P09 of the homeowners share, 2 qtrs. $ 7,467.57 Last quarter of 1989, 10t penalties 3,634.50 TOTAL REVENUE $11,102.07 'DOTAL FUNDS NPFDED PROM THE REFUSE, COLLECTION BUDGET FOR 1989 $37,121.21 The City of Monticello has budgeted $20,000 for startup for the recycling program. This leaves us short in 1989 of approximately $17,000, of which $7,467.57 will be coming in during the first two quarters of 1990 for containers. B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to approve the curb side recycling plan as presented to the City Council from the recycling committee and authorize preparation of a request for proposals to be submitted to the Council for approval on March 13, 1989. -me- C Council Agenda - 2/13/89 2. The second alternative would be to modify the plan by changing the amount of penalty and/or the type of checks and balances for the system. This must be known prior to development of an RPP, as it will have an influence on the contractor cost. Based upon these modifications, the plan could be changed and the RPP drafted accordingly and still be returned to the Council on March 13. 3. A third alternative would be to completely reject the curb side recycling plan as proposed and develop a new plan with major modifications as recommended by the City Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the recycling committee that the City Council adopt the plan as outlined in alternative Al and allow the recycling committee to begin work on the RPP. we feel that this plan will enable the City to have a very efficient, well run curb side recycling program. It is possible to recycle in this community cheaper; but convenience of recycling and credibility are extremely important and should not be overlooked. We feel that this project needs 100 percent support of the City Council; and therefore, if any members of the Council are uncomfortable with portions of it, we'd rather go back to the drawing board than not have that support. We feel the citizens of Monticello are ready for a recycling program, and they should have one that the total Council supports. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the 1988/1989 budget for refuse collection under general fund; Copy of the recycling plan; Copy of the containers and price sheets. The containers that are recommended to be used with our program will be on display at Monday evening's Council meeting. The individual homeowner containers are anticipated to have the City logo as well as three different colors in the final delivery. -19- C GENrOar FOND REFUSE COLLEC_ION 1988 BUDGE^- Personal Seriices 6912 Salaries,Overtime S 800 6915 P_W?ension 50 6919 Social Secirity 50 $ 900 Supplies 6923 General Ope:acing Supplies S 600 $ 600 Other Services and Charges 6936 Professional Services $ 96,450 S 96,450 Capital OuC1ay 6959 Improvements Other Than Bldgs. $ 20,000 S 20,000 TOTAL REPOSE OOLLEC.RON $117,950 REFUSE COLLECTION Professional Services - Additional landfill costs above basic refuse contract. Capital Outlay - Imp. other than bldga. - Rocycling program $20,000 -47- /3 0 REPOSE COLLECTION 1989 BUDGET 1989 Personal Services 6912 Salaries, overtime S 800 6915 PERA/Pension 50 6919 Social Security S 50 900 Supplies 6923 General Operating Supplies S 600 other Services and Charges 6936 Professional Services $108,000 Capital Outlay 6959 Improvements other Than Bldgs. -0- TOTAL REFUSE COLLECTION Sio9,5OO CURB SIDE RECYCLING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF MO11TICELL0 The City of Monticello will establish a curb side recycling program to comply with Wright County's mandate for recycling, to reduce the City's dependency upon landfilling, and recover valuable resources from the solid waste produced in the ca munity - It is the intent to contract curb side pickup of recyclable materials an every other Thursday throughout the year beginning on July 6, 1989. As part of our plan, City staff will draft a request for proposals for curb side recycling to be reviewed by the City Council at the March 13 meeting. Following the Council's approval, the request for proposals will be released for advertisement. Proposals are expected to be returnable on April 5, with Council action to follow on April 10, 1989. The City of Monticello's curb side recycling plan will consist of the following: 1. A curb side recycling contractor shall be responsible for pickup of at least three materials on every other Thursday. If Thursday is a holiday, Friday shall becora recycling day for that pickup only. The contractor shall pick up glass, aluminum and bi-metal cans, and newspaper. The contractor shall be responsible for the pickup, storage, and marketing of all recyclable materials. As an option in the proposal, the City will request costs for the pickup of recycled office paper at selected locations throughout the city. The plan shall remain flexible to allow for changing markets. 2. The City shall provide three containers with the City logo to each resident who lives in a 4-plex or less. The estimated cost of the three containers is approximately $18 per set. The City will pay for 50 percent of the container cost; the homeowner shall pay for the other 50 percent, which will be billed to them on a quarterly basis for a period of one year. Should any homeowner lose his container or have it stolen, he shall be able to purchase a new container for a charge of $5. The City will provide roll -around containers for apartment complexes. Three containers shall be provided per apartment building between 4 and 18 units. Six containers shall be furnished to apartment buildings above 18 units. The City will pay one-half of the initial cost of the container for apartments also. The remaining 50 percent shall be billed to the apartment owners over a period of one year through the quarterly water and sewer billing. Once the price of these containera are known, a standard fee will be established for additional containers for apartments also. The City will establish a longevity date for containers, at which time the City would again cover half the cost of new containers. In order to reward those people who recycle, the City will establish a penalty fee based upon the cost of garbage services for those residents who choose not to recycle. This estimated initial coat is $7 per month, billable on a quarterly basis at $21 per quarter. Apartment buildings are slightly less. They will he billed at $5.00 per month/per unit, for a total of $15.00 per quarter/per unit. /3 Curb Side Recycling Plan City of Monticello Page 2 The fees shall be revised annually as the cost of waste disposal increases. In order