Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 03-27-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, March 27, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Ren Maus Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 13, 1989. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Public Hearing - Streetscape assessment roll and adoption of resolution certifying to Auditor. 5. Consideration of adopting an ordinance granting franchise rights to Wright Hennepin Electric Association. 6. Consideration of petition for public improvements and authorizing preparation of feasibility study. 7. Consideration of resolution entering into a cooperative agreement on traffic signals at River Street and Highway 25. B. Consideration of Council recommendation regarding rezoning request within OAA (Bahanon property) . 9. Consideration of setting a special meeting to discuss EDA for April 3, 1989. 10. Consideration of re -authorization of plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. 11. Consideration of gambling license application renewals - Monticello Jaycees. 12. Consideration of bills for the month of March. 13. Adjournment. t MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, March 13, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: 'Ren Maus, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 2. Approval of minutes. Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 27, 1989. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. None forthcoming. 4. Public Bearing - Consideration of ordinance amendment deleting Industrial Development Commission ano establishing the Economic Development Authority. Assistant Administrator O'Neill presented a proposed plan submitted by the Industrial Development Committee to develop an economic development revolving loan fund to be entitled the "Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund" (GMEP). It was proposed that an Economic Development Authority be established to operate the fund and assure compliance with the GMEP guidelines. O'Neill went on to review the fund guidelines by reporting that the purpose of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is to encourage economic development by supplementing conventional financing sources available to existing and new businesses. Through this program, loans are made to manufacturing and industrial businesses to help them meet a portion of their financing needs. The program is intended to be used in situations where a financing "gap" exists and is not designed to compete with lending institutions. O'Neill went on to describe risks associated with the program, and he also noted five communities that have successfully created new jobs in the community through utilization of a revolving loan fund. After the presentation, Council made inquiries regarding the program. Shirley Anderson asked why lending institutions could not provide 1008 of the financing for development projects. O'Neill noted that bank policy may prohibit full financing of a project if the project does not meet certain criteria. This program is designed to supplement what the lending institution is not able to finance. Warren Smith requested additional information on revolving loan funds now in operation. Staff was asked by Smith to develop five examples of revolving loan funds that did not work in addition to the success stories that staff provided. With this information Council would be able to avoid potential pitfalls that this program may present. After discussion, it war; the general consensus of Council that this program merits further study. Staff was directed to schedule a special meeting for the purpose of examining the topic further. 9 Council Minutes - 3/13/89 5. Consideration of a rezoning request to rezone R-2 (single and two family residential) unplatted residential land to R-3 (medium density residential). Applicant, West Prairie Partners. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the rezoning request and informed Council of the recommendation to Council as submitted by the Planning Commission. O'Neill informed Council that the rezoning request was denied because the applicant failed to satisfy Section 22-)-5 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that the need for the rezoning must be demonstrated. It was the view of the Planning Commission that sufficient R-3 property is now available in the city for development and that to add R-3 to the existing stock would not be in the best interest of the community. The proposal to add additional R-3 land to the existing stock troubled the Planning Commission in light of the strong shift in recent years toward construction of multi -family units versus single family units. Jim Metcalf commented on the proposal and noted that West Prairie Partners would not pursue the matter without community support. Karen Doty cited sections of the City Comprehensive Plan and zoning Ordinance in voicing opposition to the proposed rezoning. She went on to request that Council adopt the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. Fran Pair thanked the public for information provided on this matter and went on to note denial of this rezoning request should not be made on the basis of input from neighbors, as neighborhood opposition is not a legal grounds on which denial of a rezoning request can be made. It was Fair's view that denial should be based on the Planning Commission finding that there is insufficient need to justify the proposed rezoning. Dan Blonigen concurred by saying that he in no way supporta the rezoning request. After discussion, motion made by Fran Pair and seconded by Dan Blonigen to deny the rezoning request, as applicant failed to satisfy Section 22-d-5 which requires that a need for the rezoning request be demonstrated. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Consideration of a conditional use r�uest to allow a daycare-gro nursery in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. A variance request to allow no Qarking lot hard surfacing, no concrete curb around parkin gQ lot perimeter, and no landscaping requlremente. Applicant, Peggy Hanawalt. Building Inspector, Gary Anderson, reviewed the plan for development of a day care center as submitted by Peggy Hanawalt. In the request, Hanawalt agreed to meet all terms of the conditional use request with one exception. Hanawalt asked if she could delay installation of the curb and paved surface for one season. Hanawalt noted that she would like to C have more money available initially for items that will benefit the children using the facility. Mr. Catton of Monti Eduplay noted his 9 Council Minutes - 3/13/89 support of development of another day care facility in the community but went on to suggest that Council treat businesses alike. He noted that he was required to pave the Monti Eduplay parking surface at the time of opening of the facility. Staff noted to Council that if Council desired to grant a delay, the applicant would be required to supply the City with a financial guarantee that would assure the City that the parking lot would be completed within a certain time frame. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve the conditional use request and defer hard surfaced parking and curb requirements until September 1, 1989. Conditions associated with operation include all those listed by the Planning Commission with the following additions: 1. Applicant must take measures to assure dust control prior to installation of hard parking surface. 2. Signs must be posted which indicate that traffic must not back onto the highway when exiting the facility. 3. A letter of credit or other guarantee must be filed with the City prior to gaining occupancy of the structure for business purposes. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Consideration of a rezoning request to rezone R-3 (medium density residential) residential platted land to R-2 (single and two tamily residential). Applicant, Dan Frie. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve the rezoning request, as all requirements have been met that are associated with a rezoning request as outlined in Section 22-d of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. B. Consideration of assessment appeal on 88-07 Project by Floyd Markling. Warren Smith noted that it was his hope that the Country Club and Markling would get together, and unfortunately this is not the case. Fran Pair noted that this is a no-win situation for the City and that further action will not result in bettering the situation. Consensus was not to have a reassessment hearing on the project. Consideration of ordinance amendment regulating dogs and other domestic animals. City Administrator wolfsteller and Animal Control Officer, Patty Salzwedel, reviewed the proposed ordinance amendments with Council. Salzwedel noted that the current ordinance does not adequately protect dogs or dog owners and that the provisions outlined in the ordinance, including licensing and vaccination requirements, will benefit dogs and dog owners. She went on to note that the ordinance does not call for the licensing of cats and that cats are picked up only on a complaint basis. 101 Council Minutes - 3/13/89 Administrator Wolfsteller noted that a rabies clinic could be offered with the program which would provide citizens with an inexpensive method to gain compliance with the new ordinance. Fran Fair noted her support for the ordinance. Shirley Anderson asked if indoor pets need to be vaccinated. Salzwedel responded by saying that it is probably good policy to have a pet vaccinated even if it is kept primarily indoors. Anderson also asked if a job is being created by adopting the new ordinance. Wolfsteller noted that no new job is being created and that added duties associated with administering the program will be assigned to Salzwedel and become part of her existing job. Salzwedel went on to explain that the proposed ordinance allows the Animal Control Officer to issue fines, whereas the existing ordinance does not. Warren Smith noted his support for the ordinance, as it provides the Animal Control Officer the means by which barking dog problems can be rectified. Dan Blonigen noted the benefits of adding teeth to the ordinance and added that staff should use discretion in administering the ordinance. Salzwedel was asked by Smith under what conditions would a person be able to walk a dog without a leash? Salzwedel responded by saying that leashes should be required when the dog is being walked in an area where there are people nearby. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve said ordinance amendments. Motion passed unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NOS. 169 AND 170. 10. Consideration of adopting an ordinance granting franchise rights to Wright Hennepin Electric Association. Administrator Wolfateller informed Council that Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association provides electrical service to a WMIl part of the city of Monticello mainly on the east end of the city along East County Road 39 and within areas recently annexed from Monticello Township. As a result, as with other utilities serving residents within the city, Wright Hennepin has requested a franchise right to utilize the City's public right—of-ways for construction of their distribution system and transmission lines. Ren Maus noted the disparity in electric rates between NSP and Wright Hennepin Electrical Association. Maus suggested that staff determine if the City can use its authority to encourage expansion of NSP into areas now operated by Wright Hennepin Electric Association. After discussion, motion made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Fran Fair to table the matter pending collection of additional information. Motion passed unanimously. 0 Council Minutes - 3/13/89 11. Consideration of commuter parking lot status. Tom Dolly presented information to Council which outlined the economic benefit associated with development of the commuter parking lot for business purposes. He also reviewed the configuration of a replacement parking lot which is proposed for a location next to the Silver Pox Motel. Administrator Wolfsteller noted that the current City policy is to preserve the commuter parking lot because the lot is in a good location for commuters; and by preserving the lot, the space is available at such time that a loop access to east I-94 is needed. It was also noted that this present policy is not cast in stone, as it may be a number of years before the loop access will be installed. It, therefore, might make sense to lease the property to a business for a period of years in anticipation of a future use of the property for highway purposes. Dolly indicated that a lease agreement would be acceptable to the businesses looking to locate on the site. John Simola discussed with the Council that the covenant on the deed reads such that the City is currently in violation, as not all of the site is used for a commuter lot at this time. Technically, the County could at this time require turn back. In addition, we should he allowed other public activities such as "Junk Amnesty Day" and other "special events," as well as an information center or other highway purposes. Tom Dolly also pointed out that his research shows that the City of Monticello was singled out for this covenant and that other lands had been turned back to other cities without such language. Warren Smith noted that the City should keep its options open regarding the site and work with the county in establishing a plan that is good for the County and the city. The City should not shut the door on any proposal to develop the property. Motion made by Fran Pair and seconded by Warren Smith to request further clarification of the restrictions associated with the deed submitted to the City by the County to permit its current and other public uses and continue to work with the County in the future for other potential uses of the property as the need arises. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Consideration of aRroving request for proposals on curb -side recycling and authorization to advertise. Public Works Director Simola reviewed the request for proposals prepared by the advisory committee. After his presentation, Ren Maus wondered if the City would generate sufficient compliance with the program on a voluntary basis. Maus suggested that the City consider operating the program on a voluntary basis to start; and if compliance is not what is expected, then make the participation mandatory. Council Minutes - 3/13/89 Simola stated that the voluntary programs are more successful with a volume based garbage system where residents pay for waste pickup by the number of cans. They then see direct savings by producing less waste. Simola also stated that the proposed tracking system would be more costly and troublesome to implement if done after residents have received their containers. This information came from Jack Shelton and the City of St. Louis Park. Simola went on to note that participation will increase significantly if the program is mandatory, and the cost to monitor compliance will be offset by the revenue created by penalties. In fact, the penalties, even if only 10 percent of the residents choose to not recycle, will help offset waste pickup and disposal costs for the rest of the community, as well as fund a prize incentive program. After discussion, motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Pair to approve said request for approval and authorize advertisement. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Consideration of approving specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for recycling containers. Motion was made by Warren Smith to approve specifications and authorize advertisement for bids for recycling containers. Motion was seconded by Fran Pair and passed unanimously. 14. Consideration of adoption of Joint Powers Agreement outlining economic develo7nt powers of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Author ty, and the Economic Development Authority. Item tabled per agenda item 14 above. 15. Consideration of adoption of Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines. Item tabled per agenda item 14 above. 16. Consideration of further action on the Monticello Celebrate Minnesota Program. Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council of the recent decision by the State of Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development to deny granting Monticello funds for the Monticello Celebrate Minnesota Program. O'Neill went on to describe the financial implications of not gaining the grant funds. After discussion, it was the general consensus of Council to affirm participation in the community entrance signage and landscaping and the Robert Leathers play structure portions of the project. It was suggested that the City take a second look at development of the Mississippi island into a passive park area. 9 Council Minutes - 3/13/89 17. Consideration of Change Order #1 for Pump House $3, Project 88-01C. Motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve said change order. Motion carried unanimously. 18. Consideration of additional payment request by City Engineer - OSM. City Engineer, John Badalich, outlined the circumstances leading to the request for payment in excess of the original quoted amount for work done on topographic maps. Badalich noted that OSM neglected to inform the City when the scrape of the project expanded and that additional costs would be accrued. Shirley Anderson suggested that maybe OSM will remember to contact the City and/or provide an accurate quote if their request is turned down. Fran Fair found it difficult to justify the change in cost. Warren Smith and Dan Blonigen agreed. Ren Maus noted that we should be firm unless there are extenuating circumstances; except in this case, no communication was made regarding the change in circumstances. Motion made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to authorize payment to the extent of the original quote. Motion carried unanimously. 19. Consideration of gambling license application - Ducks Unlimited Banquet. Council approved issuing license by consensus. 20. Consideration of authorizing final payment on County Road 39 Project, 88-01B, and Dundas Circle Project, 98--02 - LaTour Construction. Dan Blonigen asked if sufficient funds are held back to assure full completion of the project. Yes, was John Simola's response. Motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Pair to approve said payment. Motion carried unanimously. 21. Consideration of authorizing cost analysis for upgrading streets in Monticello Industrial Park. Economic Development Director Roropchak reported that the Industrial Development Committee views the existence of streets in the industrial park with less than a 10 ton capacity as a detriment to economic development in the community. From a marketing standpoint and operational standpoint, it is vital that the streets have the capacity to handle 10 ton loads. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to conduct a feasibility study outlining the costa associated with upgrading streets in the Monticello Industrial Park. Council Minutes - 3/13/89 22. Consideration of authorizing the Industrial Park streets not be posted. i Jay Morrell of MSP Transport reported on the Industrial Development Committee recommendation to not post Industrial Park streets. He noted that most streets were installed when the standard was 7 tons and informed Council that the State of Minnesota raised that capacity of some state highways simply by posting higher weight limits. He went on to note that posting the roads as having limited capacity will hamper efforts of the sale and development of industrial lots. It was noted by Simola that in light of the possibility of upgrading the roads, it might make sense to continue to post the roads, thereby providing additional protection from damage which will result in a less expensive upgrading program. Motion was made by Fran Pair and seconded by Dan Blonigen to continue to post industrial park streets. Motion passed unanimously. 23. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator Na Council Agenda - 3/27/89 Public Hearing - Streetscape assessment roll a adoption of resolution certifying to Auditor. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Council is requested to review the proposed Streetscape assessment roll, conduct a public hearing on the matter, and adopt an assessment roll accordingly. Following is a wrap-up of the project costs and a proposed method by which those costs might be assessed to benefiting property owners. On February 8, 1988, Council adopted a Streetscape budget of $405,000. On April 27, 1988, the City sold bonds for the Streetscape project in the amount of $437,775. This amount was higher than the budget amount because it included an additional 10 percent contingency cost above the project construction cost of $333,400. The actual completed project cost amounted to $414,323, which is 2 percent above the budget amount of $405,000. Total construction cost for the Streetscape project amounted to $348,617, which is 5 percent over the budget amount of $333,400. The cost overrun can be attributed to a claim made by the contractor that the quantity amounts for concrete in the contract were incorrect; and as a result, an additional $15,000 worth of extra materials was needed by the contractor to complete the work. Unfortunately, this information was not provided to the City prior to the Council decision to take on additional project activities in September. Please note that the claim by the contractor is being investigated, and there is some chance that his figures are incorrect. At this point, the City has not made payment for those additional costs claimed by the contractor. The total cost that is provided at this point includes full payment to the contractor as claimed. The total indirect costs for the project amounted to $65,706, which represents 19 percent of the total project cost. This cost includes $6,781 for legal and bonding fees, $50,805 for engineer and planner fees, $8,120 for administration and inspection fees, and $27,872 for preliminary design work completed prior to January 1988. ASSESSMENT AMOUNT As you may have noted, the bond sale amount of $437,775 is greater than the actual project cost which was $414,323. According to the requirements associated with the general obligation bond issue, the City must assess at least 20 percent of the actual bond amount. Therefore, the assessment roll reflects an assessment based on the bond sale and not on the actual project cost. This results in the property owners paying slightly more than 20 percent of the actual project costs. It is the view of the City Administrator that 21 percent of the bond amwnt should be assessed to provide Council with some leeway in adjusting individual assessment amounts. In the event that Council would reduce an individual assessment amount, there would be funds available to guarantee that 20 percent of the bond amount is assessed. Twenty percent (208! of the bond amount equals $91,933. This amount was assessed to individual property owners as follows: IM Council Agenda - 3/27/89 1. The proposed assessment roll calls for assessing property owners on a front footage basis. Property located on corners were assessed based on the total number of feet fronting Broadway. The cost to develop the sides of corner lots is spread among all properties fronting on Broadway. According to 011ie Koropchak, this method of assessing 20 percent of the project cost is consistent with expectations established prior to the ordering of the project. 2. Four properties within the assessment roll were singled out as receiving less benefit than the majority of the properties. These properties received only sidewalk and some landscaping as part of their improvement. In calculating the assessment for these properties, staff applied actual cost plus overhead in deriving the assessment amount. These properties include Fair Garden Center owned by Kevin Fair, Red's Mobil owned by Ronald Michaelis, City Hall, and the structure owned by Keith Kjellberg. Finally, the terms of payment call for a 15 -year payment plan at an interest rate of B-3/4 percent. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt assessment roll as presented and adopt proposed terms for payment. 2. Motion to modify and adopt assessment roll and adopt proposed terms for payment. 3. Motion to deny adoption of assessment roll and call for a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing a revised assessment roll. C. STAFF RECOl49MATION: Staff recommends alternative /1. Distribution of the Streetscape costs will likely be controversial. The attached assessment roll represents staff's beat efforts in assigning costs in a fair and equitable manner. However, it could be contended that the assessment roll prepared to not fair to those property owners with lots in the interior of blocks, as those individuals are paying costs associated with improvements to aide frontage on corner lots. At the saw time, however, it is and understanding that the project proceeded with the understanding that the assessments would be based on front footage only. It might not be fair to change the rules after the project has been completed. If council desires to assese corner lots for more than front footage, then a new public hearing would need to be called and a new assessment roll prepared. It might also be contended that those individuals that received only sidewalk and landscaping should pay a larger portion of the Streetscape cost. As you will note in the assessment roll, Kevin Fair is paying 15 percent of the total cost per foot for his improvement; and Ronald Michaelis is paying 17 percent of the cost per foot for improvements in -2- C Council Agenda - 3/27/89 front of his property; City Hall pays 9 percent; and Reith Rjellberg is paying 4 percent. Council could take the view that these properties are benefiting from the nearby Streetscape fixtures and Streetscape environment; and therefore, these properties should pay more than the cost associated with improvements to their property. If Council takes this view, then the assessment roll figures would need significant revision and a new public hearing would be required. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Excerpt from Streetscape bond document; Excerpt from minutes of the regular meeting of the Council February 8, 1988, at which time a $405,000 budget was established; Revised assessment roll; Resolution for adoption. -3- 7 �~ City of Monticello, Minnesota r� r April 27, 1988 1 - }+.' (D) Dundas Circle - sewer, water, street improvements Subtotal $ 55.046 Total Construction $ 920,474 Indirect Costs (27%) 248,528 Total Project U88-1 Costs $1,169,002 2. 1188-2 - STREETSCAPE Project Costs $ 333,400 Contingency (10%) 33,400 Engineering (16%) 58,675 Administration (2%) 7,300 Issuance (1-1/2%) 5.000 Total 1188-2 Project Costs $ 437,775 Subtotal Costs $1,606,777 Add: Bond Discount 24.375 Subtotal $1,631,152 Less: Investment Earnings (6.152) Net Bond Issue $1.625.000 Of the total project costs approximately $385,000 will be assessed against benefited property over a term of 15 years with interest rates at 1.50% over the interest rate on the bonds. We are estimating this will be 8.5%. The assessment income, as projected, is shown In Appendix 11 of these recommendations. The structure of the bond issue is shown in Appendix 1 of these recommendations. The first levy for the bonds will be made in 1988 for collection in 1989. The first principal on the bonds will fall due on February I, 1990 and annually thereafter through 2004. The Interest rates shown in Column 5 represent current market rates as of April 19 and may vary somewhat from the rates actually received at the time of sale. Any adjustments up or down will alter the net required levy for the City. The total debt service on the bonds is shown in Column 6, and Column 7 reflects the mandatory 5% overlevy that Minnesota Statutes require in order to protect the City and the bondholders in the event all of the taxes are not paid as scheduled. Column 8 is the projected income as developed in Appendix 11. Column 9 is the annual tax levy required to support the bond issue. We have been advised that the City wil l assess 10096 of the Dundas Circle costs which amount to $69,900, and $226,200 against the remaining utilities in project 1188-1. Not included in these numbers is $91,000 of assessments which will also be filed at this time, however, it is anticipated that those assessments will qualify for Green Acres and therefore have not been anticipated in the cash flow for repayment of the bonds. CTo the extent that these properties,lose their Green Acres status, additional income will be available to reduce future tax levies for these bonds. The streetscape project 04 Page 2' MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELL40 CITY COUNCIL Monday, February 8, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. % 'Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Dan Blonigen, Warren Smith ■ Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January 25, 1988. a. 4. Consideration of Request by U.S. Cycling Federation to Hold a Time Trial Event in Monticello. Mr. Pete Zarembo, District Representative of the U.S. Cycling Federation, appeared before the Council to request permission for the Association to hold a State Time Trial Bicycle Championship in Monticello on June 11, 1988. The event would start at the Pinewood School at approximately 6:00 a.m. and consist of up to 300 bikers who would proceed along a course from Pinewood on County Road 75 to Clearwater a distance of 12.4 miles and return. Mr. Zarembo noted that the school has agreed to rent their facility to the Association, and the Association would provide $1 million worth of liability insurance for the event. Before the event can proceed, the Wright County Sheriff's Department and Highway Department are required to issue a permit for the use of the county road, and a number of concerns were raised by the Sheriff's Department regarding traffic control and assignment of a deputy to monitor the event. The Sheriff's Department suggested that at least one deputy be assigned for the event that would be paid for by the Association. Councilmember Fran Fair also recommended that as a condition of the permit, the Association consider the posting of notices along the route and within Monticello ahead of time that would indicate when the event would take place. After further discussions, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimoualy carried to grant approval to the issuance of the permit for the event provided that 1) insurance coverage in provided in the amount of $1 million with the City of Monticello as an additional insured; 2) the Association pays for all coots associated with one deputy to monitor the event; 3) the Association provide and post notices of the event throughout the community and along the route. 