City Council Agenda Packet 10-09-1990AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, October 9, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan
Blonigen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Public hearing on proposed assessment roll for delinquent
charges, and consideration of adopting an assessment roll for
the certification with the County Auditor covering delinquent
charges.
5. Public hearing on proposed assessment roll for Project 90-03 -
Meadows Second Addition Phase II, and consideration of
adopting an assessment roll for the certification to the
County Auditor.
6. Consideration of resolution declaring costs to be assessed and
setting public hearing date on assessment roll - 90SW-1
Sidewalk Project.
7. Consideration of resolution declaring costs to be assessed and
setting public hearing date on assessment roll - 7th Street
Project - 90-2 Improvement.
8. Consideration of selecting a premium refund option on
workmen's compensation premiums through the League of MN
Cities Trust.
9. Consideration of approval of Monticello Heartland Express
system operation specification and authorize advertisement for
bids.
10. Consideration of a request to amend Section 3-1 (I) of the
zoning ordinance.
11. Request to amend Section 3-5 [D] 9 (Q) to all driveway access
openings shall require a culvert unless the lot is served by
storm sewer or is determined unnecessary by the Building
Inspector. Size of culverts shall be determined by the
Building Inspector but shall be a minimum of fifteen (15)
inches in diamotor. Applicant, City of Monticello.
12. Consideration to review Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund
(GMEF) approval.
13. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 24, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Hen Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley
Anderson, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of minutes.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill amended item #6, condition #1,
to read as follows:
The boulevard areas must be maintained in a manner
acceptable to City staff, which could require mowing in
the boulevard trees and establishment of plants that grow
no higher than 15 inches.
O'Neill alio amended item #7 as follows:
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan
Blonigen, cancelling Corrow Sanitation's contract upon
six months' notice. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen,
to approve the minutes of the September 10, 1990, meeting as
amended.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
A petition requesting Council action to control traffic speed
in front of the public schools was received and reviewed.
Shirley Anderson mentioned the need to address the traffic
concerns noted by the petitioners.
4. Consideration of a resolution oursuinq acquisition of
Outlot A, Country Club Manor. in liou of delinquent taxes and
assessments.
Administrator Wolfsteller explained that as part of the 1978-1
Improvement project, Outlot A of Country Club Manor received
an assessment for street improvements along with sower and
water extensions in the original amount of $280,228. The
parcel owned by Marvin George has not paid any taxes or
special assessments in the last ton years; and with penalties
and interest accumulating, the balance owing is approximately
$550,000. Since the property is delinquent in its taxes, the
county may be including this parcel under its tax forfeiture
procedures in the future. It would appear that if the City is
Page 1
Council Minutes - 9/24/90
willing to wait long enough, we would be able to obtain title
to the property through the tax forfeiture procedures in
another year or so. Wolfsteller explained that there is
another method by which the City could acquire title to this
property in lieu of delinquent taxes and assessments. Under
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 282, the City has the authority to
petition to the County Board of Commissioners requesting that
the property be turned over to the City as long as the City is
willing to use the property for public purpose. The only
drawback to this procedure is that if the City obtains title
to the property, it is the City's responsibility to pay real
estate taxes owing to the other taxing jurisdictions such as
the school and the county. Approximately $4,500 of the
$550,000 is actual real estate taxes; and unless the school or
county agree to abate their portion of the taxes, the City
would have to pay this amount to obtain title.
City Attorney, Tom Hayes, noted that the county auditor hopes
to complete the tax forfeiture sale in 1991; however, the
auditor would not commit to doing so in writing. Fran Fair
asked Hayes to describe what is meant by "public purpose".
Tom Hayes responded by saying that the public purpose
requirement would be satisfied simply by selling the property
to a developer for the purpose of development of housing.
Ken Maus asked Tom Hayes if the county may have been negligent
in not assisting the City in obtaining title to this property
through the tax forfeiture procedures. Tom Hayes noted that
by law, the county could have initiated the tax forfeiture
procedures some time ago; however, the county has been
reluctant to act on properties with delinquent assessments and
taxes on a case-by-case basis, which, in this situation, has
created a significant costly delay. Tom Hayes went on to note
that Council approval of the resolution pursuing acquisition
of Outlet A through the Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 282, will
set the wheels in motion that will enable the City to obtain
title to this property. Ken Maus noted that this is a good
opportunity to explore this method of recovering delinquent
taxes and assessments.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Shirley Anderson, to adopt a resolution petitioning the County
Board to sell the property to tho City for the unpaid taxes
and assessments. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 90-37.
Page 2
Council Minutes - 9/24/90
Consideration of adoption of a ioint resolution accepting
petition for annexation submitted by Joanne Halliqer.
The Assistant Administrator reported that Joanne Halliger
expressed interest in development of her property when she
submitted a request for a conditional use permit to the OAA.
This conditional use permit would have allowed her to develop
four 1 -acre lots on her property at the corner of Gillard and
County Road 39. Now that it has been determined that
utilities will be extended in front of her property,
Mrs. Halliger has elected to request annexation to the city of
Monticello. O'Neill noted that this request is consistent
with the unsigned joint resolution between the Town of
Monticello and the City of Monticello concerning the OAA.
This item has been discussed at OAA meetings and has been the
topic of discussion at Township Board meetings. O'Neill
informed Council that it was his understanding that the
Township supports the petition for annexation.
Fran Fair asked about the status of the joint agreement
between the City and the Township. Assistant Administrator
O'Neill informed Council that the Township Board will be
placing the joint resolution on an upcoming agenda for further
review.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Dan Blonigen, to adopt a joint resolution
accepting petition for annexation submitted by Joanne Halliger
and directing staff to request placement of the joint
resolution between the Town of Monticello and the City of
Monticello concerning the OAA on the next Township Board
agenda. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-38.
Consideration of resolution declaring costs to be assessed and,
setting a public hearinq date on assessment roll --Meadows
Phase II.
Administrator Wolfsteller informed Council that the final
project cost has been finaled out at $98,583; therefore, staff
recommends the public hearing on adoption of the assessment
roll be scheduled for October 9 in order to certify the
assessments for the county auditor yet this year.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to
adopt a resolution declaring costa to be assossed and set the
public hearing data for October 9, 1990, for Meadows Phase II,
Project 90-03. SEE RESOLUTION 90-39.
Pago 3
Council Minutes - 9/24/90
Consideration of extending a moratorium of burninq of certain
waste types by use of incinerators in the city of Monticello.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that
September 4, 1990, the State of Minnesota adopted waste
management rules affecting the operation of medical and
hazardous waste incinerators. Staff is now in a position to
develop local regulations that are consistent and complement
the regulations that have been prepared by the State of
Minnesota; however, staff will not be able to prepare those
regulations prior to the expiration of the moratorium on
hazardous waste incinerators which will expire in October
1990. Council was asked to extend the moratorium for a period
not to exceed 18 months for the purpose of providing time to
prepare proper studies needed to protect the planning process
and the health, safety, and welfare of Monticello citizens.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Fran Fair, to adopt an interim ordinance placing
a moratorium on burning of certain waste types by incinerators
In the city of Monticello. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 197.
Consideration of street name change for Laurinq Lane, 7th
Street and/or Country Club Road.
Public Works Superintendent, John Simola, reported that the
City should look into the possibility of changing Lauring
Lane, 7th Street, and Country Club Road to one common name as
it is essentially the same road. Ultimately, these segments
of roadway will be connected and run all the way from County
Road 39 on the west to County Road 18 on the east. It is
possible that we could define this street as a state aid route
upon reaching a population of 5,000. The current
configuration utilizing three names does cause some confusion
and it may be best for the future to have a single name for
this entire route. Shirley Anderson noted that 7th Street in
her mind is the beet name for the street as it is easier to
find a numbered street than a street labeled with a name.
Fran Fair was concerned that people living on Lauring Lane
would be negatively impact by being required to change their
address; therefore, she supported calling all three segments
Lauring Lane. Warren Smith noted his concern that the
business owners on 7th Street would prefer the 7th Street
address as 7th Street as it Is easier to locate than a Lauring
Lane address. Dan Blonigen concurred that street numbers
rather than labels are better. During the discussion Kon Maus
suggested that the street retain both names one official and
possibly one unofficial name. He thought it possible that the
page 4
Council Minutes - 9/24/90
post office would deliver mail to both the official and
unoffical addresses.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Dan Blonigen, to rename Lauring Lane and Country
Club Road to 7th Street and direct staff to research the
possibility of allowing continued use the Lauring Lane address
for those that reside the renamed roadway. Voting in favor of
the motion was Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson, and Ken Maus.
Opposed, Fran Fair. Abstained, Warren Smith. Warren Smith
abstained from voting as he currently owns a business located
on 7th Street.
9. Consideration of resolution adoptinq a records retention
schedule.
Karen Doty reported in her staff memo that the City has
reached the point were accumulation of records has become a
problem as the basement at City Hall has reached its capacity
for storage. Doty went on to describe a proposed records
retention schedule which if adopted would allow the City to
destroy records that the City is not obligated by State Law to
maintain. Staff recommended that even though some of the
financial records are important to retain for long periods of
time and may never be destroyed, most of the liquor store
records are not referred to by staff and are not necessary to
keep any longer than noted on the retention schedule required
by the State of Minnesota and because the basement storage
area has reached its capacity, staff recommends that Council
adopt the liquor store section of the general records
retention schedule as formulated by the Department of
Administration and League of Minnesota Cities.
Ken Maus noted that the liquor store is a business and there
Is no reason to keep records if we don't need them; however,
at the same time he noted that the City should got a letter
from the City's accounting firm and the City Attorney which
varifies the legality of destroying the liquor store records
as proposed.
After discussion, a motion was made by warren Smith, seconded
by Fran Fair, to adopt the resolution adopting the liquor
store section of the general records retention schedule as
formulated by the Department of Administration and the League
of Minnesota Cities and direct staff to obtain a letter from
the City's accounting firm and attorney which varifies the
ability of the City to destroy said records. Motion carried
unanimously.
Page 5
Council Minutes - 9/24/90
10. Consideration of review of the proposed 1991 budget of the
SWC4.