to determine who is recycling and who is not recycling, the City will establish a system of checks and balances with a high degree of reliability. The possibility of using hand scanners with a computer printout is currently being investigated at length. The following definition will be used to determine whether an individual is recycling or not: "A person or resident shall be deemed to recycle if on three of the available opportunities to recycle per quarter, the resident recycles a reasonable amount of two products (aluminum or bi-metal cans, newspaper, or glass), and follows pre -determined guidelines as to the placement of containers for pickup, the sorting, cleanliness, and condition of the materials to be recycled." The first quarter from July 1989 through the end of September 1989 will. be deemed a learning or training period for the city residents, and no charges shall be billed to those residents who choose not to recycle during this period of time. However, for the last quarter of 1989, the individuals not recycling will be billed the appropriate amounts for that quarter due in January of 1990. 4. The City will also recycle at each of its facilities in the city and `- encourage other governmental institutions to do the same. The City will continue to work toward having recycling opportunities available to industrial and commercial establishments in the city. They will be encouraged to contract individually with recyclers. If feasible, the office paper pickup could be expanded to include cwssnercial and industrial establishments in the city. 5. The City will continue with its existing contract for garbage pickup with Corrow until its completion on July 31, 1989. Approximately 60-90 days prior to the end of this contract, the City will either renegotiate a new contract with Corrow or advertise for bids for this service. 6. It is anticipated that the City will receive approximately $2,400 from Wright County to assist with the recycling program. This amount will be applied toward the City's share of the container cost. 7. The City of Monticello will allow Monticello Township to piggy back its curb side recycling program by purchasing containers with us and/or submitting their proposal for curb aide recycling along with ours so that we may both obtain better prices. 8. The City of Monticello will begin an advertising campaign* after award of a contract to a curb aide recycler. In addition, the City will purchase approximately 50 signs indicating Thursday as recycling day. These signs will be distributed to 50 interested citizens for placement, on various properties throughout the city the day prior to recycling pickup. 0 D3 Curb Side Recycling Plan City of Monticello Page 3 This plan is submitted to the City Council for approval on February 13, 1969, by Recycling Committee Members Dan Blonigen, Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, John Simola, and Gary Anderson. *Note: Consisting of news articles, radio announcement, government access on cable tv, and one or more mailouts, as well as handouts at City Rall and posters on local bulletin boards. RECYCLING CREDIT/PENALTY SCHEDULE Recycling opportunities per quarter e 7 Product opportunities per quarter a 21 QUARTERLY TABULATION Percent Recycling Percent Products of Product Opportunities of Recycling Recycled Opportunities Credit Used Opportunities Each Opportunity Used Given 3 438 2 29% Pull 6 86% 1 29% Pull 4 578 1 19% 2 months 2 296 2 19% 2 months 2 296 1 106 1 month 1 146 2 106 1 month C PA WN E E ROTATIONAL DIOL UI NG, I NC. February B, 1989 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Corrow Sanitation 15520 Lawndale Lane Dayton, MN 55327 Pawnee Rotational Molding is pleased to submit the following prices for refuse containers: Versa Kart 90 90 gallon container 948.90 each Versa Kart 60 60 gallon container 942.56 each 15 gallon hand dump container 915.50 each Quantities of 50 or more 30 gallon hand dump container 620.80 each Quantities of 50 or more All prices FOB Maple Plain, Minnesota. Reapec tfu l lysubmitted, y� //1/4- Bruce Pladson Sales Representative c 1170 %, 14 WIIW A1TWHN 1. • r J R17AI.7 • AI APLI rI. AI\, AIV 11114.0147 In 1!1174.11 e0 ♦ All R4111119 1' JI PA4-V I In IHb T R II :• I W. /� -specifications - versask®rt 90 CURBSIDE. WASTECOt1FMON SYSTEM COLOR — Standard: green or black in any wntbumoon (lid bad± or both the same color). Custom colors available. LID SND MGE — Contex. shape& snap -6t lid, 44' x :30", kef out fact wild snow• doP and of curious animals — even rli ts. No odor ... no flies! Lid so'Afmgs up at hangs down the back of the cut out of the way. so residents can dump trash easih• without spilling _ — For serni-automated s%stems h4 tension rubber uirtcilatch kart be --fastened pennittin5mer-padcht) _RAUNDLE -.11=7 loaded handle snos i and colds securely. —COi MUNER BODY — Stroal smooth fightweighL easy to host out. and retauts cora for lifetime, - .tatiora➢v_ molded from hidt- le ular. U.V.-stabilized p#ed —e: Al yienso atailabk: m cross -.mkt pilycthyleue for sk�r dtuabdn —and the correct ua11 thickness to meet your requin mens CAPACITYNOLLDIE & LO, — 90+ gallons. Wheels and axk support load of 2D0. pounds. WIIEELS & AXLE —I assemble. Axle is AV sol __12 " -diameter wheels of h impact polyolefin come ui _pneumatic tires. Rotation molded wheels also a% -.d - RECESSED FROM FI. —7Tte base is formed w -scn•e ns abrasim-resiSMn leafing (t{xm spice (m the for easy h(nmg of floor tat FOR SHM I- AND FULLY AIJTI IJIATED-rRIJCK LIF I*ING SYSTEMS—The Versa -Kart has features allouing a change of truck systems from semi- to fullv automated witluut hating to change containers. It's ready for now — and the future! SERIAL \ INMERS At \IAHKINGS — Idemificatixu Serial tnrnh,!rsare pemtmently lint -stamped in unite into Ute b dy. Each i -(log t mother is I' hi13t lite city or anganty come and state ;ere cmbcsstd mm amt.