Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 07-25-19881 AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 25, 1908 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor. Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting held July 11, 1988. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Rey.iests, and Complaints. 4. Consideration of Petition for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. 5. Consideration to Review Concept for Infectious Waste Facility. 6. Consideration of Replatting Request to Replat an Existing Lot into Eight (8) Townhouse Lots and One (1) Common Area Lot. 7. Consideration of Simple Subdivision, Don Bauer. 8. Consideration of Concept Approval of a Replat of Portion of "Meadows" Subdivision, Utilities installation, and Re -Assessment of 81-1 Project Assessments. 9. Consideration of Committee Report on Closure of River Street Access to Highway 25. 10. Consideration of water Tower Design, Elevation, and Pressure. 11. Consideration of Odor Control Measures at Waste Water Treatment Plant. 12. Consideration of Sealcoating Hillcrest Area to Chestnut Street. 13. Consideration of Purchase of Park Equipment for Meadow Oak Park and Par West Park. 14. Consideration of Permit and Fee Adjustments. 15. Consideration of Approving Permits Allowing Use of Public Boulevards. 16. Consideration of Awarding Bids on Pump and Pumphouse 13. 17. Consideration of Change Order on Project #88-018, East ODunty Road 118 Water and Utitilty Project. 18. Consideration of July Wis. 19. ld;ournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 11, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Bill Fair. Members Absent: None. 2. Consider Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting held June 27, 1988. Motion to approve minutes by Fran Fair, seconded by Bili Fair, motion passed unanimously. 3. Citizen's Comments, Petitions, Requests and Complaints. None in attendence for this agenda item. 4. Consideration of Granting of Individual pension for the Volunteer. Firefighter Relief Association. Members of the Fire Department were in attendance and requested that the City Council increase the retirement benefit from $17,500 to $19,500 which represent an increase from $825 per year of service to $975 per year of service. Staff reported that according to the financial analysis done, an increase to $975 per year of service would not currently require municipal supportof the pension fund, as the anticipated state aid and other income would be sufficient to meet debt service requirements. Staff also reported that if for some reason the state decided to cut state aid to local fire departments, the City, would be responsible for support of the pension. Staff recommended that the Fire Department be granted an increase to $975 per year. Council member Bill Fair asked the Fire Department asked about the status of the state aid program to local fire departments. He asked if thio is an area that is protected or is the state legislator apted to change the state aid contributions provided to fire departments. Members of the Fire Department responded by saying that the state aid appears to be ;secure. Councilmember Blonigen objected to the proposed increasa. It was his view that the pension fund reserve could be depleted by increasing the pension as suggested. Fran Fair stated that she did not object to granting the increase, and went on to ask if the pension could be reduced if the state aid to Fire Departments was eliminated or reduced. Members of the Fire Department noted that it would not be possible to lower the pension after the increase has been granted. Motion made by Fran Fair to increase the per year of service pension amount from $875 to $975 per year of service. Seconded by Warren Smith. Voting in favor, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Bili Fair, Arve Grimsmo, opposed, Dan Flonigen. Council Minutes - 7111!68 in a related manner, Mayor Grimsmo noted that the City Fire Department will be billing insurance companies for the cost to respond to accidents along the freeway. He noted that the city can receive compensation from insurance companies for the cost to respond to accidents and vehicle fires. 5. Consideration of MNDOT proposal for Closing East River Street. E. W. McCulloch, District Traffic Engineer, was present to discuss MNDC>T's proposal for the closing of the east access to River Street. The need for closing East access to River Street stemmed from inadequate sightlines created by mistakes in MNDOT design of the bridge approach. Mr. McCulloch presented a proposal that consisted essentially of establishing a sidewalk and curb system across River Street along the south boundry of Highway 25. The design proposed would block east and west travel access Highway 25 at River Street. It was estimated that the cost to install the curb and sidewalk as proposed would be about $6,000. Council responded negatively to proposal. Mayor Grimsmo noted that the plan is not acceptable as the City under the proposal loses access to the street and gets nothing in return. At this point in the meeting a general discussion insued regarding potential redesign of the intersection. Don Smith of the Monticello Times reviewed previous Council and MNDOT discussions regarding this topic as recorded in the Monticello Times and Council Minutes. He noted that the issue of whether or not to close River Street at Highway 25 has been discussed before and that City Council has previously rejected MNDOT's proposal to close River Street. He went on to note that many businesses in the area have made and executed plans based on the earlier decision to kept River Street open at Highway 25. Smith went on to say that the state has apoligized for the problem created and that the state should follow it's apoligy with action to rectify the situation. Such action could possibly include on of the following= 1) remodel the bank at the state's expense, 2) shift lanes, 3) install full signal lights at East River Street. Smith reiterated that the City of Monticello did not create this problem, it is the states problem to rectify it. Finally, Smith noted that closing street is a quick fix solution and would not be in the best interest for the community in the long run. General discussion regarding the design of the intersection continued. Bill Fair suggested that a sub -committee b,: established to for the purpose of developing the best alternative to correct the situation. Dan Blonigen and Warren Smith volunteered to serve on the sub -committee. Motion by Fran Fair to direct City Staff to organize a sub-committe made up of City Staff, Council Members, Business interests, and the State Highway Department, for the purpose of correcting the sight line problems at the River Street approach to Highway 25 created by the design of the approach to the Highway 25 bridge. Motion seconded by Bill Fair. Motion passed unanimously. On a related matter, it wag roted by Mr. McCulloch, that the State Highway Department is no+i finalizing plans for widening the highway 25 bridge that passes over the freeway. Council Minutes - 7/11/88 6. Consideration of Water Tower Site, Elevation and Cost Comparisons. John Simola reported to City Council that the City Staff has come to terms with Kenny Shultz for the purchase of five acres of land to be used as the site for the new city reservoir. Simla went on to detail the terms of the agreement. City Engineer, Badalich discissed the potential location of the water tower on the five acre site. He noted that the tower might best be suited toward the rear of the parcel as this location will provide better potential for future developnAnt of the property. He also noted that the Bridge Water Telephone Company has a fiber optic telephone line on the property which must be relocated to another position on the propery. John Badalich reviewed costs associated with two alternative reservoir designs including a steel tank design versus a concrete tank design. Badalich informed Council that the costs are about the same. Council then discussed the issues associated with the elevation of the water tower. Dan Blor.igen noted that the Council needs to address the water pressure problem created by the new reservoir. He noted that it is important that strategy be developed to mitigate problems created by a large increase in water pressure. John Badalich stated that he could not recommend less than 56 pounds of water pressure and noted the need for higher volume of pressure for the industrial areas. He went on to say that the tank located at the elevation proposed and the location of the proposed will also support growing areas of the community. Finally, he noted that individual households can install a pressure release valve for an average cost of $75 which would protect individual homes from potential damage caused by higher water pressure. He did recognize that the pressure release valve will require maintenance. It was Dan Blonigen's opinion that individual home owners should not be required to pay for these pressure release valves. As the discusion closed on this issue, John Simla noted that the water pressure can be increased slowly which will allow the City to monitor the impact of the increase in water pressure. There being no further discussion on this topic, motion made by Bill Fair to purchase the Kenny Shultz property and direct City Engineer, John Badalich to present the actual design of the water reservoir at the next meeting. Motion included direction to Staff to prepare a Conditional Use Permit Application for placement of the essential servico structure in the orderly annexation area. Motion seconded by Warren Smith, motion passed unanimously. 7. Consideration of Establishing a Fee for Mobile Homes. City Building Inspector, Gary Anderson, reported to Council that Staff is recommending establishment of a Mobile Home Permit Application and Fee. The purpose of the mobile home permit process is to assure the City that mobile home installations meet state building codes and local ordinances. Anderson submitted a survey of various communities that conduct inspections of mobile home installations. After discussion, motion by Fran Fair to establish mobile home installation permit process ` and establish a fee of $30.50 per mobile home permit. Motion seconded by Dan Bionigen, motion passed unanimously. Council Minutes - 7/11/88 8. Consideration of Final Plat Approval and Developers Agreement - Heikes Trailer Park. Applicant, Don Heikes withdrew request. 9. Review of Community Survey Questions. Assistant City Administrator, O'Neill reviewed the proposed community survey questions and requested input from Council. Council suggested that a question be added which addresses community needs for a social service center or civic center designed specifically to serve social needs such as seniors, senior activity, food shelf, group meetings, daycare, etc. . . 10. Consideration of Change Orders 41 and q2 on Streetscape Project. John Simola reviewed the proposed change orders which included painting of two additional light poles at a total cost of $166 and Change Order #2 which called for the adding of additional links to bridge rail panels that which would extend the lineal feet of paneling by 82 feet, the additional cost of this change order is $3,222. After discussion, motion by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith to approve Change Orders $1 and y2 to the Streetscape Project. Voting in favor, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, opposed, Dan Blonigen. 11. Consideration of Change Order 11 on Water Main Supply Project 88-04B. Motion made by Bill Fair seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve Change Order ql on Water Main Supply Line Project 88-04B. 12. Consideration of Granting One Day Beer License to Lion's Club for Bridge Celebration, July 17, 1988. Motion by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve said beer license. Motion passes unanimously. At this point in the meeting Mayor Grimsmo reviewed a letter submitted to him by the Parks Administrator of Wright County, which outlined the history behind the estiblishment of the Montissippi Park in Monticello. A general discussion of the potential for better use of the Montissippi Park insued. Councilmember Bill Fair noted that the Montissippi Park is a valuable resource to the community and presents a significant opportunity. It was consensus of Council that the potential of development of Montissippi Park should be explored, and ideas for development shared with the County Board of Commissioners. Respectfully Submitted, Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator Council Agenda - 7/25/88 C4. Petition for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: A petition was received Wednesday, July 20, 1988, from neighboring property owners on the Clifford Olson rental property, 100 East Fourth Street. Some of the property owners nearby will be present at the council meeting to voice their concerns with this dilapidated residential rental house. The house has been vacant for almost a year and a half, and the house has experienced physical deterioration and unsightly appearance from the outside. With this supplement you will find the process for dealing with the abatement of dangerous buildings. If you so choose to initiate some action, this is the proceedure that would be used for that. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Acknowledge receipt of the petition for the abatement of dangerous buildings, and initiate the proceedings for the abatement of these dangerous buildings. 2. Acknowledge receipt of the petition for the abatement of dangerous buildings, and initiate no action on this request. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: City Staff acknowledges receipt of this petition. If the City Council would so choose to proceed with action, the steps are enclosed with this supplement. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the petition for the abatement of dangerous buildings request. Copy of paces 8 through 28 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. �'Pz,., q;' '+rn ..;!1.�. •tlt"rrl `/i t. ''�r'•'ttrr"— tr;Jn1ltJrr/rUu :,'rtrr -! t t r (•• I t t' jixlp^ '` i,'tjlf " lr+l r • ., to n 'I' r e , _ _ �.• .r! i' YJtt• �.rr 1, ll(.� j;�D�('R .,J1 C IfE 1' rJl+• .zJr+. ;'f°r� +� �.l 1. . !ti• • ''ntltit, `( I1," It t/' •s, o it" i j Y . I : I1 j� '7at I t l �1 (tllji a t �� �/ • t all ',.•. �i'i j:•�'�--.;° �b!' t � !�<<�;1,1; . Y !'"'�,; `�u41 / !, < �•r 1• r `�•'�� l 1. ti�,;a -"`�� D MAY N0, 94 Y" �dN 101-102 ADATEMEN f OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS' Chapter t TITLE AND SCOPE Title Sec. 101. These regulations shall be known as the "Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings," may he cited as such, and will be referred to herein as "this code." Purpose and Scope See. 102, (a) Purpose. t1 is the purpose of this code to provide a just, equitable and practicable method, to be cumulative with and in addition to, any other remedy provided by the Building Code, Housing Code or otherwise available at law, whereby buildings or structures which from any cause endanger the life. limb, health, motors, property, safety or well. fare of the general public or their occupants may be required to be re- paired. otpaired, vacated or demolished. (b) Scope. The provisions or this code shall apply to all dangerous buildings, as herein defined, which are now in existence or which may hereafter beedme dangerous in this jurisdiction. Alterations, Additions and Repairs See. 103. All buildings or structures winch are required to be repaired under the provisions of this code shall be subject to the provisions of Sec. tion 104 (a) and (b) of the Building Code. 1979 EDITION 201200 Chapter 2 ENFORCEMENT General See. 201. (a) Administration. The building official it hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this code. (b) inspections. The health officer, the fire marshal and the building official are hereby authorized to make such inspections and take such ac - flora as may be required to enforce the provisions of Chit rode. V ' (c) Right of Fill". Whenever necessary to make an inspection to en- force any of the provisions of this code, or whenever the building official or his authorized representative has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building or upon any premises any condition at code viola. . i tion which makes such building or premises unsafe. dangerous or hazard- ous, the building official or his authorized reprnentati.e may enter such building at premises at all reasonable times to inspect the some or to per. form any duty imposed upon the building official by this code. provided that If Bach building or premises be occupied, he shall first present proper credentials and request entry: and if such building or premises be unoc• curried, he shall I:rst make a reasonable elfort to locate the owner or other '- persons having charge or control of the building or premises and requem r nary. If such entry is refused, the building official or his authorized representative shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to I secure entry. j When the building official or his authorized tepretentative shall have Orsi obtained a proper inspection warrant or other remedy provided by ( tawto secure entry, no owner err nccuproo OF ...Y .,ilm ye,;. i; ha:!nt; t charge, care or control of any building or premises shall fail or neglect, i after proper request is made as herein provided, to promptly permit entry j therein by the building official or his authorized reptesenrmive far she 1 purposeof inspectionand examination pursuant to this code. "Authorized representative" shall include the officers named in Section 201(b) and their authorized inspection personnel. i Abatement of Dangerous Buildings i Sec. IP' All buildings or portions thereof which are determined after bnpection ,.y the building official to be dangerous as defined in this code me hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by repair. rehabilitation, demolition or removal in accordance with the ptocedure specificities action 401 of this code. violations ,we. 202. it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation sot sect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove• comers or shmolith. equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or Somme or muse or permit the same to be done in violo0on of this code. 2D4.20S ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS Inspection Of Work See. 204. All buildings or structures within the scope of this code and Ali construction of work far which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official in accordance with and in the manner provided by this code and Sections 305 and 306of the Building Code. Board of Appeals Sec. 205. In order to provide for final interpretation of the provisions of this code and to hear appeals provided for hereunder, these is hereby established a Board of Appeals consisting of rive members who aro not employees of the city. The building orfrcial %half be an es officia member of and shall act as secretary to said board. The board shall be appointed by the governing body and shall hold office at its pleasure. The board shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting its business and' shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant, with a copy to the building official. Appeals to the board shall be processed in ac- cordance with the provisions contained in Section 501 of this code. Copies of all rules or regulations adopted by the board shall be delivered to the building official, who shall makethem freely accessible to the public. t0 178 EDITION Chapter 3 DEFINITIONS 004502 General Sea 301. For the purpose of this code, certain terms, phrases, words ; 6 and their derivatives shalt he construed as specified in either this chapter or as specified in the Building Code or the Housing Code. Where terms are not drfined, they shall have their ordinary accepted meanings within the context with which they are used. B46ster's Third New International Dic. = nursery of the English Language. Unabridged, copyright M, shall be construed as providing ordinary accepted meanings. Words used in the singular include the plural and the plural the singular. Words used in the masculine gender include the feminine end the feminine the masculine. t BUILDING CODE is the Uniform Building Code promulgated by the ' International Conference of Building Officials. DANGEROUS BUILDING is any building or structure deemed to be dangerous under the provisions of Section 302 of this code. HOUSING COOF. is the Uniform liousing Code promulgated by the Imernadonal Conferenceof Building Officials. Dangerous Building Ser. 3112. For the purpose of this code. any building or err-neture which has any or all of the conditions or defects hereinafter described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building, ptcnided that such conditions or defecu exist to the extent that the life. health, property or safety of the publicist its occupants are endangered: 1. Whenever any dour, aisle, passageway, stairwav or other means of exit is not of sufficient era th or site m is not so at ranged as to provide sale and adequate means of exit in case of Fite or panic. 2. Whenever the walking surface of any aisle, passageway, 03"" or other means of exit is so watprd, worn, ionic, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide sore and adequate means of Bait in case of fire or panic. 3. Whenever thettress in any materials, member or portion thereof, due to all dead and live IaaS:, is Moe thai.—'r at,d cur-imii times dee walking stress or stresses allowed in the Building Cade lot new buildings of similar uructuu, purpose or location. 1. Whenexer any portion l hereof has been damaged by rise, eat thquake, wind. Hood at by any other cause, to %uch an extent that the uruemsal strength or uabituy iheteof is matetiaity lees than it con% before such catastrophe and Is less than the minimum requirements of the Building Code lot new buildings of similar ser ucnn e. put pone or kwation. S. Whenever any portion or member or appurtenance thereof is likely to fail, or to become detached or disiodged, or m collapse and shnrhy injure persom or damage property. i 6. Whenever any portion of a building, or any member, appurtenance I st i 702 ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS or ornamentation on she exterior thereof is not of sufficient strength or stability, or is not so anchored, attached of fastcried in place so as to be capable of resisting a wind pressure of one-half of that specified in the fluilding Code for atw buildings of similar structure, purpose or Icarian without exceeding the working stresses permitted in the Building Code for such buildings. 7. Whenever any portion thereof has wracked, warped, buckled or set- ded to such an extent that walls or other structural portions have materially less resistance to winds or earthquakes than is required in the cast of similar new construction. g. Whenever the building or structure, or any portion thereof, because of (i) dilapidation, deterioration or decay: (iil faulty construction: (iii) the i removal, movement or instability of any portion of the ground necessary r (or the purpose of supporting such building: (Iv) the deterioration, decay or inadequacy of its foundation: or ivy any other cause, is likely to par - dally or completely collapse. 