5. Consideration of Recolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications on Streetucape Project. At the January 11 Council meeting, a public hearing was held on the proposed Downtown Streetacape Improvement Project; and it wan the Council's action at that meeting to table any action on the project 1 Council Minutes - 218188 and directed the Downtown Rehabilitation Committee and City staff to work 1:1 with the Planner in an effort to reduce the cost by approximately one-third. Mr. Geoff Martin of Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban, Inc., the City's Consulting Planner, presented to the Council the revised streetscape proposal that had been reduced from an estimated cost of $640,000 down to approximately $405,000, a 37 percent reduction. Mr. Martin noted that the revised project included the elimination of Blocks 50 and 37 from the project (Post Office block and pump -n -Munch block) on the west and replacing of sidewalks only where needed in Blocks B and D on the east end. Major reductions in the public parking lots were also recommended in Block 35, 34, and Block 52 by eliminating medians, some curbing, and landscaping, etc. The revised plan also will be using exposed aggregate along the sidewalks in areas that were previously planned to use interlocking pavers in an effort to reduce the cost substantially. After Mr. Martin's presentation, 011ie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, reviewed with the Council the new project cost of $405,000 and the proposed assessments to the benefiting property owners based on a 20 percent assessment ratio. The project would result in a typical residential home valued at $62,000 having an increase in taxes of $1.80 per year. Mayor Grimsmo noted that the two questions that the Council had to consider were whether to proceed with the project, and if so, what the assessment formula would be for benefiting property owners. The Council did open up the meeting for public comment and questions, but asked that it be limited to new information and not a rehash of the public hearing comments January 11. Mayor Grimsmo noted that no improvements have taken place in the downtown area in the past 15 years except for public parking lot improvements and feels that all of Monticello will benefit from a project such as this. Councilmember Blonigen felt that if the project did proceed, a 20 percent assessment ratio was not high enough for the sidewalk and landscaping improvements. Mr. Blonigen noted that the City's ordinances currently require property owners to maintain and replace sidewalks in front of their property and felt that if only 20 percent of the project is assessed to benefiting property owners in the downtown area, the Council should seriously consider changing its ordinance for the rest of the city. Based on the proposed assessment, Mr. Blonigen was opposed to the project as presented. Councilmember Bill Fair felt the image of the downtown area needed to be upgraded to prevent further erosion of retail businesses. He noted that the main focus of a community is normally its downtown LCea and that the facelift of the streetscape project should encourage more private development to occur. Councilmember Fran Fair also felt tke project was much needed for Monticello and that the project has been discussed and considered for a number of years. Councilmember Warren Smith noted that he had received a number of comments from the public toth pro and con to the project, but overall felt the project will improve the image of the City of Monticello and therefore make all residents proud of the city. Mr. Smith noted that the City has and always will use ad valorrm taxes to pay for projects and (4) Council Minutes - 2/8/88 services for the public and that not all people will benefit from each tax dollar spent. Projects supported by taxes include such facilities as softball fields, senior citizens centers, and other items that actually .' benefit only a few people and that this project should be considered ': likewise, a project that should be supported by all the citizens of yy� Monticello. After the Council deliberations were completed, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, to adopt a resolution ordering the improvement and preparation of plans and specifications on the revised streetscape project and to propose that a 20 percent assessment formula -: be used for benefiting property. voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, and Warren Smith. Opposed was Dan Blonigen. See Resolution 88-4. 6. Consideration of Change Order Al on 88-1A Deep Well Project. At the previous Council meeting, a contract was awarded to E.H. Renner and Sons of Elk River, Minnesota, in the amount of $40,510 for the construction of a new 14 -inch deep well. Because of the City's desire to obtain at least 1,000 gallons per minute from the new well, the Public Works Department had scheduled a gamma scan test of the well site which would better determine whether the soil conditions could provide this capacity. Based on the test completed by Minnesota Geophysical, it appeared that the new well could produce in excess of 1,000 gallons per minute with a 14 -inch high tech screen, but the currently designed 14 -inch casing would limit the size of the pump that could be installed in the well. As a result, it was recommended by E.H. Renner, the low bidder, that the City consider changing to an 18 -inch well with an outer 24 -inch casing that would allow a larger size well pump to be installed. The additional cost would amount to $7,865 and would require a change order on the project. The new bid total would amount to $48,375, still lower than the second bidder on the project. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve Change Order Al in the amount of $7,865 with E.H. Renner and Sons enlarging the 14 -inch casing to an 18 -inch well. M ? 7. Consideration of Policy Approval on Survey Requirements. i L R Section 3-2-C of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to platted and unplatted property currently states that any person desiring to improve property i shall submit to the Building Inspector a survey of the property and information on the location and dimensions of existing and proposed buildings, location of easements crossing the property, encroachments, and other information that may be necessary to ensure conformance to city ordinances. In an effort to clarify for all individuals obtaining a building permit, the City staff has researched requirements of other communities and prepared a policy that outlines the requirements that each certificate of survey must provide. 3 B L 0 C K NAME LINEAR 8 PAID OF NEW "ASSESS FRONT BASE PER ASSESS NOTICE FOOTAGE FOOT RATE TOTAL AMOUNT 51 MONT. MRA 107 100% $4,738 $4.762 51 O'CONNOR. JOE 31 100% $1.379 $1.386 51 STELTON, ERVIN 28 100% $1,223 $1,230 51 TOPEL, DOROTHY 66 100% $2,936 $2,951 51 TAYLOR SURV 33 1008 $1.468 $1,476 51 SCOTT, OCUGLAS 33 100% $1,468 $1,476 51 SANDBURG, JCHN 33 100% $1,468 $1,476 52 DOUGLAS. STAN 59 100% $2.625 $2.638 52 MICHEAL. WOODWARD 20 1008 $890 $894 52 JOHNSON. STEVEN 68 100% $3.021 $3.036 52 BLOOMDALH, CARROL 51 1008 $2.273 $2.285 52 FLUTH. BARRY 50 100% $2.202 $2.213 52 JOHNSON. STEVEN 17 100% $734 $738 52 JOHNSON, STEVEN 66 100% $2,936 $2,951 53 WRIGHT CT STATE BANK 33 100% $1,468 $1,476 53 STOKES, I.EO 65 1008 $2,936 $2,951 53 WRIGHT CTY STATE BANK 33 100% $1,468 $1.476 53 MULLER PROPERTIES 67 100% $2,990 $3.005 53 HOLKER, PAULA 65 100% $2,883 $2.898 53 HOLKER, PAULA 33 100% $1,468 $1,476 53 HOLKER. PAULA 33 1008 $1,468 $1.476 34 HAMMER, TOHMAS 42 1008 $1,868 $1,878 34 RASMISSEN, ROBERT 24 1008 $1,068 $1,073 34 CITY OF MONT. 66 1008 $2.936 $2.951 34 MONT LIOUOR 75 1008 $3,337 $3,354 34 LINDBERG 6 SONS 24 1008 $1.068 $1,073 34 NOVAK, JOHN 33 1008 $1.468 $1,476 34 HILDEBRANDT, MARLAND 33 1008 $1,468 $1,476 34 HILDEBRANDT, MARLAND 33 1008 $1,468 $1,476 35 CITY OF MONT. 33 1008 $1,468 $1,476 35 HATFIELD, LEE 36 1008 $1.602 $1,610 35 BOUT. VICTOR 39 1008 $1,735 $1.744 35 KLIMMEK. ALLEN 40 1008 $1,780 $1,789 35 WRIC44T COUNTY STATE BANK 43 1008 $1,913 $1.923 35 LARSON. BRAD 23 1008 $1.023 $1.028 35 SCHNEIDER. THOMAS 20 1008 $890 $894 35 LOCH. ALAN 22 1008 $979 $984 35 LOCH. ALAN 21 1008 $912 $917 35 MCN TI LODGE 29 1008 $1,290 $1.297 35 KRUSE.FLOYD 25 1008 $1,090 $1,096 36 FOSSTER. JIM 83 1008 $3.693 $3,711 36 GOSSEN. JOHN 22 1008 $965 $970 36 CITY MCNT. 27 1008 $1,215 $1,221 36 KOPPY, JOHN 33 1008 $1,468 $1,476 36 BCA4ER, ROBERT 27 1008 $1.201 $1.207 36 LARSON, KENNEIH 39 1008 $1,735 $1,144 36 BJORKLUND. PAULS 33 1008 $1,458 $1,476 36 8JORKLUND, PAULS 66 1008 $2,936 $2.951 8 • FAIR. KEVIN 297 158 $1,982 $2,231 D • MICHAELIS. RONALD 116 178 $858 $955 • CITY HALL 215 98 $842 $952 • KJELLBERG.KE•ITH 100 48 $165 $184 -__-RAW TOTAL --_--------- -------$2 708 $91.933 •• CALCULATICN OF REVISED ASSMNT ROLL BASED ON BOND COST OF $437,775. INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS ARE SLIGHTLY LESS THAN ORIGINAL NOTICE. -o STREETSCAPE PROJECT RECAP AND ASSESSMENT ROLL MARCH 24. 1989 TOTAL COST $414,323 ' CONSTRUCTION (Budget - $333,400) $348,617 105% INDIRECT (19% of total) $65.706 ASSESSED COST PER LINEAL FOOT $44 AFTER ADJUSTMENTS ' Project over budget duo to dispute with contractor, ovor quantity amounts. Contractor claims concrete quantity amounts required as calculated in original bid worn inaccurato. Contractor is claiming an additional $15,000 for cxtra materials noedod. This information not providod to City until the end of the Project. 21% OF BOND AMOUNT - ASSESSMENT AMOUNT $91.933 ASSESSMENT METHOD 1. Assossmont basod on front iootago Per original diccussion with property ownora. Property locatod an corners acsoncmnnt biced on front footage only. 2. Pr000rtios notod with an • whoro assosaod based an actual coat of imorovarrnnta plus ovorhoad. Reduced rate is cuggestod becauao affoctod proportion recoivod less bonofit from tho improvermont. ny BUDGET PERCENT AMOUNT OF BUDGET 1/11/88 ORIGINAL PROJECT COST: $640.000 2/8/88 ADOPTED BUDGET: $405.000 4/27/88 BOND SALE (Included contingency): $437.775 3/22/89 ` ACTUAL PROJECT COST: $414,323 102% PROJECT COST BREAKDOWN CONST. ARRIGONI BRO - GEN CONST. $208.176 NORTHERN ELECTRIC $55.159 MJ VALLEY - LANDSCAPING $34,973 MJ IRON WORKS - RAILING $23,006 IRONSMITH - GRATES/TREE GAURDS $22.468 FLANNIGENS - TRASH CONTAINERS $2,691 OTHER MISC $2.145 INDIRECT LEGAL $6,781 ENGR/PLANNER $50,805 ADMIN 6 INSPECTION FEES (2`b) $8.120 i PRELIMINARY DESIG" WORK $27,872 TOTAL COST $414,323 ' CONSTRUCTION (Budget - $333,400) $348,617 105% INDIRECT (19% of total) $65.706 ASSESSED COST PER LINEAL FOOT $44 AFTER ADJUSTMENTS ' Project over budget duo to dispute with contractor, ovor quantity amounts. Contractor claims concrete quantity amounts required as calculated in original bid worn inaccurato. Contractor is claiming an additional $15,000 for cxtra materials noedod. This information not providod to City until the end of the Project. 21% OF BOND AMOUNT - ASSESSMENT AMOUNT $91.933 ASSESSMENT METHOD 1. Assossmont basod on front iootago Per original diccussion with property ownora. Property locatod an corners acsoncmnnt biced on front footage only. 2. Pr000rtios notod with an • whoro assosaod based an actual coat of imorovarrnnta plus ovorhoad. Reduced rate is cuggestod becauao affoctod proportion recoivod less bonofit from tho improvermont. ny 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 improvement of Broadway, River, and Third Streets between Linn Street on the west to Palm Street on the east with curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and other appurtenant work associated with a downtown streetscape improvement. 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 8.75 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 such 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 his resolutions 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 year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through 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 lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the Council this 27th day of March, 1989. Ken Maus, Mayor Rick Wolfsteller City Administrator n.1 Council Agenda - 3/27/89 5. Consideration of adopting an ordinance granting franchise rights to Wright Hennepin Electric Association. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association provides electrical service to a small part of the city of Monticello mainly on the east end of the city along East County Road 39 and within areas recently annexed from Monticello Township. As a result, as with other utilities serving residents within the city, Wright Hennepin has requested a franchise right to utilize the City's public right-of-ways for construction of their distribution system and transmission lines. At the previous Council meeting, this item was tabled to allow the staff to find out whether the City Council has any authority in determining boundaries served by utility companies such as NSP or Wright Hennepin. Wright Hennepin Electric has had a history of higher electrical cost for its customers, and the Council requested additional input as to whether the City Council by not adopting this franchise ordinance for Wright Hennepin could allow NSP to serve all of the customers within the city limits. I consulted with City Attorney, Tom Hayes, and also with Mr. Jerry Zimmer, Public Relations Regional Manager for NSP, concerning what authority the city governments have in establishing boundaries for utility companies. Both individuals indicated that the territory boundaries are established by the Public Utilities Commission which has sole authority in establishing utility boundaries. Both an individual customer and/or a city government can petition to the PUC to have the boundaries altered; but it is a very rare occurrence where this has happened. In all likelihood, Wright Hennepin would oppose the shifting of the boundaries; and it does not seem beneficial at this point for the City to even pursue such an idea. If the City did not adopt the franchise ordinance, Wright Hennepin Electric would still have the right to use public right-of-ways for constructing their power lines, etc. If the City denied access to Wright Hennepin for this purpose, in all likelihood Wright Hennepin would seek court action to force the City to allow use of its right-of-way. The City of Monticello currently has franchise ordinances governing the cable TV distribution system, one with North Central Public Service for natural gas distribution, and naturally, one with NSP for electrical distribution. The ordinance franchise proposal submitted by Wright Hennepin has been reviewed by the City staff, and a few modifications were requested which are incorporated into this new franchise. The franchise agreement appears to be consistent with other utility franchises that have been granted by the City and appears to adequately protect the City of Monticello. Some of the modifications requested by the City included a provision requiring the company to provide annual updated as builts of all their transmission lines and equipment located within our right-of-way, rewording of provisions which allow the City of Monticello to require relocation at no cost of transmission lines and -4- Council Agenda - 3/21/89 equipment when required for any utility construction on our part. This franchise ordinance is actually more descriptive in this nature than any of our existing franchise agreements. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the ordinance amendment granting a franchise right to Wright Hennepin Electric Association. 2. Do not adopt the franchise agreement. C. STAFF REOOMMENDATION: After reviewal by the City staff and comparisons to the existing franchise agreements from other utility companies, the staff feels comfortable with the Council adopting this franchise agreement covering a 20 -year period of time. As I indicated, modifications were made to the initial agreement presented which the staff feels adequately protects the City of Monticello. It is certainly in the City's beat interest to adopt a franchise agreement since Wright Hennepin has and will in the future have more utility extensions as the City grows within the annexed areas. As noted in the franchise agreement, Wright Hennepin will pay for all publication cost of this ordinance upon approval. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of franchise agreement. -5- ORDINANCE NO. City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN IN THE CITY OF ' MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, AN ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION LINES, INCLUDING NECESSARY POLES, POLE LINES AND FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES, FOR THE FURBISHING OF ELECTRIC ENERGY TO THE CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS, AND OTHERS, AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF SAID CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Definitions Subd. 1. In this Ordinance "City" means the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota• Subd. 2. "City Utility System" refers to the facilities used for providing any public utility service owned or operated by City of agency thereof, including sewer and water service. i Subd. 3• "Company" means Wright -Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association, a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns. Subd. 4. "Notice" means a writing served by any party or parties on any other party or parties. Notice to Company shall be mailed to the General Manager thereof at P.O. Box 330, Maple Lake, MN 55358-0330. Notice to city shall be mailed to the CITY CLERK. Subd. 5• "Public grounds" means city parks and squares se well as land held by the City for the purposes of open space• Subd. 6. "Public ways" means streets, avenues, alleys, parkways, walkways, and other public rights of way within the City. SECTION 2. Grant of Franchiae City hereby grants Company. for a period of 20 years from the date hereof, the right to transmit and furnish electric energy for light, heat, power and other purposes for public and private use within and through the limits of city as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future• For these purposes, Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain electric distribution system and electric transmission lines, including poles, pole lines, duct lines, fixtures, and any other necessary appurtenances in, on, over, under and across the public ways and public grounds of City. Company may do all f -eaeonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, ubject, however, to the further provisions of this franchise. C SECTION 3. Restrictions Subd. 1. Company facilities included in such electric distribution system, transmission lines and appurtenances thereto, shall be located and constructed so as not to interfere with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel along and over said public ways. Company's constructionr operation, repair, maintenance and location of such facilities shall be subject to such regulations as may be imposed by City pursuant to charter, ordinance or statute. Subd. 2. Company shall not construct any new installations within or upon any public grounds without receiving the prior written consent of an authorized representative of City for each such installation. Subd. 3. Company shall provide field locations for all its underground facilities when requested by City within a reasonable period of time. The period of time will be considered reasonable if it compares favorably with the average time required by the cities in the County to locate municipal underground facilities for Company. ("County" refers to the County in which City is located.) Subd. 4. Company shall provide annual updated as builts of all electrical transmission lines and other equipment located in, on, over, and under the public right-of-ways and public grounds of city when requested by the City. SECTION 4. Tree Trimming Company is also granted the permission and authority to trim all trees and shrubs, including spraying the same with herbicides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, in the public ways and public grounds of City interfering with the proper construction, operation, repair and maintenance of any poles, pole lines, and fixtures or appurtenances installed in pursuance of the authority hereby granted, provided that Company shall save City harmless from any liability in the premises. SECTION 5. Service Rates The Company will provide adequate, efficient, and reasonable electric service and at rates which fairly reflect the costs of doing business on its utility system. SECTION 6. Relocating Subd. 1. Whenever City shall grade, regrade or change the line of any public way, or construct or reconstruct any City utility system therein and shall, in the proper exercise of its police power, and with due regard to seasonable working conditions, when necessary order Company to relocate permanently its lines, services and other property located in said public way, Company -shall relocate its facilities at its own expense. City shall give Company reasonable notice of plans to grade, regrade or change the line of any public way or to construct or reconstruct any city utility system therein. However, after c -3Z;127 kaz EG r..GC3L5l, If 8 Cil 'y.=tiF ry ff%��%s'�r,f P.f shall be ordered within ten years from and after the first relocation, the City shall reimburse company for such non -betterment relocation / expense which company may incur on a time and material basis, provided if subsequent relocations are required because of the extension of city utilities to a previously unserved area, or for the upgrading, reconstruction, or maintenance of existing utilities and streets, company shall be required to relocate at its own expense at any time. Subd. 2. Nothing contained in this franchise shall require Company to relocate, remove, replace or reconnect at its own expense its facilities where such relocation, removal, replacement or reconnection is for convenience and not of necessity in the construction of reconstruction of a City utility system or extension thereof. Provided, however, relocation shall be considered a necessity and not a convenience if the City determines that it will incur additional cost or time delays for construction or reconstruction of a city utility system or extension without relocation, removal, replacement, or reconnection of company facilities. Subd. 3. Any relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any Company facilities made necessary because of the extension into or through City of a federally aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 161.46 as supplemental or amended; and further, it is expressly understood that the right herein granted to Company is a valuable property right and City shall not order Company to remove or relocate its facilities without compensation when a public way is vacated, improved or re -aligned 1 because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless the reasonable non -betterment costs of such relocation and the loss and expense resulting therefrom are first paid to Company. Subd. 4. Nothing contained herein shall relieve any person, persons or corporations from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring Company's facilities while performing any work connected with grading, regrading, or changing the line of any public way, or with the construction or reconstruction of any City utility system. SECTION 7. Indemnification Company shall indemnify, keep and hold City free and harmless from any and all liability on account of injury to persons or damage to property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair or operation of Company's electric facilities located in, on, over, under, or across the public ways and public grounds of City, unless ouch injury or damage grows out of the negligence of City, its employees, or agents, or results from the performance in a proper manner of acts reasonably doomed hazardous by Company, but such performance is nevertheless ordered or directed by City after notice of Company's determination. In the event a suit shall be brought against City under circumstances where the above agreement to indemnify applies, Company at its sole cost and expense shall defend City in such suit if written notice thereof is promptly given to !� Company within a period wherein Company is not prejudiced by lack of such notice. If such notice is not reasonably given as hereinbefore provided, Company shall have no duty to indemnify nor defend. If company is required to indemnify and defend, it will thereafter have complete control of such litigation, but Company may not settle ouch litigation without the consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to City; and Company, in defending any action on behalf of City shall be entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunity that City could assert in its own behalf. SECTION 8. Vacation of Public Ways The City shall give the Company at least two weeks' prior written notice of a proposed vacation of a public way. Except where required solely for a City improvement project, the vacation of any public way, after the installation' of electric facilities, shall not operate to deprive Company of its rights to operate and maintain such electrical facilities, until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to Company. In no case, however, shall City be liable to the Company for failure to specifically preserve a right—of—wap, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.29 (Y SECTION 9. Written Acceptance Company shall, if it accepts this ordinance and the rights and obligations hereby granted, file a written acceptance of the rights hereby granted with the City Clerk within ninety (90) days after the final passage and any required publication of this ordinance. SECTION 10. Provisions of ordinance Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared separate from every other section, provision or part; and if any section. provision or part shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision or part. Where a provision of any other City ordinance conflicts with the provisions of this ordinance, the provisions of this ordinance shall prevail. SECTION 11. Publication Expense The expense of any publication of this franchise ordinance required by law shall be paid by Company. SECTION 12. Effective Date This ordinance is effective as provided by statute or charter, and upon acceptance by Company as provided in Section 9. Passed and approved: , 1989. Attest: City Clerk Mayor Council Agenda - 3/27/89 6. Consideration of petition for public improvements and authorizing preparation of feasibility study. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, Dan Frie has received preliminary approval of the replat of the Meadows and has had the property rezoned in anticipation of installation of utilities and development of the property. Frie is asking the City to participate in the development of phase I by installing the portion of Marvin Elwood Road that provides the outlet from the neighborhood to River street. Frie further asks that the cost of the improvement be assessed to the benefiting property owners, which are Dan Frie and Edgar Rlucas. Phase I calls for the development of 10 lots. According to the quotes received by Frie, the per lot cost to develop the property without City participation as requested is approximately $17,930 per lot. Frie proposes the following level of City participation in the process. 