•mtcr lid. versa •kart 90 CURBS IM. WAS fC COLISCl ION SYS rEM Pawnee Praducts Uitasi, m of I'nunee Misti s. Inc. t 4M In(hisuial Recd i Co ddar(l, Kanvts f i o5i o n CIIII) 791.2121:3 /..3 -S ' 'cations -vers®•k®rt 90 -- —_— -_ _-_ - _ __ - - - CURBSIDE WASTE COUEMON SYSTEM _— __You're ready for the future with the Versa -Kart 90! It allows you to change from semi- to luny automated —truck lifting systems without having to change con- --. tamers. It's one more advancement in efficiency from --the innovators in waste systems technology. Helping your business become more predictable, more manageable, and more profitable. - - Saves labor, fuel, time. Collection will - take fewer trucks, each operating more quickly with less idling time. You can reduce the number of employe_( - - - and the number of hours each spends on a route. - - - Reduces back injuries. Lowers workers comp rates. Versa-Kart's hydraulic collection method reduce strain on the collectors' backs and increases sanitation. You'll see employee downtime reduced and probably —can merit lower workers compensation nice Attracts more dependable workers. By omitting -. .back -breaking chores and inTroving work conditions, - crews feel better on the job and feel better about the I I I —job—.. taking more pride in their work: Helps reduce lemployee turnover. Increases resident satisfaction. -V.., . i I Kart usually holds a full week's trash ... dumping is I I easy without spilling -and with semi --automated - ii systems, the Versa -Karl's high-tension latch allows over-paclmn- g. rh-e snap -fit Gd keeps outiain and snow — - �as well as animals. And there's no odor.. '. no (lies! So, I _ f they can park their container right next to the House, then mll it easily_to the Lwb on collection day. Your I workers won't have to enter thea private property, or I j confront fenced -in dogs)—! ' ! L ' Residents prefer Versa -Karts. saying they would never go back to noisy, dented steel stns and costly.—I �- jtrash bags. I I I j i I Warranty: Five years, -pro -rated - -• —•— ----- Municipal managers: YkwU lower collection costs Viand help create a cleaner, healthier, more attractive city. - Private houlent: Here's your immediate, marketable edge over competition and a source for increased monthly _ per -resident profit. A quick return on a wise investment! i PolyLift - - — - - - - - ---At the heart of the Versa- Kan 90 system is the - hydraulic Pkdy-Lift, the strongest, most durable and retable in the industry. Models available for rear or side loading, plus a model that folds unMr the truck Less time (B• 10 seconds), less risk of injury, and less fatitvc. -- Call or write for further information on the Versa -Kart system ... how to introduce it on your route" ... and how to use it to attract new kuustomert. Pawnee Products 1)visnm.d l'axtx e l Lastps Itx:. /4331ndustri,d R,udI C.4dard, Iuutsast IKZ m hilt;) 794-2213 C SHAMROCK INDUSTRIES MARK SMILER 332-2100 6.08 per unit - 4200 total units - lettering and City LOGO 6.03 per unit - 4200 total units - no lettering or LOGO 1400 units - one color 4200 total units Total order - 5 to 6 days - $6.08 per unit Total order - 5 to 6 days - $6.03 per unit Order anytime, but would be subject to any price increase. If ordered before any price increase, containers would be delivered at City's discretion. New 22.5 gallon container 5.97 lbs. 17.84" H X 23.28" w X 13.66" D. Cover optional. Curbside Recycling Containers increasing solid waste and decreasing landfill space has resulted in a growing need for curbside recycling. The high cost of waste disposal along with environmental concerns has hastened the need for sound recycling programs. As more communities become involved in recycling. it is obvious that not all recyding needs are the same. Some prefer stockabla containers. -others require a multi•-matenal, 3 hag -in -1 container. That's why Shamrock offers a choice of recycling containers, all in durable. strong, injection molded plastic, built to last for years. Shamrock has a nat+onally proven track record in quality injection molded products for over 40 years, Our recycling containers are now being used across the country in industry as well as residential programs, We take our recycling concept even one step farther... our containers themselves are largely recycled plastic. look to Shamrock... your partner in progress. All Shomrocit Curbside Recycling Containers Aro: ❑ Strong, durable iniection molded, high-density polyethylene plastic O Rib reinforced for extra strength ❑ Suited for extremes of temperature ❑ guilt with solid wall construction to minimize consequences of wind, moisture anJ ground problems ❑ guaranteed against any workmanship or materials dafacte under normal recycling use O Available in two styles for unique needs CC Available in s wide variety of colors n printed as you designate: recycling logo, contents, city lin Molded with a high percentage of recycled plastic SiVamr�oc� INOfJ!lTRilS, INC. L/3) wew.a en��.mr uw,w Stackable Recycling Container Our stackable containers are designed to be aesthetically pleasing while maintaining the recycling container identity. They stack easily and securely with the traditional cut-out for quick iosit of recyclable materials. Solid wall construction minimizes ise littering problems, spills and ground moisture problems. (11 Three -Bag Recycling Container The Three -Bagger is specifically designed to hold 3 expanded grocery bags in one direction for a multi -material container. its height is designed to better protect bags from wind, moisture. dirt and the elements. Refuse stays where it belongs—in the contain e r) 5TI (av Wp Ua.A. e5atn7:ee 0 Solid wall construction and feet minimize consequences of wind, moisture and ground problems C3 Strong double reinforced handles make carrying easy O Units stack securely with interlocking feet ❑ Large 11.37 gallon capacity each ❑ Ribs provide extra strength and stability O Four drainage holes in bottom keep containers cleaner at don't tet broken items fats out O Available in a variety of colors Specifications Model 7413 Galion Capacity: 11.37 Battom Inside Dimensions: 11 "h x 17.50"w x 13.63"d Sattom Outside Dimensions: 12.63"h x 20.63"w x 14.94"d Specify color. O Solid wall construction throughout keeps bags drier, better protected from elements O Designed specifically to hall 3 expended grocery bogs in one direction Aar multiple uses O Rounded off top lip acts as a comfortable and convenient handle O Built tatter than conventional 3 -beg units to keep refuse inside bogs ... not on the ground O Available In a variety of colors H Specifications Model BBS Gallon capacity: 20.95 Top Inside Dimensions: 13 719"h x 24"w x 17 114"d Bottom Inside Dimensions: 13 716"h x 21 114"w x 14 114"d 'Specify color. Shamrock'' Industries, Inc. Shamrock curbside Recycling... Your partners in Progress. a34 No" . Stmt 13 834 0S39An t-a3fia.U3d. r6, 2 332.2,40: , 8001122.2342 (Too Fee) 19oD 822.2343 (In mrmsetai Council Agenda - 2/13/89 14. Consideration of authorizing additional clerical staff appointments. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the November 14, 1988, Council meeting, Council authorized the establishment of a new clerical position entitled Data Entry Clerk/Secretary. Background information presented at that time outlined the growth in the general clerical/secreterial and deputy registrar needs of the City, along with the computer implementation that has brought us to the point of needing additional staff personnel at City Hall. As a result of the Council's action, an advertisement for a Data Processing/Secretary position was made, and over 180 applicants applied for the position. About this same time, Lynnea Gillham, the current utility billing clerk and receptionist, indicated she would be retiring in the near future. Her original plans were to retire December 31, but she has willingly extended the retirement date to February 28, which I now believe will be the final extension. This created an additional opening that needed to be filled, with again the same type of similar qualifications necessary for the position. With the large amount of applicants for the first advertisement, I felt comfortable in being able to find two qualified individuals for these positions. The process was somewhat delayed by the idea of job reassignments among the present clerical staff. After further consideration of shifting duties, I felt it would be better to conduct interviews of a half dozen applicants to see what type of qualifications the individuals would have and how they would fit in with the City's needs. Using the assumption we had two positions to be filled, I selected applicants that had the basic qualifications for data entry clerks, secretarial skills, and also knowledge of city accounting practices. In addition, I focused on applicants that had computer implenentation background and was successful in finding one applicant who had an extremely good background in this area. Both Jeff and myself feel this individual, with her background as a customer support representative and her background in government as a data processing coordinator and Chief Deputy County Treasurer, should provide excellent background for the needs of the City. With this in mind, we felt we had a good candidate for one of the clerical positions which would include utility billing clerk and various functions yet to be established by the job description. We look to this person filling a much needed role in training and implementing the balance of our computer system, along with a good understanding of city accounting practices, which should be beneficial to both the clerical staff and myself. As far as the initial data processing/secretarial position, it became Increasingly important to focus the primary duties of this position in the deputy registrar function where the needs currently are the most critical. Although the original advertisement included duties for deputy r -20- Council Agenda - 2/13/89 registrar as part of the position, it is anticipated that approximately 50 percent of this individual's time would have to be devoted to deputy registrar activities, and especially with Diane Jacobson planning on a maternity leave in the near future, this would entail a full-time need for the next four to six months. As you all know, Vickie Bidwell has been working for the City for the past eight months as a temporary employee originally hired to fill in for word processing duties due to Karen Doty's maternity leave. Recently, she has become heavily involved in data entry on our accounting system to bring this system on line. Her performance and experience in operating the payroll system, word processing, and her recent involvement in the financial accounting system creates good background for the new data entry clerk/secretary position. She understands and has agreed to the change in the original position to emphasize deputy registrar activities as the main function; and as a result, it is recommended that Vickie Bidwell be hired for this second position. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to ratify the appointment of Cathy Shuman and Vickie Bidwell as additional clerical staff. With Cathy recommended for Lynnea's former utility billing clerk and receptionist position and Vickie for the data entry clerk/secretary position, now job descriptions will be prepared for each position to fit the needs of the City. 2. Authorize the appointment of only one position. This does not seem feasible, as with Lynnea retiring February 28, one position would still leave a vacancy in the deputy registrar and general data processing areas. Under this alternative, the City would still at a minimum have to seek a part-time deputy registrar person and for the next four to six months would require a full-time individual with Diane absent for maternity. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As I indicated, this has been a long process trying to determine what's best for the City in the long run and to still meet our current needs within the deputy registrar department and to fill Lynnea's resignation. I believe Cathy Shuman will be an excellent addition to the City Hall clerical staff, bringing with her the knowledge of past computer implementation, problem solving, and general government background. Her initial role as utility billing clerk along with other various functions could easily expand into other areas, including much needed financial assistance help for myself. With Vickie being with the city for eight months, she has become familiar with the word processing system, payroll system, accounts payable data entry, and has been agreeable to devoting more of her time to the much needed deputy registrar functions. Based on the comparable worth study, the starting salary for both individuaYs will be $8.95 per hour, with both individuals subject to a six-month probationary period in their new job assignments. &M f Camcil Agenda - 2/13/89 D. SUPPORTING DATA: A summary of the work load division within City Hall showing the need for approximately five full-time personnel; Resumes of the two individuals recommended. -22- l IDIVISION OF WORK—LOAD PERCENT OF I ILYNNEA MARLENE DIANE KAREN VICKIE FULL TIME I PERSON IUB FINANCE DEP WORD DATA ICLERK I REG PROCESS ENTRY RECEPTIONIST 23; I I 56 514 5% 2; 5°; OFFICE HOUSEKEEPING 15; I I , E,, 0< 4-, 3; COORO INTERDEPT. COMM. .3 i I , 1; t; ANSWER TELEPHONES 44Pa I I 2; 15% A 15% 10; UTILITY BILLING 77% I I 71% t; 1% it 3% FINANCE/BOOKKEEPING 55; I I 10; 43% 0% 2% 0% FINANCE/ENTRY 17% I I 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% FINANCE/EDIT CHECKING 17% I I 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% FINANCE/COOING 18% I I 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% DEPUTY REGISTRAR REPORT 49% I I 0% 13% 35% 1% 0% DEPUTY REGISTRAR 93% ' I 0% 18% 65% 5% 5% WORD PROCESSING/TYPING 79% I 'I 5% , 0% 0% 64% 10% FILING/CLERICAL 6% I I 0% 0% 0% 5% 1% PAYROLL PROCESSING 15% I I 0% 5% 0% 0% 10% NUMBER OF PEOPLE NEEDED 5.2 I I 100% 106% 110% 100% 100% C Council Agenda - 2/13/89 15. Consideration of authorizing establishment of a Section 125 Plan for employee benefit program. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Effective January 1989, all City employees receiving group health insurance benefits through the City who have coverage for dependents are required to contribute $30 per month toward the cost of the premium. Our insurance company, Principal mutual, has made available plan documents that coincide with Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code that allows nontaxable treatment of employee contributions to group benefit plans. This program, referred to as FLEX 1, if adopted by the Council, allows the employees to treat their monthly insurance contributions in before tax dollars, thus lowering their annual gross salary. The treatment of the contribution in before tax dollars versus after tax dollars will save the employee social security, federal and state income tax liabilities on their contributions. By adoption of a Section 125 Program, the employer will also save its share of the contributions required for social security. This cafeteria style benefit program is not new and has been available for a number of years. But the program being offered by our insurance carrier would at this time only affect the premiums being paid by the employee. In order for the program to be started, all that is really necessary is for the City to adopt a plan document to meet the legal requirements of the IRS. A copy of the proposed plan document is enclosed with the agenda and has been submitted to our City Attorney for his review and comments. The document was developed from a sample provided by our insurance carrier, which should meet all of the requirements and regulations of the IRS. If the plan is adopted, each employee has the option of participating; and once an election is made to participate, no changes can be made until the anniversary date one year later. It is anticipated if the plan is approved to start the program effective March 1, 1989, so that the employees can receive the benefits as soon as possible. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve and adopt the written plan document as required by the IRS creating a Section 125 cafeteria plan arrangement for employee health insurance contributions. 2. Do not adopt the plan. This would require employees to treat their contributions as non -tax deductible contributions. C. STAFF RECOm91F:NDATION: Cafeteria plan arrangements have been available for a number of years and have become popular with employers as a way of providing benefits that lower an employee's tax liability. In addition, the employer also will save social security taxes since the employer'u social security tax -23- Council Agenda - 2/13/89 liability is based on gross income. It is anticipated that all of the employees would participate in this program since the advantages of lower state and federal taxes are the result. The only administrative responsibility for participating in this plan is to file a 2 -page annual report with the IRS once a year. As I indicated, the plan document is currently being reviewed by the City Attorney; and if there are any problems with the document, I would bring the matter back to the Council for their consideration if adopted tonight. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed plan document required by the City; Information from insurance company outlining the program and its benefits. -24- i SUPPORTING PLAN DOCUMENT SECTION 125 CAPeITRIA PLAN ARRANGEMENT CITY OF MONTICELLO EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN This Supporting Plan Document sets out the provisions of the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement for the City of Monticello Employee Health and Welfare Benefit Plan, as effective March 1, 1989. The purpose of this Cafeteria Plan Arrangement is to provide the Planholder and eligible employees a method of choice between cash compensation or additional premium payments by Planholder for benefits under the Welfare Plan. This Cafeteria Plan Arrangement is intended to qualify as a Cafeteria Plan under Internal Revenue Code Section 125, as amended, and is to be interpreted in accordance with the requirements of that provision. Neither the Administrator nor the Planholder makes any guarantee that amounts paid for the benefit of any Participating Employee are excludable from the Participating Employee's income for federal or state income tax purposes, or from wages for PICA purposes. Upon adoption of this Supporting Plan Document for the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement, Planholder will promptly notify all employees of its existing and eligibility requirements, and of the terms of the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement. The Planholder specifically reserves the right and authority to amend the provisions of this Supporting Document for the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement to the extent and in the manner that the Planholder deems advisable, by written amendment signed by the City Administrator. In addition, the Planholder specifically reserves the right and authority to terminate this Cafeteria Plan Arrangement. Participating Employees mist be given 30 days advance notice in the event of such termination. DEFINITION OF TERMS A. WELFARE PLAN: The City of Monticello Employee Health and Welfare Benefit Plan. B. CAFETERIA PIAN ARRANGEMENT: The Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Arrangement established by this Supporting Plan Document. C. PLANMOLDER: City of Monticello, the employer establishing this Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Arrangement. D. PLANHOLDER'S BUSINESS ADDRESS: 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 E. PLAN YEAR: The date that the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement begins up to the date of the next following year. 0 Supporting Plan Document Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Arrangement Page 2 F. PLAN ANNIVERSARY: The date that the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement begins in any calendar year. G. DESCRIPTION OF WELFARE PLAN BENEFITS AND COVERAGE PERIODS: See attached policy Res)/Welfare Plan Document(s). A. INSURED BENEFITS UNDERWRITTEN BY: Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company. I. ADMINISTRATOR: The Planholder or any other person or committee which may be appointed by the Planholder to