9. Whenever, for any reason. the building at structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used. 10. Whenever the exterioi walls or other vertical structural members list, lean or buckle to such an extent that a plumb lino passing she Pugh the center of gravity does not fall inside the middle one-third of the base. 11. Whenever the building or structure. exclusive of the foundation, shows 33 percent at mote damage or detedotation of its supporting member or members, or 30 percent damage or deterioration of its non - supporting members. enclosing ar'ouuide walls of coverings. 12. Whenever the building or mucsure has been so damaged by fire, wind. earthquake or flood, or has become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become (i) an attractive nuisance to children: III) a harbor for vagrants, criminals or Immoral persons; or as to (iii) enable persons to resort shitetu for the purpose of commieing unlawful or immoral acts. I). Whenever any building or aruc uie has been constructed. exists or is maintained in violation of any specific requirement or prohibition ap. plicable to such building or structure provided by the building regulations of this city, as specified in the Building Code err housing Code, or of any law or ordinance of this state or city relating to the condition, location or suircruseof buildings. 14. Whenever any building or structure which, whether or not erected in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances, has In any nonsup. Tinting pan, member or portion less Ikon $0 percent, or In any supporting part. member or portion less than 66 percent of the (i) strength, 01 fise.re• sitting qualities or Choi actesisucs, or (iii) weather -resisting qualities or chamcterislies required by law in the case of a newly constructed building of like area, height and occupancy to the some location. IJ. Whwever.o huihlingor,ttruclure. used -or intendcd-to be-mcd'fur^' ' dwelling purposes, because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation. decay, damage, faulty construction or arrangement, inadequate light, air 12 or sanitation facilities, or otherwise• is determined by the health olficer to be unsanitary, until for human habitation or in such a condition that is likely to cause sickness or disease. 16. Whenever any building or structure. because, of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage. inadequate exits. lack of sufficient lire.resistive construction, tautly electric wiring, gas connections or heating appanams, or other cause, is dcuumEned by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard. 17, Whenever any building or structure is in such a condition as tocon. stitute a public nuisance known to the common law or in equity jurisprudence. IS. Whenever any portion of a building or structure remains on a site after the demolition or destruction of the building ur suuctute or whenever any building or structure is abandoned for a period in excess of six months so as to constitute such building or portion thereof an amac• live nuisance or hazard to the public. L. s L. ABA IENIENt OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS Chapter 4 NOTICES AND ORDERS OF BUILDING OFFICIAL General Sel. 401. (a) Commencement of Proceedings. Wheneve the hoilding official has inspected or caused to be inspected any building and has found and determined that such building is a dangetous building, he shall com• mence proceedings to cause the repair, vacation or demolition of the building. (b) Notice and Order. The building official shall issue a notice and order directed to the record owner of the building. The notice and order shall contain: 1. The street address and a legal description sul ficient for identification of the premises upon which the building is located. 2. A statement that the building official has found the building to be dangetous with a brief and concise description of the conditions found to render the building dangerous under the provisions of Section 302 of this code. 3. A statement of the action required to he taken as determined by the braiding of f ficial. Of If the building official has determined that the building or structure most be repaired. the order shall require ilial alt required permit, be snored therefor and the work rhysically commenced within such time (not to exceed 60 days from the date of the order) and com• plied within such time as the building official shall determine is iemonable under all of the circumstances. Iii) if the building official has determined that the building or structure must be vacated, the order shall require that the building or suuc- lure shall he vacated within a time certain ttom the date of the order as determined by the building official to be reavonable, liii) if the building official has determined that the building or structure must be demolished, the order shall require that the building Is vacated within such time as the building official shall determine is reasonable (not to exceed 60 days from the date of the order); ihni all requited permits he secured therefor within 60 days from the dare of the older, and that the demolition he completed within such time as the budding official shall deet mint is masonable. 4, Statements advising that if any requited repair as demolition work twohout vacation also being required) is not commenced within the time specified, the building official (if will older the building vacated and 1—ted tet pteveot further Occupancy until the work is compered, and Iii) ams psocrrd to cause the work to be done and charge the toss thereof agrimi the propel It or in ow net. 5. Statements advising ii) that any petum having any record title or legal interest in the building may appeal from the notice and older or any 9f9EOrtION 401.402 action of the building official to the Board of Appeals, prostded the ap- peal is made in writing as provided in this code and filed with the building official within 30 days from the date of setv'ice of such notice and ordcr: and Iii) that failure to appeal will cansutute a waiver of all tight to an ad. ministrati-,e hearing and determination ofthe matter. 40 Service of Notice and fluster. The notice and order, and any amended or supplemental notice and aider, shall be served upon the teeoid owner S and posted on the property; and one copy thereof shall be seised nn each Y of the following if known to the building of ficial or disclosed trent official public records: the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust or other lien or encumbrance of record; the owner or holder of any lease of record; and the holder of any other coot[ Of legal interest of record it, or to rhe build- ing at the land on which it is located. T"fie failure of the building official to serve any person required herein to be served shall not invalidate any pro" ceedings hereunder at to any Other person duty served or relieve enc such person from any duty or obligation imposed on him by the provisions of this section. Of Mrrhod of Service. Service of the notice and order shall be made upon all persons entitled thereto either personally or by mailing a copy of such notice and order by certified mail, postage prepaid, trial receipt It. quested, to each such person at his address as is arpenrs On the fair equalized ossmsment roll of the county or as known to the building ab ficial. if no address of any such person to appeal' of it known to the building official, then a copy of the notice and order shall be ser mailed, addressed to such petson, at the address of flit braiding iovolsrd in the poceedings. The failure of tiny such person to receive such notice shall not affect rhe validity of any proceedings taken under thit section. Service by certified mail in the manna herein provided shall be effective on the dame of mailing. lel Proof of Servi, proof of xorvice of the notice and order diall be certified to at the time of service by n written declaration under penalty ul petjury executed by the protons effecting service, declaring the time. date, and manner in which service was made. the declaration, utgetiser wt, h nov receipt card returned in acknowledgment tri receipt by certified mail shall tx affixed Io the copy of the notice and order retained by the building official. Recordation of Notice and Or der Sec. 402. If compliance is not had with the order within the time specified therein, and no appeal has been puspe iv and timely liled, the building official shall rile in the office of the county recorder a cerilicate describing the property and cttlilying fit that the building is a dangerous building and Iii) that the owner has been so notified. Whenever the cot err float ordered shall theeahet Imve Men completed or the huilduu demolished initial if no longer exists as a dangetous building on rhe rat. pray dosoilsed in the certificate, the building ollicial shall file a new cis• 402.404 ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS tificate with the county recorder certifying that the building has been demolished or all required corrections have been made so that the building is no longer dangerous, whichever is appropriate. Repair. Vacation and Demolition See. 403. (a) Standards to he Followed. The following standards shall be followed by the building official land by the Board of Appeals if an appeal is taken) in ordering the repair, sacation or demolition of any, dangerous building or structure: 1. Any building declared a dangerous building under this ordinance shall either be repaired in accordance with the current building code or shall be demolished at the option of the building owner. 2. If the building or structure is in such condition as to make it im- medinlely dangerous to the life, limb, property or safety of the public or its occupants, it shall be ordered to be vacated. Notice to Vacate Seo 404. (a) Posting. Every notice to vacate shall, in addition to being served as provided in Section 401 (c). be posted at or upon each exit of the building and shall he in :ubstamially the following form: DO NO r ENTER UNSA FE TO OCCUPY It is a misdemeanor to oaupy this building, or to remove err deface this notice. Building Official ............of ............. M Compliance. Whenever such notice is posted, the building official shall include o notification thereof in the notice and order issued by him under Subsection (b) of Section 401, reciting the emergency and specifying the conditions which necessitate the pasting. No person shall remain in or enter any building which has been so posted, except that entry may be made to repair, demolish or remove such building under permit. No per- son shot] remove or deface any such notice after it is posted until the re• quired repairs, demolition or removal hese been completed and a Certifi- ate of Occupancy issued pursuant to the provisions of the Building Code. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 1979 EDITION Sot Chapter 5 APPEAL General See. 501. (a) form of Appeal. Any person entitled to suvice under Section 401 (c) may appeal from any notice and order or any action of the Ibuilding official under this code by filing at the office of the building of. ficial a written appeal containing: ! r, 1. A heading in the words: "Before the Board of Appeals of the ..... of.......... r 2. A carrion reading: "Appeal of ............... giving the names of all r appellants participating in the appeal. 3. A brief statement setting forth the legal interest of each of the ap• r pellants in thebuilding or the land involved in the noticeand order. 4. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific order or action protested, together with any material facts claimed to support the comemions of the appellant. 7. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the relief soug!u and the reasons why it is claimed the protested order or action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside. 6. The signatures of all parties named as appellants and their official mailing addresses. 7• The venftcailon (by declaration under penalty of perjury) of at last we appellant as mthe truth of the matters stated in the appeal. The appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date of the set%ice of such order or action of the building of ficial; provided, hnweser, that if the building or structure is in such condition as to make it immediately 6naerous to the life. limb, property or safety of the public or adjacent Property and is ordered vacated and is posted in accordance with Section 404, such appeal shall be filed within 10 days from the date of the service of the notice and order of the building official. (h) Processing of Appeal. Upon receipt of any appeal filed pursuant res this section, the building offirinl shall present it at the next regular or special meeting of the Board of Appeals. (c) Scheduling and Noliving Appeal for Ilraring. As soon os pr acticahle after receiving the written appeal the Board of Appeols shall lix a date. time, and place for the hearing of the appeal by the hoard. Such date shall K nor less than 10 claws nor more than hit days from the date the appeal was filed with the building official. Written notice of the time and placeot the hearing shall he given at least 10 days prior in the date tit the heating m each appellant by the secretary of the board either by causing a copy of inch notice m he delivered to the appellant personally m by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, addressed to !fie appellant at his address shown on the a plical. SD2.504 ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS Effect of Failure to Appeal See. 501. Failure of any person to file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section 501 shall constitute a waiver of his right to an ad- minotrative hearing and adjudication of the notice and order or any por- tion thereof. Scope of Hearing on Appeal Sec. 501. Only those matters or issues specifically raised by the ap- reliant shall be considered in the hearing of the appeal. Staying of Order Under Appeal Sec. SO4. Except for vacation orders made pursuant to Section 401, enforcement of any notice and order of the building official issued under this code shall be stayed during the pendency of an appeal therefrom which is properly arid timely filed. 1979 EDITION 601607 Chapter 6 PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF HEARING APPEALS General See. 601. (a) Ilearing Examiners. The board may nppoini one or more hearing examiners or designate one or more of its members to serve as hearing examiners to conduct the hearings. The examiner hearing the case i shall exercise all powers relating to the conduct of hearings until it is sub• i mined by him to the board for decision. fb) Record. A record of the entire proceedings shall be made by tape !• recording, or by any other means or permanent recording determined to be appropriate by the board. (c) Reporting. The proceedings at the hearing shall also be reported by a phonographic reporter if requested by any party thereto. A unnuaipt of the proceedings shall be made available to all parties upon request and upon payment of the fee prescribed therefor. Such fees may he established by she board, but shall in no event be greater then the cou imolvrd. Of Continuances. The board may grant continuances for good cause shown; however, when a hearing examiner has been assigned to such herr• ing, no continuances may he granted except by him for good cause shown so long as thematter remains before hips. (e)oatln—cerimestlon. In any proceedings under this chapter, the board, any board member, or the hearing examiner has the power to ad. minister oaths and a f fir mat ions and recertify m of f icial acts. (f) Ressonable Dispatch. Tl,e board and its represemmive shall pro• teed with reasonable dispatch to conclude any matter Worth. Due regard shall be shown rot the convenience end necessity of any parries or their representatives. Form of Notice of Heating Sec. 601. The notice to appellant shall be substantially in the following form, but may include other inlormmion: "You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held Wore Jibe Horridof Appeals or name of hearing examiner) 21 .............. on the........ day of ............... 19........, at the hour............, upon the notice and order served upon you. You may be prescm as the hearing. Vou may be, hot need not be, represented by counsel, You may present env rrlevnni evidence and will be given full oplumunity to cross-examine all witnesses testifying against you. 1'ou may request the issuance of %ubpoenas to cnm- pel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, documents or other things by filing an affidavit therefor with (Doord of Appeals of name of hearing examiner)." Subpoenas t Sec. 601. (e) Elling nl A rOda.h, The bnnrd re es -mutt may nhmin the IB wi uu4 ASAI EMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS issuance and service of a subpoena for the attendance of witnesses or the Production of other evidence of a hearingupon the request of a member of the board or upon the written demand of any party. The issuance and ser- vice of such subpoena shall be obtained upon the filing of an affidavit therefor which states the name and address of the proposed witness; specifirx the exact things sought to be produced and the materiality thereof in detail to the issues involved; and states that the witness has the desired things In his possession or under his control. A subpoena need not be issued when theafffdavit is defective in any particular. (b) Cases Referred to Examiner. In cases where a hearing (s referred to an examiner, oil subpoenas shall beobtained through theexaminer. (c) Penalties. Any person who refuses without lawful excuse to attend any hearing or 10 produce material evidence in his possession or under his control as required by any subpoena served upon such person as provided for herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Conduct of Hearing See. 604. (a) Ruin. Hearings need not be conducted according to the technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses. IN Oral Evidence. Oral evidence shall be taken only on oath or affir. mation. (c► Ileorsay, Evidence. llearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any direct evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless It would be admissible over objection in civil actions in courts of competent Jurisdiction in this state. (d) Admissibility of Evidence. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted It It is the type of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or slaluloly rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence over objection In civil actions in courts or competent jurisdiction in this stale. (e) 6tctuslon of Evidence. Irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. (r) Rights or Pontes. Each party limit have these rights, among others: 1. To call and examine witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues or the hear in$; t. To Introduce documentary and physical evidence; J. To cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues of the hearing; 4. To Impeach any almeu regardless of which party fires called him to Iestify; 7. To rebut the evidence against him; 6. To represent himself of 10 be represented by anyone of his choice who is lawfully permitted lodes to. :0 r T '.i tS79 E91T10N, 604.605 . , a (g) Official Notice. I. What may be noticed. In reaching a decision, j official notice may be taken, either before or after submission or the case r for decision, of any fact which may be judicially noticed by the courts of this state or of official records of the board or departments and ordinances :fit ofthecity or rules and regulations of the board. • 2. Parties to be noaned. Partin present at the hearing shall be in. formed of the matters to be noticed, and these matters shall be noted in the record, referred to therein, or appended thereto. i J. Opportunity to refute. Parties present at the hearing shall be given a reasonable opportunity, on request, to refute the officially noticed matters by evidence or by written or oral presentation of authority, the manner of ,�' •' such refutation in be determined by the board or hearing examiner. f 4. Inspection of she premises. The board or the hearing examiner may {{ inspect any building or premises involved in the appeal during the course of the hearing, provided that (i) notice of such inspection shall be given to the parties before the inspection is made. (ii) the parlies,are given an op. t portunity to be present during the inspection, and (iii) the board or the r hearing examiner shall state for the record upon completion of the inspire. don (he material fans observed and the conclusions drawn therefrom. _i Each party then shall have a right to rebut or explain the matters to stated } � bytheboardorhearing examiner. Method and form of Decision l Sec. 605. (a) Ilesring before Board Itself. Where a contested ease is heard before the board itself. no member thereof who did not hear the evidence or has not read the smite record of the proceedings shall vote on or take port in the decision. (b) Ilearing before Paominer. If a contested case is heard by a hearing ex. aminer alone. he shall within a•reasonable time (not to exceed VO days from the date the hearing Is closed) submit a written report to the board. Such report shall contain a brier summary of the evidence considered and page the examiner's findings, conclusions and recommendations. The i report also shall contain a proposed decision in such form that it may be i adopted by the board as Its decision in the case. All examiner's reports ftl. ed with the board shall be matters of public record. A copy of each such report and proposed decision shall be mailed to each puny on the date they are filed with the board. (c) Consideration of Report by Board—Nollce. The board shall lit the time, date and place to consider the examiner's report and proposed deci• don. Notice (hereof shall be mailed to each interested party not Iris than five days prior to (he date fixed, unless it Is othewin stipulated by all of the par ties. (d) 6tcrpdons to Report. Not later than two days before the date set to i consider the report, any party may file written exception to any pan or all i of the examiner's report and may attach thereto o proposed decision • together with written argument in support of such decision. By leave of the 71 i t W5 ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS board, any party may present oral argument to the board. (e) Disposition by the Board. The board may adopt or reject the pro- posed decision in its entirety, or may modify the proposed decision. in Proposed Decision Not Adopted. If the proposed decision is not adopted as provided in Subsection (e). the board may decide the case upon the entire record before it, with or without taking additional evidence; or may refer the case to the same or another hearing examiner to take addi- tional evidence. If the case Is reassigned to a hearing examiner, he shall prepare a report and proposed decision as provided In Subsection (b) hereof after any additional evidence is submitted. Consideration of such proposed decision by the board shall comply with the provisions of this section. (g) Form of Decision. The decision shall be in writing and shall contain findings of fact, a determination of the issues presented, and the ne• quirementr to be complied with: A copy of the decision shall be delivered to the appellant personally or sent to him by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. (h) F-ffeeilve Date of Decision. The effective date of the decision shall he as stated therein. 