Administrator Wolfsteller reported that each year the SWC4
Cable Commission of which Monticello is a member adopts its
own budget for the upcoming year. The joint powers agreement
of the SWC4 provides that the annual budget shall be deemed
approved by a member community unless that community gives
notice in writing that it intends to withdraw from the
commission membership. The City Council does not have to
necessarily approve the budget. Wolfsteller went on to note
that in the budget it is proposed to incorporate funding for
government access pilot program for one of its member cities
which would provide for cable casting of City Council meetings
to subscribers in the City. TWENTY-FVE THOUSAND DOLLARS was
earmarked for the purchase of equipment for such purposes and
also for staff necessary to operate the equipment during
governmental meetings. Shirley Anderson noted that she
believed telecasting of Council meetings is coming in the
future and she supports the concept.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Dan Blonigen, to ratify the proposed 1991 budget
of the SWC4. Motion carried unanimously.
11. Consideration of proclaiming Wednesdav, September 26th as
Toastmasters Day.
Ray Dinius of the Toastmasters Club In Monticello requested
that the City Council proclaim September 26th through 29th as
Toastmaster's Week in Minnesota. Dinius requested that the
Council show its support of this organization via the
proclaimation.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Fran Fair to proclaim September 26-29
Toastmaster's Week in Monticello. Motioncarriod unanimously.
12. Considoration of final oaymont of Improvement 90SW-1 -
Concrete sidewalk and appurtenant work.
John Simola reported that the sidewalk construction is
complete the bid was based upon the replacement or repair of
9,850 square foot of sidewalk and appurtenant work with a
proposed cost of $21,725.00 actual quantity of sidewalk
roplacod was 11,351 square feet at a total cost including
appurtenant work of $24,459.00. A contractor is paid
$13,653.00 with the first partial payment leaving a balanco
duo of $10,806.00. Simola recommended that tho Council
Pago 6
Council Minutes - 9/24/90
authorize final payment to Witco in the amount of $10,806.00
as the concrete work has been of excellent quality. The few
small problems we had with siding are being rectified by the
City to the property owners satisfaction.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson.
Motion carried unanimously.
13. Consideration of purchasing streetscape banners in conjunction
with Chamber of Commerce Marketinq Communications Plan.
Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, informed Council that
the Chamber of Commerce is in the process of establishing a
unified marketing and communications plan for the business
community. Part of this plan includes development of a city
wide banner system. O'Neill noted that an intregal part of
this streetscape design includes development of banners to be
hung from the banner arms located on each decorative light and
it just so happens that staff was in the process of developing
cost estimates for banners when it was discovered that the
Chamber of Commerce was considering the same thing. O'Neill
went on to ask if Council is Interested in considering
development of a banner system in conjuction with the Chamber
of Commerce plans.
Ken Maus and Warren Smith reviewed the concept behind the
Chamber of Commerce efforts to create a unified marketing
plan. Warren Smith reported that the unified marketing plan
is designed to create a positive shopping image for the City
and will assist local businesses as they compete against
shopping opportunities outside of Monticello. Shirley
Anderson noted that she supported the development of banners
and that 508 of the cost should be derived from the Chamber of
Commerce. Warren Smith noted that the banner system should
also promote the entire business district. Ken Maus
reiterated that an atractivo banner system reflects pride in
the community; therefore, the entire community benefits from
the banners. Shirley Anderson suggested that the funds for
the banners should be derived from the liquor store revenue
since this item is not in the General Fund Budget. This
suggestion was met possitively by other Council members.
Warren Smith noted that the businoss community and the City
need to promote the City as a whole. We need to compete as a
City rather than competing as individual businesses against
other businesses outside of the City. The unified marketing
program and development of the banner system has grown out of
this concept. Fran Fair stated that all sectors, residential
and commercial, must work together to remain competitive with
other communities. It was the consensus of Council to support
Page 7
Council Minutes - 9/24/90
the concept of development of a banner system with the final
decision regarding City funding of the project to be
established at such time that a refined proposal for
development of the banner system is submitted to City Council.
Staff was directed to work with the Chamber toward development
of a proposal.
14. Consideration of bill for the month of September.
A motion was made Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen,
to approve the bills as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
15. Other matters.
Ken Maus reviewed a petition requesting slow traffic zones in
front of school facilities. Maus suggested that development
of slow traffic zones be established at the request of the
school. We should inquire as to the school districts opinion
regarding the traffic problems in front of both the Pinewood
Elementary School and the high school. John Simola noted that
he had contacted the Sheriff's Department regarding truck
traffic on Highway 75 heading east from the river bridge. He
was informed by the Sheriff's Department that trucks are
obeying speed limits and that in order for the City to patrol
this area consistently in the morning, the City will have to
pay additional patrol coverage as part of the contract with
the Sheriff's Department. Ken Maus brought up the idea of
hiring a single officer that would be deputized to do nothing
but inforce traffic laws. He noted that the City's ability to
direct traffic onforcement efforts would be increased greatly
if we hired a porson for that specific purpose.
Council also discussed development of a pilot program for
Sunday bus service. Assistant Administrator, O'Neill,
Informed Council that the Monticello Transportation Advisory
Committee is recommending the Council begin a pilot program
for Sunday service which would call for Heartland Express
service to run from approximately 8:00 in the morning until
12:30 afternoon on Sunday. The total cost of this program to
be run between November 1 - December 31 is $400.00. O'Neill
went on to inform Council that the City recently received a
grant of $3,000.00 to operate transit programs that benefit
the elderly. This pilot program could be financed by this
particular grant. In addition, the City received $1,000.00
from the Lion's Club for transit programs. This is an
additional source of revenue for a Sunday transportation
service.
Page 8
Council Minutes - 9/24/90
After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Warren Smith, to initiate a pilot program for the provision of
transportation service on Sunday mornings from 8:00 - 12:30.
Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned.
P;5r AW
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
l Pago 9
Counc11 Agenda - 10/9/90
4. Public hearing on proposed assessment roll for delinquent
charges. AND
Consideration of adopting an assessment roll for the
certification with the County Auditor c overinq delinquent.
charges. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Annually, the City Council is asked to adopt an assessment
roll for those accounts which are delinquent (amount is over
60 days past due) on the assessment roll to be certified to
the County Auditor for collection the following year with the
real estate taxes.
Minnesota statutes allow for special assessments to be
collected for various types of current services that are
delinquent. Those people whose accounts are delinquent have
been notified of the public hearing tonight and are given an
opportunity to present input if they so desire.
It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an
assessment roll for certification in 1991 at an interest rate
of 8%. As in the past, if any of the accounts are paid by the
time the assessment roll has to be delivered to the County
Auditor, they will be removed from the assessment roll.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the assessment roll for delinquent charges as
prosonted.
2. Do not adopt the assessment roll.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that any individual who has not paid their
account in full by November 1, 1990, be certified to the
County Auditor for collection with next year's taxes.
Numberous bills have been sent to these individuals and a
public hearing notice has been issued advising them of this
last opportunity.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll and complete
listing of delinquent sewer and water accounts and other
service charge accounts.
RESOLUTION 90 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law,
the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the
proposed assessment for delinquent sewer and water billings and
other service charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto
and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall
constitute the special assessments against the parcels named
herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in one (1) annual installment
payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1992, and
shall bear interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from
the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To
the first installment shall be added interest on the entire
assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31,
1991.
3. The owner of the property so assessed, may, at any time prior
to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay
the whole of the assessment on such property with Interest
accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except
that no Interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution.
4. The City Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be
extended on the proper tax list of the County, and such
assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner
as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the City Council this 9th day of October, 1990.
Mayor
City Administrator
NAME
Delinquent City Servicee:
Kramer, Marvin
Graham, Robert
Olson, Brian O.
Gildersleeve, Dick
McCarty, Clarence
Monticello Auto Body
(John Johneon)
Wilder, Michael
(Jamos Fritz)
Ultra Homoe
J
IAT BLR
6
B
10
5
1
3
4
3
4
6
12
14
2
3
s
6
7
B
B
5
5
2
`i
1990 DELINQUENT AOMBSKMff FOIS
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
PID#
ADDITION
#2690 Bawer hookup
359.70
155-500-113207
02629 mowing
33.00
155-014-003060
Nog Lund Addn
33.00
155-014-003080
"
32.00
155-014-003100
"
#2720 fire hydrant
116.48
155-031-002090
damage
#2705 water valve
37.80
155-013-002110
#2639 tree removal
196.00
155-015-005130
# 2 6 7 4 v a r i x nc o
192.50
155-027-002040
requoat 6 ordinance
amendment
02645 mowing
117.60
155-045-002050
Meadow Oako 2nd
#2627 mowing
14.77
155-044-001010
Meadow Oak Ent
14.77
155-044-002030
"
14.77
155-044-002040
"
14.77
155-044-003030
'•
14.77
155-044-003040
14.77
155-044-003060
14.77
155-044-003120
"
14.77
155-044-003140
14.77
155-044-004020
"
14.77
155-044-004030
"
14.77
155-044-004050
'•
14.77
155-044-004060
'•
14.77
155-044-004070
"
14.77
155-044-004080
"
14.77
155-045-002060
Meadow Oaks 2nd
14.77
155-045-004050
"
14.77
155-045-006050
IAT BLR
6
B
10
5
1
3
4
3
4
6
12
14
2
3
s
6
7
B
B
5
5
2
:k)
NAME
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
PID• ADDITION
LOT
BLR
Ultra Homes (cont.)