supervise the administration of the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement. J. PARTICIPATING EMPLOYEE ELIGIBILITY: All permanent employees regularly scheduled to work 32 hours or more per week. II. EFFECTIVE DATE: A. The effective date of this Supporting Document for those employees eligible on that date= or B. The date following eligibility, but coinciding with satisfaction of eligibility requirements under the Welfare Plan for those employees ` who become eligible subsequent to the effective date of this Supporting Document Cafeteria Plan Arr.ngement. III. TERMINATION DATE: Termination of participation in the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement shall be the earlier of: A. The date.the Participating Employee (an employee participating in the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement) terminates employment; or B. The date the Participating Employee no longer meets the eligibility reyuiremental or C. The date the Participating Employee is placed on layoff or an approved leave of absence, or D. The date the Participating Employee retires! or E. The date this Cafeteria Plan Arrangement is terminated. IV. ADMINISTRATION The Administrator shall supervise the administration of the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement to see that it is carried out, in accordance with its term, for the exclusive benefit of employees eligible to participate, without discrimination. The Administrator has the power and authority to administer the Cafeteria plan Arrangement, subject to its terms and to the requirements of applicable laws. The powers of the Administrator include, but are not limited to, the following: Supporting Plan Document Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Arrangement l_ Page 3 A. To establish and enforce such procedures and regulations necessary for the administration of the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement, or as may be required by law; B. To interpret and determine questions concerning the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement, including the eligibility of any employee to participate; C. To delegate responsibility under the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement, and to designate such other persons as may benecessaryto carry out these responsibilities, with any delegation or designation set out in writing; D. To establish and maintain such records as are necessary to properly administer the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement and as may be necessary to meet the requirements of law; E. To make available to each Participating Employee his or her records maintained under the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement, for examination at reasonable times during normal business hours. The Administrator shall at all times exercise and act under the power and authority granted by the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement in a manner that is nondiscriminatory. V. FUNDING A. Prior to the beginning of each plan year, the Planholder shall determine that portion of the monthly Welfare Plan premium contribution to make on behalf of each employee participating in the Welfare Plan. Such contributions shall be considered non -elective contributions. Any such contribution made by the Planholder is fixed in amount, irrespective of what election is made by a Participating Enployee in item V.B. below. B. The excess of the monthly Welfare Plan premium over the amount contributed on behalf of each employee by the Planholder will be made by each employee participating in the plan. Participating Employees may elect, prior to March 1 of each year, to have their portion of the monthly Welfare Plan contribution: 1. Contributed to the Welfare Plan on a pre-tax basis, through the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement, from a cor:esponding reduction in salary (contributions made in this fashion are considered employer, non -elective contributions), or 2. Contributed to the Welfare Plan by payroll deduction on an after-tax basis. If this method of funding is elected by (� Participating Employees, an amount equal to the excess of the monthly welfare Plan premium over the amount contributed by the Planholdor on behalf of each participating Employee (as set out In A and a above) will be included in the employee's taxable grass pay. O Supporting Plan Document Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Arrangement Page 4 C. All contributions by the Planholder (as set out in A. and B.1.) will be available to Participating Employees solely to purchase benefits under the Welfare Plan. The contribution by the Planholder will not exceed the cost of such benefits for any Participating Employees. D. If a Participating Employee terminates as set out in Section III above, the employee shall forfeit all unused contributions made up to the date of termination. VI. BENEFIT ELECTIONS A. Participating Employees make benefit elections prior to the beginning of each Plan Year. These elections remain in effect until the end of that Plan Year. Employees may change elections prior to the beginning of each subsequent plan year. B. Employees may change benefit elections during the plan year only as a result of a change in the employee's family status. Changes in family status include: birth, adoption, divorce, marriage, death, or termination of spouse's employment. C. Elections under the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement are made on the form(s) provided by the Administrator for making said elections, which shall be distributed within 15 days prior to the beginning of each plan year to all current participants and to employees expected to be eligible to participate at the beginning of each plan year. D. Said elections are to be made in the maruier described on the form(s) so provided, which must be completed and returned to the Administrator prior to the beginning of each plan year. E. Elections under the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement for employees who become eligible to participate during any plan year shall be made in the manner described on the form(s) provided for making said elections by the Administrator, and shall be made prior to the start of the firSL payroll period for which salary reduction elections are effective. P. Elections made under this Cafeteria Plan Arrangement will terminate upon the date on which an employee ceases to be a Participating Employee or eligible to participate, even though coverage or benefits under the Welfare Plan may continue to the extent provided in the Welfare Benefit Plan and/or by law. Participating Employees are required to provide to the Planholder and/or the Administrator any information, and to sign such documents, as may reasonably be required for the proper administration of the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement. 