22 1979 EDITION 701 Chapter 7 ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR THE BOARD OF APPEALS Compliance ' See. 701. (a) General. After any order of the building official or the Board of Appeals made pursuant to this code shall have become fuuul, no person to whom any such order is directed shall fail, neglect or refuse to obey any such order. Any such person who fails to comply with any such i order is guilty of a misdemeanor. ' (b) Failure to Obey Order. If, after any order of the building official or j ! . Board of Appeals made pursuant to this code has became final, the person to whom such order is directed shall fail, neglect or refuse to ohey such I order, she building official may (i) cause such person to be prosecuted under Subsection (a) of this section or (ii) institute any appropriate action ! ! to nhom rich building at a public nuisance. (e) Failure to Commence Work. Whenever the required repair or demolition is not commenced within 30 days after any final notice and order issued under this code becomes effect ive: 1. The building official shall cause the building described in urch notice and order to be vacated by potting at each entrance thereto a notice reading: DANGEROUS BUILDING UO NOT OCCUPY If is a misdemeanor to occupy this building or to remove or deface this notice. Building 011icial ............ of ............. 2. No person shall occupy any building which bar been posed as specified In this subsection. No person shall remove or deface any such notice so posted until the repair, demolition or remosal ordered by the building official have been completed and a Cerilicate of Occupancy issued pursuant to the provisionsof the Ruild:ng Code. y. The building official may. In addition to any other remedy herein provided, cause the building to be repaired to the extent necessary in ear• nett the conditions which render the building dangerom as set forth in the notice and order, or, if the notice end order required demolition, to cause the building to be sold and demolished or demolished and the mato iah. nubble and debris therelnom removed and the los cleaned. Any such repair or demolition work shall be accomplished and the cost thereof paid and recovered in the manner hereinafter prmided it; this code. Any urrplus realieed from the sale of any such building, or Irom the demolition. 23 J 701-703 ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS i 25 t 1979.EDITION e01.807 thereof, over and above the cost of demolition and of cleaning the lot, -; shall be paid over to the person or persons lawfully entitled thereto. Chapter 8 Extension of Time to Perform Work PERFORMANCE OF WORK Sec. 702. Upon receipt of an application from the person requited to OF REPAIR OR DEMOLITION conform to the order and an agreement by such person that he will comply with the order if allowed additional time, the building official may, in his .. General discretion, grant an extension of time, not to exceed an additional 120 t " . i See. 00f. (a) Procedure. When any work of repair or demolition is to be days, within whish to complete said repair, rehabilitation or demolition, if done pursuant to Section 70t (c) 3 of this code, the building official shall she building official determines that such an extension of time will not issue his order therefor to the director of public Srotks and the work shalt , create or perpetuate a situailon imminently dangerous to ffe or properly. 1: • be accomplished by personnel of this jurisdiction or by private contract The building offiriat's authority to extend time is limited to the physical S 2 under the direction of said director. Plans and specifications therefor may repair, rehabilitation or demolition of the premiss and will not in any way iIr be prepared by said director, or he may employ such architectural and affect thetimetoappeal his nosiceandorder. i engineering assistance on a contract basis as he may derm reasonably Interference with Repair or Demolition Work Prohibited t ',.-t necessary. If any part of the work is to be accomplished by private con - See. 703. No person shall obstruct, impede or interfere wish any officer, tract. standard public wanks contractual procedures shall be followed. employee. contractor or nuthodred representative of this jurisdiction or t i (b)Costs. Theeostofsuch work shallbepaidlmmrherepairanddemo- in with any person who owns or holds any estate or interest in any building t ; t !pion fund, and may be made a special assessment against the property - which hes been ordered repaired, vacated nr demolished under the ptovi. stewed, or may be made a personal obligation of the property owner, which- siuns of this code: or with any person to whom such building has been1 ever thelegislative body of this jut indiction shall determine isapproptiate. lawfully sold pursuant to The provisions of this code, whenever such of. , I 1 Repair and Demolition Fund ficer, employee, contractor or authorized representative of this iutisdia ! + rm, gOY. ta) General. The legislative body of this jurisdiction shall tion ,person having on interest or stale in such building or slrunme' or stablis6 a special revolving fund to be designated a the repair and purchaser is engaged in The work or repairing, vacating and repairing, or i denmfitinn fund. Payments shall be made out of said fund upon the de - demolishing any such bu(Idistg, pursuant to the provisions of this code, or mend of the director of public works to defray the corn and expenses{ in performing any necessary act preliminary to or incidental to such work which may be incurred by this jurisdiction in doing or causing to be done or authorized or directed pursuant to this code. i the necessary work of repair or demolition of dangerous buildings. ' (b) Maintenance of Fund. The legislative body may at any time transfer to the repair and demolition fund, out of any money in the general fund of ' this jurisdiction, such sums as it may deem necessity in cadet to npediie Ihe pet(ormanee of the work of repnir or demolition, and any sum so transferred shall be deemed a loan to the repair and demolition fund and t shall be repaid out of the proceeds of the acdiecuons hneinalter provided for. All funds collected under the proceedings hereinafter provided for shall be paid to the treasurer of this jurisdiction who shall credit the same to The repair and demolition fund. I xa ! 25 t 901.801 ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS 1979 EDITION 904.908 Chapter 9 RECOVERY OF COST OF REPAIR OR DEMOLITION Account of Expense. Filing of Report: Contents See. 901. The director of public works shall keep an itemized account of the expense incurred by this jurisdiction in the repair or demolition of any building done pursuant to the provisions of Section 701 (c) ) of this code. Upon the completion of the work of repair or demolition, said director shall prepare end file with the clerk of this jurisdiction a report specifying the work done, the itemized and total cost of the work, a description of the real property upon which the building or structure is or was located, and the names and addresses of the persons entitled to notice pursuant to Subsection (c) of Section 401. Report Transmitted to Council—Sol for Hearing See. 902. Upon receipt of said report, the clerk or this jurisdiction shall present it to the legislative body orthlsjurisdiction for consideration. The legislative body of this jurisdiction shall fla a time, date and place for hearing said report and any protests or objections thereto. The clerk of this jurisdiction shall cause notice or said hearing to be posted upon the property involved, published once in a newspaper of general circulation in this jurisdiction, and served by ceilifled mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the owner of the properly as his name and address appear on the last equalized assessment roll of the county, If such so appear, or as known to the clerk. Such notice shall be given at least 10 days prior to the date set for hearing and shall specify the pray, hour, and place when the legislative body will hear end pass upon the director's report, together with any ob• jections or protests which maybe filed as hereinafter provided by any per. son interested in or affected by the proposed charge. Protests and Objections—How Made Ser. 903. Any person Interested In or affected by the proposed charge may file written protests or objections wlth the clerk of this jurisdiction at any time prior to the time set for the hearing on the report of the director. Each such protest or objection mull contain a description of the property in which the signer thereof Is interested and the grounds of such protest or objection. The clerk of this jurisdiction shall endorse on every such protest or objection the date it was tacel.ed by him. He shall present such protests or ablutions to the legislative body of this jurlldicilon at the time tea for the hearing, and no other protests or objections shall be considered, Hearing of Protests See. 904. Upon the day and hour ftted for the hearing the legislative body of this jurisdiction shall hear and pass upon Ute report of the director Ingether with any such objections or protests. The kgl,dative body may make such revision, correction or modification In the report of the charge as it may deem just: and when the legislative body is satisfied with the correctness of the charge, the report (as submitted or as revised. corrected or modified) together with the charge. shall be confirmed or rejected. The •. decision of the legislative body of this jurisdiction on the rcMti and the ' charge, and on all protests or objections, shall be final and conclusive. • Personal Obligation or Special Assessment See. 909. (a) General. The legislative body of this jurisdiction may thereupon order that said charge shall be made a personal obligation of the property owner or assess said charge against the property involved. (b) Personal Obligation. if the legislative body of this jurisdiction of that the charge shall be a personal obligation or the property owner, It shall direct the attorney for ibis jurisdiction to collect the same on behalf .d or a his jurisdiction by use ofall appropriate legal remedies. j (c) Special Assessment. If the legislative body of this jurisdiction orders that the charge shalt be assessed against the property it shall confirm the assessment. cause the some to be recorded on the assessment roll, and thereafter said assessment shall constitute a special assessment against and ■ lien upon the property. Contest Sec. 906. The validity of any assessment made under she provisions of this chapter thall not be contested in any action or proceeding unless the same Is commenced within 20 days after the assessment is placed upon she assessment roll as provided herein. Any appeal from a final judgment in such action or proceeding must be perfected within 20 days after the entry of such judgment. Authority for Installment Payment of Assessments with Interest See. 907. The legislative body of this jurisdiction, in its discretion, may determine that assessments In amounts of sso0.00 or more shall be payable in not to exceed five equal annual Installments. The legislative body's determination to allow payment or such assessments in In. stallment. the number of installments, whether they shall bear interest. and she rate thereof shall be by a resolution adopted prior to the con• firmat ion of the assessmetn. Ulan of Assessment See. 903. (U Priority. Immediately upon in being placed on the assess• mens roll the assessment shall be deemed to be complete. the se.eral amounts asserted shall be payable, and she assessments shall be liens against the las or parcds of land assessed, resMmety. The lien shall be subordinate to all existing saimul assessmcm hens previously imposed upon the tense property and shall be paramount to all other liens except for state. county and propert) talcs wish whi.h it shall be upon a panty. The lien shall continue until the assessment and all interest due and payable thereon are paid. 906912 ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS (b) Interest. All such assessments remaining unpaid after 30 days from the date of recording on the assessment roll shall become delinquent and shall bear interest at the ram of 7 percent per annum from and after said data Report to Assessor and Tax Collector. Addition of Assessment to Tax Bili Ser. 909. Alter confirmation of the report, certified copies of the assessment shall the given to the assessor and the tax collector for this jurisdiction, who shall add the amount of the assessment to the neat regular tax bill levied against the pared for municipal purposes. Filing Copy of Report with County Auditor See. 910. If the county assessor and the county tax collector assess txupeoy and collect taxes for this jurisdiction, a certified copy of the assessment shall be filed with the county auditor on or befrire August 10th. The dewriptions of the parcels repined shall be those used for the same parcels an the county astessor't map books for t he cursrnt year. C0llaetlon of Assessment: Penalties for Foreclosure .we, 911. The amount of the assessment shall be collected as the same time and in the same manner as ordinary property taxes are collected: and shall he subject to the some penaltin and procedure and sate in case of delinquency as ptnvided for ardinmy properly lasts. All laws applicable to she levy, collection and enforcement of property sates shall he ap- plicable to such assessment. If the legitimise body of this jurisdiction has determined that the assess- mem shall he raid in installments, each installment and any interest thereon shop be collected in the saint manner as ordinary property taxes in successite years. if any inmallment is delinquent, the amount thereof is subject to the same penalties and procedure for tale as provided for or. (briery ptopel ty is tes. Repayment of Repair and Demolition Fund Ser. 912. All money recovered by payment of the charge or assess nem or from the sale of the property at foreclosure sale shall he paid to the treaswet of this jurisdiction who shall credit the tame to the repair and demolition fund. Council Agenda - 7/25/88 5• Consideration to Review the Concept for an Infectious Waste Plant. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Art Fretag of North Central Laboratories stopped by to see Gary Anderson and myself, late Wednesday afternoon. He was inquiring about the city ordinance/zoning requirements and the receptiveness of the community to construct a 15,000 square feet plant to burn infectious waste in a natural gas incinerator. The incinerator is a product of Atlas Incinerators, Blaine, Minnesota. The plant would burn approximately 1,000 pounds per hour with about 10 percent residue or ash which would be transported to a permitted land fill. The plant would serve the central Minnesota area. Infectious waste is contaminated bio -medical waste of needles, gloves, bandaids, and etc. Mr. Fretag is interested in Monticello's receptiveness to such a plant. He previously had contacted the communities of Plymouth, Moundview, Lino Lakes, and Maple Grove who responded negatively to the concept. Mr Fretag indicated the first step is to find a community who is receptive of the construction and operation of a infectious waste plant. I contacted the above communities, Maple Grove and lino Lakes city staff immediately responded that they felt their communities and/or council would not be receptive, Moundsvfew had dealt with mr. Fretag on an attempted personal development of a fourplex on wetland. Their advise was to have financing in order or paid up monies before approval of plans. Plymouth could not recall such a contact. Mr. Fretag and Mr. Harlan Meek of Atlas Incinerators, will attend the Council Meeting. I contacted Barb Schwientek, Monticello -Big Lake Hospital Administrator, to obtain status of the hospital incinerator. A new incinerator was installed approximately two years ago which is capable of burning bio -medical waste from our hospital and clinics. However, Ms. Schwientek indicated that new regulations are being considered by the commission which would prohibit the local hospital from burning this waste and she further indicated a local plant would th@n be cost effective. Regulations by the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) are so rigid that safety becomes a small issue. Hosrital personnel are trained to handle and transport infectious waste appropriately. John Simola, Public Works Director, expressed his greatest concern would be in the handle and transport of the infectious waste. The Industrial Development Committee's recommendation was to contact the communities listed above and to obtain more information. City Staff sees no need for a hasty decision and suggests the PCA be contacted and appear at the next council meeting for additional information. Council Agenda - 7/25/88 6. Replatting Request to Replat an Existing Lot into Eight (8) Townhouse lots and One (1) Common Area Lot. Applicant, Jay Miller. (G. A. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Jay Miller is proposing to replat another existing residential lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot to accomodate an eight unit townhouse project. The lot, if approved for lot subdivision, would be known as Colony By the Greens Fourth Addition. The developer, Mr. Miller, has meet all the minimum requirements for the placement of these townhouses on this one residential lot. Those requirements being minimum lot square footage, lot building setback, and building square footage. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Approve the replatting request to replat an existing lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. 2. Deny the replatting request to replat an existing lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The developer/owner, Jay Miller, with the placement of these eight townhouses on this one residential lot has met all the minimum requirements on lot square footage, on building setback requirements, and townhouse dwelling square footage requirements. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed replatting request, and a copy of the final plat for the proposed replatting request. Copy of the ordinance section on residential lot square footage, lot width, building setbacks, and building width. lq4,6(i f iaoo N6e...6,02'r 24.00 24.00 24.00 F4.00 24,00 24.00 2400 O O Nb 7 a 3On 4 Q3 14 ".Oo P4 00 ?4.CO 24.00 P9 DO P400 elf a7 —/000 soe,26,08-w Q \01 /AO urojorr mAkioworvr-., Se8I26'02'W Z12. 00 - - 62, alot 1 ar aX:ati'8 one Go%= lar lots ± $ Say Ni- +ice ,`^•, i`„„�•S•f' +�.+•f +•: tt,,.,7,__�.,,�.y� } - .. :♦ �_ �! �{� �`?ts;.S.J ji; � ��'�`^tii`�"���,;.��mtin� �,t•��t!.1a: '�J i 4'•'�` • �� rte•+�,,t� �, 4, y,�;?':'t•::\ .` r '', W,k+�'li• •� �1 .• (KI Any proposed structure which will, under this Ordinance and subsequent amendments, become non -conforming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, may be completed in acordance with the approved plans; provided construction is started within sixty (60) days of the affective date of this Ordinance and subsequent amendments, is not abandoned for a period of :ore than one hundred twenty (120) days, and=ontinues to cocpletion within two (2) years. Such at= -acture and use shall thereafter be a legally non-ccnforning structure and use. 3-2: GENERAL BUILDING AND PERFDAMA::CE RE¢ULAEXCITS: (A) PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section of the Zoning Ordinance is to establish general development performance standards. These standards are intended and designed to assure compatibility of use; and to enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the community. {B) DWELLING UNIT RESTRICTION: 1. No cellar, basement, garage, tent, or accessary building shall at any time be used as an independent residence or dwailing unit, temporarily or permanently. 2. Tents. play houses or similar structures may be used for play or r -creational ylrposes. 3. The followtna agc4itsetgral Controls shalt'. apoty in R - i, 2 R-3 and PZ -A Districts: {a} Minimum building width of 24 feet. i (b) Minimum 3:12 roof pitch with minimum six (6) inch soffit. (c) Building must be anchored to a permanent concrete or treated wood foundation. (d) No metal siding shall be permitted wider than 12 inches or without a ons -half W inch or more overlap and relief. (e) Minimum floor area shall be 1,000 square fest. (f) All dwellings shall most all regulations of the Minnesota Uniform Building Code. a. In all Districts, all buildings shall be finished on all sides with consistent architectural Quality, materials and design. [S) IAT AREA PER UNIT: Single Family Two -Family CTownhnuep Mobile Home Multiple Family Elderly Housing 12,000 square feet 6,Q00 square feet a pOO square feet 4,000 square feet 10,000 square feet for first unit plus 2,000 sq. ft. for-; each additional one bedroom unit, plus 3,000 sq. ft. for each additional two bedroom unit. 1,000 Square feet (The tot eAea pea unit Lequ,i4ement Soo townhoa6e6, condomidLbd 6 and ptanned unit devetoprtentb 6hatt be eateutated on the baaib o6 the tout a4ea in the project and a6 contaatted by an {ndiuiduat and joint owne46hip). (C) UTILITY TRANSITION AREAS: ALI areas in which saver is not currently available shall be designated as Utility Transition Areas. The minimum lot area of any platted lot in such areas shall be two and one-half (212) acres. Any lot platted according to the provisions of this subdivision, may be replotted provided that public sanitary sower will be made available and all conditions and ptavisions of this Ordinance are met: [D) USEASLE OPEN SPACE: Each multiple family dwelling site shall contain at least five hundred (500) square feet of useable open space as defined in Chapter 2 of this Ordinance for each dwelling unit contained thereon. (E) E8CEPT:0,14: The building height limits established herein for districts shall not apply to the following: 1. belfries 2. Chimneys or flues 3. Church spires 4. Cooling towers S. Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space. 