14.77
155-057-001040 Meadow Oaks 3rd
4
1
14.77
155-057-002010
1
2
14.77
155-057-002020
2
2
14.77
155-057-002060
6
2
14.77
155-057-002070
7
2
14.77
155-057-002080
8
2
14.77
155-059-002060 Meadow Oaks 4th
6
2
14.77
155-059-002070
7
2
14.77
155-059-002090
9
2
14.77
155-059-002100
10
2
14.77
155-059-002120
12
2
14.77
155-059-003030
3
3
14.77
155-059-003060
6
3
14.77
155-059-003070 '•
7
3
14.77
155-059-003080
8
3
Delinquent City Utilities
Kruse, Ed
A00900A
32.74
155-010-054090
Haan, Tom
A020000
93.45
155-010-055090
Past Photo Imago Cantor
A076000
72.47
155-010-053100
(Paula Holkor)
Sonstaby, Randy
A120000
190.03
155-030-045010
Walters, Sondra
A136000
38.90
155-010-040080
Halvorson, Mary
A144000
321.33
155-030-038060
Loch, Alan
A162008
75.60
155-010-035130
Hildobrandt Investors
A170000
219.87
155-010-034140
(Marland Hildebrandt)
Pearson, John
A17100A
127.31
155-010-034130
Hammer, Gary i Kristina
A175000
603.24
155-010-034060
Movi000n, David
8012008
51.23
155-010-038050
(Ed Damara)
:k)
NAME
Mengeltoch, Lawrence
Ludders, Earle
Rowan, Kathleen
GMAC Mortgage Corp
(T. Reimer 6 S. Myers)
Veit, Vaughn
(The Grainory)
Allen, Donne
Langer, Al
Hanson, Robert
Munson, Gerald
Seig, Guy
Whaylon, Daniel
(Bileon Riebol)
Pocklington, Arlan
(Brands Wheat)
Amoric-Inn
W. J. Murphy
Proelia, Michael 6
Kathleen
Pribyl, Roger
Topol, Dick
Alfano, Richard
(Daniol Peterson)
McCarty, Clarence
J
�.J
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
PID# ADDITION
8019000
31.61
155-010-039020
8023000
36.85
155-010-040020
8054000
493.46
155-010-029060
8127000
262.84
155-010-020070
B12900A
22.40
155-010-020081
8154000
97.47
155-010-011040
8156000
45.17
155-010-011020
8159000
45.08
155-010-010060
8161000
143.59
155-010-010011
B189000
190.08
155-010-081070
B19200A
91.52
155-010-081031
8195000
77.36
155-010-080030
8217000
1211.04
155-010-003040
622100A
34.11
155-010-005090
CO25000
65.58
155-015-010011
0026000
82.07
155-015-010010
C04100A
69.82
155-015-001031
C057000
216.95
155-015-005110
J
LOT BLK
ADDITION
LOT BLK
NAME
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
PID•
Gilles, David 6 Barb
C058000
45.08
155-015-005120
(Cindy Olson)
B -Clean Laundry
C077000
950.11
155-015-005010
Wayne 6 Heidi Bachler
Finley, Julia
C101000
178.80
155-015-025040
(Kevin Harper)
Greeninger, George 6
C12200A
54.77
155-015-013080
Diana Tanner
(James Johnson)
Wright County State Bank
C13800A
162.01
155-010-069020
Agosto, James
C145000
298.82
155-040-003030
Sonateby, Gerald
C184000
176.19
155-010-070100
Pederson, Robert
C218000
80.35
155-015-038031
Maas, Christopher
C220000
243.06
155-015-043060
Knoaalla, Mary
0248000
61.52
155-019-005060
Cox, Wayne
C251000
248.00
155-019-008020
Hanavalt, James 6 Lynott
D016000
47.77
155-500-034305
James, Duane 6 Cynthia
D10200A
20.12
155-023-001020
(Mark Farnum)
Hoikoo, Don
D10500D
66.80
155-500-034200
(Donnie Robertson)
Hoikoe, Don
D109000
112.38
155-500-034200
(Cheryl Gabhart)
Hoikoe, Don
D13800A
39.23
155-500-034200
(David Stromssn)
Hahn, Earl
D132000
270.38
155-021-001040
ADDITION
LOT BLK
ADDITION
LOT BLR
NAME
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
PIDI
Ferguson, Mark
D138O0A
20.42
155-021-0020 30
(John Johnson)
Piatt, Gerald
D14OOOO
119.09
155-021-002050
Larson, Leland
D144O0A
116.71
155-021-002090
(Michael Woodward/VA)
Damara, Paul
D149OOO
142.63
155-021-002230
Farmer's Home Admin
D172OOO
342.17
155-024-001020
(Burnette Chriotophov eon)
LFS Nationwide
D174OOO
179.95
155-024-001040
(Dan Schumacher)
Conroy, Steve
D191OOO
73.85
155-024-001110
Cochran, John
D195OOO
65.30
155-024-002030
Mitchell, Rent
3008000
253.81
155-030-001100
Wright County State Bank
EOO9OOO
245.58
155-030-001020
(Kimberly Fieotto)
Daniolo, Tod
6017000
62.63
155-033-003030
Anderson, Joyce
3019000
119.51
155-033-002140
(Donnie Rose)
Haugoto, Ricky
6065000
356.98
155-033-001350
Skinner, Michael
9O65AOO
183.71
155-033-004010
Palmieano, Peter
FO16OOO
84.09
155-026-003090
Goordt, Jlllian
FO1BOOO
106.04
155-026-003 110
Drahota, Margaret
PO24OOO
561.26
155-031-003030
Olson, Brian
PO29OOO
60.32
155-031-007090
Reynolds, Linda
PO33OOO
214.35
155-031-002050
ADDITION
LOT BLR
J
ADDITION LOT BLR
NAME
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
PID#
Chandler, Michael
P034000
154.36
155-031-002040
Miller, Sandra
F036000
59.45
155-031-002020
(Rueeell Andereon)
Haee, Lorrell
P038000
59.38
155-031-001010
Collette, James
P041000
319.39
155-031-001070
VanMoveren, Jamoe
P042008
243.52
155-031-001060
(Joel Havkine)
Roaeberg, Kenneth
F043000
77.32
155-031-004010
Opay, Verona
P047000
24.50
155-031-004050
Prouoeo, James
P051000
83.04
155-026-001070
Torell, Luke
P054000
368.75
155-026-001040
Holthauo, Tom
P07500A
130.12
155-035-004120
(Ed Mary)
Shelby, Doloroo 6 Earl
F078000
92.58
155-035-004100
Domko (Mark Oilloo)
Holthauo, Randy
P082000
43.01
155-035-001020
(Biloon Martineon)
Holthaue, Randy
P083000
32.67
155-035-001020
(Richard Walborg)
Holthaue, Randy
F08300C
20.98
155-035-001020
(Kenneth Mueller)
Holthaue, Stove
P09400A
74.45
155-035-001090
(Wayne Helcon)
Koranda, Lloyd
P09600C
101.02
155-035-001100
(Kara Herron)
Dencor, Joyce
P092N00
9.12
155-035-002030
Schmitz, Jack
P098000
268.75
155-035-001110
J
ADDITION LOT BLR
J
ADDITION LOT
BLR
NAM
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
PID#
Carter, Larry
0009008
30.60
155-037-010030
(Vic Bout, Jr.)
Nelson, Roselle
G023000
59.60
155-037-008040
Haaland, Elwood
G063000
2.04
155-016-000100
Blonigon, Patric
G071000
8.14
155-017-002050
Weiebrod, William
6103000
158.50
155-044-003070
Herter, Michael
G115000
356.28
155-045-002010
Poikert, Robin
O11BO0o
76.69
155-045-002040
Kraft, Gary
G128000
45.08
155-045-005050
Rising, Michael
6130000
200.88
155-045-006020
Ven Schaick, Donald
G133000
321.96
155-045-006060
Paulue, Annette
G146000
.29
155-045-003020
Pareone, Bruce
O15100A
101.11
155-057-002030
(Michael Cyr)
(Richard Oilgan)
Pareono, Bruce
0151000
116.21
155-057-002030
(Michael Cyr)
(Prancie Rajkowokl)
Silver Pox Inn
0400000
2213.28
155-500-142103
Dragaton 6 Dregotorf
Vanco'o Stannard
G412000
1026.92
155-034-001030
Langley, William
RO83UO0
8.15
155-035-003010
Ertel, Olen
R085A30
8.36
155-015-003010
Muncon, Gerald
R161D00
46.84
155-010-010011
J
ADDITION LOT
BLR
0
ADDITION LOT BLK
NAME
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
PID#
Hickey, James
R230BOA
23.63
155-041-001050
Proveeco, Inc
(Joseph)
Hickey, James
R23000A
9.12
155-041-001050
Proveeco, Inc
(Gilles)
Eidenechink, Joseph
R232C00
15.72
155-041-001030
Proveeco, Inc
(Schwartz)
Eidonschink, Joseph
R232D00
15.28
155-041-001030
Provooco, Inc
(Johnna Nelson)
Eidonschink, Josoph
R232DOA
21.84
155-041-001030
Provooco, Inc
(Stanton)
Provoeco, Inc
R237A00
31.64
155-047-000030
(Elko Klatt)
Proveeco, Inc
8237800
8.36
155-047-000030
(Rachel Rasmussen)
Provoeco, Inc
R239A00
30.66
155-047-000040
Provesco, Inc
R240B00
24.40
155-047-000020
(D. Anderson)
Kramer, Marvin
R513BOA
9.12
155-500-113207
(Richard Roster)
Gills, Fred
9510000
45.47
155-500-033401
L 6 W Associates
951400A
4.56
155-500-142401
0
ADDITION LOT BLK
NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
River Terrace
Lot 30
2310000
24.82
Lot 13
931300A
45.47
Lot 14
9314000
9.12
Lot 19
9319000
32.96
Lot 21
9321000
45.47
Lot 28
232800A
40.31
•Lot 29
932900A
16.12
Lot 30
9330000
45.47
Lot 36
9336000
23.42
Lot 40
9340000
9.12
Lot 53
9353000
22.42
Lot 65
936500A
9.12
Rjollborq'o. Inc
Lot 1
9100100
9.12
Lot 2
9100200
45.50
Lot 4
910040A
9.12
Lot 6
9100600
9.12
Lot 7
9100700
17.47
Lot 14
9101400
47.24
Lot 15
9101500
40.10
•Lot 16
9101600
30.98
Lot 17
910170A
17.26
Lot 18
9101800
22.42
Lot 100
9110000
25.61
Lot 104
9110400
30.77
Lot 106
9130600
8.14
Lot 110
9111000
9.12
Lot 113
9111300
22.42
Lot 203
9120300
9.12
Lot 204
1120400
40.30
Lot 205
9120500
45.47
Lot 206
8120600
9.12
Lot 208
1120800
45.47
Lot 211
1121100
24.40
Lot 213
91213 00
45.47
Lot 216
9121600
45.47
Lot 223
912230A
4.56
Lot 305
81305 OA
24.82
Lot 309
1130900
45.47
Lot 310
8131000
23.84
Lot 316
1131600
45.47
Lot 317
1131700
35.54
J
PID•
155-500-031300
155-500-155403
ADDITION
LOT BLR
L.