0 Supporting Plan Document Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Arrangement l Page 5 This Cafeteria Plan Arrangement will be construed, administered, and enforced according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Planholder has caused this Cafeteria Plan Arrangement to be executed in its name and behalf on this day of , 19 , by its duly authorized officer. Nave Signature Title L L 0 Fie Supporting Plan Document for Section 115 Cafeteria Plan Arrangements The law requires that you establish a written Plan Document specifying the provisions of any Cafeteria plan you may establish. The attached Sample Plan Document is provided for your review. Your individual plan would reflect the information and choices appropriate to your plan. The law requires that certain information be included in the written Plan Document. Other provisions, though not required, are very helpful in the continuing administration of the plan It is very important that this information be reviewed by your legal counsel, so that the Plan Document accurately reflects yottr decisions regarding the design of your plan C G► 170, r amp0.'a/ w.,pi Mail l/. wrrr. Gr.nr 0 Fie FLEX I Premium Only Arrangements What is FLEX? FLEX is a product of current tax laws (Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code) which enables employees as well as employers to save tax dollars. About FLEX 1 FLEX I (Premium Only Arrangement) allows before tax treatment of employee contributions to group benefit plan premium. Using before -tax dollars for contributions reduces taxes and increases take-home pay. Employees save Federal, State, and FICA taxes; and Employers save the matching FICA on those contribution dollars. What We Do For You For our group life and health clients, we provide the following materials or samples: • Sample plan document • Discrimination testing guidelines • Samples of required year-end tax filing (Forth 5500) Employee Communication We offer communication and sign-up materials to help your employees understand and enroll in FLEX 1. t+'1 ex Increase Your Take -Home Pay with Our FLEX Premium Only Arrangement 0 'N, you pay part of the health .remium for wur personal or family coverage under youk' group benefit program? U the answer is yrs, you qualify for an easy way to increase your take-home pay. Whv? Your employer exercised an option under the federal tax laws. FISC 1 lets you receive tax savings and change the way you buy group coverage — with before -tax dollars from your earnings. You lower your taxable income — and that means more money in your check A C What is FLEX 1? A few years ago Congress revised the U.S. tax code. Section 125 of the code allows employers to offer benefit choices. Your employer chose F1E( I to let you take advantage of Section 125. FLEX 1 lets you pay your share of henefit costs on a before -tax basis. Can You Give Me an Example? By subtracting your share of the monthly costs from your earnings before taxes, you figure your percentage of federal taxes, Social Security rues (and in most states, state taxes) on less money. Suppose you're married and cam 31,500 a month. That means about 25% of your salary is withheld for federal taxes and Social Security. Suppose you also pay $100 a month for family health coverage. Your employer deducts your contribution from your wages or salarv. Currentiv, this monev comes from your after-tax earnings. W1lh0U� FQ yX 229 49 M�t1dY f��j1 tax 41 uy s5% sem" <ws ��NdN is j% Sock 1,65 (tom �9�� �e Yovi�om0onuo°d� eo'er9� `p0 WO Vo"t -C, paY uyce' 4ow do I Take Advantage of FLEX 1? It's simple. Just rill out and sign the enclosed enrollment form. Your employer takes rare of the rest. Are There any Disadvantages To Paying for Coverage This Way? Yes. Since you contribute less to Social Security (your Social Securin• tax applies to a smaller portion of your earnings), you could receive smaller retirement or disability benefits. You need to weigh this fact when you make your choice. However, many experts think the tax advantages far outweigh the minor impact on Social Security benefits. What it I Enroll for FLEX 1 and Change My Mind? Once you sign up, your decision holds for the next plan year, unless your family status changes. Examples include birth, adoption, divorce, marriage, death or termination of your spouses employment. Next year, you have a chance to reenroll or drop your participation in the plan. Enjoy Your Savings FLEX Your savings muscle. Sign up now and tvgin enjoying imir tax savings. I cO�r c', 1/,300 Cit / —4010 )S/�y? Gx tax 1/'400 tax (! s4 (est). .210 Yh�cet (aCr Secy ry 42 Z a/ A/� Y sa n \s toe srat 1?6 a and .Gj nom}'/t�R4 N �ocome 'ate -ICFUr/un�,r) Aernt�r��ersc', i4cy no • �`r'u/ �,ti !'bn,�' /rs. State a�/ sayer sire to 'ncp"9u ` �c !4 }fir QX11e 0 M FLEX 1 Section 125/Premium Only Arrangements Save S atIf... a method existed to enhance your group benefit program and save taxes at the same time? What if that method also gave your employees a tax break? Good News That method is here! Section 125 of the internal Revenue Gide allows non-taxable treatment of employee contributions to group benefit plans. FIE{ i helps you save tax dollars and enhance your benefit plan. Under your group plan, your employees who choose personal or family coverage may have to contribute toward the monthly cost of those benefits. If so, they pay that premium with after-tax dollars deducted from their checks. IL ling FLEX 1 to your plan allows employees to pay their share of the premium with before -tax dollars. Why FLEX t? You and your employees both benefit when before -tax dollars buy group coverages: • Your Social Security payment decreases. since you pay FIO1 tax on lower before -tax earnings.- • Your employees pay less Social Security, federal, and state" taxes on their reduced before -tax earnings. (This means your employes Social Security benefits accumulate at a slightly slower pace.) 