6. Elevator penthouses 1. Flag pales A. Mnnuments P. Parapet valla extending not mora than three (3) feet above the limiting height of the building 10. water towers 11. Poles, towers and other Structures for essential eerv: 12. Necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances 13. Television and radio antennas not exceeding twenty (20) feet above roof. 14. Wind electrical generators (Fl No excluded roof equipment or structural element extending beyond the limited height of a building may occupy more than tventy-five (25) percent of the area of such roof not to exceed ten (10) feet unless otherwise noted. IGI KINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: 1. ONE AN R TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TO ^ The minimum floor area for such type buildings shall boas follows: ta) Ona Story Dwallinq - 960 sgaare fast. (b) Two Story Dwelling - 950 square feet ,per story. (c) 114jeet. : The minim m 4quae 6 a one 4tOAy 6uilding duced to $64 aquaae garage i.4 added with 336 aquaAe deet. In however:, 6hatt the minium n o6 that gartage be teas 6eet. 2. MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS: Except for elderly housing,living units classified as multiple dvallings shall have the following minimum floor areas per unit; (a) Efficiency Units 500 square feet (b) One Bedroom Units 500 square feat (c) Two Bedroom Units 720 square feet (d) Mors Than Two 9edroos Units -An additional 100 square fest for each additional bedroom 3. ELDERLY (SENIOR CITIZEN) nOUSIN6: Liviny units classified as elderly (senior citizen) housing units shah have the following sinlsum floor areas par unit: (a) Efficiency Units 440 square feet 3-4: In addition, each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable open apace as specified in the area and Building Size Regulations of this Ozdinance. Such lot areas may be controlled by an individual or joint ownership. (F] In residential districts, whara the adjacent st--ucturas exceed the minimum setbacks established in Subsection [C] above, the cine=uM setback shall be thirty (30) fast plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference. between thirty (30) fast and the setback or average setback of adjacent structures within the same block. AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATTONS: (A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum area and building size requirements to be provided in each zoning district as listed in the table below. DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT A-0 2 acres 200 N/A R-1 12,000 80 2% - 12,000 ew 2% 'R-3 10,000 Bo 2 R-4 49,000 200 1 PZ -R 12,000 Bo 2% P2 -M 12,000 BO 2 B-1 8,000 80 2 3-2 N/A 100 2 e-3 N/A 100 2 3-4 N/A N/A 2 1-1 20,000 loo 2 1-2 30,000 100 2 1. The building height limitation in an R-3,PZ-M, 9-1, 8-2, 5-3, 8-4, I-1, and I-2 zoning districts shall be two 12) stories. 2. In zoning districts R-3, PZ -M, 5-1, 3-2, 15-3, 3-4, I-1, and 1-2, a (3) three story building may be allowed as • conditional use contingent upon strict application of a requirement that fire -extinguishing systems be installed throughout the building. (Requ.iata d condi.U:onat met ptvnit based upon paoctduata 4" 60ath in dnd atgutated by Chaptta 22 06 VU4 oadinance). I . Clothes line pole and Wire. 2. Recreational equipment and vehicles. 3. Construction and landscaping material currently being used on the premises. 4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles and t_schz not exceeding a gross capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential areas. 5. Propane tanks, :uei cil tanks, and other sailar residential heating fuel Storage tanks which do not exceed {,000 gallons in capacity and ahall not be located within five (5) feet of any property line. G. Wood piles in which wood is stored for fuel provided that not more than 10 cords shall be stored on any property. A cord shall be 4- x 4' x 8'. All wood piles shall be five (5) fest or more from rear and side yard property lines and shall be stored behind the appropriate set back line in front yards. 7. Solar heating systems. / 3-3: Y*O REQUIRDMUTS: (A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard Spaces and areas to be provided for in each zoning district. (e] No lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced In area or dimension so as to maks such lot, yard or open spats Ins than the minimum required by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard or other open spats as existing is lass than the minimum required it shall not be further reduced. 110 required open spat.. provided around any building or structure shall be included as a part of any open space required for another structure. (C) All setback distance*, as listed in the table below, shall be measured from the appropriate lot line, and shall be required minimum distances. Trent Yard Side yard Rear Yard A-0 50 30 50 R-1 30 10 30 y,aa-t su 10.,, R-3 30 20 30 _ R-4 30 30 30 P2 -R see Chapter 10 for specific regulations. P2 -y sex chapter io for specific regulations. 3-1 30 15 20 3-3 30 10 20 D Council Agenda — 7/25/88 a 7. Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide Three Existing Residential Lots in Two ` Residential l,nt.s. Applicant, Don Bauer. {G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Bauer is proposing to resubdivide three existing city residential lots into two residential lots. when the city was platted, the three existing lots were platted in a north and south direction. Mr. Bauer is proposing to resubdivide the lots so that they would be split in half and then the lots will be running east and west. The lots when resubdivided will meet the minimum lot width and square footage required by City Ordinance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide three existing residential lots into two residential lots. 2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide three existing residential lots into two residential lots. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The applicant, Mr. Bauer, with his residential lot subdivision does meet the minimum lot frontage and lot square footage as required by City Ordinance. r D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision request. Copy of the certificate of survey. Copy of the residential lot square footage and setback requirements. p - I ' o y `j j�n lnl UA.f. ,~ •`1 Imo.:;. ' ""'�`-~�-.. �.. R � � � R Y �� . +�s..,,,.�:'•��'.7.yi,��^�w-�..,� .tom e•./: e�;a ,1 i..•.,:-:(``t .y ? •.,, ay'-�—+1 ,.�..•..'I" h.-} ) �i1. ^,.mow.. r�.,'••+1..�• .� � .'4. + �y `' ._ �t •fes:.• +:.; '.-+..•.,N +.�,Y:,. +...._. ,"' «' �``� '���� / ta ''�,,. ,�,•�,` � -;� ^�-.. tit �, n. �, w •' i 'd." �`"`'-•:tJ• r�'1 (ttfrJl �r y,"..W ."" • �" �i' !,J i t. .� tt'•"`M'?i __wJ �j j U....r� (/� i .t ' O �'(lt `~•l !4'-'..(t �"^.A`;R+�•.``.._..«1 Vii:'- '��� •("t.• fill IF j' 'Y �?'.,�i( [ �'. y ~: "`rte ,l• ';+ tr' t ' .a • 1 \\ H 1 GH WAY N0. 84 77, Va i �7 7111 ! �+: 1 � Q ,,.''4 :•i ��f li�'�:��1 1YYl!� � (' �• I it t'•g... ,It ' i;I � ••-, �,�' P.fGV°O JCO I OR.I.s✓•I GIr-� i d//L/ f/ II G.OYEMs•✓T �' 1 '���� . I 1 ,,. /L ti O oi�iPCC'6 A 0 ��; m Q W �, k 1 . r ,v 9 b, p ��` �• o r , 1j O.l11✓ .OG/1—y t 1 I I /f Iv ill .+,r+...✓ir. ��:rir ... ._-r � 1 .. r 1 'hot ,.ar : .. LOC3 1. 9 and :•;. Bloc:- ,rWN3 -.: OF 4ONTICELLO +c,:zr;iny to the recor=ad plat therecf, aright County, Minnesota _ ::ny r..:rt.`.easter:y o: a line drawn southeasterly tram a point i -n -ne ncr:hwrater.y l:nr o: s•tid Lct lU ;.3tanr• 82.42 Leet southweat from the most northerly Cerner of said Lot 10 to a otint en the 3outheaatarly line of aaLd Lot 8 di3tant, 82.50 feet a•x:h—jt c_ the 4wet ea,stdrly csrnor of oaid Lot d. Subject to !r%:.nage :nd ur,iiity eaaaments being 12.0-21 :est in width and the itrra: line, railroac lane and southeast rear line +nc '_eing 6.on ,o'et in w:dtn and adjoininq,the southwyst side .ins. :hat part of 'Lots 8, 9 and 10. Block. 1.0, TOU143ITE OF MONTICELLO scc.rjinq to the recdrdad plat thereof.-wriyht County. Minnesota lying southwweterly of a line drawn southeasterly from a point, :n lar northwesterly .line of said Lot 10 didtant 82 42 feet sautnwest'from the most northerly corner of said Lot 10 to a goint an the abutheastarly Itne of said Lot 8 distant 82.90 feat a')utnweOt cf the most easterly corner of said Lot S. Subject to _. ;-xin-tna and ur—li-.y-eanementn botn-2 L2.00 Poutih width and inq t=e et:eet Lina and tae southeast :ear line and being 1-0 feet, in width 4d;0inin0 L%r northeast and aoutowest side nJ I HE=ESY CE:?r.FY TMAr TFIIs SuRVEY. PLAN OR RSVF �qPJD SURVEYORS INC. WAS Oiy AND 7WArrI APA ARED Y DULY FEGME CR NSTEREO LAD SURVEYOR UNIOE: CAQWAY, P.O. BOX 179 rNZ LAI" CF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. MINNOOM 53362 ) 295-3368y.,,+..�s isr3 , CENNIS V. rAYLCR DEO. NO. DATE t.l er I �is.C: �G4 I Sr- s NCM . '), IOar[G i .sn FI dC�a✓� � ' In addi»ion, each condocidfum unit shall have iiia miriimam lot�area for-' the type_ of housing unit and'uaable open jspa6 as specified in the Area and Building Size Regulationsofthis Ordinance'. Such lot areas may be,contralled by. an Individual, or joint ownership. (P) In residential districts, whare the adjacent structures exceed the minimum setbacks established in Subsection (C] above, the minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference; between thirty (30) fast and the setback or average setback of adjacent structures within the same block. 3-4. AREA AND BUILDVM SIZE REGULATIONS: (A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum area and building size requirements to be provided in each zoning district as Listed in the table below. - DISTRICT L0T AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING,EEIGBT A-0 2 acres 200 N/A -R-1 12,000 so 2% R-2 12.000 Bo 21, 'R-3 1U.UUU 8u sJ R-4 4,666 200 i PZ -R 12,000 BO „, 2% .- PZ -M 12,000 80 .2 B -i 8,000 so 2 B-2 N/A 100 2 B-3- N/A 100 2 B-4 N/A N/A -2 1-2 30.000 100 27 11. The building height limitation in an R-3, PZ -M, B-1. 8-2. B-3. 8-4, I-1; and I-2 zoning districts shall be two (2) stories, 2. In Zoning districts R-3, PZ -M. B -i. 8-2, 0-3. 8-4, I-1, and 1-2, a (3) three story building may be allowed as a conditional use contingent upon strict application of a requirement that fire-extinquish£ng systems be installed throughout the building. l t (Requi4e4 a conditiaut use peux t k4ed upon pnoctdnaea sed 6o4th in and uquWad by ChWen, 22 os this oadinance). Esi LOT AREA PER 0IT': lsinale Family 12 000 square feat). Two-family 6,000 square feet Townhouse $,000 square feet 'Mobile home 4,000 square feet Multiple Family 10,000 square feet for first unit plus 2,000 sq. ft. for-: each additional one bedroom unit, plus 3,000 sq. ft. for each additional two bedroom unit. Elderly Housing 1,000 square fact (The Lot vAea pen. unit 24quiument don tounhouaea, condomuumn and ptanned unit devetopmenta ahaU be catcu,ta.ted on the baaia od the totat aaea in the paoject and as tonttolted by an individuat and joint omneaahip). [C) UTILITY TRANSITION AREAS: Ail areas in - which sewer is not currently available shall be designated as Utility Transition Areae. The minimum lot area of any platted lot in such areas shall be two and one-half (21fli acres. Any lot platted according to the Provision* of this subdivision, may be replatted provided that public sanitary sever will be made available and all eonditi_oiwi , and, provisions of this Ordinance are met. _ (0) USEABLE OPEN SPACE: Each multiple family dwelling site shall contain at least five hundred {300} square feet of useable open space as defined in Chapter 2 of this .Ordinance for each dwelling unit contained thereon. [E) EXCEPTIONS: The building height limits established herein for districts shall not apply to the followings 1. Belfries 2. Chimneys or flues 7. Church spires 4. Cooling towers 3. Cupolas and domes which do not contain uaeable spate. 6. Elevator penthouses 7. Flag poles B. Monuments J g. Parapet walls extending not were than three (3) fast above the limiting height of the building 10. Water tower* In Council Agenda - 7/25/88 B• Consideration of Concept Approval of Replat of Portion of "Meadows" Subdivision, Utilities Installation, and Re -Assessment of 81-1 Project Assessments. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. John Sandberg and Dan Frie have met with City Staff to review a proposal to replat the interior portion of the Meadows Subdivision that has not yet been developed of improved with city utilities. Before I get into any details on the proposal by the developers, I will try to provide some background on previous history that has occured with the subdivision. Some of you may recall, back in November of 1985, Mr. Sandberg had proposed replatting the interior portion of the Meadows Subdivision into six or seven larger multiple family lots for the propose of building an apartment structure. This replatting proposal was met with some oposition from some of the abutting residential property owners, t,,jt the City Council did approve the replat at that time, at which time, Mr. Sandberg requested and received approval for respreading of all delinquent assessments that had occured against the property. Approximately $185,000 in delinquent and unpaid balances were respread to 22 lots with equal assessments of approximately $8,400 each that fronted on Marvin Elwood Road. The respreading of the assessments was accomplished and has been in effect since 1986 but the approved subdivision of Kealy Heights was never recorded. Mr. Sandberg, after the approval, sold the subdivision to developers, Dan Frie, Dayle Veches, and Tom Holthaus. In June of 1986, Mr. Frie approached the Council again requesting that the current taxes and assessments due for 1986 also be respread because they were unable to record the new plat without first paying the assessments due that year. Since the project had just received a re -assessment the prior year, the council denied Mr. Frie's request and thus the plat was never recorded and development continued to occur as originally platted. A number of duplexes, a fourplex unit, and single family homes have been built by the partners since 1986, but now they feel that the only feasible way to continue to develop the interior portion of the Meadows is to again ask for city support with their development. The proposal being presented at this time to the Council has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission as of yet as the developers are seeking a number of concessions from the city prior to preparing a preliminary replat. This is the main reason they have asked to approach the City Council prior to expending any money for replatting as their entire idea depends on whether the City Council would consider financing and constructing the street, curb and gutter, and utility extensions throughout the plat and assessing 100 percent of the coat along with approximately $40,000 in current delinquent assessments against 20 of the new created lots. As part of the proposal, Mr. Sandberg has indicated that they would be willing to continue Marvin Elwood Road in a northwesterly direction to connect River Street through a corner of the former Edgar Klucas property. This would provide access from the subdivision through River Street and possibly divert some of the traffic from going through the Meadows and Anders -Wilhelm to get to River Street. When the Kealy Heights Subdivision was proposed, four single family &olling r lots were proposed to front on Prairie Road that each received an assessment of approximately $8,000. Since the subdivision never occured these four Council Agenda - 7/25/88 assessments are currently existing against two lots of record and have assessments with delinquencies totaling approximately $40,000. The developers are requesting that these assessments be re -assessed to approximately 20 of the lots that would be created in the new subdivision along with all of the costs for constructing the new streets and utility extension estimated at around $225,000 to $250,000. The result, if the city financed the entire improvement project and re -assessed the $40,000 in delinquent assessments against them, each lot would have approximately $15,000 in assessments. Although it is proposed by the developers to create approximately 27 single family lots, they are requesting that only 20 of the lots be assessed for improvements with the remaining 7 being free of any outstanding assessments. The rational for this is that they would be able to sell the 7 lots without any assessments and use this money to pay off their outstanding bank loans. The developers have indicated that unless the city is agreeable to li approval of the proposed replat, 2) financing of all the utility and street construction within the new subdivision, and 3) agreeing to re -assess the delinquent assessments totaling approximately $40,000 to only 20 of the newly created lots, the developers feel it would not be feasible to continue to develop the property on their own and will leave it sit vacant. Naturally, on the plus side for the city, the develoMrs have been able to construct some homes within the Meadows within the past few years and this would provide the incentive to continue to complete the subdivision in a single family or duplex fami:y fashion. An additional plus is that Marvin Elwood Road would be extended to River Street through the corner of Edgar Klucas's property to provide another access to this subdivision. On the negative side, the city policy has previously been to not continue financing 100 percent of a developers subdivision but to require some upfront money, typically 20 to 35 percent or more of the improvement costs. In this case, the proposal is not only for the city to finance the entire project costs, they are also requesting that some of the lots not even have assessments. The question becomes, how bad does the city want to see this area developed and whether the city should be the entire banker for this project. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the concept of replatting into residential lots and agreeing to order a feasibility study for construction of utilities and utreets within the new subdivision along with agreeing to assess only 20 lots for the improvement costs and to re -assess the delinquent assessments that have accumulated. 2. Agree to the concept of the replat enabling the developers to prepare a preliminary plat, but propose some other method of financing the public improvements needed, such as requiring some precentage of upfront money. 3. Approve the concept of the replat, agree to lift the delinquent assessments that have occu red and respread these delinquent amounts, order a feaetbility study for the utilities and road improvements and agree to finance all or a portion of the project but asacea all of the lots. Council Agenda - 7/25/88 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposal being presented by the developers certainly appears to be in the best interest of themselves more than in the City's best interest. Originally when Kealy Heights plat was proposed in 1985, Mr. Sandberg had indicated he was going to acquire all of Edgar Klucas's property and clean up the junk that had accumulated on Edgar's property as part of the rcplat. Since the replat never was recorded, Mr. Klucas's property has also not been cleaned up to date. The staff is certainly not opposed to the city constructing the utilities within a subdivision in that it is staff's opinion that a better job of construction is the result of a city project versus a private developer doing their own improvements. The problem I see is the precedent this may set in not only agreeing to finance 100 percent of an improvement project but also agreeing to assess only a portion of the lots for the costs. Although I am certainly not advocating that this would happen, leaving seven lots free and clear does provide an advantage to the developers in that their is no guarantee that only seven lots will be sold without any debt and the balance of the project could again sit for a number of years. As a result, the city would be placing assessments against property that may not develop and be eventually holding the bag. This certainly appears to be one method to encourage creation of additional single family lots that would probably enable the Meadows Subdivision to be finally completed after eight years. If the city is going to ask other developers to be required to pay for the portion of the improvement costs upfront, such as Kjellberg's Evergreens Plat, it would be inappropriate to finance 100 percent of this project and then only assess some of the lots for the costs. This has certainly turned out to be a long agenda item and Mr. Frie, or his partners will be in attendance at the meeting to provide additional information on their proposal. Again, they are looking for direction before proceeding with a preliminary plat because it appears to hinge on whether the city is willing to get involved with installing the utilities under their proposed method. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of the Council minutes date November 25, 19851 June 23, 1986, and a sketch of the proposed layout of the replat. Coun^tl Minutes - 11/25/85 in Block 30 and proposed PZ -R zone along River Street. Mayor Grimsmo was in agreement with Block 30 remaining R-2 for single and two family residential and agreed that he did not see the pressure immediately to rezone additional commercial land in this area. In regards to the PZ -R zone, Mr. Grimsmo noted that possibly areas further east of River Street could provide multiple housing sites that would still allow the residents to see the river, but it was his opinion that possibly River Street should remain single family. Council members Blonigen and Maxwell agreed with Mayor Grimsmo's comments and recommended that Block 30 remain R-2 in zoning and that the PZ -R zone be eliminated along River Street. Councilmember Fran Fair noted that her original reason for pursuing the proposed PZ -R zone was to allow for long range planning into the future to allow areas along the river to contain some multiple building sites for Monticello residents who may wish to have access or views to the river. Mrs. Fair felt that a veli -planned multiple housing development along the river would not be a detriment to neighboring residential properties if proper controls were retained by the City Planning Commission and City Council and fait that some of the vacant property along River Street could be developed for single family purposes and be more of a detriment than a well-planned multiple development. Bill Fair felt that the proposed PZ -R zoning was good long range planning for the City and that enouch controls would be present to minimize any effects a development would have on abutting property owners. It was Mr. Fair's opinion that if the PZ -R zone is eliminated, the City will be facing the same question again in the future as more of the larger, single family homes along River Street eventually deteriorate and multiple housing is proposed again. After considerable discussion by the Council members, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigon, to instruct the City staff to ravine the zoning map to eliminate commorciai zoning on Block 30 and to eliminate the PZ -R zones along River Street with the public hearing to continue until January 13, 1986, for final adoption consideration. voting in favor wan Grimsmo, Fair, Bloniqcn, Maxwell. Voting in the opposition: Bill Fair. 8. Consideration of Approving a Concept Plan for Roplattinq and Rezoning i the Meadows - Applicant, John Sandberg. A formai request for approval of a preliminary plat and rezoning appeared on the Planning Commission agenda and the City Council agenda November 12, 1985. The public hearing was held by the Planning Commission at the same time the City Council was meeting. Substantial opposition from the area residents of the Meadows development appeared at the Planning Commission hearing to object to the proposed razoning a. -.d roplating. The matter was never peened on by the Planning Commission and as a --*cult the City 'r ....