NAME
VES
Rjellberg's (coni.)
Lot 401
£140100
Lot 404
2140400
Lot 405
2140500
Lot 407
214070A
Lot 410
2141000
•Heisick, Terry
0061000
(Bidal Duran)
-Veit, Vaughn
8129000
(Loland Boed)
•Lundblad, Karen
D081000
•Heikee, Don
D105800
(Lanny Metcalf)
•Hoikoo, Don
D10800C
(Tom Barry)
(Chris Burgoyne)
•Hoikoo, Don
D10800D
(Tom Barry)
-Burkholder, Doug
P040000
•Haaland, Elwood
C063000
-Converse, Ravin G Brenda
C12400A
(Robinson, Joan)
-Paulus, Annette
0148000
CRIYTI
oN AMOUNT PID#
155-500-155403
9.70
9.12
13.12
9.12
9.12
127.53 155-010-030070
101.06 155-010-020081
54.19 155-020-003011
43.89 155-500-034200
37.39 155-500-034200
20.03 155-500-034200
56.74 155-031-001080
50.36 155-016-000100
166.26 155-045-005010
122.00 155-045-003020
ADDITION LOT SLK
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
5. Public hearing on proposed assessment roll for Project 90-03 -
Meadows Second Addition Phase II. AND
Consideration of adopting an assessment roll for the
certification to the County Auditor. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Recently, final payment to Redstone Construction on the
Meadows Second Addition Phase II improvement project was
approved by the Council and the staff has developed an
assessment roll totaling $98,583.40 for the 13 lots within
this development. Each of the lots has a total cost of
$7,583.34.
Matt and Steve Holker, along with Tom Holthaus are the owners
of the property involved and originally petitioned f=or the
improvements and also entered into a developers agreement with
the City for this project. The developers agreement ca11s for
the assessments to be spread over the entire project as a
whole for the 13 lots and indicates that double assessments
would be payable for each lot when an occupancy permit is
granted. The City has already received payment for two lots
(=15,166.67) and is expecting payment on two more lots within
the next week or so. As a result, by the time the assessment
roll is adopted, the balance will already have been reduced
from $98,000 to approximately $68,000. The developers expect
to close on an additional home within the next month leaving
the assessments outstanding at approximately $53,000 by the
end of the year.
It is anticipated that the City will receive its entire
assessments for this improvement project by next spring.
Normally, when an assessment roll is adopted and certified to
the County Auditor for collection, interest is charged on the
assessment balance for the entire year (in this case t ho year
1991) regardless of when the assessments are paid. I in light
of the fact the developers have a seporato agreement w ith the
City requiring two assessments to be paid for each occupancy
and it Is expected that the assessments will be paid In full
early next year. If the assessment roll is certified to the
County by November 1, the developers would be paying i ntorest
for the entire year regardless of when the assossmornte are
paid. Originally the City had planned on financing this
improvement In-house rather than through a bond sale, and it
is suggested that the assessment roll be adopted but that the
first Installment not be certified until the year 1992 , since
it is expected that the assessments will be paid in ful 1 prior
to this date. This would avoid the developers being charged
for additional interest cost if the assessments aro paid
early. The City would still receive its normal interest
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
\- charge on the assessments but would eliminate certifying the
assessment roll and then removing them upon payment which is
expected early. The assessmenL rull would un officially
adopted Tuesday night, but all assessment payoffs would be
received directly by the City rather than through the County
during 1991.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution adopting the assessment roll of
$98,583.40 with the first installment due in the year
1992.
2. Adopt the assessment roll with the first installment due
in the year 1991. This will probably result in the
developers being responsible for an entire year's
interest for 1991 even though the assessments are
expected to be paid earlier in the year.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since the developers have entered into an agreement that
requires double assessments to be paid for each occupancy and
considering that approximately half of the assessments will be
paid by the end of the year in full, it is recommended that
the assessment roll under alternative N1 be adopted which
would require the first installment to be payable on any
balances during the year 1992. Our original bond sale for
this improvement project anticipated an assessment roll over
10 years and since the City will have collected approximately
half of the money in advance, there is no need for us to
certify the first year's installment immediately.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution.
RESOLUTION 90 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law,
the Council has met and heard and passes upon all objections to the
proposed assessment for the improvement of Crocus Lane and Crocus
Circic within, the Meadows 2nd Addition with sanitary sewer, water
main, curb and gutter, bituminous paving, and appurtenant. work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto
and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall
constitute the special assessment against the lands named
therein and each tract of land therein included and hereby
found to be benefited by the proposed improvements in the
amount of the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments
extending over a period of five years, the first of the
Installments to be payable on or before the first Monday In
January 1993 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8.1258
annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment
resolution. To the first Installment shall be added Interest
on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution
until December 31, 1992. To each subsequent Installment when
due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid
installments.
1
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior
to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay
the whole of the assessment on such property with interest
accrued to the date of payment to the City Treasurer, except
that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and
he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the
entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with
Interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such
payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15
or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next
euccooding year.
The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of
this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the
property tax ].lets of the county. Such assessments shall be
collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal
taxes.
Adopted by the Council this 9th day of October, 1990.
Mayor
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
Consideration of resolution declarinq costs to be assessed and
setting public hearing date on assessment roll - 90SW-1
Sidewalk Project. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The final payment to Witco, Inc., sidewalk contractor for the
City was recently approved by the Council and the staff has
been putting together the entire cost of the project for
developing an assessment roll. Tom Bose has gone through the
project cost and allocated each property owner's share within
the grid system based on the Council's previous policy of
assessing 25% of the project cost. The total construction
cost to Witco was $24,442.79 with an additional $9,352.13
being added to the construction cost for the City's removal of
the sidewalks based on our bid price of $.90 per square foot.
This makes a total project cost of $33,794.92.
The assessment roll has been calculated by Mr. Bose and using
the policy established, $7,257.53 of the project cost would be
assessable to benefiting property owners. In order to proceed
with the public hearing on adoption of the assessment roll,
the resolution setting the public hearing should be adopted.
Two weeks publication along with two weeks notice to the
affected property owners is required and the public hearing
would be scheduled for Tuesday, November 13, 1990.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Adopt the resolution declaring the costs to be assessed
and setting the public hearing for November 13, 1990.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since the project has been finalized and the assessment roll
has been prepared, all that remains is to set a public hearing
date to officially adopt the assessment roll. If the Council
wishes to change the 25% assessment ratio, this must be done
now in order for the staff to develop a now assessment roll
for the public hearing notice.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution required.
RESOLUTION 90 -
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED,
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT,
AND SET'T'ING A HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, a contract has been let and the coetR determined for the
improvement of various sidewalks within the city of Monticello's
grid system, and the contract price for such improvements Is
$24,442.79, and ti -ie expenses incurred or to be incurred In the
making of such improvements amount to $9,352.13, so that the total
costs of the improvement will be $33,794.92.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY -THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the
City is hereby estimated to be $26,537.39, and the portion of
the cost to be assessed against benefitted property owners is
estimated to be $7 , 257. 53.
2. The City Administrator shall forthwith calculate the proper
amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against
every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land within the
district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as
provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed
assessment in his office for public inspection.
3. A hearing aha 11 be hold on the 13th day of November., 1990, In
the City Ha11 at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed
assessment, and at such time and place all persons owning
property aff ectod by such improvement will be given an
opportunity Lo be heard with reference to such assessment.
4. The City Administrator is hereby directed to cause a notice of
the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once In
the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the
hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of
the improvement, lie shall also cause mailed assessment roll
not lees then two weeks prior to the hearings.
Adopted by the Co►ancil this 9th day of October, 1990.
Mayor
City Adminietrato�
62)
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
Consideration of resolution declaring costs to be assessed and
setting a public hearinq date on assessment roll - 7th Street
P ojact - 20-2 Improvamc.t. (n. w.�
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the 7th Street Improvement Project nearing completion,
the staff is compiling the cost of the project for preparation
of an assessment roll. The City has been working with Brett
of OSM in developing the final cost of the project that would
be assessable to the benefiting property owners including
Lincoln Properties.
This improvement project was in conjunction with the tax
increment financing district established for the K -Mart store
and TSF revenue is anticipated to cover some of the cost
associated with land acquisition for the 7th Street
Improvement. The estimated construction cost of 7th Street
will be $261,523.00 with an additional $75,083.00 for
engineering and other indirect costs. The total project costs
for the improvement and all TIF related costs are estimated at
$576,365.00, which includes the acquisition and costs
associated with the Pratt and Holthaus properties.
In order to develop the assessment roll, the Council should
set a public hearing date on the adoption of the assessment
rolls to those affected property owners. Two weeks
publication is required and as a result it Is suggested that
a public hearing be scheduled for Tuesday, November 13, 1990,
Council meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution declaring the costa to be assessed
and set the public hearing for November 13, 1990.
2. Do not set the public hearing at this time. The staff
will be able to develop the assessment roll prior to the
hearing and there is no reason to wait until next year to
establish the assessments.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the resolution be adopted and staff be
authorized to prepare the final assessment roll for the public
hearing.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution. V� ll
RESOLUTION 90 -
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED,
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT,
AND SETTING A HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, a contract has been let and the costs determined for the
improvement of 7th Street from Locust Street to Minnesota Street,
and Minnesota Street from the existing bituminous south of 6th
Street to 7th Street, with bituminous overlay, curb and gutter, and
improvements to Minnesota Street and 7th Street with extensions of
sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer drainage facilities, and
appurtenant work, and the contract price for such improvements is
$ 1 and the expenses incurred or to be
incurred in the making of such improvements amount to S ,
so that the total cost of the improvement will be $
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the
City is hereby estimated to be $ , and the
portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property
owners Is estimated to be E
2. The City Administrator shall forthwith calculate the proper
amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against
every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land within the
district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as
provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed
assessment in his office for public Inspection.