1. The City develops feasibility study and plans and specifications utilizing his engineer's base information. A public hearing regarding the proposed improvements would also be scheduled for April 10, 1989. 2. After the public hearing has been held and after plans have been approved, Council would then authorize staff to solicit quotes for the completion of Marvin Elwood Road. A formal bidding process will not be necessary because the value of the work being done will be less than $15,000. It is expected that the quotes to the City to do the work will be identical to quotes received by Frie. Frie received a quote of $10,700 for construction of the Marvin Elwood Road portion of phase I. 3. If the quotes come in as expected, the City orders project (Marvin Elwood Road development) which will be completed simultaneous to completion of the remainder of phase I. This request is somewhat controversial because it calls for the mixing of methods by which subdivision development is financed. Following are reasons why the proposal might be denied and reasons that could justify approval of City participation in the plan. REASONS SUPPORTING DENIAL This proposal may contribute toward setting an undesirable precedent. If this proposal is approved, the City can expect that developers will structure projects as Prie has done when it appears that the project will benefit an adjoining land owner. At the same time, the City may be able to soften the precedent by pointing to special circumstances associated with this situation that justified combining City with a privately N" financed project. -6- Council Agenda - 3/27/89 Given the relatively small size of the project, Oouncil could take the view that the efforts associated with administering the project are not offset by suggested gains. Council could deny the request for the feasibility study in hopes of the developer completing the street on his own and could provide further leverage to encourage private development of the road by withholding plat approval without an agreement that the developer will complete Marvin Elwood Road without City participation. REASONS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSAL The particular section of roadway is important to the neighborhood and provides a proper outlet for traffic. Participation as suggested will guarantee development of the outlet on a timely basis and will add value to the development in general. Dan Frie, as owner of 1/2 of the property abutting the improvement area, has every right to petition for the improvement regardless of the fact that he is providing the financing for the installation of the remainder of phase I. The cost to complete this section of Marvin Elwood Road will not likely get any cheaper than what it will cost when completed with phase I of the development. The $10,700 quote expected reflects the fact that the contractor is mobilized and on the site doing other work associated with phase I. It is likely that the quoted amount to conduct the work will greatly increase if the Marvin Elwood portion of the project is done at some time in the future apart from the development of Phase I. The establishment of development of the road and assessments created will result in a benefit to the Klucas property. Since the Klucas property is protected by "green acres," payment of principal would be deferred. However, interest on the principal would be allowed to accumulate, which could act to encourage development in the area. OTHER RELATED ISSUES It is my understanding that a sewer and water project installed in recent years which benefited the Klucas property has never been formally assessed. The project I am speaking of involved the extension of sewer and water facilities to the NSP training center. The level of benefit to the Klucas property resulting from this project Is substantial and should be formally recognized and dealt with at some time in the near future. Council may wish to give staff direction on this matter as well. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to order a feasibility study, preparo plane and specifications, and call for a public hearing on said improvement project for April 10, 1989. -7- C Council Agenda - 3/27/89 2. Motion to deny petition for feasibility study. 3. Motion to table the matter. C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION: It is the view of staff that the positive reasons for accepting the petition and ordering the feasibility study outweigh the negative inplications. Reasons for support of this particular proposal may be specific enough to soften the precedent that is set. ODuncil may take the position, however, that it is not good policy to "force" payment of an inprovement on a benefiting lard owner and that the total cost of the project should be paid by the developer. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of portion of feasibility study completed by Prie'a engineer. -a- 41 1-2 A ' \ ' MWIC9114 Rod 9 Gun Cl b - '4- �`"`'"' ATTACHMENT 1 -PROJECT LOCATION PO PHASE I G{ OT Rout. I, Oo 391 b''t`�,}� w4' "• ldJ *n,�, j�` R-3 45 THE MEADOWS " r i `c �tk4~• 4`+►! oP y �rl� a a" ¢.; y 7 t i 2. a �`.f,.K• `' .. a"/,.t9 to Via, ac`s N'i`. ��'• • fr a q4. a ti� ♦ r r, +t 1 1I's 'd = 3 3 ryrGo ' 1 .= 'zP � � .fir ��.}• ��r� {� t � ' .. tFix. c r-..�`�•�, t.y�PHASE\i!; 2S ND `'ADb111ON ' 1 n + 78 � t s0 .H,Mhf6 W..rts.0 t4pa w..0 _� ,:+ R-+� y,i. rr Owx+M•••s 4e�a t,.w�. y i�� � Niyi {•_.�rw i.. rR � . S - 7 `rM1Y ,1 ' r'r - - -- .rm.,. is °•w.r.. i ., s w..xw..+ Hun.w fir.. a.pr •+In.r. �t � 1 ti rest I ot.aCK i 7t±Fi � Afr �}tusr, •; , - C Council Agenda - 3/27/89 7. Consideration of resolution entering into a cooperative agreement on traffic signals at River Street and Highway 25. (O.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As we discussed at previous meetings, the City of Monticello agreed to cover 12 percent of the $80,000 estimated cost of this signal project or a maximum of $9,600. Enclosed you will find a copy of MN/DOT's proposed agreement outlining the project, its cost, maintenance, and operation. The agreement provides for a maximum payment of the City of $9,600. A copy of the proposed resolution is included. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to approve the resolution to enter into the enclosed agreement with MN/DOT at a total estimated cost of $9,600. 2. The second alternative is not to enter into the agreement as set forth but to modify it. This does not appear to be applicable, as this is Mi/DOT's standard agreement similar to the other signals in the city of Monticello. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It isthe recommendation of the Public works Director and the City Administrator that the Council approve the resolution and enter into the agreement as outlined in alternative @1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the agreement and resolution. -9- A 0,AN14 n� y° Minnesota Department of Transportation r ��r 5� District 3 OF Tad' 301 Laurel St., P.O. Box 978 March 16, 1989 Brainerd. Minnesota 56401 Ouality Service Through Individual Commitment Mr. Rick Wolfsteller City Administrator Box 83A Monticello, M11 55362 In reply refer to: S.P. 8605-34 (T.H. 25) Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 65628 Dear Mr. Wolfsteller: ;218) 828.2460 Attached are three copies of an agreement between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, and the City of Monticello covering the cost, maintenance, and operation of a traffic control signal on T.H. 25 (Pine Street) at West River Street/Feet River Street in Monticello. Please review and, if approved, arrange to have it presented to the proper officials for execution on behalf of the City. Be sure to sign all copies of the agreement and resolution, and affix the corporate seal to all copies thereof. Return the signed agreements to me for further processing. A copy of the fully executed agreement will be returned to you for your files. Sincerely, E. W. McCulloch District Traffic Engineer Attachments: Agreements (3) EWM:mc An Eo—Onpa,f.n,ry Employer 0 m CITY OF MotiT1C.ELI-0 MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 65628 BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO TO Install a new Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street) at west River Street - East River Street in Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota. S.P. 8605-34 F.P. F 089-1 (38) Prepared by Traffic Engineering ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AMOUNT ENCUMBERED City of Monticello $9.549.94 pone Otherwise Covered THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State", and the City of Monticello, hereinafter referred to as the "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, 'the State found a sight distance design error upon final construction of the new Trunk Highway No. 25 Mississippi River Bridge (Bridge No. 71012); and WHEREAS, the State determined that closing the intersection of Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street) at West River Road -East River Road would eliminate the sight distance problem; and WHEREAS, the City feels that it is necessary to keep the intersection open; and WHEREAS, the City and State mutually agree that the installation of a traffic control signal at the intersection will alleviate the safety problem caused by the reduced sight distance; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to participate in the construction of the traffic control signal not to exceed $9,600.00; and WHEREAS, the State has determined that there is justification and it is in the public's best interest to install a new traffic control signal with street lights and signing on Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street) at Went River Street - East ( River Street; and 65628 -1 0 �� - C WHEREAS, it is considered in the public's best interest for the State to provide a new cabinet and control equipment to operate said traffic control signal; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the traffic control signal with street lights and signing work is eligible for 76.75 percent Federal -aid Primary Funds; and WHEREAS, the City and State will participate in the cost, maintenance and operation of the traffic control signal with street lights and signing as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The State shall prepare the necessary plan, specifications and proposal and shall perform the engineering and inspection required to complete the items of work hereinafter set forth. Such work as described immediately above shall constitute "Engineering and Inspection" and shall be so referred to hereinafter. 2. The contract cost of the work or, if the work is not contracted, the cost of all labor, materials, and equipment rental required to complete the work, except the cost of providing the power supply to the service pole or pad, shall constitute the actual "Construction Cost" and shall be so referred to hereinafter. 65628 -2- C3. The State with its own forces and equipment or by contract shall install a new traffic control signal with street lights in accordance with State Project No. 8605-34 and Federal -aid Project No. F 089-1 (38) on Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street) at West River Street - East River Street. Estimated Construction Cost is $77,500.00 which includes State furnished materials. Anticipated Federal -aid share is 76.'5 percent. Anticipated State's share is 11.625 percent. City's share is 11.625 percent (not to exceed $9,600.00). 4. The State shall install or cause the installation of overhead signing and shall maintain said signing all at no cost to the City. 5. Upon execution of this agreement and a request in writing by the State, the City shall advance to the State an amount equal to its portion of the project cost (not to exceed 59,600.00). The City's total portion shall consist of the sum of the following: a) The City's share (as specified in Paragraph 3) based on the actual bid price and the estimated State furnished materials costs. b) Six (6) percent of its share (Item (a) above) for the cost of Engineering and Inspection. 6. Upon completion and final acceptance of the project, the City's final share shall consist of the sum of the following: 65620 a) The City's share (as specified in Paragraph 3) based on the final payment to the Contractor and the actual State furnished materials costs. b) Six (6) percent of its final share (Item (a) above) for the cost of Engineering and Inspection. The amount of the funds advanced by the City in excess of the City's final share will be returned to the City without interest and the City agrees to pay to the State that i amount of its final share which is in excess of the amount of the ( funds advanced by the City (not to exceed $9,600.00). , 7. The City shall provide an adequate electrical power supply to the service pad or pole, and upon completion of said traffic control signal with street lights installation shall provide necessary electrical power for its operation at the cost and expense of the City. 8. upon completion of the work contemplated in Paragraph 3 hereof, it shall be the City's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to: (1) maintain the luminaires; (2) relamp the traffic control signal and street lights; and (3) clean and paint the traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions. It shall be the State's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to perform all other traffic control signal and street 1 fight maintenance. 65628 0 9. Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid work to be performed by the State shall not be considered employees of the City and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of this State on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated herein shall not be the obligation and responsibility of the City. The State shall not be responsible under the Worker's Compensation Act for any employees of the City. 10. Timing of the traffic control signal provided for herein shall be determined by the State, through its Commissioner of Transportation, and no changes shall be made therein except with the approval of the State. 