___ ..5..16d awliun at the last meeting. Council Mi:uites - 11/25/85 Beccuse formal action was not token by the Planning Commission or the Council, Mr. Sandberg requested that the Council now consider the concept of multiple housing within the Meadows development and the proposed rezoning that would go with it. Mr. Sandberg noted that his proposed R-3 zoning from a planning perspective is appropriate for the area since it allows for a transition from single family residential zoning in the Alders -Wilhelm Estates and Balboul Estates area to R-2 zoning surrounding the Meadows to his proposed multiple R-3 zoning in the middle of the Meadows development which would lead to the proposed heavy industrial zoning on the Klucas property. Mr. Sandberg noted that presently it is not feasible to develop the Meadows subdivision as currently platted with the addition of streets and sewer and water that would have to be constructed. His estimated cost for completing the project as currently platted for single family and duplex homes would cost approximately S141000.00 per lot which he felt would be unfeasible. Mr.,Sandberg's proposal to replat the interior arca of the Meadows would create seven multiple apartment sites that could provide up to 196 multiple apartments. Mr. Sandberg also noted that it was his intention to purchase the Klucas property lying west of the Meadows plat for the purpose of extending Marvin Elwood Road to River Street and he indicated he would also clean up the site by removing all junk from the property. Mayor Grimace and Councilman Blonigen questioned whether replatting for additional 196 units of multiple housing would be in the best interest of the City since this would create many more housing sites than the City's comprehensive plan allows for. The comprehensive plan indicates that multiple housing units should not exceed 301 of the available single family sites in the City and it was noted by the Administrator that the City has occupied or in the planning stages multiple housing units that exceed the 30% limitation. The Administrator also noted that the City Planner did not feel it would be unreasonable to increase that percentage to 40% of single family lots since the City has experienced rapid growth and does have low vacancy rates on it= a-isting apartment buildings. Councilman Sionigan felt that the rezoning and roplatting of the Meadows for multiple housing sites appeared to be proposed strictly for an economic advantage to the developer and wan not convinced that the additional multiple sites were necessary. Councilman Maxwell and Bill Fair were agreeable to requesting additional detail plana for the roplat but were concerned over how the single family areas adjacent to the proposed roplat would be protected from a multiple apartment dwelling. After further discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell to ondordo the general concept of some additional R-3 zoning to be included in the Meadows plat and requested further detail plane on the proposal. voting in favor was everbody but Blonigan who opposed. Council Minutes - 11/25/85 9. Consideration of Respreading Special Assessments in the Meadows - / Applicant, John Sandberg. Mr. John Sandberg requested approval of the Council to respread the special assessments within the Meadows subdivision including delinquent and future balances amongst the currently buildable lots along Marvin Elwood Road and Prairie Road. The proposed reassessment would eliminate 12 assessments from interior lots that were previously platted within the Meadows that are not currently available for development and respread these amounts on an equalize basis on the 22 buildable lots that are currently immediately available for housing. with Mr. Sandberg's proposed replatting to create multiple family lots and additional single family lots, the proposed respreading of the assessments would total $7,400.00 for 19 single family lots with double assessments of $14,799.00 for each of the three proposed multiple family lots abutting Marvin Elwood Road. As part of the respreading proposal. Mr. Sandberg would bring current all real estate taxes owing ayainst the 46 lots within the development which would be immediately payable to the Wright County Auditor in the amount of 52,966.00. A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the resproading of the delinquent and unpaid balances of the assessments in the Meadows against the lots abutting Marvin Elwood Road and Prairie Road per the proposed concept for replatting. 10. Review of water System Analysis and Consideration of Improvements. Recently, the City Engineer presented a draft of the water system analysis for the City which recommended improvements to the system including a now ground level 800,000 stand pipe on Monti Rill with interconnecting piping on County Road 118 along with pump house modifications. In reviewing the report with the Public works Department and City Staff, it was recommended that the improvements totaling an estimated $830,700.00 be constructed in the near future to upgrade the City'e water system. The proposed improvements would moat the needs of the City until the year 2000 with an estimated population service space of approximately 5,600 people. in addition to the water system upgrading, it was recommended that a water main be installed under County Road 39 from County Road 75 to Mississippi Drive at a cost of approximately $50,000.00 prior to this segment of 39 being improved with permanonst street and curb and gutter. Primary discussion by the Council concerned how the project could be financed if approved and discussion centered on the three possible alternatives for financing the project. First alternative could be a 100% revenue bond which would require a substantial increase in the currant water rates. Second alternative for a general obligation bond financed entirely by ad valorem taxes would require a referendum vote of the residents for approval. A third alternative could be to acaaad a minimum of 2Ui of the propol+ed cost with the balance collectable under ad valorem taxes which would not require a referendum. -5- 0 Council Minutes - 6/23/86 A motion was also made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to order the preparation of plans and specifications for public improvements in the Construction 5 Addition to include the extension of Lauring Lane with curb, gutter, storm newer, and sewer and water utilities. See Resolution 86-18. 13. Consideration of an Appeal for a variance to Allow Placement of Entrance Lights and Sign within a Street Right-of-way. Applicant, Monticello Americ Inn. Mr. W. J. Murphy, owner of the Monticello Americ Inn Motel, withdrew his request for a variance to allow for the placement of a sign and lights in the street right-of-way and has indicated he will be relocating the sign and lights to his own property. ,14. Consideration of a Request to Respread Assessments in the Meadows/Kealy Heights Subdivision - Applicant, Dan Frie. During the fall of 1985, Mr. John Sandberg ourchased the Meadows Subdivision and requested that the delinquent special assessments for the years 1984 and 1985 be re -assessed to allow for the property to be replotted into a combination of multiple housing sites and single family sites to be known as Koaly Heights Subdivision. The assessments were resproad and the property was sold to Mr. Dan Fria and Dayle Vachoa, who were now in the process of recording the now subdivision plat. As part of the recording procedure, the County requires that all current year taxes and assessments be paid, which amounted to approximately $30,000.00, and the new developers requested again that the City lift the assessments and rosproad after the plat is recorded. The developers indicated they did not have sufficient funds to bring the assessments current at this time, but felt that they would be able to complete enough homes in the near future to pay off the assessments entirely within a year or two. Council members noted that they certainly understood the situation the developers were in, but since they had already re-asaasood the delinquent assessments approximately six months ago, they felt they should not continue to rooproad assessments for a project they already have done. It wan noted to the developers that the original plat known as the Meadows is still the legal property description and that if they did not wish to record the now Kealy Heights plat, the property could be developed as originally platted with all ainglo family homes, etc. An a result, it was the consensus of the Council that no action would be taken to ro-auscos any of the assessments against this property. Consideration of Accoptin9 the Annual Audit Report for the Financial Condition of the City of Monticello. Mr. Kim Lillohoug of Gruya Johnson 6 Associates, the City Auditors, was present and reviewed briefly with the Council the 1985 Audit Report recently completed. Mr. Lillehaug noted that the report would be submitted to the State Auditor by July 7 and noted that if the Council wiahal Lw review In detail the Audit Report at a later data, they would be available. -6- .?Ra pp SES _PE SLA?" i••yeti. • ' /ri .y. u.+8� ! v .h„M 'Iby. yq',y,,u � �.. -,"�, ~' '-... 7 ' "�. • . r • e; b � � � N, ate• ,� �• row, b b $~ +\� ..W..±�' �r �W '.,+08 (•'`'w,\` �� ` �\ o•„ 1. .`/ r .:''Ye 1 s •.. ♦ �: t 10 a •.• 4e 4 `. .t 1 rlJai a,•" 8 i .,. R ft ` M6"' a� r' ^�ro j629�.. `�• �mi.o �q •�� lfa t'+yt4i:•�.,�d ..a.@. 8 by/b R`"+�.n\.. �• P•� 1 k.�.,t „`w •, .� IT tt °1m � _, r - a_ .] • Jai =4.,a_ ,.,r � • '� ♦) � � f�gb�y �'"�. ?., ` � r � �'n „� � '� , t-..nssi.-7 p• 8 trr v, <' t` 6 d t�•'Oj'r � y��y `/._ .a:?w.t � n, .,\ �.� .•>•••,'•�� .. 2 C @ $ S q •� •boe +4i b b . V t S` � S�� +.elf � R � 6 t e b et'n• , � .�•�! _ ``"L A.1��1 s `, ICj' ,�� •ba " 2 �• t .woo_ q > r..,�: ^,S.we �. e \ r_ .. {.tf°` • i i-.•a•sr •"9 t II ,!'R //l CR .P.. ++• . '_ f ••p't tt 1 • ' m«.. gi •' w� � ! �. 9 ` F i •J•�.4.. f�• i v. �w,' 1 �` �". w a � � ' Fb .•�� �'t t °! � s,� �..+f �S + ,•w.:',1 � �f�i T r49� rl-- •,,t�wp� g w • •�''��� fP �1,� q T�,y: �R�' g��-tN"tt• 'g � � 4 tt • j 6 1 `•,a � S �'i } et tw,q „"`'=' ao'. ". Jso 8 t a ! a p - • �.•. 4 1 n �• • a.h It : q le ti , 1 t.. PO It pD SS i� ' • X01+13-• a PPPmE .. 1 P mfr/SfiwG PLAT y'.`°j•1: 2 a \ \ \ i"C^• ter. �' a' `���•, • '�.:p � r : } 1 �R 2 .1,�\ ti �a 6 r' d�1.ir ter' �,.► �. \ \ \ 4 •M 1 � , r • d •tk i0. 8 � \a r e �: 9 �� .4� \�•4� \ •� \ S y r \ \ i \ h p`iA �yQ .•• ``� 2 h} ^� 9 � � � /\Fily � J/•d 10 rp a�., 'W �O.t' Y•�` \ \ \ \ 1 CC 6 4 � ` /\Ch � ,♦ II g .t`, yam'. 223 \ J � � r••u ri.l rlri.r.,,, PF d'�\ 8• F� �^ 12 7 ! \ 0 8 2 ,F' •.r r,r� �.� b4. ,I /• % IO 8 . 4� \ '�`.,` a+.a�. �• \ �� y 8� � •: ✓' a \' � I r• -9•a•_ I /9 •LbW e�}'�8 •bSb�J .i n . \ r.a,>9- '• .000� r'.¢• y'4 .i b 4} `� {'f \ 6'A s• i ^'� \ 6 J Jt r� `. o Ji' 12 �.•i)^_ 'a! /;1�' g g� \ \ \ \ trw if• } 1 I'�T/' ct /tP /! (yd G'."�Yy�% �. a• L�r� �6 ` IC 6 �_' J R F.'�}' r �. 33 •;. 4 gyp" tt r °r. O � •� I} l y� �ia bl� .v�o��t �d r••+•ra s...' ! tl _, rov �n" ,wS.� °�r°{���'� P-0. ;•d roe►• \ a. � 9 t�E it QPDO'N.,y+ '✓j� 'e B9 L _ •a.- wj. .n r- �j •.roa•�•nrr�' ry. iii 0 A,_M� ^� I. .�T, }•.r•mrr- r'r,i•n .B.'r -ra awry1 'u a �Tt `ti d ✓,r B 2� I- �ag°'nl�6sOS 29y �}�•...•. rt'..� i .wwril•-Fb P a R IM �6 K i F.e :\wIg Ig 9 Q c 25r Turn ri.—• 7E I: � � r\ ••. , � ,i n• . J wrn ri. ••••" S �qy _.w 1 r - um. n 8 10 4 9rli r — -I nm i 'nm if • ro1 r- •em1 r nm r um r •nm•� 'mm1 A. `.o0m 1 run' • `r •0001 r•a I• •• I . i I i �. I. • I 4� 8 YI �a 8 I• g 8't 8 i 24 R 2} i@ 22 21 I� 2p I� IB 16 •I i r �I I� 85 I �b �. 4• r. l I I .._ i. I p l n 1 'no 0c ' nw. 1eca— PRAIRIE ,,,., •. .. .. G G r ROAD Council Agenda - 7/25/88 9• Consideration of Connittee Report on Closure of River Street Access to Highway 25. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last meeting, City Council recommended that the committee consisting of Council members Dan Blonigen, Warren Smith; City Staff; Jack Anderson, Traffic Engineer; and representatives of nearby businesses, meet with MNDOT to discuss possible solutions to the intersection problem. After the Council meeting, I phoned Bud McCulloch and discussed with him at length the possibility of setting up a meeting with MNDOT and the above committee. After much discussion, Bud recommended and I concurred that the committee meet first as a whole to narrow down the field of alternatives and select the goals or criteria for the intersection. The committee meeting was held at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, August 21, at City Hall. After looking at the seven plus options originally laid out by Jack Anderson, the States options, and several other options thrown on the table during the meeting, the committee's almost unanimous recommendation was that the intersection remain totally open for all traffic movements and that the only option which would allow this to occur would be the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Highway 25 and River Street. It was felt that some of the negative aspects of the signals could be dealt with through proper timing and sequencing of the lights, such as delaying access to Highway 25 through periods of heavy traffic and to eliminate the right turn on red from East River Street to north bound Highway 25. It was the suggestion at the committee level that we approach MNDOT with the goal of having the intersection totally open and to suggest to mNDOT that the committee saw the traffic signal as the only alternative by which this could be accomplished. I called Bud McCulloch on the afternoon of July 21st, and informed him of the committee's recommendation. Bud was somewhat surprised to hear that this was the committee's request and that Jack Anderson as a Traffic Engineer could support such a request. I informed him that Jack had only concurred that the signal was the only apparent way to keep the intersection totally open. We did not go into great detail and analyze the overall affects to Highway 25 of the traffic signal. I informed Mr. McCulloch that City Council would be meeting on Monday night to review the committee's recommendation and to take further action. I informed Mr. McCulloch that the committee would be willing to meet with him prior to that occasion either on Friday or Monday, and that if possible we would like a representative from MNDOT at the Monday evenings Council meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Accept the recommendation of the committee to kept all movints of traffic open at the intersection of River Street and Highway 25. Request that MNDOT look into the possibility of accomplishing this with traffic signals. 2. Not to accept the committee recommendation or modify their recommendation. Council Agenda - 7/25/88 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As Public Works Director, I support keeping the intersection open to most traffic movements. I do not, however totally support the idea of using the traffic signal to accomplish the goal, without additional study to determine the overall affects to the residents of the City of Monticello, and the public at large. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Please refer to earlier copies of letters from MNDOT, the information presented at previous Council meetings, and the report from Jack Anderson. L Council Agenda - 7/25/88 to. Consideration of Water Tower Design, Elevation, and Pressure. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the July 11th meeting, the Council supported the purchase of the Kenny Shultz property as a location for the proposed water storage facility. Discussions continued as to the system operating pressures and the type of tank to be built. John Badalich provided information regarding increased water pressures and the City of St. Louis Park, City of St. Paul, City of Minneapolis, and the City of South St. Paul, indicating no problems were known to exist from the increases of pressure in those areas. John indicated he would send us information regarding a proposed water storage facility design for the next meeting. I informed the Council that I would be speaking with the Minnesota Rural Water Association about increases in pressure and pressure reducing valves and their effect on older piping systems. I also informed the Council that I would order several different types of water Dressure reducing valves that could be looked at, at the next meeting if they arrive in time. A representative from Minnesota Rural Water, Jim Plahn, came to Monticello and discussed our proposal to increase water pressure in the city and some possible affects from the pressure increases. Jim has had extensive experience with various cities and their problems and has also been involved in day to day operations of municipal water systems as well as rural water systems. His first hand experience in rorgl water systems involved the operation of miles and miles of pipelines at pressures up to 160 PSI which had to be reduced when 4 run into homes and farms. Some of the experiences Jim had were quite interesting. He indicated that though his experiences he has learned that there are two types of pressure reducing valves. The first type acts as a check valve and will release no pressure from the home (no matter how high it builds) back into the city system. The second one he is familiar with is one that will release pressure back into the city system if the home pressure overcomes the pressure in the city's main. You might be asking yourself, how is it possible for pressure in the home to overcome the pressure in the mains. Jim indicated that countless times he has experience whereby that heating in the hot water heater, especially the larger ones tends to expand water in the system. As the water expands it has no place to go during period of low use and pressure begins to build in the home. Once pressure builds, it will go up to the pressure of the city's main, in the second case check valve it will overcome the check valve and the pressure will go out into the city's main, but thereby defeating the purpose of the pressure reducing valve as now the pressure is much greater than the pressure in the mains. As the case in the first type of the pressure reducing valve which acts as a check valve, the pressure in the hot water heater could not get back into the city mains. Therefore, often pressure will continue to build until the safety valve blows off on top of the hot water heater or a pipe ruptures as in the case of older homes. Jim has indicated that this is overcome by the addition of a three to five gallon expansion tank hooked into the home water system near the hot water heater. lie indicated that it is almost impossible to pre -determine which homes will have this problem, but that a gauge installed on the home side of the pressure reducing station can give a very good indication f as to if this problem is present. !t in easy to find this problem once it exists if one merely turns off the service line and the pressure in the home continues to increase. Council Agenda - 7/25/88 In an attempt to determine some costs in pressure reducing stations, I have ordered three pressure reducing valves from three different suppliers. They range in costs from $35 to $115. A good pressure gauge with a T type fitting could easily cost $15. As far as an expansion tank goes I have not been able to determine an accurate cost at this time, I may have more on this at Monday's meeting. Jim, during his visit indicated that the city must establish a policy far ahead of time for dealing with problems which may develop. The policy should address among other things, the failure of the pressure reducing valve, or the water service or the piping in the home. It is possible that such a policy may be based upon the limits of liability insurance that the City already has for such cases. Rick is checking into the insurance question and should have some information by Monday evenings meeting. Jim has indicated that he has found most of the problems occuring above 60 PSI in older homes. The problems he has encountered become more significant when do-it-yourself plumbers have been involved. Some of the older home were built with do-it-yourself plumbers rather than the professional work done today, thereby each home containing galvanized piping could act differently to the same pressure. He indicated that problems could develop with the city's fire hydrants. When you boost the pressure to 80 PSI in the city the Fire Department and City Water Department must be more careful in closing a fire hydrant that is boosted to 80 pounds than one at 50 pounds, especially the older hydrants dated back into the 1940'x. One other topic the Jim brought up was the regard to water usage. He indicated that with increased pressure many homes will experience significant amounts of water usage due to leaky faucets and running toilets. The City must develop as part of their policy a notification that this may occur and that the city is not responsible. It is also suggested that residents may want to install water saving devices in the toilet and on the showers. The last thing we discussed was the particular coatings for the water storage facility. The city should try its beat to get the best possible urethane coatings manufactured today or as an alternate look into the aqua storage type tank which has a glassfired coating. These tanks cost more initially, but often the money is recovered over a short period of time with less maintenance and easier cleaning of the tank. Jim indicated he has observed were an Aqua Store Tank was allowed to form a huge block of ice on the top of the tank so that it actually floated up through the cover of the tank and yet ruined only one panel were the overflow device was installed. I believe John Badalich is aware of the Aqua Store Tank systems, and if time allows I will contact one of there representatives to got some cost differential over standard construction tanks. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Select a water facility design, and if possible, set a high water elevation and operating pressure for the system. 2. Seloct a water storage facility decign, buL continue discussions to the next meeting for system operating pressures and high water mark. 3. N^L to approve a design or a system operating pressure. 2 Council Agenda - 7/25/88 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reserves its recommendation until a later date. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of water storage types from John Badalich. Copy of brochure from Aqua Store. Aguastore Tanks... the proven tank Permaglas Coating "IIIc Wrtun applied Pcrmagl.r, Cnanng process pro%ides a hard. inert barrierlit ,di" glass. chem icallt and mcchamcallt bonded to the steel sheet fi)r optimum rc,i,mncc to corrosoc attack. lis coating i, applied to both the inside and the our,ldc of the tank to protect the qua ity of the content, stored and to protect the exterior against wcathcring atlaek. l'he cobalt blue glass tired at oter 1.51111 P remains bright gli cyst and co!nr true in the presence of ddficult m handle products. sceadter. temperature and sunlight exposure. practically eliminating coaling maintenance costs Engineering Excellence Aqu,tore lanky refect the stringent performance standanls of the smerican u]ter Vorks A,soaalion D. lot criteria and are racton• Jluwal approved rich Aqua,mre tank 1, anal%rcd for foundation and fooling requirement, based on a lined sod hearing capauty Design calculations for each tank sue hate been made laking Into annstderannn the proper design a11d1'. h} drauhc load, w utd load and sennuc design for each ,pecdie application Our engineer, use state of the art computer systems dctclopccl spcuhcallt lur tank anal\v, Draw rags .md det.ul spcuhc.ations are as adahle for each tank ,t stent Experience 'ilure are otcr S 1100 Parntagla, waled tank, m liquid sen lie worldw ldc Appr0xtmatcls 1 410(1 of thcsc lnsiallauons arc mdmirul and mono 111.11 wall r and wastctt.0cr and lute ht U1 m use %InLC the call, -if, \carlt all of thc•c tanks arc still perlotnung in thur uvuldad satucc Mind nuns h.nc tuporcal « uc.nutg 111n1e hate attn hon aspanded tuticalh lir «Incacd to neve scrt 1st, Aqua,lnre applications include • pulal+lc at au r • proc a ss w .tt c r • %cast,N it, r • trickling hhcr • Lre s::plir..stun Aquastore tanks can be hued tush brit;, to store ag;ressoc liquid, "Inst Ur Wltrfrm ui.