3. A hearing shall be hold on the 13th day of November, 1990, In
the City ilall, at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed
assessment, and at such time and place all persons owning
property affected by such improvement will be given an
opportunity to be heard with reference to such assossment.
4. The City Administrator is hereby directed to cause a notice of
the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once In
the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the
hearing, and he shall state In the notice the total cost of
the improvement. lie shall also cause mailed assessment roll
not lose than two weeks prior to the hearings.
Adopted by the Council this 9th day of October, 1990.
Mayor
City Administrator
n)
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
Consideration of selecting a premium refund option on
workmen's compensation premiums throuqh the Leaque of MN
Cities Trust. ,R.-.;)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For the past five years, the City has had its workmen's comp.
insurance coverage through the League of MN City's Insurance
Trust Program. Up until this year, the City has not had an
option to establish our premium based on our own claims
experience but were considered part of the group of all
Minnesota cities insured by the League. They have changed the
policy and are now allowing cities such as Monticello with
premiums in the $25,000 - $50,000 range to select a premium
refund option that determines our actual premium for a year
based on our own loss experience.
Our insurance period begins October 10, 1990, and will run
until October 10, 1991. The estimated annual premium based on
our employee's payroll is estimated at $32,059.00. Under the
normal option that we have had in effect for the past five
years, this premium is considered a guaranteed amount and only
fluctuates based on our actual payroll cost at the end of the
year. Starting with this policy period, the City can elect
this new premium refund option which determines our actual
premium cost based on a minimum premium plus 120 percent of
our losses incurred during the year with a maximum premium of
115 percent. In other words, our $32,000.00 premium could be
as low as $22,400.00 or as high as $40,135.00 if we select
this option. In a nut shell, the City could save $9,600.00 on
its premium or it could pay an additional $8,000.00.
If the City was to select this new option, we are in effect
gambling on the hopes that our safety record is good and that
workmen's comp. claims are not excessive by the City
employees. In reviewing the formula used, before the City
would exceed its normal premium cost of $32,000.00 for next
year, we would have to file and the insurance company would
have to pay claims for at least $8,000.00. While past history
is not necessarily a good indication of future claims, I
reviewed the past five years to see what dollar amount of
claims have boon paid on workmen's comp. In all of the past
five years, had we had this option available, it appears that
the City would have received a refund of varying amount each
year. Attached is a schedule indicating what the dollar
amount of claims were and the projected refund had this boon
In effect for those policy years. For example in this last
policy year which expires October 10, 1990, the City has only
had one claim costing $35.00. During prior years, we have had
as many as six workmen's comp. claims with total cost varying
between $3,600.00 to $6,100.00 in losses.
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
Politically, I'm not sure whether the Council wishes to take
a gamble as you may be criticized if we experience large
losscc for an injury and the City has to pay an addition
$8,000.00 more than it had to. On the other hand, we would
all like to save insurance premiums if is feasible.
No matter which option is selected, the employees of the City
are really the determining factor on our premium cost. It is
the intent of the staff to get more involvtad with safety
programs for all the employees including safety workshops,
training films, and other procedures recommended by both our
Insurance carriers and the Minnesota Safety Council. The
staff intends to promote safety amongst the work place
regardless of which option the Council wants to select, but
hopefully more safety programs will result in less workmen's
comp. claims. Another factor that could help reduce workmen's
comp. claims and promote safety is if the employees were able
to share in the premium savings if their safe=ty record was
reasonable. For example, if the employees were able to
receive a credit on their health insurance contributions for
half of the premiums we were able to save on our workmen's
comp. coverage because of their safety record, the employees
may be more safety conscious. I'm not saying that the
employees have to be rewarded to be safety conscious but it
may help. This would be setting a new trend by the Council in
indicating that if the employees safety record is excellent,
they would receive some of the City's savings in insurance
cost. On the other side, if high loss claims resulted in the
City spending more for insurance premiums then were originally
estimated, the Council could indicate that until the City
recoups its extra premium cost, no additional credits would be
given to the employees for health insurance coat.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Continue to stay with the present program and possibly
share In any regular distribution of surplus funds if
there aro any through the League Insurance Policy. This
would establish our premium for next year at
approximately $32,000.00 and if a refund is issued on a
group basis, the City would participate at that time.
The insurance trust has not issued any refunds under this
option for tho past five years.
2. Select the alternative refund option which bases our
actual promium cost at the end of the policy on our loss
record. This could result in the City's premium cost
being as low as 322,441.00 or as high as $40,135.00
depending on actual losses next year.
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
3. Select the alternative refund option and encourage
employee safety in the work place by offering to share
Any premlpm refunds with thnpicya_e It i^ ..,.. ..w
that any sharing of a refund be through a credit against
the employees present health insurance monthly
contribution rather than as a direct payment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
While this is something the Council has not had to address in
the past, it really boils down to whether the City is willing
to gamble on its insurance premium. Politically, I certainly
understand where you may be criticized for not taking a
guaranteed premium amount when you are not able to control the
employees safety record. Accidents can happen and we can be
subject to a workmen's comp. claim at any point in time.
While our past five years history has indicated we would have
received some type of refund had we had this option available
to us, there is no guarantee that our next claim would not be
a major one. The City can elect this option on an annual
basis and is not committed to more than one year at a time.
While I feel the employees may be more safety conscious if
there is an incentive, it is only theory. The staff does not
have a firm recommendation one way or the other.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
League of Minnesota Cities Premium Option Letter.
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
Workeri Compeasation and Employers Liability Agreement
Administrator
Employee Benefit Administration Co.
P.O. Box 59143, Minneapolis, MN 55459-0143 Phone (612) 544-0311
NOTICE OF PREMIUM REFUND OPTION
At the end of each year (January 1) of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Self -
Insured Workers' Compensation Program a distribution of excess surplus funds, if any, will be
returned to participants under a formula taking into account the earnings and claims experi-
ence of the Trust, as well as the loss records of individual participants. As an alternative,
participating cities with a discounted standard premium in oxcess of $25,000 may elect to have
their distribution made to them in an amount determined by their individual loss experience
and premium size.
Final net cost to an electing participant will be discounted standard premium times minimum
factor, plus losses times loss multiplier, not to exceed standard premium times maximum
factor. Payroll amounts audited after the close of the year will be used in the determination of
final net cost.
For cities with a discounted slandard uremium of
25.000 - 50.000 Over 50.000
Minimum = Discounted Standard Premium x 70% 471%
Loss Multiplier 120% 120%
Maximum = Standard Premium x 115% 130%
If this election Is made, the final net cost of your workers' compensation insurance for
the coming agreement year, based on estimated pnyrutl, would be between a mirtimur n of
$ 22.441.00 and a maximum of $ 40,135.00 depending upon your losses. Adjust-
ments will be made six months after the close of your agreement year and annually thereafter.
Please return a signed copy of this notice to the administrator with your application for cover-
age If you wish to elect this option.
If this election is not made you will share In the regular distribution of surplus funds, if any.
Yes, we wish to select the Alternative Refund Option.
Agreement Period:
Name of City: 01.y of Mon L i ce l l o 10-10-90 to 10-10-91
By:
Title:
Date:
This election connot be accepted unless received In the offices of the plan administrator by the
beginning of your agreement period.
ERA 450 (121"
Workmen's Compensation Claim History
�- Policy
Actually
Amounts
Total
# of
Year
Paid
In Reserve
Cost
Claims
10/89 to
10/90
$ 35
$200
$ 235
1
10/88 to
10/89
3,631
0
3,631
6
10/87 to
10/88
4,404
0
4,404
3
10/86 to
10/87
6,143
0
6,143
2
10/85 to
10/86
871
0
871
6
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
Consideration of approval of Monticello Heartland Express
system operation specification and authorize advertisement for
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Council is asked to consider approval of the attached bid
specification and is asked to authorize advertisement for
bids. As you recall, the 1990 contract with Hogland
Transportation was not established as a result of a formal
bidding process. This was allowed by the State of Minnesota
Department of Transportation because first year system
operation is difficult to predict; therefore, it is difficult
to design a bid spec for providing service during the first
year of operation. After almost one year of service, the
Heartland Express is now in a position to execute a proper
bidding process for service operation in 1990.
As you will note in the bid specification, there is an
alternate which asks bidders to outline service charges with
the City owning the bus. At this time, it is not expected
that this alternative will be chosen, as it appears from
preliminary investigations that owning the bus may not bring
significant savings. Staff will present options for purchase
of a bus if it is found that we can reap significant savings
from such a purpose.
The bid specification has been reviewed, and it has received
tentative approval from MNDOT. Advertising for bids will not
take place until final approval of the specification is
received in writing.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve proposod Monticello Heartland Express
system operation specification and authorize
advertisement for bide.
If Council remains comfortable with contributing
financially toward operation of this service in the
manner that it is now being delivered, this option should
be selected.
Motion to deny approval of proposed system operation
specifications and deny authorization to advertizo for
bids.
If Council desires to withdraw financial support of the
operation or if Council desires to make significant
changes to the method of operation, this alternative
should be selected.
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed bid specification.
SPECIFICATIONS
MONTICELLO HEARTLAND EXPRESS
DIAL -A -RIDE HUS SYSTEM
CITY OF MONTICELLO
MRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Date: AuquSt 27, 1990
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Page 1
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
MONTICELLO HEARTLAND EXPRESS 1991-1992
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed Dr000sals will be received by
the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, up to
on the day of , 1990.
The operation of the City of Monticello Heartland Express dial -a -
ride system for the years 1991 and 1992 as per specifications are
on file in the office of Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator,
City Hall, 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota.