65628 0 f -5- CITY OF MONTICELLO APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney Mayor (City Seal) By City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CRECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By District Engineer Assistant Commissioner Operations Division Dated APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: DEPARTlIE14T OF ADMINISTRATION Special Assistant Attorney General -State of Minnesota By Dated 65628 -6- RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Monticello enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To install a new traffic control signal with street lights and signing on Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street) at West River Street -East River Street in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 65628, a copy of which was before the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Wright City of Monticello I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Monticello at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of 1989, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. (Seal) r City Administrator Council Agenda - 3/27/89 8. Consideration of Council recommendation regarding rezoning request within OAA (Bohanon property). (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council is asked to review the proposed rezoning request that will be submitted soon to the Orderly Annexation Board. After review, Council is asked to make a recommendation to the City representative regarding the City position on the matter. Please note that in years past, Council has not provided input regarding such rezoning requests. The proposal submitted by Mark Wolston calls for the rezoning of 260 acres located east of Silver Springs Golf Course and west of property rezoned one year ago by Mr. Wolston. This property has been under the ownership of the Bohanon and Hougland families. Wolston will be presenting a plan for the proposed development area to Council at the meeting. It is my understanding from Wolston's attorney that the plan calls for development of 107 lots with an average size of 2.5 acres. The plan has no provision for park development. The Monticello Township Planning Board has reviewed the proposal and does not support the plan to rezone. It is my understanding that the Township objects to the rezoning request because the proposal is not consistent with the existing land use plan for the area and is also not consistent with the proposed land use plan. Specifically, the area can be serviced with City utilities at some point in the future; and due to previous rezonings, there is sufficient residential land in the area to satisfy market demand. The Township was also concerned about the impact of the storm water drainage on the city system. RECENT CITY DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED REZONING AREA As you recall, the OAA has been working on development of a revised land use plan which was initiated in response to recent rezoning of agricultural land to residental use. These rezonings included the rezoning of 40 acres to the east and approximately 80 acres to the west of the proposed rezoning area. At the time that Council reviewed the draft of the proposed OAA land use plan, Council provided mild support for development of the area so long as the design of the development is such that future extension of utilities could be easily accommodated and so long as the administrative structure was in place to assure the City that the actual development reflected any approved plana. It was also understood that consideration of such a proposal would be conducted at such a time that the demand warrants this type of development. Since this earlier position was taken, a number of events have occurred. 1. The OAA plan has not been adopted and the final input provided by { Council on the plan might not necessarily reflect previous views. -10- Council Agenda - 3/27/89 2. A new Council and Mayor are in place which may affect Council position on this matter. 3. No mechanism has been established whereby the City could monitor street construction, or monitor and control placement of structures so as to assure compliance with a development plan designed to accommodate future city utilities. 4. Large areas that have already been rezoned are still undeveloped. Rezoning the property based on a market need does not appear justified. The OAA will be considering this proposal in terms of the OAA land use plan as established in 1977. It is the view of the Zoning Administrator, Tom Salkwski, that despite recent rezonings nearby, the existing plan policies will be valid when addressing this particular proposal. APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE OAA AREA. Following are a list of concerns associated with the development proposal. 1. Sanitary sewer and water utilities are relatively close to the area proposed for rezoning. City trunk utility linea have been sized to accommodate the area and are available as indicated on the attached map. Allowing development to occur without city sewer and water is inviting future problems associated with contaminated ground water and subsequent financial problems that will result when area homes are ultimately serviced with city utilities. 2. A major portion of the storm water that will be created by this development will pans through city systems. Approval of this plan to rezone will result in a storm water plan designed without the input of the City. Storm water runoff from the development could exceed City capacity without City input on the design of the storm water drainage system. 3. No parks are provided for in the plan. The developer proposes to make a cash payment to the Township in lieu of land dedication. City park facilities will he inpacted by individuals from this area using City park lands. 4. The City currently has an inventory of 86 buildable lots and 44 platted lots without utilities. development of at least 51 lots in 1989 is likely. The added competition provided by the lots created in the rezoned areas will place an additional burden on the ability of City and private developer to market existing City Iota. 7 Council Agenda - 3/27/89 �= B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Recommend that City representative to OAA Board vote against said rezoning. Proposal is not consistent with the OAA land use plan per one or more of the concerns noted above. 2. Recommend that City representative to OAA vote in support of rezoning proposal. 3. Recommend that the City representative to OAA vote to table the matter pending collection of additional data. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative one based on concerns 1 - 4. D. SUPPORTING DATA: OAA planning area map. If ------------- ---- ----- -- *at x;ltv is `mm� keg �F4 74— _eK City of monticellO "Ot planning (OR N) Council Agenda - 3/27/89 10. Consideration of re -authorization of plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For several years beginning in 1980, Mississippi Drive has been deteriorating to where it has become an eyesore to the neighborhood, and is not only in the poorest condition of any street in the city of Monticello but probably in several of the surrounding communities as well. The Council realized this after some discussion in March of 1988, and on March 14 of that year authorized the City Engineer to study the problem and draft plans and specifications for reconstruction of the street. We had hoped that the City Engineer would complete his work by mid -summer of 1988 so that we could either look at fall of 1988 construction or at least budget for the project and complete it in 1989. I have requested information about how the project is coming from Chuck Lepak, who was the project engineer on the County Road 39 project for OSM, and Chuck has indicated that the project never was started. It appears that this project has an extremely law priority with OSM. I'm sure that the failure of this street is not a shining star in their design book. Since the cost of the project was unknown and would most likely be funded through a bond issue, with a portion of it being assessed, or through City surplus funds, no amount was actually budgeted for 1989. Enclosed you will find a copy of the minutes and agenda supplement for March 14, 1988. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to re -authorize OSM to prepare a detailed study along with plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. One would hope that the analysis and project would be done in a timely fashion and would include rationale for failure of the street to reach its design life (failure of the street actually began as soon as 1980). It may be beat to eat the time for the plans and specifications to be done such as 45 days. 2. The second alternative would be to request proposals from two other engineering firms for the analysis, plans, and specifications for thio project and make a decision at a later Council meeting as to who should do the engineering work. Thin alternative has some rationale in that OSM has not acted in a timely fashion and that it may be difficult for them to point out errors or omissions (if they exist) in the original design of the project. 3. The third alternative is to do nothing. This does not appear to be practical. I urge all the Council members to visit Mississippi Drive and look carefully at the street and curb condition prior to Monday j evening's meeting. -13- H Council Agenda - 3/27/89 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There is an indication that some City of Monticello-OSM projects are not being completed in a timely fashion and are sometimes lacking in attention to detail or follow through by OSM. This, coupled with the fact that Mississippi Drive would be a redesign, tends to give staff the impression that alternative A2 would be proper in this situation. The Council may, however, wish to give the City Engineer an additional 45 days to complete the work as outlined in alternative #1. This in no way means or suggests that the staff is considering switching engineers for other projects. we simply feel that this project is unique enough and has been put on the back burner long enough that it may be best handled by another firm. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of March 14, 1988, agenda supplement and minutes. -14- Council Agenda - 3/14/88 13. Consideration of Reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mississippi Drive was constructed in 1976. Much of the western end of the project is in a low area just above the Mississippi River. During the construction project, great difficulties were encountered with the contractor, and he was forced to come back and do some remedial work on the project primarily with the street surface prior to his receiving final payment. Now, some 12 years later, Mississippi Drive has deteriorated to a point where I believe it's an eyesore. The western one-third to one-half of the project has extensive cracking and degradation of the street surface. In addition, in many areas the curbing has settled and the catch basins are actually above the grade of the curb line. In the past few years, we have done extensive crack sealing and repairs to the area. In the area of the cul-de-sac we have replaced a major portion of the curb, as one of the property owners there was unable to get in and out of his driveway safely. Why did the street fall apart so quickly, you may be asking yourself. At this point in time there are several reasons, I feel, that this came about. The first and primary reason is due to subsurface ground water and soil conditions that were not adequately addressed in design. It is possible at that time that the severe ground water problems were unknown. A second determining factor is the poor construction. By referring back through notes on the project, one can see that compaction of the soils as well as the street surface created a product less than desirable. The third factor which resulted in the overwhelming degradation of the street was the use of the street by heavy equipment during the construction of the wastewater treatment plant. The Paul A. Laurence Company, who built our wastewater treatment plant, was informed during the period of construction that they could use Mississippi Drive as an alternate route for materials delivery when the Hart Boulevard access was blocked. They were specifically instructed to inform all of their suppliers to haul half or light loads when using Mississippi Drive. After the project, it had come to our attention that this may not have been the case. We know of at least one supplier who hauled extnimely heavy loads well above the street design limitations during the construction of the wastewater treatment plant. The degradation of the street surface did not appear immediately after the wastewater treatment plant project, but it was a factor in the overall degradation of the street. The question today is how do we get this street back up to our normal standards. First of all, we need to fully investigate the ground water conditions and the subsurface soil conditions under and near the street itself. Concurrently with this investigation, we need to determine the _t6- 0 Council Agenda - 3/14/88 amount of settlement which has occurred in the curbing and other structures within the street section itself. Thirdly, we need to implement a reconstruction project which will address all of the items determined by the first two investigations and incorporate into a final design which will yield a street of adequate design with a normal life expectancy. At this point in time, I estimate that a typical design may include the placement of drain tile on one or both sides of the street section, the replacement of those settled sections of curb, the complete removal of all the bituminous and much of the subgrade, the placement of a geotextile fabric, and the total reconstruction of the street section itself. It is surprising that we have not received a number of complaints from the people along Mississippi Drive about the condition of the street. I would ask that all the Council members get a chance to look at the street sometime between now and Monday night's Council meeting. This may or may not be possible depending upon the outcome of this weekend's weather. I feel this project should get underway this year, and that ample time should be allowed to do the investigation and come up with a design. There is some drain tiling that has been done on the south side of Mississippi Drive in the area of the city's lots to improve the surface lot conditions there. It is going to take time to evaluate all of this data and come up with final recommendations for the design and may be that this year we would install only the underdrain system and do the construction next year. Because of the three factors listed above shortening the life of this street, I would expect that a great portion of this project would be picked up with ad valorem taxes rather than re -assessing the property totally. The total replacement of the street section itself from the corner on the top of the hill through the cul-de-sac could cost in the neighborhood of $45,000 to $50,000. Extensive subsoil correction and/or drain tiling could add another $30,000 to the project. Again, these are very preliminary pre -planning figures and should be used accordingly. The project would most likely be funded by a bond issue or surplus funds. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorize investigative work and cost estimates for the recommended design. we could then at a later Council meeting present this information, discuss the project costs, project time table, and proposed cost sharing. 2. The second alternative would be to continue to patch, crack seal, and maintain an already highly degradated street. At some point in the future we will have more cracks than we have street surface, and this does not appear to he a good alternative. 0 Council Agenda - 3/14/88 C C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that you authorize the Public Works Director and City Engineer to begin investigation and cost study of Mississippi Drive as outlined in alternative number one above. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. A - 1 B- Council Minutes - 3/14/88 There being no further discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith to approve sanitary sewer discharge permit upgrade for Sunny Fresh Foods. Motion seconded by Bill Fair. Motion carried unanimously. r 13. Consideration of Reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. j i \`� After discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair to aexpenditures1 pprove e associated with street design only. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen. Motion carried unanimously. �< ) 14. Consideration of Final Plat of Oakwood Second Addition - Applicant, City :i!•/�� of Monticello. 1� Motion was made by Warren Smith to approve the final plat of Oakwood Second Addition - Applicant, City of Monticello. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Allowing Participation in the Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund. 9 1 Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve adopting a resolution allowing participation in the Minnesota Municipal Money " a� Market Fund. Motion carried unanimously. See Resolution 88-7. I 16. Consideration of Ratifying the Proposed Date for the 1988 Board of Review. `� Council agreed by consensus that the Board of Review meeting would be scheduled for May 16, 1988. 17. Consideration of Allowing the Granting of a Gambling License. !` Motion was made by 0111 Fair to take no action on this item. Motion seconded by Fran Fair. Motion carried unanimously. ;.� 18. After the agenda items had been addressed, Council discussed the need for a community survey. It was the general consensus of the Council �Xi that a city survey is needed at this time which would assist the Council in establishing plans for future activities. Assistant Administrator :..� O'Neill was directed to prepare information regarding a potential citizens survey. Council discussed a staff report which outlined maintenance issues .s associated with the streets that lie north of Oount.y Road 75 and west of Chestnut Street. It was noted by staff that the streets involved are of rural design and that significant maintenance or reconstruction work t�a will be needed on these Streets in the near future. Mayor Grimsmo noted that the City should seriously consider installing concrete streets in Council Agenda - 3/27/89 C12. Consideration of gambling license application renewals - Monticello Jaycees. (R.W.) 0 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Monticello Jaycees have applied to the State Gambling Control Board for renewal of their licenses to conduct gambling at the 1) Best Western Silver Fox Inn, and 2) the Comfort Inn Motel. If the City Council is not opposed to the State reissuing these two licenses, no action is necessary by the Council other than acknowledging receipt of the applications. If the Council does not oppose the reissuance of these licenses, I will notify the State that they can waive the 60 -day notice requirement. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of gambling license applications. -15- . I ( Charitable Gambling Control Board tri'�1 Rm N475 Griggs -Midway Bldg. For Board. Use Only 1 m 1821 University Ave. Paid Amt: St. Paul, MN 55104-3383 Check No (612) 842-0555 Date. GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LICENSE NUMBER: 1-12159.112 I EFF. DATE: viii]/so i AMOUNT OF FEE: 556.61 1. Applicant —Logs Name of grganizatan 2. Street Address )ATEM NOITICEll0 ` In U 3. City, State, Zip Ij 4. County S. Business Phorro ' 6rntittllo, 16 $5162 Wright 1 1 t 0. Name of Chief Executive Officer 7. Business Phone Ions crust ( ) 6. Name of Treasurer Or Person Who Accounts for ROVOnuos I a. B.mass Phone Pas steffa (pt )295-1691 10. Name of Gambling Manager 11. Bono Number 12. Business Phone uts Ilton 5121122) I (612 1295-2611 13. Name o1 Establishment Where Gambling Will Take Place 14. County 15. No. of Aclho Members /oat 911ttrl $lira Fat Nsetlalia Nrig6t ! y tri-" 15. Lessor Noma 17. Monthly Rent: Its it iftstria Sllvtr far loin 1211 18, It Bingo will be t"ductod With this license, phase apoclly days and times of Bingo. Days Times Days Times Days Times 1g. Has license over been. I Revoked Date: U Suspended Date: U Dome([ Data: 20. Have internal Controls been submitted previously? MJ Yes U No (If 'No,' attach COPY) 21. Has CurrOnl tease been 1.100 with the board? ,(; yes U No (If -No,' attach copy) 22. Has currant sketch been filed with the board? t Yea t) No (11 'No; attaCp copy) y4, ` � ' I , ' I GAMBLING SITE AUTHORIZATION I tl r 5 By my signatwa below, local law enforcoment Officers Or 090rns of the Board are hereby authorized to enter upon the ane, at any time, gambling IS Doing conducted. to observe the gambling and to enforce the law for any unauthorized gams Or practice. BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION By my signature below, the Board is hereby authorized to inspect the bank records of the Oeneral Gambling Bank Account whenever necessary to fulfill requirements of current gambling rules aro law. OATH 1 hereby declare that 1, f nave read oma application and all Information submitted to the Board, 2 All Informetion submitted is true, accurate and complete, 3 All biller required information ha► been fully disclosed, , 4 1 em the Chief OxeCUIWe Officer of the organromm, 5. 1 assume lull responsibility for Ina fair and lawful operation Of all sclIvilles to be Conducted. 0. 1 will familiarize myself Will ins Is" of the State of Mmnssota respecting gambling and rute0 of the board and agree, it licensed, to Wide by thew laws and rules. Including ementlmanls IhOre10 23 Official Legal Name of Organization Signature (Chief Executive officer) Dals Tide 11 r �,r� l/4 .'r�r,il ��r /( (f!il r: !ri_>'/'..'/ •%} i�rr,, t ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY I hereby acknowledge receipt of •copy of this appllCallon By acknownedging recSipl, I admit having been ssry with r1WIG that this application WIN be nawswad by the Chanlable Gambling Control Board and It approved by in* Board- will bacOme allot iron Ilia dai0 Of scalp! (noted below), unless a resolution of the local governing y is passed which Specifically disallows Such aCtiv a y Of that resolution Is reCeivlld by the Charitable Gambling Control Board wlthi s 01 the below noted dale i 24 C�unlyl Nam. (( ocal ` aroing,.Botllyb� Township 11 Site is located within S township, P10829 Complete hems 24 •� n �-✓!1 !4/t and 25 r—svistj of Parson Rsc vi Appift stun 25 Signsluis 0! Person Racnvmg Application T data Raceha+tl� ( is tla begins aY period) Tbia •kt• 'at s� Name POrsOn� /{ver rTp�ppik>♦tti61iF a�' i ovarmnp OOdY TOwrlsMp Name r , r *i�� J /r`t/I/ CO -00022-01 (Sla I) While Copy—Burd Gantry—Applicam Pink—rn Body Charitable Gambling Control Board Am N-475 Ofiggrigga-Midway Bldg, For Board Use ONy 1821 University Ave. Paid AtM: St. Paul, MN 551043383 Chock No. f (612) 842-0555 Due: 6 GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION t , LICENSE NUMBER: 1-12151-111 1 EFF. DATE: IIIIt111 /AMOUNT OF FEE: ium t. Applicant—Legal Narrw of Organization 2. Street Address r (` JlltU$ Illllftlll ( loo Il 3. City. State. Zip ( 4. County S. Business Phone . lonttulls, 11 1S342 grlght f 1 9. Name of Chief Executive Oriker 7. Business Phone lions Irsts ( 1 8. Name of Treasurer or Person Who Accounts for Revenues 9. Business Phone W34olues I).w Sk,,L, Al. „�,,,l%. (612 )211.2611 10. Name of Gambling Manager It. Bond Number 12. Business Prom i Iso lista 61211tH 1611 )IIS -1611 k13. Name of Establishment Where Gambling Will Take Place 14. County 15. No. oll Active Members (gf*rt fin inebesse tai 61aticeiis utlfkt X Fs" 18. Lessor Name 17. Monthly Rent: (+ latasN/tf:/firt fee $m 1B. If Bingo will be conducted with thlo license, pleas "fly days and times of Bingo. RonTimoo ( .. ams Times ,a Times , tg. Has ikmse em been: Q Revoked Dur. 0 Suspended Gore: 0 Denied Date' 20. Have Internal crilrols been submitted provbusty7 ,,1 Yes 0 No (11 'No.* attach copy) 21. Has current loan boon filed with the board? Yes O No ill Nei,' attach cap" i l 22. Has current sketch Won tried with m! board? C] Yes ❑ No 111940: shout caput to ry 46 1� f 1 ! 1 4211111111.1116 SITE AUTHORIZATION ? F�• By my signature below, local taw enforcement officers or agents of to Gold are hereby authorized to enter upon the sin, in any tkbe, Gambling is being COndudted, to Obsaws the gambling and to enforce the law for any unauthorized game Of practice. BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION ;I By my signature below, int Board b hereby authorized to Inspect the bank records of the General Connoting Bank Account whenever necessary to fWIin requirements of current gambling rules and law. OATH i( J 1 hereby decors that: a Y •i I. i have road tuts application and all Information submitted to the Board; 2. All Inlormalion submitted is true, accurate and complete; , 1 ' 3.Alf other required Information hu boon fully disclosed; t .. a.1 am ten chief executive Officer of the organization; S. 1 assume fun rsaponslbllity la the fait *no lawful Mershon of Oil sclwilles to be conducted; C I will familiarize myself with the taws W the State of Minnesota fospecung gamaifrgl aro rutaa of the beard and agroo, N Iansed, to abide to iftoq tows and rules, Including amendments tholalo. 23. Off" Legal Name of Organization Signature (ChM Executnre Office" Data I TifN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY } . 1 hereby ackrtpwledgs recatpt 010 copy of this *pplkatlpfl. BY acknowledging raceipl, i adrtNi having loan sery wish notice Thai We application ant be reviewed by the Chwilable Gambling Control Board and II approved by the BOOM, will become slncl from the due d raceipl (noted I boost), antes* a resolution of the but govemi is MW which speciffcaRy &uWn such Wheel of that resoluti0n is received by' the Clwitable Gambling Canard Board wlihln df�s of to below noted data. ` 24, Cif /Coat Na (local G,,ov,}M4 Township: If one is located within a township, plans* complete Nam 24 , k r- -. ,y�l� I//in fe:�/A and 25: i of paaon RKI&VI;Appkalu",on: 25. Signature of Person Receiving AppikauanATen s(in abegmy-wooypow) 1�/ 1 Namseft Perm{ ff A pNcyBtl !F LOCW dvenmg Body: Township Nano rJ cG4I0o22-01 (If17) r While Copy —Oberd Canuy—Applicant Pork- LOBndY i I GENERAL FUND - MARCH - 1989 AMOUNT i CHECK Wright County Treasurer - Sheriff's contract - Feb. 12,049.14 26568 Corrow Sanitation - Monthly contract payment - Feb. 7,715.00 26569 Void - 0 - 26570 void - 0 - 26571 Void - 0 - 26572 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial Services - Library 227.50 26573 Patty Salzwedel - Aninal control contract s Adoptions 499.00 26574 Holiday Gas - Gas - Fire Dept. 38.62 26575 Foster Franzen Carlson Agency - Insurance premium 1,228.00 26576 Medics Training, Inc. - Fire Dept. Training 420.00 26577 Minn. Conway Fire 6 Safety - Supplies - Fire Dept. 89.00 26578 Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Assoc. - Eng. fees 2,692.96 26579 McDowall Company - Furnace repairs at Library 94.00 26580 Minn. Rural water Assoc. -Reg. fee for seminar i 100.00 26581 Alvin 6 Shirley Jones 6 Wright County State Bank - Land 46,722.40 26582 acquisition I.C.M.A Ret. Corp. - Payroll Ded. 618.88 26583 Preusse Cleaning - Monthly cleaning contract payment 450.00 26584 Y.M.C.A, of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment 625.00 26585 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Ded. 90.04 26586 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H 866.40 26587 PERA - PERA payroll W/H -• -1,517.57 26588 Wright County State Bank - FICA, Fed. 6 Med. W/H 5,235.20. 26589 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll Ded. 210.16 26390 Liquor Fund - Reimb. for interest investment 4,786.84 - 26591 011ie Roropchak - Reimb. for recording fees - Land Acq. 201.60 26592 Deputy Registrar $002 - License 6 Sales tax for new trk 1,001.51 .. 26593 MN. Dept. of Trade 6 Econ. Devel.- Reg. fee for seminar: ._ 30.00 -. 26594 MN. Dept. of Nat. Res. - ATV, Water 6 Snowmobile Reg. 243.00 26595 R.C. Steele Co.— Supplies for animal control 107.25 _. 26596 Pace Laboratories - Water testing •..3:-r•;. 160.00 „ 26597 Campbell Abstract Co. - Land Acquisition Fees 231.00 _; 26598 Unocal - Gas - Fire Dept. 40.56 26599 R.E. Mooney 6 Assoc.-- Mtce. of Equip. - Water Dept.'., 395.38 26600 Corrow Sanitation - Add'1 land fill charges 2,077.80 26601 Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities 2,245.24 26602 Professional Services Group - WWPP Monthly contract 22,083.35 26603 Norwest Investments - Monthly computer payment 2,407,61 26604 Northern States Power Company - Utilities 8,490.45 26605 Marco Business Products - Paper 6 Ribbons 122.00 26606 Century Sales Company - Repairs for Fire Dept. 16.15 26607 Minn. Conway Fire 6 Safety - Truck Repairs - Fire Dept. 752.32 26608 Automatic Garage Door Co. - Repair garage - Fire Dept. 2,123.35 26609 Stewart 6 Zlimen, LTD - Payroll Ded. 682.38 26610 Cragun'a - Reg. fee for Conference - R. Wolfsteller 70.00 26611 Dept. .of Nat. Res. - Snowmobile 6 Watercraft Reg. 156.00 26612 Potty Cash - Reimb. petty cash 61.78 26613 Leg. Conf. - Reg. fee for ceminar - Maus 6 O'Neill 110.00 26614 Bridgewater Tel.