�,n U. u,nuna rrt-uenr.,np a L .ter• —1 • AOUWTORE' Tank Systems FEATURING LONG -LIFE PERAA AGLAS' COATING 4M r. 7"7; %5R.. 9771-71M., eery W". *.'�' Options and Accessories G lass- Fused To -S tee I- Floors Permaglas coated bolted steel (loom offer these important advantages: • allows fur significant reduction in foundation concrete • case of installation in remote areas • avatcr tight joint with security of steel • allows for maximum recovery in the event the tank is relocated A)Y'VA Standard Accessories Ladders Aqua+tore tank ladders are constructed of aluminum mils and rungs with hot -clip gal• vanized cages• step olf platfoms and meet all OSHA requirements. ,%Iamsays Aqua+tore tank mamvays. designed in accordance with AUNVA D• 103 standards. are 24" in diameter and constructed of a combination of Permaglas coated steel with a hotdip gal.^2ni7cd frame. Ventilators Aquasture tank centil:uurs are designed to allow for air cschangc during filling and emptying and are equipped with hird and insect screens. Permaglas' Slotage Systems, tank SySteMS A 0. Smah Ha vom Product. Inc q MunIcin il'Indusnial Depnnmeni 945 H.—ton, Ddve IL DaRA.11.60115 515,756.1551 Wesiern Union MRS 6:9391'22 mnmrr u �u...r,ur�rngw Represented by: AQUA DtORE• TAN• D. STENS rOP LIGUIO STORAGE PEPr+AOLAD'STORAGE. UNITOrOR SOLID PR000C? STORAGE LM -AA AOSMNRND ON 13d3W istem for liquid storage. bj rt,h� N.!I Milo . ol Compare painted steel eosits with Permaglass Coated steel tot Manufacturing ,t con ninnu•ni at pnahlct qualm i, rcticcted In tour manWicturmg pIam in Uc Kalb. Illim",,'Iln, 4111t soh) squurc lion facalin', the largest and must mtnJcrn M,hed acyl tank manufacturing plant in the'"wid. pmduccs the g1a,s fu,cJ-tn- ,tccl sheets Irani ctod Nwck In hna,hcd pn,duct that make up.%qu,N ttorc 1311k- (2L'3 ank• t llaaltly cuntrul prnkedure: used In checking the ,reel, ,hcet ,urlace prepara- tion. hole punching. coating, packaging. and shipping area[ ,tach a high level that they were given high pmi,c by and were an%trumental In receiving Approval troinl Factum Mutual. Permaglas cuatmg quality control,tandant+ mcludc tc,ting pnnedur o developed by the Pnrcclain Enamel Institute The Life Cycle Cost the hr,t at,t o likely to be sour last cost with Pcrmaglas coaimp. with painted +tccl tanks. repainting is nu my+ten•. It's not a quewnn ofd , . but how often. In fact, repaimutg cost+ over the life tot a paused steel tank w dl often exceed the original purchase price of the tank. Late cycle analosi+ fines the complete cost Picini tit; the life of any tank under ct ntsadcration. Installed System I:ccn, .loquastine tank system a, installed M• a local. factory aauhurired. indcpe•n. dent dealer ming special equipment low spccJv and « liahle 1tlstallawmAlte dealer is capable 111 total project manage- ment Including site preparauon, hnmda nam, c,,mina00111. tank aece+�onc+, tic,ung. %anttalion and site clean-up •Ihe unique hooked lap Ionto ,peed, a„cmhh and allow, lir tank rchwauan tar cxp.msann Ihe nucgnts and polar num c u1 the bolted lap Point unimna, It”" techmquc IN pf4ne" 1n tater S%01111 sect and drr %enrage tank+ eyoridve tele TANK CAPACITY CHARTS Wastewater Treatment Tanks Capacities in 1000s of gallons `- Trickling Filter Shells Capacities in 1000s of cubic feet NOMINALNOMINALHEIGHT I NOMINALHEIGHT (NOMINAL DIAMETERIN 440 S40 FEET 62 IN FEET 15 1 19 1 24 1 14 15 1 20 1 26 17 22 I 29 I 37 20 30i 41 1 51 25 50 fib 1 85 31 76 1 1o1 I 127 36 106 1 141 1 177 42 141 198 1 236 I 50 203 I 272 1 340 1 62- . =-' 406.1 508 1 70 393. 524 I 656 I 81 528 706 1 883 1 90 643 859 I 1075 1101 815 I 1068 1 1361 1 120 1163 1 1553 1 1900 `- Trickling Filter Shells Capacities in 1000s of cubic feet NOMINALNOMINALHEIGHT I I 261 35.7 1 440 S40 DIAMETER 62 398 IN FEET 97.0 80.7 043 IN FEET 15 1 20 I 25 1 29 I 34 4 11 J9 1 2.7 1 14 1 !J 40- I 2.9 3.9 1 4,9 1 80 7.0 I 2040 1 54 1 9,7 6.] I 9s 25 Ill 98 I So 11.2 � U.5 31 99 11 131 19.7 20.1 275 I 38 I 139 1 19.9__-234 1 29) 1 321 50 I 261 35.7 1 440 S40 63,1 62 398 53.4 97.0 80.7 043 I 70 514 690 1 666 104.2 121.6 61 69.1 92.8 III 118.5 1 140, 2167 6 90 842 I 1130 141.9 1 170.7 1 1096 1 101 1066 1 143,1 I 170 6 1 216.1 1 2526 Permaglas Slorag6 Systems RQUFWTORS lank systems Shell Design: RISC Wind Requirements: ANSI Freeboard: 1'0' Open Top Concrete Floor Note: Glass -coated steel floor assemblies are available for 14' through 101' diameter treatment tanks. Contact the Municipal/ Industrial Sales Department for further information. Shell Design: AISC Wind Requirements: ANSI Freeboard: 27 Open Top Flange Mounted Shell Note: Trickling filter shells may be designed to heights and diameters not shown on this Chan. Contact the Municipal/Industrial Sales, Department for special diameters and heights. Designs compatible with both random and sheet media. A.O. Smith Hsrvestore products, tne. Municip8111ndustriel Depeninont 345 H6Nestare Drive DeKalb. IL 60115 61517W1551 Western Union MSX 062939122 r AOSHPI IND 069.1280.00 O copyright 198 AQU = TOR20 TANK CAPACITY CHARTS Water Standpipes and Reservoirs Capacities in 1000s of gallons Designed toAWWA D•103 Standards Seismic Design: Fixed Percentage Specific Gravity: 1.0 C�. STP Wind Load: 100 MPH Snow (Live) Load: 25 PSI Freeboard: 0" EPA Accepted Tank with Concrete Floor NOMIN4L NOMINAL HEIGHT IN FEET DIAMETER_ INFEETI 15 19 1 244 126 133138 143 147 152 157161 166 170 175 179 184 189 193 198110211071112 I 14 1 16 122 1 27 132 137 144 149 154 159 165 170 175 180 186 191 J 96 11011 1071 1121 1171 1221 128 17 24 31 39 147 I Sa 163 1 70 178 186 193 1 1011 1081 118 1231 1311 1391 1461 1541 161 1691 177 184 I 20 33143 1 53 164 174186195 110611171127113711481 IE4116811791189119912101220123012411251 25 54171 1 88 1105112211421159 17611931210122712441261127612%13131330 1 31 81 1,07 1 132 1 15811 183121 238 26J1 2891 3141 3401 3651 3911 4161 1 36' 114 149 1 185 1 2201 2561292 32713631 39814891475151015461- 1 42• 151 199 1 24Btl 294113411388143614a3l 5311 I 50' 218288 355 1 423149115591628 I 62- 326428t Slot 63211 7341836( 1 70• 4211 553 68 1816 1 9481 1 81• 5671 744 92i 110991 90' 69119061122 101• 8741114711420 Tank with Glass -Coated, Bolted Steel Floor NOMINAL DIAMETER DINOMINAL HEIGHTIN FEET NFEET 1D 1 eu 1 e7 1 N I 44 1 Jd 1 44 1 4e I DL I DI I bl 14 17 1 22 1 v1 I w 144 40 1 ,54 I SR 1 sa I I; 25 3J 40 d8 5s e3 70 78 96 9320 34 t0I 25 57 74 9) I lo, 1 1?l ]112 I Is8 I ]79 j 1g� 210 22; I 3 e5 Ito 139 8 tel 212 236 1293 289 ��le aaa I 10• I 4 1 1 Ij; I tgg 1 4M 43• 158 206 253 301 348 3' 1443 1496 1538 izo' 1 228 267 365 1433 I so, sm 163R kr I Sat 4!9 _§4§ 647 749 70' 441 1 572 704 1 838 I 967 91 593 770 Note: Tanks with o1365•COatOd stool floor • ;��2�_(_@B�Jg8 949 assemblies are available for tank 1101' 919 1 1189 reel heights greater than 61 leer. Contact Ino MuniCipaUlndustrial Sales Department for more O Tanks in this oron not avallabfo for solsmic 2ono 3 or 4 Information. Aluminum domo roof roouirod t Factory mutual approved Permaglas storag0 sysiem9 •ou•s10«[• t•ww [ru[..• row uoum[To. w[ nQUAMITORf ' .[W a•Stop •oa uNl IS ra4[oUD PRODUCT [TO. 09 tank Systems Council Agenda - 7/25/88 11 -Consideration of Odor Control Measures at Waste Water Treatment Plant. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you may recall Professional Services Group shut dorm a portion of the Waste Water Treatment Plant know as the trickling filters in January of this year, in an effort to control odors at the waste Water Treatment Plant. This procedure worked well in controlling odors. No significant release of odors have occured until recently. In removing part of the plant processes which treats BOD or strength of sewage, the quality of the effluent became more dependent. on the activated sludge or aeration tank portions of the plant. This portion of the plant is running near it's capacity, and needs constant attention. Recently, due to increased loading, weather conditions, the limits of the activated sludge portion of the plant, and operator controls, the Waste Water Treatment Plant failed to meet effluent standards for a short period of time. It is therefore imperative that we make some operational changes at the Waste water Treatr.ent Plant and consider putting the trickling filters back on line. As PSG informed the Council in January, putting the trickling filters back on line could lead to odors. PSG has investigated various odor control systems for the trickling filters. They have obtained quotes or bids on two individual firms utilizing two entirely different odor control systems. The first system is from Van Bergen 6 Markson of Minneapolis, for a Calgon ventsob System, the cost of this system could be approximately $40,000. ` The second system PSG looked at was a Tech Sales Spray System using nozzles and pumps to provide a mist in the trickling filters to control orders. The nice thing about a spray mist system is that it is adaptable to use various chemicals to control various types of odors and it is much less extensive then other types of purification systems. Under many circumstances this spray mist system should be adequate to control problems. The cost of this equipment is $3,885.30 which includes an initial 55 gallons of odor control agent. The odor control agent is rather expensive and if the trickling filters were operated at maximum, one would need up to six and a half gallons per week at a cost of $18 per gallon. It is proposed that City Staff and PSG work together to install the equipment at the Waste Water Treatment Plant and get it operational. We estimate approximately $1,200 in materials to provide power, air, and shelter for the equipment. This brings the total cost to about $5,000 for initial installation and $6,000 per year operating costs. B. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize PSG to purchase the spray mist odor control system from Tech Sales Company, Minneapolis, for the amount of $3,885.30 plus installation materials and to authorize PSG and Staff to install the system and to reimburse PSG up to $6,000 annually for chemical usage to control odors. 2. Do nothing to control odors at the Waste Water Treatment Plant in the area of the trickling filters. IL Council Agenda - 7/25/88 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the city authorize PSG to proceed as in Alternative #1. I believe this to be the most cost effective means to control odors in the trickling filter area. It allows the flexibility to operate on various chemicals should we not be satisfied with the first supplier. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of the information from Tech Sales Company and van Bergen b Markson, Inc. VB t� Ven Bergen 8 Markson, Inc, 6814 -7th Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55427 (612) 546-4340 FAX (612) 546-0973 June 3, 1988 Professional Services Group C/O Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant 14C1 Hart Boulevard Monticello, 1•1N 55362 Attn: fir. Kelsey McGuire Reference: Monticello, MN WWTF Trickling Filter Odor Control System Subject: Calgon VentSorb for Municipal Air Purification High Flow VentSorb Bulletin (27-112A) Recommended Specification VentSorb Installation Instructions (23-120) High Flow VentSorb Drawing (90-30-0289, 90-30-0294) "Effective Odor Control of Calgon Carbon Granular Activated Carbon Systems" (27-468) Type IVP Granular Carbon (23-51h) Sweet5treet Canisters (23-171) Articles ("Program Goal - No Plant Odors" Reprint from WATER L SEWAGE WORKS October 1974, "Granular Carbon Solving Sewage Odor Problems in California", "Carbon Odor Control Systems Allow Increased Land Development" Reprint from PUBLIC WORKS MAGAZINE, October 1983) Dear Kelsey: It was a pleasure meeting you at the Monticello WWTF on Thursday, June 2, 1903. Pursuant to our meeting we have enclosed the subject information for your review and consideration. During my visit, you showed me the two trickling filters which were the source of odors at your facility. You indicated that their diameter was 40' and that the clear space above the rock media was 7' side wall height with an aluminum dome cover over the tank with a 4' profile approximately. For simplification of sizing, let's say that the straight side height of the air volume to be treated is 9'. Therefore, an air volume of 11,310 CF of air per filter would have to be treated. Assuming six air changes per hour being required, we calculate 1131 CFM of air flow per filter. For your application, we would recommend two (2) 48" High Flow VentSorb units with inlet fans, mounted and assembles on a common skid with corrosion resistant vessels and IVP 4 x 6 GAL (1350#/vessel). Your net cost for two (2) units would be $28,30.00, FOB Pittsburgh, PA. Another option would be to utilize one (1) 6' 0 sing elTed carbon vessel. The cost for the vessel with fan and IVP carbon would be $40,320.00, FOB Pittsburgh, PA. This is more expensive than 1 originally thought. Professional Services Group C/O Monticello, 1411 WWTP RE: Calgon Pace -2- By copy of this letter, we will get Calgon's input concerning your application. When I took a whiff of the odors within the trickling filter i detected the very strong ammonia smell which you had indicated occured when the trickling filters were not operating. You also indicated that during trickling filter operation, the smell was more of a sour or fishy odor. In fact, you indicated that you had never sensed this type of odor at any treatment plant you have visited over the years. One thing which I had suggested during our meeting that you might try would be to put in an experimental Calgon unit. You said that you had a small fan on site that you might utilize with our 28" High -Flow VentSorb vessel. Just the vessel with 225# of type IVP 4 x 6 carbon would cost $1,235.00, FOB Pittsburgh, PA. By running a regulated amount of air off one of your trickk i�ilters you can approximate a full scale operation size of unit to handle the desired air flow. Perhaps the relatively recent addition of an egg processing plant in town which you indicated added 25% solids could be the culprit of this unique odor you have off the trickling filters. We would recommend that you review the enclosed infomation so that you have a better understanding of Calgon's granular activated carbon odor control systems. I think that you will find the articles particularly of interest since they discuss actual treatment plant installations of Calgon systems. At the Sacramento WWTP, wet scrubbers were removing probably about 80 - 85% of the odors emminating from biofilters in the plant. When the GAC systems were installed, the odors were not detectable. For the West by Northwest WWTP in Houston, the GAC, ozonation, and wet chemical scrubbing were considered. The carbon was found to be most cost effective considering initial capital cost, maintenance, energy, ind operating costs (chemicals). Another article discusses odor problems at 11WTP installations in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Napa, CA. These eno users recognize the cost effectiveness, efficiency of performance, simplicity of opera- tion, minimal maintenance relative to wet scrubbing systems. After you have considered this letter and the attachments, please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you for your interest in Calgon granular activated carbon odor control systems. Very truly yours. /V et a? 4 Gary W Ptetzle Van rgen 8 11arkson, Inc. c.c. John Hunter Calgon Enclosures vb o. = .'fir 4�'�._ ..a:.' _ • �� TECH SALES COMPANY 311 West 44th Street Mlnnespolb. MN 55409 (612) 823-8238 June 22, 1988 Mr. Kelsie McGuire Project Manager Professional Services Group. Inc. l 1401 Hart Boulevard Monticello. MN 55362 - Dear Kelsie: - lV J� We appreciate the opportunity we hap to visit with you and, discuss cdor control at the Monticello Waste Water Treatment Facility. As a follow up to our meeting I am enclosing a proposal for controlling the odors generated by the two 40 foot trickling filters. The enclosed quotation Is for the NuTech Series 900 Odor Control System. which you will note, Includes a system of four nozzles located In the top of each of the two trickling filters. The quotation does not include contractor coats for permanent Installation. NuTech estimates that the proposed system will require three to five ounces per hour of operation with the NuTralite chemical. Actual usage will depend On the strength of your odors. Assuming round the clock operation this would be between four and six and a half gallons per week. Cost of the NuTralite is $18.00 per gallon. The system requires only minimal maintenance which your people can easily provide. Rental Information Is covered on page two. Please note that rentals are provided on a 4 -week minimum basis. If you choose to rent a system, we recommend you place an initial order cf 20 or 25 gallons of the NuTralite Odor Eliminator product. It will carry you through a 30 day trial period. The 55 gallon drum would be shipped at the time of our,.hase. Please let ma knew if yCu have any questi:ns. Sincerely, TECH SAL.ES CO. ��DE enclosures DvE/hs Afanufacaeerls Rsprwlladw Industrial InaWments • Contrab • Med &*W SpadaMles RENTALIPURCHASE OPTION: The Series 900 system can be leased for $200.00/ week (minimum of 4 weeks). If it is decided to purchase the system at a later date. 75% of the accumulated lease applies to the purchase of the system. TERMS OF PROPOSAL: Freight: All materials are shipped FO.B. Denver, Colorado. Freight charges will be prepaid and invoiced. Terms: Net 30 from date of invoice with NO REfANAGES. A 1 1/2 % interest will be accrued on unpaid balances. Delivery: Under normal circumstances, the system will be shipped within 15 days of the Purchase Order. if delays are expected, you will be notified. Taxes: NuTech is not registered to collect sales tax outside of Colorado and therefore it is not included. Installation: Installation supervision, start-up adjustments, and operator training will be Provided by your local manufacturing representative and has been included to the cost. Contact the rep to establish an installation date. LIMITED WARRANTY: NuTech warrants to the original purchaser the merchandise manufactured by NuTech to be Gee from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service. Nu7hch's obligation under this warranty shall be limited to the repair or exchange of any part or parts which may prove defective under normal use and service within one year, from the date of delivery by NuTech, and which by our examination shall disclose to our satisfaction to be thus defective. In addition, the provisions of this warranty are only valid when the system Is using and always has used certified NuTech Odor Eliminator chemicals. Nulbch Environmental Corp. assumes no liability for equipment or other damage that may occur through the use of other chemicals in the system. THIS WARRANTY IS EXPRESSLY IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR USE AND OF ALL OTHER OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES ON OUR PART, AND WE NEITHER ASSUME, NOR AUTHORIZE ANY OTHER PERSON TO ASSUME FOR US, ANY OTHER LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF THIS PRODUCT. THIS WARRANTY SHALL. NOT APPLY TO THIS MERCHANDISE OR ANY PART THEREOF WHICH HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO ACCIDENT, NEGLIGENCE, ALTERATION, ABUSE OR MISUSE. WE MAKE NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO ACCESSORIES OR PARTS NOT SUPPLIED BY NuTECII. THE TERM "ORIGINAL. PURCHASER" AS USED IN THIS WARRANTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEAN THAT PERSON TAKING ORIGINAL DELIVERY OF THE MERCHANDISE. THIS WARRANTY SHALL APPLY ONLY WITIIIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE UNITED STATES. CLAIMS/NOTICE OF DEFECTS: In the event the items furnished are claimed to be defective. the seller shall be given ample ofportunity for inspection or, upon request shall be furnished with the item. The seller shall be liable only to replace defective items or to allow credit for such items and shall not be liable for any transportation or installation charges, fabricating or other expense for any loss or damages of any kind. Any claim must be made within 45 days after receipt of the materials shipped. DELIVERY: . The promised delivery, date is the best estimate possible of when the product will be shipped. Scllrr assumes no liability for loss, ennsequential damages due to delays. PAGC 2 ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS: PART 1: GENERAL 1.1. SCOPE. Series 900 Odor Control System layout & specifications. 1.2. DESIGN CRITERIA. The materials and equipment specified are standard materials and equipment of proven ability as manufactured by reputable concerns. The specifications call attention to certain features but do not purport to cover all details entering into the construction of the equipment. 1.3. OPERATION AND SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS. 1.3-1. There shall be provided for odor control purposes a 100% water soluble, glacial acidic acid based, highly volatile, fast reacting formulation containing aldehydes & alcohols which chemically neutralize organic sulfur and nitrogen based odors from domestic sewage through; construction, combining and interference reactions that occur in a vapor state with a reaction time of five seconds or less. The application system shall consist of: a. Chemical Concentrate Storage Tank. The chemical shipping container is used as the concentrate storage tank. b. Dilution Tank/Liquid Level Proportioner. A liquid level proponioner housed on the dilution tank will operate a _valve allowing water to enter the dilution tank when the liquid level within the tank is low. As water passes through, it will siphon a measured quantity of chemical concentrate solution. Once the dilution tank level is high enough to raise the float, the valve will close and stop the flow of water/chemical. C. Pump. The system will be supplied with a magnetically coupled chemical feed pump. It will include an adjustable internal bypass to increase or decrease the flow rate and/or pressure. NOTE: The pump is also available in an explosion proof version as a special order item. d. Nozzle. The system will be supplied with 1/4 LND fluid atomizing nozzles. The 1/4 L:ND nozzles contain an internal stainless steel strainer and are furnished with 1/2" male pipe threads for mounting and positioning. Special designed mounting and positioning brackets are also available for the system. The 1/4 LND nozzles are capable of delivering 0.6, 1.0, or 2.0 GPI -I per nozzle, depending on the size specified. NOTE: For special applications the system will belied with a 1/4 J air atomizing nozzle (s) which will deliver between 1.0 and 2.5 gph of fluid depending on the application. Each nozzle will also utilize approximately 1.0 CFM of compressed air. These rates will vary depending upon the pressures utilized. PAGE 3 C. Utilities. 