Each proposal shall be accompanied by a certified or cashier's
check or bid bond in the amount of five percent (58) of the total
amount of such proposal, and such certified check, cashier's check,
or bid bond is to be made payable to the order of the City of
Monticello.
Each proposal shall be signed, sealed, and endorsed on the outside
of the envelope with the notation "Proposal for the Operation of
Monticello Heartland Express Dial -a -Ride Service," addressed to
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, and mailed or delivered to
his office in the City Hall, 250 East Broadway, PO Box 1147,
Monticello, Minnesota 55362.
No bids will be received after the specified hour and date. Any
such bid received will be returned unopened.
The City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, reserves the
right to reject any or all bids and to waive any informalities and
to award the contract to the best interest of the City.
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
City of Monticello
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Page 2
BID SPECIFICATION
MONTICELLO HEARTLAND EXPRESS 1990-1991
T. rF..NF..RAT. nRQl,RTVTT0N
A. ORGANIZATION
The Heartland Express is organized and monitored by the
City of Monticello under a contractual arrangement with
a private transportation service provider. The Heartland
Express was operated through 1990 as a "demonstration
project." Selection of the service provider for budget
year 1991 will be the result of a formal bidding process
and in keeping with state requirements.
The private transportation service provider selected will
be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the
transit program. The transportation system provider is
responsible for hiring, establishing wages, and
terminating all employees working in conjunction with the
Heartland Express.
The City of Monticello' s Assistant Administrator will
represent the City of Monticello in establishing a
contract with a service provider and with the state of
Minnesota. The Assistant Administrator, with the
assistance of the Senior Center Director, will be
responsit:e for monitoring the ongoing operation of the
system and will assist the Monticello Transportation
Advisory Committee and the City Council in development of
the Monticello transportation system operation policy.
In addition, the Monticello Transportation Advisory
Committee will provide marketing and operations support
for the program in the form of in-kind contributions of
time.
B. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The transportation service provider will work
cooperatively with tho City toward successful completion
of goals and objectives noted below. The goals and
objectives listed are Identified by the City of
Monticello in its 1991 transportation system management
plan.
GOALS: The main goal for 1991 is to maintain a client
base through delivery of an efficient and
effective transportation service.
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Page 3
1. Cost Efficiency
( Establish a service level designed to encourage
` ridership while maintaining reasonable operating
costs through efficient use of employees and a
cinnle 75-nwccenner vehicle,
1990 Projected Estimated miles: 25,000
1990 Projected Cost per mile: $2.85
1990 Projected Hours per employee: 1,250
2. Service Effectiveness
Target elderly and handicapped markets with a
variety of marketing campaigns to attract initial
ridership.
Achieve a ratio of .65 passengers per mile.
3. Cost Effectiveness
Make efficient use of transit dollars by
establishing cost per passenger at $4.39.
Establish revenue to cost ratio of .13.
C. LEVELS OF SERVICE
1. Service Area and Population
The Monticello Heartland Express service area
includes areas within the city of Monticello, areas
Immediately adjacent to the city known as the
Orderly Annexation Area, and a portion of Big Lake
and Becker Townships, which are populated areas
lying adjacent to Monticello across the Mississippi
River and within the Monticello School District
boundaries. The population of the city of
Monticello is estimated at 4,500. The Orderly
Annexation Area and township area population is
estimated to be 4,000. These areas are outlined on
Exhibit A.
At this time, service to areas outlying the city
limits is provided on a limited basis as outlined
below.
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Pago 4
Transportation to the Big Lake Nutrition Center
from points in Monticello will be provided once or
twice a day during the noon hours. Transporta tion
to and from KJellbergs west Mobile Home Park, which
is outside the city limits, is now being offered.
Also, transportation to crnurches arta ousine saes
located in the township but directly adjacent to
the city is provided at no added charge. The cost
per ride to KJellbergs west is $2.00. No other
transportation outside the areas mentioned is
anticipated.
Extension of transportation service to areas
outside the Monticello city limits and within the
Orderly Annexation Area will be phased in as the
service demand and concurrent impact on service
delivery becomes better understood. Extension of
service level beyond city limits will be considered
by the City Council when it can be demonstrated
that service expansion will not diminish capability
of the system tc offer a desirable service level to
Monticello citizens. In addition, it must be
demonstrated that the City portion of the cost to
deliver service to the outlying areas can be
recovered through a combination of user fees and
through added cost efficiency created by new
ridership. At such time that the bus service is
expanded into outlying areas, the City Councll of
Monticello will establish bus fares that reflect
the added cost of servicing outlying areas that do
not contribute to the local share revenue generated
by taxation.
Typo of Service to be Operated
The service provider will operate "dial -a -ride"
service.
Days of Operation
2,500 hours of transportation service shall be
provided annually for each year starting January 1,
1991, and ending December 31, 1992, which is equal
to 10 -hour a day service, five days per week, not
including holidays. At this time, 10 -hour a day
service is planned for Monday through Friday.
Initially, days of operation do not include
Saturday and Sunday; however, days and hours of
operation may be adjusted to reflect service demand
experioncod. For instance, if it does not appear
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Page 5
O
C
cost justifiable to operate on Tuesday between
4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., those hours might be
transferred to Saturday or Sunday morning.
Saturday or Sunday service might also be possible
in the event that additional funding becomes
dVO11GU1C.
In addition, if additional revenue becomes
available, such funds could be used to expand
transportation hours.
4. Hours of Operation
Service will be provided between the hours of
8:45 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., which is equal to 9.25
hours of public transportation service per day. Of
the 45 minutes of unused service, 30 minutes will
be shifted to the appropriate day and time as
service demand is identified, and 15 minutes shall
be credited to the service provider as bus
preparation time. Also, unused hours may be used
In conjunction with providing extra transportation
during a community event. Service provider must be
capable of operating 5 buses simultaneously during
a special event.
II. OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
A. FARES
The fare structure calls for a base fare of $1.00 per
one-way ride. This fare will apply to all city of
Monticello riders, including elderly, children over the
age of 6, and able-bodied adults. Children under 6 years
of age may ride free with a parent or guardian. Reduced
fares will be available to all potential users of the
system through the purchase of ticket books. Reduced
fares can be obtained when tickets are purchased in bulk
through ticket books per the following table:
Base rate: 5 1.00
10 -ride ticket book $ 7.50 ($.75 ride)
50 -ride ticket book $75.00 (5.50 ride)
Drivers will be expected to collect individual $1.00
fares via a collection box but will not be required to
make change. Drivers will be required to sell ticket
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Page 6
books and will report sales and earnings daily to the
Sr. Citizens Center Director.
Ticket books will also be sold at other retail locations
ir. the community.
MARKETING
The City staff working MTRAC shall provide program
publicity, and the City shall pay for publicity
costs. The Operator agrees to cooperate with
transit system publicity. This may include, but is
not limited to, vehicle markings, ads on the inside
or outside of the vehicles , employee badges, and
distributing flyers at regular stop sites and to
passengers.
2. The City of Monticello will strive toward
development of a clean and efficient transportation
service which contributes to positive word-of-mouth
advertising. The service provider will cooperate
with this effort by maintaining a clean and
attractive bus. Service image will focus on
providing "coach" service rather than bus service.
C. COORDINATION WITH EXISTING TRANSIT OPERATIONS
The transportation service provider will be required to
cooperate with two nearby transportation systems. There
will be rare occasions when service delivery provided by
the Monticello, Sherburne County, and Annandale Heartland
Express can be improved through coordination of service.
D. OFFICE AND DISPATCHING
The Operator shall provide necessary office spare for
routine business and dispatching activities. Telephone
11ne(s) for rider information end reservations shall be
manned durinq regular service hours. The Operator shall
provide a telephone answering machine for after hours
messages to __.:ars. The Operator may take after hours
messages fr,)r: riders at his discretion.
DRIVER UNIFORMS
The Operator shall provido or require employees to
provide and woar clean, seasonably appropriate clothing.
This may include, but is not l imited to, shirts of a
standard color and dark colored long pants. Any public
transit badges or further uniforms required by the City
shall be provided by the City.
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Pago 7
DRIVERS
The Operator shall employ qualified drivers sufficient in
number to operate the service for the hours contracted.
Drivers shall be trained by the Operator to ensure proper
attitude. __ rtes_!. and safety
passengers.
Drivers shall be trained in the operation of vehicles and
wheelchair lifts and be familiar with the geographic area
served. Drivers must maintain at least a commercial
drivers license including a passenger endorsement.
Drivers must provide proof of a physical exam as required
by state statute and complete any other required MN/DOT
testing. T`e City shall require driver attendance at
periodic training on passenger assistance.
All drivers must be screened by the City and Operator for
accident history and driving violations. To the extent
possible, drivers shall be screened for criminal history
and investigations of reported abuse or neglect involving
minors or vulnerable adults.
OTHER PERSONNEL
The Operator agrees to employ other needed support
personnel including, but not limited to, administrative,
clerical, and dispatch as good business judgment may deem
necessary to comply with this agreement. Training shall
be provided by the Operator.
H. PERSONNEL EVALUATION
The Operator agrees to discuss expectationb and
performance frequently with employees. In the event of
public complaints to the City regarding Operator
employees, the City shall provide the Operator a written
summary of complaints received. The City shall require
the Operator to discuss performance expectations and any
unsatisfactory performance with employees and to sign and
have employees sign to document these discussions.
BUS/VAN SERVICE
Operator agrees to provide a minimum of 2,500 hours of
transportation service utilizing an Operator -owned bus
and/or van. City agrees to contract for a minimum of
2,500 hours annually.
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Pago 8
It is understood that the bus is the primary
transportation vehicle and that transportation should be
provided exclusively by this vehicle if possible.
It is recognized that from time to time service demand
. --the ca-pa.-ty cf .. ciny2.c tuz. During rcah
demand' periods, the Operator agrees to operate a
supplemental van.
The hourly rate and mileage rates shall be charged as a
fixed rate. Please see the attached bid form for detail.
It is understood that revenue necessary to operate the
van will be derived from a concurrent reduction in
budgeted funds necessary for 2,500 annual hours of bus
operation. Hours of van operation shall be established
under the following sceneries.