'Puhlic employers need to consult their tax advisors regarding Social Security savings, '*Except a few• ,tate, Get the Most From Your Savings Use money saved with FLEK I in these ways: • Enhance your group insurance plan. Increased Life Insurance. Long and Short Term Disability, Dental, or Prescription Drug plans make good additions. • Add individual coverages for employees. Auto/4ome insurance and universal life produce offer tow cost ways to enrich your package. • Boost employees' pensions (and offset lower Social Security benefits) with a 401(k) defined contribution plan. • Offset increases in medical or dental plan costs. � S%46i' tot Oe", she of thetried matt' �yCl► C�� 0L< O1CSxvd''�+e titer of �mPtov� N�SPtume Z5 eto\ rlun' u CO Sam \9l1\W ZS Montt\� Pt ad f MonttvtY vwe wen'+ 7a tk m= up Com\ sc,urvn 01% Urti1v %3 Socv C'n'o Wray\y gm4loYe` Moats RE ow Do You Start? Count on us — the benefits experts from The Principal Financial Groupi'. Our ready -to -go program can easily become your complete FLEX 1 plan. We offer communication and sign-up materials to help your employees understand and enroll in FISC 1. We also help you meet your plan's legal requirements. But we feel it is important that you consult your own legal counsel and tax advisors. Your plat must meet these requirements: .i out per. del Y Ptemlums�"t xsayln § . 'iau I y i �ploYee' p�5t mut due 5� 4 S • IRS regulations require current employees to sign up prior to your plan year. Only new employees may sign up during the plan year. • Employees cannon change their election during due plan year unless their family status changes (marriage, divorce, death, birth. adoption, or termination of spouse's employment). This change must be consistent with the change in family status. • Your group must pass the discrimination test prior to each plan year. You must also ensure that employees hired or terminated during the plan year do not change the discrimination balance of your plan. • You must establish the legal existence of your plan by creating a plan document. • At the end of each plan year, you must file IRS Form 5500 (for groups of 100 or more employees) or 5500.0 (for groups under 100 employees). • Many plans use salary as a basis to determine Group Life Insurance, Lang Term Disability, Pension Plan or other benefits. If your plans work on that basis, you need to amend them. Your amendments need to state that "salary;" for purposes of determining benefit levels, is based upon salary prior to any voluntary salary reductions under Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. Ongoing Help We keep you up to date on Section 125 requirements. The new tax laws make life more complex for everyone. We stay on top of the situation to help you keep your plan up to date. However, we also recommend that you consult with your own legal counsel and tax advisors. Put FLEX i to work for you today. Our local representatives can answer your questions. They'll work with you to put a Section 125/Premium Only Arrangement in place. The sooner you begin, the sooner you and your employees benefit from 1`11;_X 1 tax savings. L INFORMATIONAL ITEM February 10, 1989 1989 Board of Review. (R.W.) The Wright County Assessor's office has scheduled Monday, May 15, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., as the date for the annual Board of Review. As in the past, the purpose of this Board of Review is to hear and answer any complaints property owners have regarding valuations on their property for taxes payable in the year 1990. If this date is not for some reason suitable, we have to notify the County by February 28 to reschedule. If we are not aware of any major conflicts with this date, I will inform Mr. Gruber at the Assessor's office that this date is suitable. OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR DOUGLAS M. GRUBER, WRIGHT COUNTY COURTHOUSE COUNTY ASSESSOR BUFFALO, MINNESOTA 55313 Telephone: 682.3900 (Ext. 100) Duane Swenson, Appraiser Metro: 339.688I rx February 8, 1989 Randa! . Count Assessor Asst. County Assessor Kenneth V. Yager, Appraiser TO: Rick Wolfateller, Monticello City Administrator Rt. 4. Boa 83—A. 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Please be advised that your 1989 Board of Review has been tentatively set for Monday, May 15, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. If we do not hear from you by February 28, 1989, we will assume this is satisfactory. Thank you. Sincerely../. f/� (�" '�J ' 1. .!'y� Douglas M. Gruber Wright County Assessor R CITY OF MONTICELLO Monthly Building Department Report Month of JANUARY PMIIITS MID USES PERMiis ISSUED Leat This Some Month Lest Year 'This Yea[ Non at Decamber Month January. Leat Year To Data To Data RESIDENTIAL 1 1 Nusbe[ < 5 vel uetlon 9 115,700.00 0 187,800.00 1 5,000.00 9 5,000.00 8 187,800.050 Fans 994.75 1,.17.11 50.00 50.00 1,417.11 eurcne rgae 57.85 91.90 7.50 7.50 91.90 COMMERCIAL Number 5 1 1 value tion 28,000.00 775,000.00 775,000.00 Peas 786.50 1,077.00 1,077.00 Surcharges 17.25 112.50 117.50 INDUSTRIAL NWber 1] ve at Man Fee. Surcharges PLUJIM Number 7 7 7 7 7 Faaa 46.00 71.00 40.00 40.00 71.00 Surcharges 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 OTIIPJIS Number i Veluatlon roes 10.00 Surcharges .50 TOTAL NO. PERMITS 17 a 4 4 B TOTAL VALUATION 147,700.00 187,800.00 770,000.00 770,000.00 181,800.00 TOTAL rERS 1,776.65 1,488.11 1,167.00 1,167.00 1,468.11 TOTAL SURCHARGES 77,60 97.40 116.00 116.00 97.40 CURRENT MONTH Number to Data PERMIT NATURE Number PERMIT SURCHARGE Valuatton This ya srer Iwst year Singla Family 7 8 1,147.11 1 80.40 S 176,000.00 1 0 Du plea 0 0 Multi-family 0 0 Commar�lel 0 0 Indwtrlel O O Ras. Ga regee 0 0 Signs 0 0 Public Buildings O 0 ALTERATION OR REPAIR Dwelling. 2 70.00 1.50 7,000.00 7 1 C-.rol.l 0 1 Induetrlel I 0 0 PWMRING All Types 7 71.00 1.50 1 7 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Swimming Pool. 0 0 Deo. 0 0 TSMPORARY PERMIT O 0 + DRMOLITION 0 0 TOTALS S 1.4a6 ll 97.40 111.900.00 a 4 TOTAL ANEMUE {1,401.31 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT Month of JANUARY 19 B9 9I1MIT F1MER DESCRIPTIOP TYPE NAME/IACATION VALUATION PCC PERMIT6URCBMGE PLUMBING SURCHARGE I J 99.1102 Cle[e Porch Remodel AD Mary Re..et/406 K. 3r0 B[. 3 5,000.00 3 40.00 $22 .40 09-f 3307 91np10 lamtly D. ]ling 6P OW Builder✓2837 Oakviw Lam 43,400.00 787.10 6.24 23.00 .50 09.1304 01np1• rally Ore111% SP Lenners CUR tom Home./104 Kenneth Lane 76,000.00 478.74 ]8.00 21.00 .40 09•:3305 Upstalre RnGm Finish AD Kevin fair/2u East Br --.y 3,000.00 30.00 1.00 09-1)06 Bingle Family Dwelling 6P Darthel Conetruotlou/200 Mississippi Dr. ..,]..:.n ]6].11 24.14 23.00 .90 TOTALS 3103,800.00 $1.294.64 991.90 971.00 31.50 .. PLAN RNIEN 09.1303 Blnple Partly Dwelling SP' BLl D' lidsr./2022 Oakvler One 338.32 :9•:)04 01nDle Taa11y Dro111np Or Lannera Custom Nome./104 Kenneth Lane 47.84 09.1306 Blnp1• raml3y Well lnp SP Berth.l Conatruttion/200 Mississippi Dr. 36.)1 TOTAL PLAN REVIEW 0:23.47 TOTAL ANEMUE {1,401.31