1) The system will require a clean water supply with a minimum of 1S and a maximum of 60 psi of supply pressure. Connections can be made with a "garden" type hose or rigid piping. A 110V/10 amp power { supply must also be available. 2) The system will require compressed air from an existing plant source if it has been supplied with the 1/4 J air atomization nozzles. If this is not available an air compressor can be supplied by Nu'lbch if you should desire. f. Layout. System layout will be specified on-site by our manufacturing representative. g. Chemcial Cost. i PAGE 4 SERIES 900 ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM The Series 900 Odor Control System is a completely portable sytem which can effectively treat the organic soar odors commonly associated with domestic wastewater. VALVE The system is specifically designed to be used with the WATER Chi-X001, DeAmine n Odor Eliminators. The Series 900 is SUPPLY ideally suited for application in contained areas such as: PRDPQRTTONFA C MCAL • Scrubber Retrofits & Conversions for 2-Stage Treatment a1 rNDUCIOR • Large Headworks or Force Main Discharges • Large Process Exhaust Streams • Multi-Point Process Odor Control 1 1 IOGnLLON • Ozone Contact Chambers • Emergency Situations where Portability is Required j _ • ANK Sludge Tank or other Cleaning Operations FLOAT 1 • Large Litt Stations The Series 900 is designed to be corrosion resistant and easy to maintain. The system is easy to install, requiring only a r DISCHARGE 115 V power source and a clean water supply. Tho 27 GPH TUOING pump can supply multiple nozzles to allow treatment in multiple areas. Air atomized nozzles can also be used with .artr the system to provide more effective coverage. 1Vhcn the Series 900 is properly balanced, there will be a _ substantial reduction in the amount of the "sewage" odor. •; 1,D 5PRAY Due to the unique characteristics of the Chi-X and DeAmine PUMP TO S."S chemicals, overtreating yields a distinctive vinegar smell. This makes it easier to balance the system and reduce " D chemical consumption. TANK STAND The Series 900 System utilizes the unique abilities of the NuTech Odor Eliminators to actually reduce both the number of odor units and the Butanol strength of the odor which is a measure of how readily the odor dissipates. This means that not only are the objectionable qualities of the odor greatly reduced, but any residual odor will rapidly dissipate before reaching the property line of the plant. This to turn results in a substantial reduction in the number of odor complaints from the neighbors! Contact your NuTech representative or call the factory at 1-800-321.8824 for further information on the Series 900 Odor control System and how it can help you. It may be just what you need. i7 OEIu zE Dt75NtES3 f0A'�S f�Op.gA�-�pg� TECH SALES COMPANY PM. 512-82548258 911 WEST MTM STREET MINNEAP0LIS. MN 55448 Tt} Professional Services Group, Inc. 1401 Hart Boulevard Monticello, MN 55362 Attn: Mr. Kelsie McGuire QUOTATION 1138 PLEASE AUCAIE ME AWf A"fW-q AWEN OWI)MAC MenCl 1988 ��'[fan'tngstrand mdmv Mrz f+[AIP, IAA4WR ESTIWTED SKJ*MG a47E SMSiW.'0 xA r08 Truck Denver net 30 days OWN?ry DESCRIPTION PRICE AA#oLwr We propose to provide one Series 900 odor control system for two 40' trickling filters as described below. 1 Magnetic drive chemical feed pump 1 Custom pump and tank stand 1 10 gallon HPOE mix 8 dilution tank 1 Liquid level and dilution control system with tank mounting bracket 1 100 mesh in-line strainer 2 Drum siphon tube straightener (1-5 gal 8 1-55 gal) 1 3 valve manifold assembly 8 1/4 LND-SS spray nozzles with adapters 4 Elbows 6 Compression tee 400 feet of 1/2" polyethylene tubing 8 Nozzle mounting kits One day of installation supervision, on-site adjustments during start-up and operator training Total 900 system price 2634.30 An initial chemical *purchase consisting of: 55 gallon Nutrallto Odor Eliminator 990,30 Recommended pare Parts: 1 SP 450 -MC Service pack for pump 77.)0 1 Liquid levet and dilution control system 183.50 TOTAL COST $3885.30 w( Aqr rtfAYA M q(ui IY A.."', N Ap tlYN C[Y[STY AArp ( LLD Kkr R Ari W [WLYA R ag,AAf(p II AS[ Ar(jryf pP nnpvr U?N1KN Ib9 O"rA rt>, K(/.L+�BXcr ra M1cQ4A rCfvg wztrtA 0'/ Af t2A.�f :(Y. Arlt a wt0 +LW oaa lhYAtu NA rr ygtCCI rD CwK! A Vt .,Cr / Ar 7A, / 1 Ar.CrPTrP CHIP 1 Council Agenda - 7/25/88 12. Consideration of Sealcoating Hillcrest Area To Chestnut Street. W .S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the March 14, 1988, Council meeting, I presented an informational item regarding for pre -planning for a street improvement project in west Monticello. This improvement project would basically encompass the west Monticello area which is of the rural design west of Cedar Street and north of County Road 75. I presented various scenarios to you ranging from a single lift overlay at $105,000 to a replacement of the entire surface with one of greater design capacity for $349,000 to a full street construction project at $1.25 million. For the amount of work going on in the city this summer and the number of bond issues already before the public, it appears inappropriate at this time to look at another large project this year. I would like the Council however, to drive the streets and look at the area over the weekend and make a determination whether you feel this area should be upgraded within the next couple of years. If we feel this area can be delayed for improvements as much as five years, I would suggest that we sealcoat the area again this year at an estimated cost of $20,000. I have placed sufficient funds in the 1988 budget to accomplish the sealcoating. This would not be practical unless we can get at least five year service. Sealcoating may slow down the deterioration rate of the existing street, as we are into the 14th year of a 15 year life cycle on the service ability of the streets in that area. L B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Sealcoat west Monticello area this year. This could be done by a motion recc-mending advertising for bids. 2. Seriously consider improvements in this area within the next two to three years. we would not sealcoat this year, but rather use the $20,000 in the reconstruction project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is comfortable with either Alternative 01 or 12 depending on Council's choice. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of informational item presented to the Council on March 14, 1908. l Council Agenda - 3/14/88 INFORMATIONAL ITEM Pre -Planning for Street Improvement Project, west Monticello. (,i.S.) The west Monticello area, which contains a street system of rural design, lies north of County Road 75 and west of Chestnut Street. Most of this street system was constructed in 1975 with the completion of a sewer and water improvement project. The area was crack sealed and then sealcoated in 1979. Typical street sections in the area utilized about 7 inches of Class v and 2-1/2 inches of blacktop. Going on the 13th year of life cycle, it is time to make some decisions for this area which will affect the type of maintenance used on the street and/or the final street design. Some sections in the area are in need of patching or replacement. A typical street section in the area is only in fair condition witn significant anuuw,ts o. longitudinal and transverse cracking. It is expected that some work in the area will have to be done this summer. A minimal amount of work would involve patching and sealcoating. The minor patching could amount to $3,000 to $5,000 done by City staff, and a sealcoating project could be approximately $20,000. The patching and sealcoating at this time, however, will not greatly extend the life of the existing pavement. very shortly, we will reach a point at which time the surface will deteriorate to a point where it cannot successfully be overlayed. It could successfully be overlayed this year, possibly next year, utilizing a single 2 -inch lift overlay with minimal patching and some minor culvert and drain work. Estimated cost of such a project would be $185,032. Assuming 19,471 lineal feet of assessable front footage out in the area would give us a cost of about $9.50 per front foot to the residents. If we do not overlay in the very near future, we could look at allowing the street to go through its full life cycle of about 15 years and look at replacement in or around 1991. The cost of replacing the existing 24 -foot wide surface with a new 3 -inch bituminous surface would be in the neighborhood of $349,169. Again, dividing this by the estimated assessable front footage would give us a cost of about $17.93 per front foot. If in 1991 we decided to go for a full -bore urban type section utilizing a street width of 32 feet but with curb and gutter and storm sewer, we would be looking at a project costing about $1.3 million. The street portion of the project without storm sewer is estimated to cost approximately $881,462. Dividing this again by the estimated front assessable footage of 19,471 gives us about $45.27 per foot. This, again, is without storm sewer. Storm sewer would benefit a much greater area than that fronting on the street system. If this area were improved like the 77-3 Project and only 20 percent assessed, there would be a front footage assessment of about $9.05 per front foot. Again, this does not include storm sewer. I have enclosed a tabulation of these projects for your review. It should be stressed that these are very, very rough estimates only for pro -planning purposes. This information is presented as food for thought. It will be coming back to the Council as a formal agenda item sometime during the month of April, as the Public works Department will need direction for maintenance planning. PLANNING ESTIMATE FOR WEST MONTICELLO STREET PROJECT March 10, 19a.; OPTION I. Total Reconstruction using 32 -foot width with 86-18 curb and storm sewer. (Life exgectarc, 15-20 years bituminous.) A. Bituminous removal, 42,733 sq yds. @ $1.00 per yard = S 42,733.00 B. Class v (8"), 19,643 tons @ $4.75 per ton = $ 93,305.00 C. 86-18 curb including driveways, 32,536 ft @ $7 per ft S 227,752.00 D. 3-112" bituminous surface, 11,952 tons @ $25 per tan $ 298,800.00 E. Manhole Adjustment 60 @ $150 each $ 9,000.00 F. Storm sewer (guess) = S 300,000.00 S 971,590.00 CONTINGENCY 59 S 48,580.00 CONSTRUCTION $1,020,170.00 ENGINEERING, INSP., LEGAL 6 ADMIN. 25% S 255,043.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,275,213.00 Estimated assessable front footage = 19,471 ft. (excludes Riverside Cemetery) Total street project without storm sewer = S881,462 divided by 19,471 ft = $45.27 ft. At the rate of 206 this would be 59.05 ft. + storm sewer. C Planning Estimate West Monticello Street Project March 10, 1988 Page 2 OPTION TT. Replace existing 24 -foot curface with 3 -inch two lift bituminous. (Life expectancy 15 years.) A. Bituminous removal, 42,733 sq yds. @ $1.00 per yard = $ 42,733.00 B. 3 -inch bituminous, 7,372 tors @ $25 per ton 5184,300.00 C. 60 manhole adjustments @ $150 each = S 9,000.00 D. Culverts 6 drains (guess) - S 30,000.00 $266,033.00 CONTINGENCY 58 13,302.00 CONSTRUCTION COST $279,335.00 FNf.TNFERING. INSP., LEGAL 6 ADMIN. 258 = 69,834.00 TOTAL PR.OJEC. $349,169.00 $349,169 divided by 19,471 ft. a $17.93 foot. OPTION III. Single lift 2 -inch overlay on existing surface. (Life expectancy 8-10 years.) A. 2 -inch bituminous, 4,914 tons @ $25 per ton S122,850.00 B. Misc. patching 6 subgrading correction (guess) S 10,000.00 C. 60 manhole adjustments @ $150 each S 9,000.00 D. Minimum culverts 6 drains (guess) = S 5,000.00 $146,850.00 CONTINGENCY 59 S 7,343.00 CONSTRUCTION COST 5154,193.00 ENGINEERING, INSP., LEGAL 6 ADMIN. 20% S 30,839.00 PROJECT COST $185,032.00 $185,032 divided by 19,471 ft. • $9.50 foot. Council Agenda - 7/25/88 13. Consideration of Purchase of Park Equipment for Meadow Oak Park and Par West Park. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In 1987 the City Staff determined the need for playground equipment in the Meadow Oak Park. An amount of $5,000 was placed in the 1988 budget for the purchases of playground equipment. Meadow Oak has developed such that there are a great number of children in the area and no recreational facilities available other than the half finished trail system which really leads no where. Staff has proposed to place a playground on the easterly portion of our large park on the north end of Meadow Oak, just across from the existing parking lot on an area somewhat protected from the high water of the pond. The Park Superintendent has obtained a quotation from E. F. Anderson for a redwood play structure for the am)unt of $4,700. In addition, he has obtained prices from Game Time for a similar structure totaling $5,720. A drawing of the proposed E. F. Anderson play structure is enclosed for your review. we have also enclosed photos of typical landscape structures from E. F. Anderson and from Game Time. Also in 1987 the City Staff dorormined a need for additional recreational equipment in our Health Theme Park in Par West. The Park Superintendent has determined that a three unit swing set would he best for the next development in Par West Park. He has obtained a quote from E. F. Anderson for a three unit swing set in the amount of $1,470. The price for a similar Game Time unit is $1,665. Photos of the typical swing sets from each manufacturer are enclosed for your review. The 1988 budget allows $2,000 for this purchase. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Authorize purchase of the landscape structure from E. F. Anderson in the amount of $4,700. Authorize purchase of the three unit swing set from E. F. Anderson in the amount of 51,470. 2. Not to purchase the proposed facilities for the parks, but look at alternate equipment as so directed by the City Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Park Superintendent that the Council authorize purchase of the equipment as outlined in Alternative 11 for a total amount of $6,170. There will be additional costa in installing the structures and providing the sand surface beneath the structures. City Staff is confident that the entire expenditure will be less than the budgeted amount of $7,000. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of the photos and quotes for the various structures. M GAME TINE PRICES #7914 Hex Platform S 2,150.00 #7966 Net 640.00 #7975 Stairs 320.00 #7975 Climb Pole 105.00 #7925 Tube Slide 1,205.00 #5344 Tire Suing 590.00 #5921 Swing 500.00 46038 Wood Wall 105.00 #6038 Wood Wall 105.00 S 5,720.00 Tire Swing 6 3 unit ewl,Ag a 1,665.00 21 GAMET�M1� C. NO. 6204 TIM 11"It"SCAPI{ Slide/Arch Climbct/Platlunnl 1 Im izontaI ladder/ladder NO. 6204 Timh" ll" Scape, ground spa{ a 15'x 20: NO. 1(6204 Redwood. 11.9'111,11" ll"SCAIIIS 1 lorizont tl Iaddcr/Slide/Swin8lShiral5lidr/I'Ltdomt No. 1.6218 with Lex all SIIde,gruund space 21'x 30' NO. 111,6218 Redwood with Lexan Slide. NO. 6218 with Standess Steel Spiral Slide. NO. 116218 Redwood with Slahtless Steel Spiral Slide. Swingy shipped complete with tire scalsandswing sea Is as shown. n. All wood systems are pressuretreated and unstained for nawual appearance. ySocxl has a u•ndem y tochctk with alyeand wealher.1 his doe; not affect the quality or durability of watd play 1;ruund equipment. %00d weights will vary, dependin80n the density of the Wood, 610 T�� I CREDIT: EARL F. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 8808 JAMES CIRCLE, BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 65431 PHONE (612) 884.7300 MN WATS 1-800.8828026 !°QTY /'IFS?%-.iwatfl SO LD SHIP TO TO ORDEREDBV I PHONE NO, DATE ORDEREDC'I CUSTOMER ORDER NO. �rSA1vj6MAN 8NIP VIA I $MIP BV I F.O.B. Conr Q.—ity CeveleE No. Site COM, C D-10'len Nkt EK" TeW SA -c, j>c ,ir , 71e, ski 1"c Y 3wy,i sc� /47�w CUSTOMER SIGNATURE CAIF SUB TOTAL NONA EJ BALES TAX FREIGHT INSTALLATION TOTAL I 7„ 1.1 m . EARL F. ANDERSEN AYD ASSOC.. INC. .van ..a neem ovi Ewv�n . bnwviEews Sa�s7r I FA saes ,lama TS O Bb-900CS m. 02 66071 • unto Swwm • iYeec 599 Tox-Fres WAIS Llns 1.80D887•e02e • 81I-880.7700 • S. ivnsnvyy • Curo�n Bqs m0 MN-P • Leave Emvmd1rnb • Vaff. MOM Roeutu Cs'ng " eoMdt49. OMS, buns &W bateaaeeen owvkm. • 6W."/Susi m S-9 • tim.eo/a. C' QUOTATION Date 2-12-88 s City of Monticello Your Rel. No. Plan E 250 E. Broadway P.O. Box 83A - Monticello, MN 55362 Attn: Roger Mack • TERMS: Net 30 Days jl To Be Arranged O We are pleased to quote You the following: _ QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH TOTAL 1. Special Design Redwood Playstructure $4700.00 See attached drawing Price is F.O.B. Monticello SUBTOTAL SALES TAX FREIGHT INSTALLATION TOTAL F.O.B. FactotV ❑ Destinatkni D WE ARE AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Shipment approx. 30 daV A after receipt of order. / NOTE: This quotation valid for 30 days. 11 Please write for confirmation after that date. By John Dernko a f • r - �+.'�), +car` r'; 'r`�+l�t}rs. � ?; i � µ ?Y 4 + � -T . ; I " 1... :+'y � ',t }f''�SM1{ v r Y.D¢%.i i +r{ .+' 1,� }3 - i x rr f, !, v•r 4 rt,�r'`�r��� �tr+rr t�•, r71i�x.� S A��''t-` i` r � t � r : :. i t � � x���`�w ys•.• vat =t� t- \ 1 + � ;y. f i r X �i lir. ''+ yy1i �`ciw �+it�x )•� s1 ✓ *,> Sr±� >�, tpe�k *+'�' �'t'<'�� t �i �•"1� rt .�,f'( Ot iJ+ iyt'•' `+rti-y. °'!Ya Fac^ --x *S -:; @�q1 ` r•1 i 1 t(}' W-yi 7 he. r v 'r x" i i�i�. •,3. �t C 5V4tt3 jq. 1YwYd ;is�i •,•1�ik Z�,,✓4 fti tom, \ i - { {tib.; t L! ,�i - �Fj-)iC 1 t)�v tia �x t�. �_! �..! ri • fA - i� .o-.'itt. F'S� a w 'i k �GY��.. Vit,♦ �x !. , frx' .+k � \ i.y ✓,: �1 Jr 1:�?: 414-� R + r s �` �ii`t + .il t y , �-, yy t_,i ,•!.'Y (/�j��$+, d Y '.h, 1 .i fj,+l�d`"'47rr •�-'Z"'+ L ' rf'. \�'y • �.f '� r '4s -:ice✓ 3y�r! .�,..>� :rV t. r" .r 't(, <' _ t _* 4'•`.\ 1* _ '�S e.SR� tet' Y . ' t ..r/ t. `fes +•� f t s. .\. F -R,. t._ J•�. f rl� � �:.ti. . _ '�:l�. { .t_x}`.rS7: r ..L?- �L 1 _ +Jt,. � 7�OtLL R LLlflf I 402/401 nre Shying 402—Double tire swing•bolonce beams combined with two tire swings, Actual size: l0' x 9'4' x 7' high Aron required: 20' x 22' 401— Single lire swing•similor to 402 with one tire swing. Actual size: 14' x 9'4" x 7' high Area required: 34' x 20' 85021Mro-71mer SMng Designed to provide tot swings where other swings won't 8t. #30802 nursery swats Scram size 3-1t2' O.D. golvanized stool pipe, 4.1/7 O.D. golwnlzod steel pipe support, Actual We: 8' high x 7' long boom x 3.1/2' Area requred: IS' x 25' A MOWN "Wif aUrraCa 4 WOMMMOtl undw and wand ad Play Owipxm+ 303/202 Be" SWng 202—A double seat belt swing, 303— A three seat belt swing. Supported at an SW height. TendorTuff coated chains. Steel reinforced bear 313/212 Exergtlde blKtng 212—A double Exergllde swing. 313—A three unit Exergiide swing, Actual size: 12' x 1'6" Area required: 16 x 26' 6#r-- A^ Landscape Sfructuros / a V, ^ O f fit (r :. �„r 4 O� 4, Q • T {{ ira` o° +© Petr9 P rr v 11 �% ^ . 1 V� ' (r a` N r ,l PP a w w^ ��-j et—g o 1- r w " b 4 W 3 lb via— °" . = Q JERRY ., /' Z • ` It" r Is + rk •• '� , e��"PL o rs.00 roao ' A I A R i • �� ±flTTT !�� a4w asr wx ew •N r .scc� vs� � �txw' {. � I 31.._ � ; r N n • h M A N t�r h • h` to ^ 1 � f/ �ay .)t f � V1• M 1 MARVIN ELW�ti RD.: yG « t a ' ; jQ � i �� ' � w n • w • r. � • Q • �O� �j r I L H E L o—jS`ESap 00 all A' , 7s I ! P oe D. ccC;,fie+ a � . ,, 9 \ X3,0 . _ __POND--•-- 1 1 + OUTLOT In TILIN GASGMMGNT L 110 _ PpvJGiZLIN�i GASGM%NT 80 'f0 S5' S5 Council Agenda - 7/25/88 14. Consideration of Permit and Fee Adjustments. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: After considerable discussion, the Industrial Development Committee is recommending that the City Council act to make adjustments to fees and survey requirements associated with residential building permits. The proposed adjustments amount to an average reduction of 208 per building permit. The recommendation to adjust permit fees and requirements stem from the need to remain competitive with surrounding communities (see attached). The recommendation also derives from the Committee's desire to reduce, where possible, local construction costs. Below are the proposed changes to the present fee structure and property survey requirements. Attached is a table which outlines the present fees charged by the City of Monticello, proposed adjustments, and fees charged by seven area communities. Proposed Changes to Permit Fee and Survey Requirements For a Typical Home. INSPECTION FEE (Fee associated with inspecting construction) It is proposed that the Inspection fee be reduced by 108 which would establish the local fee at a rate slightly higher than surrounding communities. See attached survey information. PLAN REVIEW FEE (Fee associated review building/land use plans' It is proposed that the plan review fee be reduce by 508 which places Monticello slightly below the norm. MODIFY FULL SCALE PROPERTY SURVEY REQUIREMENT Background The purpose of the proposed adjustment to the survey requirement is to assure the City of Monticello collection of adequate property related information in a cost effective manner. The survey requirements as proposed below will provide the City with an adequate level of information needed to determine if property is being developed in accordance with City Code without adding unreasonable or duplicate costs to the building process. The proposal to adjust the survey requirement does not mean to imply that the information gathered via the survey is not valuable. There are numerous good reasons for establishing a policy making mandatory that each building permit application be accompanied by a survey. At the same time however, there are Instances where a full scale survey is not necessary and represents a duplication of services and costs associated with the plan review conducted by the Cicy. This situation creates an opportunity for the City to take action to reduce the cost of construction with minimal expense to the City. Proposed Modifications It is the view of the Committee and City Staff that 908 of what is accomplished by a full scale survey can be done at less than half the cost be simply requiring the verification or staking of lot corners and establishment of field Council Agenda - 7/25/88 stakes indicating minimum garage floor elevation. It is therefore proposed that the survey requirement be continued but modified to include required staking of corner monuments and include establishment of elevation of first floor of garage. City to no longer require certification or detail associated with a full scale survey. It is also proposed that a plot plan be required which must indicate all set -back lines. The plot plans may be drafted by builders. In circumstances where proposed set -back lines fall within 2 feet of the minimum set -backs, the City to also require surveyor staking of foundation footings. This proposed adjustment received the most discussion and generated some controversy among staff and members of the IDC. The proposal submitted does represent a a good compromise between those who wanted the survey requirement eliminated and those wishing to continue to require a survey. SUMMARY OF CHANGES The changes as proposed will reduce the costs associated with gaining a building permit from $1,842 to about $1,485. This represents a reduction of slighly less than 198. B. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt adjustments to residential building permit fees as outlined above. 