Reqular Van Service
The City may establish regular van hours and
establish a concurrent reduction in bus service
hours .
Operator -Directed Van Service
Operator has the latitude to provide van service
when service demand exceeds the capacity of the
bus; however, Operator -direct. ed van use must be
reported to the City on a weekly basis to assist
the City in determining necessary reductions in bus
operation hours.
VEHICLES
The operator shall provide:
One new or year old ( 1990 or 1991) twenty-five foot
bus with wheelchair lift and secured seating for
two passengers in a whoelchair. Bus shall have a
minimum seating capacity of 20 passengers,
including wheelchair passenger. Bus must be of
"coach" quality and include the following features:
Air conditioning, AM/FM radio and cassette dock,
coach lighting, fabric covered seating, and tinted
windows.
Operator bid shall include a detailed description
of the bus proposed for oporation. Bids will be
evaluated in terms of vehicle proposed for
operation. Bids proposing operation of a bus that
does not meet "coach" standards will be rejected.
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Pago 9
n
Operator shall finance and coordinate application
of paint and stylizeu markings identifying the bus.
Paint and marking design shall be established and
approved by the City.
in uL:dce Lu wolsiLaiu pruyram and Lu5 iuC„LiLy, Lira
transit program bus shall not be used for private
purposes without prior approval from City staff.
Private use of the transit bus shall be limited to
after hour or weekend out-of-town trips that
originate from a common point.
2. Operator shall provide one van intended to
supplement bus service. Special painting of the
supplemental van as a public transit vehicle is not
required; however, a magnetic identification strip
placed on the van while in operation as a
transportation vehicle is required.
RADIO COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT AND LICENSE
The City will provide and maintain a mobile phone for use
in the bus as the primary means for dispatching. The
hourly service charge under bus service includes ongoing
communication cost to operate the mobile phone, including
all toll calls.
The Operator will provide vehicle and office radios.
Radio equipment purchases, licensing, maintenance,
ongoing costs, and toll calls for Operator -owned vehicles
shall be the Operator's responsibility.
The Operator agrees to apply for and maintain required
communication licenses for the Monticello Heartland
Express. Both parties agree to comply with applicable
laws and policies and to cooperate in submitting required
licensing, documents, and reports.
MAINTENANCE, FUEL, AND LUBRICANTS
The Operator agrees to provide for all routine
maintenance of vehicles, including lubricants, supplies,
and tools. Vehicle maintenance shall be done following
the manufacturer's suggested guidelines provided with
each vehicle and must be verified by signed reports.
Drivers shall complete daily inspection forms and vehicle
defect forms. The Operator agrees to maintain a clean
interior and exterior vehicle appearance as determined
reasonable by City staff.
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Pago 10
Maintenance, fuel, and lubricant and maintenance related
expenses shall be paid by the City at a fixed rate of per
mile. An annual report shall be provided which shows
maintenance completed during the year. Please note that
qas tax expenses associated with operation of the
Monticello Heartland Express are exempt.
REPAIRS
The Operator shall be responsible for making or arranging
for needed repairs to City and Operator -owned equipment,
including warranty work and replacement tires. The
Operator shall utilize revenue created by the mileage
charge for repairs to the bus and for replacement of
tires. All repair costs in excess of the revenue created
by the mileage charge shall be the responsibility of the
Operator.
EMPLOYEES OF OPERATOR
No employees retained by the Operator shall be considered
employees of the City.
FARES, BILLINGS, AND REPORTS
The driver shall sell and collect passenger tickets and
collect fares under the fare schedules and contracts of
the City and account for riders and fares daily. Drivers
shall not make change for ticket book or fare related
transactions. Driver accounting of ridership ticket book
sales and fares shall be accoun tod for and verified daily
by a City employee.
Drivers shall complete daily forms provided by the
Operator indicating total number of passengers, number of
elderly, wheelchair passengers, children, and free rides.
Bills shall be submitted monthly to the City, including
documentation required by MN/DOT. Monthly bills shall be
based on hours of service provided that month at the
agreed upon hourly rate plus mileage.
The Operator shall complete a monthly report and submit
it with their bill, including miles and hours of transit
service per vehicle.
MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MTRAC)
Tho Operator and the City staff shall meet regularly with
MTRAC appointed by the City Council to serve as an
advisory group to the transit service. The City Council
shall define the roles and authority of the committee
regarding mayor policies, contracts, and changes.
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Pago 11
Q. REVENUE CONTRACTS
The City will retain sole authority to contract with
private and public organizations to secure additional
transit revenues.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
The bid specification calls for a contract period
extending from January 1, 1991, and may be extended
annually through December 31, 1992, with the agreement of
both parties. Contract agreements will be contingent on
availability of federal, state, ;nd lccal funds and
ongoing demands for service. Contract amendments may be
made at any time with the agreement of both parties. All
contracts and amendments are subjecz. to approval by
MN/DOT.
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
In the event the Operator breaches the terms or violates
the conditions of the bid specification/contract and does
not, within thirty (30) days thereafter, cure such breach
or violation, the City may terminate the contract
immediately. In the event the City breaches the terms or
violates the conditions of the contract and does not,
within thirty (30) days thereafter, cure such breach or
violation, the Operator may terminate the contract
immediately.
III. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
The Operator will agree to comply with all applicable federal,
state, and county laws, regulations, and policies including:
Fair labor laws, civil rights laws, workers' compensation,
unemployment compensation, sexual harrassment, affirmative
action, and special Chapter 13C warranty protecting individual
employees against a worsening of their positions.
Tho Operator will agree to cooperate with any monitoring or
audit visits of the city, state, or federal government,
including on-site inspections, disclosure of records, and
surveys of passengers. The Operator will agree to maintain
financial books and records in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards.
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Pago 12
VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC CONTRACTS
The Operator must certify that they are not included on
the United States Comptroller General's list of persons
or firms currently deharred for violations of various
public contracts incorporating labor standard provisions.
PRICE COLLUSION, DISCLOSURE
The Operator will be required to certify that the prices
in this contract have been arrived at independently
without collusion or consultation for the purpose of
restricting competition, prices have not knowingly been
disclosed to any competitor, and no attempt has been made
or will be made to induce others to submit or not to
sumbit a bid in the future for the purpose of restricting
competition.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Operator will agree to certify that he presently has
no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or
indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the
performance of services required in this agreement and
agrees that no person having such interest shall be
employed.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
In connection with the operation of the Monticello
Heartland Express, the Operator will agree that it shall
not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, color, sex, or national
origin. Operatorwill take affirmative actions to Insure
that applicants are employed and that employees are
treated during employment without regard to race, color,
sex, or national origin. Such actions shall include, but
not be limited to, the following: Employment, upgrading,
demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other
forms of compensation, and selections for training.
including apprenticeship.
SERVICES
Services performed by the Operator under this contract
shall be performed in a diligent and competent manner,
and their performance shall be subject to review and
inspection by MN/DOT through its designated agents at all
reasonable times.
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Pago 13
INSURANCE
The operator shall be required to provide liability
insurance in the amounts of at least $1,000,000 per claim
for injury, death, or property damage by wrongful act or
omission, and $i,000,000 for any number of ciaiw6 ati5iuy
out of a single occurrence. Insurance coverage shall be
provided to protect the recipient and MN/DOT from any
loss arising out of the furnishing of the service. The
City will agree to furnish all appropriate certificates
of insurance and to carry higher limits of insurance if
required by MN/DOT.
INDEMNITY
The Operator will be required to indemnify and hold
harmless City and MN/DOT from and against all claims or
demands, including reasonable attorneys fees in defense
thereof, of every nature on account of injury to or death
of persons or damage to or loss of property caused by or
resulting in any manner from any acts or omissions of the
Operator, its subcontractors, or its agents or employees
in performing or failing to perform any of the service,
duties, or operations to be performed by the contractor
and its subcontractor under this contact.
It will be understood and agreed that any and all
employees of the Operator and all other persons employed
by the Operator in the performance of any of the services
required or provided for under this contract shall not be
considered employees of either the City or the State, and
any and all claims that may arise under the Worker's
Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of
said employees while so engaged and any and all claims by
third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on
the part of said Operator's employees while so engaged in
any of the services to be rendered under this contract by
the recipient shall in no way be the obligation or
responsibility of the City or the State.
BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90 Page 14
B-
FORM
MONTICELLO HEART --AD EXPRESS 1991-1992
Blddbr must fill In unit prices in numbers.
1991
1992
I. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION
QUANTITIES
BID AMOUNTS
BID AMOUNTS
1 Provide dial -a -ride service
2500 hrs
Cost per
Cost per
Including vehicles, full
hour
hour
maint. , 6 vehicle storage
fact l l ties
2 Provide dial -a -ride service
Any hours
Cost per
Cost per
including vehicles, full
contracted
hour
hour
maint. , 6 vehicle storage
in excess
facl l l ties
of item 1
3 Mileage expense for
N/A
Coat per
Cost per
estimated 25,000 miles
mile
mile
II. ALTERNATE: Alternate calls for bid
based on City
ownership of
bus. All other
specifications remain the
same with the
following exceptions.
City pays actual painting, maintenance, and fuol/lubrication
costs, said expenses
to be paid
directly to the Operator. City reserves the right to select gasoline purchase point of sale.
1991
1992
II. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION
QUANTITIES
BID AMOUNTS
BID AMOUNTS
1 Provide dial-a-rido service
2500 hrs
Cost per
Coat per
including full maint. 6
hour
hour
vehicle storage facilities
2 Provide diel-a-rido service
Any hours
Cost per
Cost per
including full maint. 6
contracted
hour
hour
vehicle storage facilltles
In excess
of Item 1
3 Mileage expense for
N/A
Cost per
Cost per
estimated 25,000 miles
Milo
Milo
4. Hourly rate - Bus Maintenance N/A
V1J BUS SPECIFICATIONS: 8/27/90
Page 15
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
10. Consideration of a request to amend Section 3-1 (I) of the
zoning ordinance. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission requests that Council amend sections
of the zoning ordinance governing maintenance of non-
conforming structures. Under the current ordinance, the City
is unable to enforce the provision of the ordinance that
prohibits "changing" of non -conforming signs because of
contradictory language within the ordinance. In response to
this information, staff was directed by the Planning
Commission to develop an ordinance amendment that would
eliminate the contradiction and thus allow the City to enforce
the provision of the ordinance that prohibits changes to non-
conforming signs. Such an amendment has been created and is
attached for your review. The City Attorney has reviewed the
amendment and has indicated that the amendment will close the
loophole in the ordinance.