- Phone Charges 1,229.01 26615 GENERAL FUND - MARCH - 1989 AMOUNT CHECK Mpls. Star 6 Tribune - Ad. for Bids - Demolition of 267.15 26616 West Brdwy Bldgs. Monticello Ford, Inc. - Purchase new truck b Repairs 16,4 97.09 26617 Minn. Inst, of Legal Ed. - Reg. Fee for J. O'Neill 155.00 26618 Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co. - Group Ins. premium 6,704.31 26619 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Ded. 90.04 26620 Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage allowance for March 300.00 26621 I.C.M.A. Retirement Corp.- Payroll Ded. 618.88 26622 PERA - Insurance premium 18.00 26623 U.S. Postmaster - Postage 500.00 26624 Jerry Hermes - Library Cleaning contract 227.50 26625 Patty Salzwedel - Animal Control contract 6 Adoptions 495.00 26626 Minn. Animal Control Assoc. - Reg. Fee - P. Saizwedel 40.00 26627 PERA - Payroll Ded. 1,604.54 26628 Wright County State Bank - PICA, Fed. S Med. WjH 6,080.24 26629 Chapin Publishing Co. - Ad. for Bids - Demolition of 43.20 26630 West Brdwy Bldgs. Hoglund Bus. Co. - Repairs 301.62 26631 Monticello Office Products - Office Supplies 574.10 26632 Wright County Treasurer - Sheriff's Contract for March 12,049.14 26633 Simonson Lumber Co. - Supplies 40.65 26634 Unitog Rental - Uniform rental 138.00 26635 Olson 6 Sans Electric - Repairs 6 Supplies 1,328.48 26636 The Glass Hut - New windshield for truck 223.80 26637 The Plumbery - Supplies 17.95 26638 General Rental Center - Rental of Supplies 80.22 26639 Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies 6 parts 449.50 26640 National Bushing 6 Parts Co. -Misc. supplies 6 parts 519.61 26641 Harry's Auto Supply -Misc. supplies 6 parts 286.28 26642 Maus Foods - Supplies 63.09 26643 Share Corporation - Cleaning supplies - Parks Dept. 176.33 26644 Barco Products - Supplies - Street Dept. 436.16 26645 Lindberg Decorating - Paint supplies 20.83 26646 A T 6 T Info Systems - Piro Phone Charges 3.96 26647 Smith b Hayes - Legal Fees 2,339.90 26648 Henning 6 Associates - Prof. Servies for new Logo 57.00 26649 Northern Oxygen Service, Inc. - Supplies - Fire Dept. 12.30 26650 Local #49 - Onion Dues 115.00 26651 Mid -Central Inc. - Ross - Fire Dept. 4,192.00 26652 Jerry Wein - Travel Expense - Seminar - Fire Dept. 138.75 26653 Tom Liefert - Travel Expense - Seminar - Fire Dept. 84.00 26654 Bradley Pyle -Travel Expense - Seminar - Fire Dept. 328.16 26655 Kevin Stumpf - Travel Expense - Seminar - Fire Dept. 84.00 26656 Sentry Systems - Alarm System - Water Dept. 90.00 26657 Douglas Smith, New Hope Fire Dept. - Membership Dues 25.00 26658 American National Bank 6 Trust Co. - Interest due on bond- 1,075.00 26659 Kiplinger Washington Letter - Subscription renewal 58.00 26660 LaTour Const. - Payment #7 -Sanitary sewer, Trunk Water 21,352.94 26661 Main Lift Station ,J 0 GENERAL FUND -- MARCH -- 1989 AMOUNT CHECK Monticello Fire Depart. - Firemen's Wages 572.08 26662 DNR License Depart. - Watercraft b Snowmobile Reg 117.00 26663 Henning b Associates - Prof. Services- Logo 789.40 26664 League of MN. Cities Ins. Trust - Ins. Premium 1,379.00 26665 McDowall Co. - Repairs at Library 313.80 26666 MTI Distrib. Co. - Reg. Fee for Seminar 40.00 26667 MacQueen Equip, Inc. - Reg. Fee for Seminar 30.00 26668 Medics Training Co. - Supplies - Fire Depart. 157.70 26669 Copy Duplicating Co. - Copy machine mtce. at Library 36.00 26670 Kangas Auto Radiator Service - Vehicle repairs 56.50 26671 Jim Hatch Sales Co. - Supplies -.Street Dept. 200.60 26672 Mobil Oil Co. - Gas 102.79 26673 Earl F. Anderson - Handicap signs 125.77 26674 Humane Society of Wright County - Animal Services 135.00 26675 Wright County Mayors Assoc. - Mayor Membership Dues 80.00 26676 Payroll for February 41,235.48 Total Disbursements for March 256,986.29 LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR MARCS - 1989 AMOUNT C9ECR Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 190.68 1 14311 Griggs, Cooper 6 Company 3,638.39 14312 Johnson Bros. Co. - Liquor 1,123.71 14313 Foster Franzen Carlson Agency - Liquor Liability 12,053.00 14314 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Ded. 250.00 14315 Commissioner of Revenue - State WH 98.13 14316 PERA - PERA W/H 205.63 14317 Wright County State Bank - FICA, Fed 6 Med. W/B 618.31 14318 Quality Wine 6 Spirits - Liquor 1,394.54 14319 Bellboy Corp - Liquor 2,856.89 14320 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 4,000.41 14321 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor 7,509.84 14322 Eagle Wine Company - Wine 1,331.27 14323 National Child Safety Council - Advertising 63.00 14324 T.V. PanFair Publications - Advertising 156.00 14325 Dick Beverage Company - Beer 1,404.77 14326 Bolles Sanitation - Garbage contract payment 141.00 14327 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone charges 68.45 14328 Liefert Trucking - Freight Charges 515.83 14329 Day Distributing - Beer 481.55 14330 Dahlheimer Dist. - Beer 12,283.35 14331 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales Tax for Feb. 5,770.99 14332 Viking Coca-Cola Co. - Pop 304.15 14333 Grosslein Beverage Co. - Beer 8,936.45 14334 Granite City Cash Register Co. - Supplies 37.28 14335 Coast to Coast - Supplies 5.79 14336 Ron's Ice Company - Ice 124.80 14337 Bernick's Pepsi Cola Co. - Pop 243.95 14338 Monticello Times - Adv. 190.30 14339 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco Company - Misc. mdse. 476.84 14340 Seven - Up Bottling Co. - Pop 180.85 14341 Northern States Power Co. - Utilities 519.86 14342 Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities 213.19 14343 Johnson Bros. Co. - Liquor 1,552.66 14344 Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Liquor 69.37 14345 Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer 8,559.55 14346 Ed Phillips 6 Sons Co. - Liquor 1,176.18 14347 Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co. - Group Ina. 720.18 14348 PERA - Ins. premium 9.00 14349 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 250.00 14350 Johnson Bros. Co. -Liquor 502.33 14351 Wright County State Bank - FICA, Fed. 6 Med. W/H 587.72 14352 PERA - Pora W/H 199.65 14353 Quality Wine 6 Spirts Co. - Liquor 1,375.88 14354 Ed Phillips 6 Sons -Liquor 679.94 14355 LIQUOR --- MARCH 1989 AMOUNT CHECK Bellboy Corp. - Liquor 2,362.33 14356 Maus Foods - Supplies 8.88 14357 Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repairs 59.51 14358 Void -0- 14359 Wright Way - Advertising 80.75 14360 Eagle Wine Co. - Wine 230.16 14361 Griggs, Cooper S Co. - Liquor 2,758.33 14362 Johnson Brothers Co.- Liquor 909.83 14363 McDowall Co. - Repairs 122.50 14364 Total Payroll for February 5,546.97 Total Disbursements for March 95,158.92 INFORMATIONAL ITEM March 22, 1989 City Attorney's opinion on expending funds for employee benefit --waste copper recycling. (R.W.) At the February 27 Council meeting, the City staff informed the Council that scrap waste copper had been collected for a number of years by City employees from non -city sources and recently sold, accumulating approximately $600 in revenue. The Council had commended the employee's efforts for recycling and indicated it would be acceptable to reimburse the employees in such form as a Christmas fund or party fund, etc., upon approval of the City Attorney. Attached you will find the City Attorney's opinion which indicates that in order for the City to expend funds for the employees' benefit, the Council can authorize retroactive pay increase in the form of a party using the proceeds from the scrap. As Mr, Hayes indicated, another approach would be for the City to sponsor a voluntary seminar for City employees on a topic such as recycling and include as part of the seminar a meal as an inducement to get the employees to attend. Either method is a legitimate expenditure. As a result, if the City Council is still receptive to using these excess funds for the employees' benefit, an official motion should be rude to either establish a retroactive pay increase in the form of a belated party or indicate that a seminar will be held requiring the employees attendance. I r rr VPS, ATTORNQY9 AT LAW HLA wiV Hw OPY�Se 30f SOUY« wALNUt 1iRHHT GINQMA PROPOHSIONAL 0406. P.O. 0011 008 OPHOORY V. SMIT«, J D. 83f MAIN ST,. 341T0 107 mo -c HLLO, MINNESOTA 3378]-0"08GARY L. PRINGLO. J.O. 11910.180'11 CLX RIVER, m-e30TA 38300 THOMAS D. MAYS 3. J.D. OPYiCe PMOwQ Ie1L AOF eIgY � OP�ISQ MOwH Ie1L ul•JYb RIc.AR0 M CLO4GM, J.O. March 8, 1989 Rick wolfsteller 6 Monticello City Council Monticello City Hall 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Rick: I have been asked by the City Council about disbursement of the "scrap copper" funds by the City. It is my opinion that since the copper was collected during the City work hours and in conjunction with City employment, the proceeds from the copper belong to the City. I believe, however, that City staff should be congratulated for demonstrating the benefits of recycling. Such initiative ought to be rewarded to encourage future exemplary conduct. Secondly, I have been asked for an opinion on the appropriateness of the City returning the funds to the employees by way of sponsorship of an employee party. Generally speaking, expenditures of City funds must be for a public purpose .and be authorized by statute or ordinance. Gifts by the City are not permitted. A Minnesota Attorney General's opinion issued in 1966 concluded that a party for employees was in actuality a gift, because the expenditure served primarily a private purpose --employee en,joyement--as apposed to a public purpose (A.G. OP. 59-a-22, 11/23/66). To make Monticello's situation different, I would suggest one of two approaches: 1.Since the scrap copper was collected by the City employees with the understanding that they would receive compensation for the scrap copper by way of a "party fund", it would be appropriate to grant the employees a retroactive pay increase in the form of a party (A.G OP. 270-d 8/12/77 okays such retroactive disbursements) using the proceeds from the scrap. 2. The City could sponsor a voluntary seminar for employees on an appropriate topic such as reyeling. The seminar could be conducted after regular working hours. To encourage attendance it would be appropriate to provide a meal. If at the conclusion of the seminar the employees wished to remain to celebrate a retirement or other occasion. I do not see a proLlem so long as the City does not pay for the latter part of the evening. Such a seminar would be consistent with publio policy and would be authorized under the same provision for other educational expenditures. Should you have any Questions do not hesitate to contact me. �U3 ruly, Thomas D. Hayes TDH/scm Pile No. 74-1115 i 1_ INFORMATIONAL ITEM March 22, 1989 Setting of date for special closed meeting to review Karen Hanson information with attorneys. (R.W.) With the recent City Council action establishing Karen Hanson's position as full-time effective March 1, 1989, Mr. Tracy Eichorn -Hicks, attorney representing the insurance company, has requested additional information on salary levels and insurance cost for dependent coverage on Ms. Hanson in an effort to determine what her annual wage loss has been since 1986. This information has been supplied to the attorney, and he is then suggesting that the City Council meet with our City Attorney and himself along with insurance company representatives to discuss how the City should proceed with the lawsuit. The attorney is suggesting that a special meeting be held sometime after April 3, 1989. I would suggest the Council agree on a date and time, and I will then forward this information to the attorney. The last closed meeting we had concerning the lawsuit was held at 2:00, which I'm sure is also acceptable from their perspective. ADDITIONAL ITEM FOR COUNCIL AGENDA Council Agenda - 4/10/89 Consideration of request for one (1) day set-up/3.2 beer license for Ducks Unlimited banquet and one (1) day 3.2 beer license for July 2 celebration Lions Club. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Monticello Lions Club is again sponsoring the Ducks Unlimited Banquet scheduled for May 1989 to be held at the Monticello Roller Rink. As in the past years, the Lions Club requested a 3.2 beer license and a set-up license for the one day banquet. The license fee for the two licenses would be $35. In addition to the Ducks Unlimited Banquet, the Lions Club also requested a 3.2 beer license for the annual July 4th celebration to be held July 2, 1989. The license fee for this event would be $10. There have been in the past no problems associated with the issuance of either license. A Certificate of Insurance showing the Lions Club has liquor liability coverage will be required before the license is issued. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the issuance of the one day temporary 3.2 beer and set-up license { for May, and a one day 3.2 beer license for the July 2 celebration. The set-up license application would be submitted to the Liquor Control Division for their approval prior to issuance, and approval should be contingent upon proper liability insurance certificate. 2. Deny the request for the licenses. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, It is the staff's recommendation that both license requests be granted. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. ADDITIONAL ITEM FOR TONIGHT'S AGENDA Consideration of Granting a Seasonal 3.2 Beer License to the Monticello Softball Association. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Softball Association has again requested a 3.2 beer license to sell at the softball fields. With the exception of one year that we issued the license to the Jaycees, the Softball Association has been the holder of this seasonal license. The Softball Association will be presenting a letter of intent to acquire dram shop liquor liability insurance, but they cannot actually receive the insurance coverage until the City approves issuing the license. As a result, the Council can approve this license contingent upon receipt of the Certificate of Insurance for liquor liability and the appropriate fees, which last year were $125. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Grant the license contingent upon receipt of necessary insurance documents and fees. 2. Deny the license - Some rationale should be stated for denial. C. STAFF RECOMME."IDATION: Staff recommends that the license be granted, again contingent upon propr insurance coverage being presented. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. r t