2. Modify recommended adjustments to permit fees. 3. Take no action on the matter. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Consider amendments to building permit fees and survey requirement. Staff recommends Alternative 11. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of building permit fee survey schedule proposed. 2 BUILDING PERMIT FEE SURVEY - RECOMMENDED CHANGES JULY 21, 1988 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION - WOOD FRAME TYPE V 1300 SOUARE FOOT RAMBLER JiCILL BASEMENT" - UNFINISHED 24x24' GARAGE fAL SQUARE FEET BLONG - 1300 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES NEW 1'01'AI_ $1.485 PREVIOUS TOTAL FEES $1,842 NET RED( ICI"ION $357 % REDUCTION 194 Industrial/Corrrnorcial plan review to ronain tho SAM except that Consulting ferns in excels of 1504 of plan roviow w111 be charged to Corm/Ind .11 ((`Unit CUBt CI -01-90 to roue in el $300 (u.• nous. ••• Survey roquiremmu Limited to verification or ataking of corner stekey and establishing proper level of garago floor. ••• Staking 01' foundation footings roquirod if foundation fo tback located within 2 foot of minimim requirements. MONTI- SAINT ALBERT- BUFF- BIG ELK WATER ROCK- AVE CELLO MICHEAL VILLE ALLO LAKE RIVER TOWN FORD --------- ----- INSPEC7ION FEE I ----------------------------------- 1 $460 $358 $358 $358 $500 $572 $386 $358 $419 1 (Now $511) (REDUCED 104 1 I PLAN REVIEW I $166 $232 $232 $232 $0 $143 $251 $232 $186 1 (Now $332) IREDUCED 504 I I SURCH. I 1 $36 $38 $38 $38 $31 $43 $42 $38 $38 I WATER HOOK-UP FEE I 1 $300 $600 $800 $100 $388 $750 $400 $1,000 $542 1 I METER/OTHER II $100 $175 $185 $70 $100 $75 $65 $90 $108 1 I SEWER HOOK-UP FEE I 1 $300 $150 $475 $100 $388 $750 $300 $685 $393 1 I SURVEY*tea I 1 $60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 $0 $0 $33 1 (Now $150+) I 1 PLuy13. 1 $19 $25 $25 $28 $0 $45 $0 $40 $23 1 MECHANICAL 1 $0 $20 $20 $0 $0 $60 $0 $40 $18 1 ELECTRIC 1 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 1 DEPST 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (500) $0 $0 1 1 (STRT OPST) $0 1 ,HER I PRK DED $0 I 101AL�—= —=1$1,485===$1,643 $2,178 $971 $1,451 $2,683 $1,489 $2.528 $1.803 1 4 OF AVERAGE I 828 91% 1218 54% 804 149% 634 1408 I 7987 TAXES 1$1,250 $1,610 $1,761 $1,511 $1.907 $1,603 $1,607 $1,755 $1,626 1 1 (Monticello provides garbage pick-up service) I I ISI YR TAX � FEES I 1$2,735 $3,253 $3,939 $2,482 $3.358 $4,286 $3,096 $4.283 $3.429 1 I FIVE YEAR COST I 1$7,735 $9,693 $10.983 $8,526 $10,966 $10,698 $9.524 $11,303 $9,931 1 (NOT INC SEWER/WAT1 PERCENT OF AVERAGE ----------------I--------------------- 1 78% 984 111% 86% -------------------------------------I 1114 1084 964 114% 1004 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES NEW 1'01'AI_ $1.485 PREVIOUS TOTAL FEES $1,842 NET RED( ICI"ION $357 % REDUCTION 194 Industrial/Corrrnorcial plan review to ronain tho SAM except that Consulting ferns in excels of 1504 of plan roviow w111 be charged to Corm/Ind .11 ((`Unit CUBt CI -01-90 to roue in el $300 (u.• nous. ••• Survey roquiremmu Limited to verification or ataking of corner stekey and establishing proper level of garago floor. ••• Staking 01' foundation footings roquirod if foundation fo tback located within 2 foot of minimim requirements. Council Agenda - 7/25/88 I 15• Consideration of Approving Permits Allowing Use of Public Boulevards. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: We have currently on public boulevards, items such as chairs, tables, and newspaper containers. In the Ordinance, Section 8-5-3, the allowable uses are listed and in Section 8-5-4, the uses not listed in Section 8-5-3 are prohibited unless a permit has been approved by the City ODuncil of Monticello. I have discussed this with City Attorney, Tom Hayes, his advice is to have a simple Hold Harmless Agreement signed by each of the affected commercial business owners/renters. This agreement simply states that the commercial/business owners/renters assume the liability of items placed in the public boulevard. On the advise of Mr. Hayes, I personally contacted each of the affected commercial/business owners/renters of which all of them would be in favor of signing a Hold Harmless Agreement. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve a separate permit for each commercial business comer/renter to allow placement of item/items in the public boulevard with a signed Hold Harmless Agreement. 2. Not allow any items to be placed in the public boulevards. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City Staff recognizes the potential liability that exists with allowing items to be placed on a public boulevard. we concur with City Attorney, Tom Hayes, reconmendation to allow items to be placed on the public boulevard through a signed Hold Harmless Agreement with an approved permit from the Monticello City Council. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the City Ordinance Section 8-5-1 thru 5. Copy of a Hold Harmless Agreement. 8-5-1 8-5-5 3. All individually placed adv./newspaper boxes erected after 11/26/74 in new subdivisions not listed above shall be converted to the cluster box concept upon written notice by the Zoning Administrator. 4. In all new subdivisions or areas where the U. S. Postal Service installs cluster mail boxes, all adv./newspaper boxes shall be allowed by the cluster concept only. 5. All adv./newspaper boxes, whether individual or clustered shall be maintained by the installer and shall be repaired or replaced within 10 days upon written notice by the City or the City will have the box or boxes reroved at the owner's expense. The City shall not be responsible for damage to any box erected within.:the bantevard. 6. After 7/1/87, all new installations of adv./ newspaper boxes within areas where none existed shall be allowed only under the "cluster" concept. (®156, 6/22/87) 8-5-4: PROHIBITED USES: All uses of a boulevard nor listed In 1;—ion 8-5-3 are prohibited unless a oar-,ir hna ,jyg,�yy, a;pp v...i by rhn rir., „a A11 existing uses as of the effective dacenof this ordinance shall He brought into conformity with city ordinances within sixty (60) days. 8-5-5: MAINTENANCE: Property owners abutting boulevard is responsible for maintenance. (4/10/77 048). R 8-5-1 8-5-5 CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS BOULEVARD SECTION 8-5-1: Purpose 8-5-2: Definition 8-5-3: Allowable Uses 8-5-4: Prohibited Uses 8-5-5: Maintenance 8-5-1: PURPOSE: Purpose of chis chapter is to protect public right of ways in the City of Monticello from encroachments. 8-5-2: DEFINITION: For purposes of this chapter, boulevard is that portion of the public right of way not used for street purposes. 8-5-3: ALLOWABLE USES: Following are allowable uses of a boulevard: (A) Trees or shrubs as regulated by Chapter 8-3-4 of this ordinance. (B) Mailboxes for U. S. Postal Service. (C) Driveway accesses as regulated by Monticello l Zoning Ordinances. (D) Sidewalks, when constructed according to specifications as set forth and approved by the City Engineer. (Amendment No. 154, 4/13/87). (E) Advertising/Newspaper boxes or tubes under the following conditions: 1. The adv./newspaper boxes or tubes must be of an all-purpose/univereal type without any advertising, whether individual or cluster concept. 2. The following subdivisions/areas may continue to have (1) one adv./newspaper box per parcel until such time the U. S. Postal Service converts individual mail boxes to the "cluster" box concept: A. East County Road 39 B. Harr Boulevard C. Anders Wilhelm and Balboul Estates D. West River Road and West County Road 75 Upon conversion of mail boxes to the cluster concept, all adv./newspaper boxes must also be clustered. Council Agenda - 7/25/88 16. Consideration of Awarding Bids on pump and Pumphouse 13. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: on June 9, 1988 the City received a low bid of $272,290 from Richmar Construction of Fridley for construction of pumphouse 93. The estimate for pumphouse #3 ranged from a low of $198,000 to $243,000. Since that time OSM has made some modifications, such as removing the corrosion resistant doors (estimated cost of $5,000), and the yard piping (at a cost of $17,115.50). We therefore are expecting a $22,000 deduction right off the bat, which lowers the maximum estimate to $221,000. The new bid opening is proposed for 11:00 a.m., July 22, 1988. A copy of the bid tabulations will be enclosed in your agenda packet. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Award to the low bidder, assuming the pumphouse bids are near the estimates. 2. Not to award the pumphouse bids, but re -design or modify and rebid. C. STAFF RECOIMIENDATIONS: Staff withholds it's recommendations until Monday evening, and until the bids and bidders can be verified. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the bid tabulations from Friday, July 22, 1988. Please refer to your agenda packet of June 13, 1988 for additional information. CI RESOLUTION 88 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of pump and pumphouce 03 along with appurtenant work, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement. Company Name Bid Amount A 6 K Construction - Sitllwater $ 244,620.00 New Mech - Lauderdale $ 251,836.00 Phillips Klein - Minneapolis S 236,826.00 Richmar Construction - Fridley $ 227,630.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that aichmar Construction is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Mayor and the City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with in the name of the City of Monticello for the improvements of a pump and pumphouse 03 and appurtenant work according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Administrator. 2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders their deposit made with the bids, except that the bids of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of July, 1988. Mayor City Administrator BID TABULATION �- PUMP AND PUNPHOUSE NO. 3 AND APPURTENANT WORK PROJECT NO. B8 -OIC FOR THE CITY OF WiTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA W BIDS OPENED: July 22, 1988, 11:00 a.m. AT THE: Monticello City Hall CONTRACTOR A & K Construction - Stillwater Now Mach - Lauderdale Phillips Klein - Minneapolis, Richmar Construction - Fridley ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. BID SECURITY TOTAL BID 5 8 Bond S 244,620.00 5 8 Bond S 251,836.00 5 4 Bond $ 236,826.00 5 8 Bond S 227,630.00 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT TABULATION OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ONt DATE By ftmates Corrected Figura OSN CONN. MO. 3595.30 Council Agenda - 7/25/88 17. Consideration of Change Order 12 on Project 88-01B East County Road 11B Water and Utility Project. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On Wednesday, July 20, 1988, I received a call from Richard Marquette from the Wright County Highway Department. He called to ask questions as to what our intentions were for the 16 inch water main that was now terminated at the intersection of Penning Avenue and County Road 118 at the south end of the Middle School. I informed Dick that our plans were to go easterly on the north side of County Road 118 for a short distance and then cross 118. I told him we would have difficulty in going any great distance down the north side of 118 due to two telephone cables that take up much of the right of way in that area. Dick informed me that the County has a proposed project that would again rip up the intersection of County Road 118 and Penning and build shoulders and turn lanes on County Road 118 near the Middle School. Dick went on to say that there could be a significant cost savings to the city if we could work together and extend our water main through the intersection to the south side of 118 prior to their project. We would therefore have little if any street restoration costs and would avoid all conflict with the two telephone lines in the north ditch of County Road 118. The project would consist of approximately 230 feet of 16 inch water main, a T section with a couple of stubs and one single hydrant. Chuck Lepak is working on the Change Order and will have estimated costs for Monday evening's meeting. In order to 1 achieve the savings and avoid the cost conflicts with the telephone lines we must complete the construction in within the next two or three weeks as the County is proposing to get their project done before school starts after Labor Day. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Authorize Change Order 12 to Project 88-01B for the amount as estimated by Chuck Lepak of OSM. 2. Do nothing at this time, but wait until the new intersection is built and when we begin construction of our storage facility and piping. Thin Alternative would result in an overall higher cost and conflicts for the City of Monticello in the future. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It to the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council authorize Change Order 12 as outlined in Alternative #I. D. SUPPORTING DATA: CSj Copy of the Change Order Estimate, if available. ,,Si ' 7Q + I GENERAL FUND - JULY -- 1988 AMOUNT CHECK NO. Johnson Bros. Corp. - 12 tons bridge railing 780.00 27596 Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control contract 50.00 27597 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 123.04 27598 Jerry Hermes - Library janitorial 227.50 27599 011ie Koropchak - Travel expense reimb. 125.57 27600 ICMA Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded. 911.17 27bO1 David Stromberg - Animal control expense 302.00 27602 Corrow Sanitation - Garbage contract 7,103.40 27603 Monticello Ford, c/o Larry Flake - Payment on Ford property 8,056.00 27604 Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 27605 Dan Blonigen - Co,mcll salary 125.00 27606 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 27607 William Fair - Council salary 125.00 27608 Warren Smith - Council salary 123.19 27609 Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense 275.00 27610 James Preusse - Cleaning city hall and fire hall 450.00 27611 YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment 625.00 27612 Richard Carlson - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 27613 Richard Martie - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 27614 Cindy Lemm - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 27615 Dan McConnon - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 27616 Wright County State Bank - FICA, FWT & Med. 6,129.98 27617 PERA - Pere W/H 1,513.19 27618 Janette Leerssen - Inf. Ctr. salary 60.75 27619 Wilma Hayes - Inf. Ctr. salary 87.75 27620 MN. Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 455.00 27621 Commissioner of Revenue- SWT - June 2,515.00 27622 U. S. Postmaster - Postage 500.00 27623 PSGI - WWTP contract payment 22,083.35 27624 AME Ready Mix - Concession stand expense 1,013.31 27625 North Central Public Service - Utilities 76.50 27626 Country Lumber - Concession stand expense 2,175.39 27627 Norwest investment Services - Computer contract payment 2,407.61 27628 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone expense 1,196.48 27629 Tom Moores - Ins. reimb. per union contract 82.23 27630 Matt Theisen - ins. reimb. 3.58 27631 Keith Trippe - ins. reimb. 82.23 27632 Rich Cline - Ins. reimb. 77.25 27633 Dept. of Not. Res. - Dcp. Reg. fees 213.00 27634 Al Austin - Staining new fire hall 1,500.00 27635 VOID -0- 27636 Kenneth 6 Susie Shultz - Earnest money on land purchase 1,000.00 27637 Northern States Power - Utilities 7.481.41 27638 Corrov Sanitation - Landfill charges 6 Kjellberg's nddl. fe4 2.224.70 27639 AT&T Inf. Systems - Fire phone charges 3.96 27640 Safety Kleen Corp. - St. Dept. mice. of equipment 42.50 27641 The Plumbery - Supplies and repairn 249.37 27642 Moon Motors - Repairs to equipment 69.95 27643 Bowman Barnes - Mtce. Dept. supplies 86.99 27644 Int. Conf. of Bldg. Officials - Membership dues - Gary A. 70.00 27645 Adam's Pest Control - Library peat control 42.00 27646 Central McGowan - Supplies 76.99 27647 Campbell Abstract Co. - Krautbauer property appraisal 195.00 27648 Unitog Rental - Uniform rental 111.60 27649 Coast to Coast - Supplies for all Depts. 675.48 27650 Maus Foods - Supplies 122.05 27651 National Bushing - Repairs and supplies 297.36 27652 r GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK 40. Unocal - Gas 43.91 27653 Jim Hatch Sales - 2 pair gloves - St. Dept. 14.64 27654 Northern Oxygen - Fire Dept, supplies 11.70 27655 Wang - Computer contract mice. payment 426.00 27656 Feedrite Controls - Water Dept. supplies 2,014.43 27657 Loch Jewelers - Pocket watch and plaque 160.95 27658 Wright County Treasurer - Sheriff's contract payment 11,896.63 27659 Simonson Lumber - Lumber for different depts. 575.01 27660 Harry's Auto Supply - Supplies 56.27 27661 J. M. 011 Co. - Gas 325.00 27662 Little Mountain Flowers - Misc. expense 42.40 27663 Local #49 - Union dues 92.00 27664 Biff's Inc. - Latrine rental 218.00 27665 Automatic Systems - Water Dept. repairs 759.75 27666 Monticello B. L. Pet Hospital - Animal control expense 383.41 27667 American National Bank d Trust - Int. due on mist. bonds 80,291.25 27668 Norwest Bank MN. - Bond payments 88,364.00 27669 FirstTrust - Bond payment 84,882.51 27670 State Trees. - State Bldg. Insp. - Surcharge payment 823.35 27671 Principal Mutual Ins. - Group Ins. 4,826.89 27672 Commissioner of Rev. - Water sales tax - 2nd qtr. 945.81 27673 Jerry Olean - Bldg. Ins. salary 100.00 27674 ICMA Corp. - Payroll tied. 711.17 27675 Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage 6 LMC conference expense 339.70 27676 -VOID- -0- 11677 Quality Lawn b Mtce. - Mowing in city 631.25 27678 Fair's Garden Center - Trees, plants, etc. 682.58 276/9 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 453.71 27680 E. H. Renner 6 Sons - Well #4 139.50 27681 -VOID- -0- 27682 McDowall Co. - Library repairs 213.64 27683 Monticello Printing - Misc, printing and envelopes, etc. 496.25 27684 Taylor land Surveyors - Blueprints 1.50 27685 Red's Mobil - Gas 20.00 27686 Monticello Fire Dept. - Salaries 3,200.33 27687 LeRoy Engstrom - OAA salary 82.80 27688 Franklin Donn - OAA salary 75.00 17689 Thomas Salkowski - OAA salary 125.00 27690 Paul McAlpine - OAA salary 42.60 27691 Mrs. Marjorie Goetzke - OAA salary 163.75 27692 Arve Grimsmo - OAA salary 75.00 27693 Monticello Times - Legal puhl. 1,233.99 27b94 Security Locksmiths - Duplicate keys 7.50 27695 Miller Davie - Legal forme 14.00 27696 Vence's Service Center - Fire Dept. gas 75.20 27697 Comnuniention Auditors - Fire Dept. repairs 43.02 27698 Dept, of Not. Ree. - Dep. Reg. face 130.00 27699 State Cnpitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 90.04 27700 .terry Bermes - Library janitorial 227.50 27701 David Stromberg - Animal control expense 302.00 27702 Janette Leorseen - inf. Ctr. salary 87.10 27703 Wilmn Hayes - Inf. Ctr. salary 140.70 27704 Austin Painting - Staining now fire hall 3.350.00 27705 Northwest MN. Chapter - Bldg. Insp. Dept. - Dues 15.00 27706 Gary Anderson - in -town travel expense 62.35 27707 Payroll for June 31.794.04 TOTAL GENERAL FUND DISBURSEMENTS - JULY $397.101.04 LIQUOR FUND LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR JULY - 1988 +SUNT CIM -CK NO. Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 4,354.41 13861 Quality Wine - Liquor 1,607.25 13862 City of Monticello - Reimb. for supplies b unempl. benefits 69.16 13863 Ron's ice Co. - Ice purchase 924.00 13864 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 250.00 13865 PERA - Pera W/H 178.52 13866 VOID -0- 13867 VOID -0- 13868 Wright County State Bank - Fica, FWT and Med. W/H 523.54 13869 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - June 219.00 13870 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor 2,918.50 13871 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 3.876.79 13872 Quality Wine - Liquor 31.05 13873 Johnson Bros. - Liquor 853.47 13874 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone expense 81.94 13875 North Central Public Service - Utilities 3.39 13876 Northern States Power - Utilities 973.81 13877 Rubald Beverage Co. - Beer 756.62 13878 Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer, etc. 23.248.50 13879 Day Dist. Co. - Beer, etc. 920.25 13880 Gruys, Johnson - Computer charges for June liu.00 13881 Ron's Ice Co. - Ice purchase 778.50 13882 Coast to Coast - Store expense 35.12 13883 Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer 17,371.15 13884 Monticello Office Products - Store supplies 20.50 13885 Grosslein Beverage - Beer 20.941.10 13886 7 Up Bottling Co. - Pop 286.15 13887 Bernick's Pepsi Coln - Pop 580.90 13888 Maus Foods - Store supplies 15.80 13889 Kolles Sanitation - Garbage service 137.00 13890 Ltefert Trucking - Freight 555.67 13891 Simonson Lumber Co. - Store expense 24.75 13892 Monticello Times - Adv. 193.25 13893 The Glass Hut - Repairs 35.00 13894 Dick Beverage Co. - Beer 3,323.25 13895 Viking Coca Cola - Pop 519.35 13896 MN. Bar Supply - Supplies 319.18 13897 Jude Candy d Tobacco - Mlbc. mdse. 681.70 13898 Principal Mutual Ins. - Ina. premiums 388.37 13899 Ed Phillips b Sons - Liquor 2,606.72 13900 Quality Wine - Liquor 866.78 13901 Johnson Bros. - Liquor 685.73 13902 Plunkett's Inc. - Pest control 60.00 13903 Omann Bros. - Asphalt mix for parking lot 164.22 13904 Stnto Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 250.00 13905 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 2.314.82 13906 Quality Wine - Liquor 584.09 13907 ATTA Centers, inc. - PTEX door chime 159.95 13908 ZEE. MedicoI Service - First aid k!t 127.75 13909 MN. Municipal Bev. Assoc. - Adv. 300.00 13910 Eagle Wine - Liquor 908.94 13911 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 2,718.65 13912 Johnson Bros. - Liquor 1,357.82 13913 Payroll for Juno 3.785.16 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - JULY $104,997.57 , M ONTICELLO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Monticello, Minnesota 55362 OIJARTERLY REPORT OF THE MONTICELLO FIRE DEPARTMENT President - Doug Pitt Vice President - Greg Dahlheimer Secretary Mark Wallen Treasurer - David Kranz Chief - Willard Farnick Joint Fire Board - George Liefert Assistant Chief - George Liefert Mern Flicker Captains - David Kranz Training Officers - Ted Farnam Mark Wallen Jerry Wein The following is a quarterly report of the Monticello Fire Department from April 1, 1988 to June 30, 1988. There were 51 calls which required 1248 man hours. The average attendance at a call was 15. The nature of the calls are as follows: 21 grass, 14 car/truck, 6 structure related, 4 rescue, 1 bomb threat, 1 garbage dumpster, and 5 mutual aid calls. The mutual aid calls are as follows: 2 to Becker requiring 48 man hours and 36 men; 2 to Big Lake requiring 33 men hnun end 2q men; end 1 to Albertville requiring 15 man hours and 15 men. During the pest 3 month period, we had 3 training sessions which required 115% man hours. The average attendance at these training sessions was 23. Also, we had our secpnd-quarter truck maintenance work night which required 60 man hours and 20 men were In attendance. Activities for the quarter: The department participated in the Albertville Days parade and the Big Lake Spud Fest parade and activities; Alto the department had an Amkus training drill with the Albertville Fire Department which required 3 men and 6 man hours. Sincerely, 1 David e. Kranz R�. Repopo rter