The ordinance amendment closes the loophole by providing
language that specifies or defines allowable maintenance to a
non -conforming sign. Anything done to a lawful non -conforming
sign that is not consistent with maintenance as defined in the
amendment would be considered a "change" which is not allowed
by ordinance.
Please read the attached information written to the Planning
Commission which will provide you with additional important
background Information.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve amendment to zoning ordinance as
proposed.
If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the notion
that lawful non -conforming signs or sign systems should
not be allowed to "change" without conforming to the
ordinance, then this amendment should be approved.
2. Motion to deny amendment to zoning ordinance as proposed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the Council wishes to close the loophole that now allows
non -conforming signs to be changed, then this amendment should
be adopted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment.
3-1 [ DI
EXIStii f Ord ir)anC6,
(D) No non -conforming building, structure or use
shall be moved to another lot or to any other
part of the parcel of land upon which the same
was constructed or was conducted at the time
of this Ordinance adoption unless such movement
mall oring the non-conformance inr0 cumpiiduce
with the requirements of this Ordinance.
(EJ when any lawful non -conforming use of any structure
or land in any district has been changed to
a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be
changed to any non -conforming use.
[F) A lawful non -conforming use of a structure or
parcel of land may be changed to lessen. the
non -conformity of use. Once a non -conforming
structure or parcel of land has been changed,
it shall not thereafter be so altered to increase
the non -conformity.
[C] If at any time a non -conforming building, structure
or use shall be destroyed to the extant of more
than fifty (50)' percent of its estimated market
value, said vsluo to be determined by the City
or County Assosoor, then without further action
by the Council, the building and the land on
which such building wan located or maintained
shall, from and after the data of said destruction,
be subject to all the rogulationo specified
by these zoning regulations for the diatrict
in which such land and buildings are located.
Any building which is damaged to an extent of
leas than fifty (50) percent of its value may
be restored to its former extant. Estimate
of the extant of damage or destruction shall
be made by the Building Inspector.
(H) whenever a lawful non -conforming use of a structure
or land is diocontinuad for a period of six (6)
montho, any future use of said structure or
land shall be made to conform with the provisions
of this Ordinance.
(11 Normal maintenance of a building or other structure
containing or related to a lawful non -conforming
use to permitted, including necessary non-atructural
repairs and incidental alteration which do not
physically extend or Intensify the non -conforming
use.
3-1 [I)
n10
Pr
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT ORDINANCE
SECTION 3-1 (I) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:
3-1: NON -CONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES:
(I) Normal maintenance of a building or other structure
containing or related to a lawful non -conforming
use is permitted, including necessary non-
structural repairs and incidental alteration which
do not physically extend or intensify the non-
conforming use.
Normal maintenance, necessary non-structural
repairs, and incidental alteration of a lawful non-
conforming sign includes repair or maintenance of
existing lettering done without changing the
subject, form, color, or design of the lawful non-
conforming sign.
D
Adopted this day of October, 1990.
Mayor
City Administrator
n
INFORMATION ITEM
August 30, 1990
To: Planning Commission
From: Jeff O'Neill, Asslatant Administrator
Re: Changes to the non -conforming Maxwell Realty sign system.
As you may have noticed, the property that once housed Maxwell
Realty on the northwest corner of Highway 25 and Broadway is now
the home of Century 21. The sign system that was in place
advertising Maxwell Realty and now advertising Century 21 is non-
conforming- The following aspects of the sign system are non-
conforming=
1. Flashing lights are not allowed on signs.
2. The total sign area, including the pylon sign and wall
algns, exceeds the total area allowed by about 100%. In
addition, the total number of signs per wall exceed the
maximum.
i
Since the sign system was established prior to the inception of the
ordinance, the signs are allowed to operate as a legal non-
conforming use. The question is to what extent can the signs be
"changed" before they are required to be altered so as to be In
compliance with the sign ordlnance7 Unfortunately, the zoning
ordinance is not clear on this matter. On one hand, It appears
that changes to nonconforming signs is not allowed, as the sign
section of the ordinance states that:
"A non -conforming sign may not be changed to another non-
conforming sign."
On the other hand, maintenance/ incidental alterations of structures
aro allowed:
"Normal maintenance of a building or other 'structure' (sign)
conta ming or related to a lawful non -conforming use is
pormlttod, including necessary non-structural ropairs and
incidental alterations which do not physically extend or
lntonsify Lho non -conforming use."
Information Item
August 30, 1990
Page 2
In the case of the Maxwell Realty/Century 21 sign change, the City
Attorney recommended Lhat Cine siyu be allu.ed Co Cnango bacause h-
vlewed the change as an incidental alteration which is allowed by
ordinance.
City staff would like to eliminate the apparent contradiction in
the ordinance. Prior to drafting an ordinance amendment, staff
would like the Planning Commission to review this matter and
Indicate if the City should strictly limit changes to non-
conforming signs, or should the ordinance allow incidental or
surface changes to non -conforming signs.
/o
'5'1^r 3-1 111
LU)
110 non -conforming building, structure or use
shall be moved to another lot or to any other
part of the parcel of land upon which the same
was constructed or was conducted at the time
I�
of this Ordinance adoption unless such movement
shall bring the non-conformance into compliance
with the requirements of this Ordinance.
LEI
when any lawful non -conforming use of any structure
or land in any district has been changed to
11c onforming use, it shall not thereafter be
changsd to any non -conforming use.
IFI
A lawful non -conforming use of a structure or
parcel of land may be changed to leseerc_ the
non—conformity of use. Once a non-conrorming
structure or parcol of land has been changed,
it ahall not thereafter be so altered to Increase
the non -conformity.
(6)
If atany time a non -conforming buildln- , structure
or use shall be destroyed to the extent of more
than fifty (50) ' percent of its estimated market
value, said value to be determined by the City
or County !Assessor, then w(thonl. further action
by the Council, the building slid the land on
which such building wag located or maintained
shall, from and after the date of said destruction,
.,
be subject to all the regulations apocif led
by these zoning regulations for the district
in which such land and buildingo are located.
Any building which is damaged to an extent of
lose than fifty (50) percent of Ito value may
be restored to its former extent. 7.atimata
of Clio extent of damage or doo Lruction shall
be made by the 0uildlny Lnapoutor.
1111
whenever a lawful non -con form ny use of a ntruc Lure
or land is discontinued for a period of mix (G)
mon the, nny futuro use of said atructurs or
land shall be made to conform with Lho provlolonra
of this Ordinance.
l 11
Normal maintenance of a buildiny or ocher sLructura
.
con twining or related to a lawful non -conforming
uao In pormltLod, including necessary non-structural
ropolrs end iiicidontol alteration which do not
phyalcally extand or intensify the non -conforming
usa .
2
9. The City of Monticello, or its agent, is
authorized and required by this ordinance
to enter into an agreement with the United
States, or any of its agencies, or departments,
to the end that the objective stated in
Title 2 unita� SLatou Code, Section 131,
Sections 319, or any other applieabie Fetiorel
Statute to obtain non -conforming signs
along the Great River Road within the City
of Monticello. However, the City of Monticello,
or its agent, shall not be required, nor
allowed, to expend funds for the acquisition
of non -conforming signs or advertising
devices under this chapter until Federal
funds in the amount of 75• or more to his
acquisition cost are made available to
the City of Monticello for the purpose
of carrying out this ordinance. No sign
nor advertising device legal under Laws
1971, Chapter 883, shall be required to
be removed or relocated until payment,
as provided in Laws 1971, Chapter 883,
is tendered by the City of Monticello.
(Dj NON -CONFORMING SIGNS:
1. The following are non -conforming signs:
' (a) Off-promiso signs, except signs located
inside ball parka and on bus benches.
(b) Prohibited signs.
(c) All other signs not expressly prohibited
but which do not conform to the provisions
of this subdivision.
2. A non -conforming sign may not be:
(a) Changed to another non -conforming
sign.
(b) Structurally altered except to bring
into compliance with the provisions
of this subdivision.
(e) expanded.
Id) Re-establlahad after its removal for
thirty (30) days.
(a) Re-establishad after damage of more
than fifty (50) portant of sign replacement
cost except to bring into compliance.
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
11. Request to amend Section 3-5 fDj 9 (0) to all driveway access
openings shall require a culvert unless the lot is served by
steirm (power nr iA dotprmiinad iinnecpaaa" by the A01dlnq
Inspector. Size of culverts shall be determined by the
Building Inspector but shall be a minimum of fifteen j15)
inches in diameter. Applicant, City of Monticello. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The proposed ordinance amendment would increase the minimum
size of the culverts under driveways from twelve (12 ) inches
in diameter to a minimum of fifteen (15) inches in diameter.
This matter comes before you as a housekeeping matter needed
to update the ordinance to meet our new minimum requirements.
Over the past five to severs years we have been requiring a
minimum size culvert to be fifteen (15) inches in diameter,
now we would like to amend the ordinance to state that this is
the minimum in diameter allowed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the ordinance amendment to increase the minimum
culvert size to fifteen (15) inches in diameter,
2. Deny the ordinance amendment to increase the minimum
culvert size to fifteen (15) inches in diameter.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment to
Increase the minimum culvert size of twelve (12) inches in
diameter to fifteen (15) inches in diameter. As development
occurs and culverts are needed for driveways, we feel the
minimum size needed to handle a minimal typo of drainage will
be the fifteen (15) inch in diametor culvert.
SUPPORTING DATA:
A copy of the ordinance section to be amended.
I
3-5 (D]9(q)
3-5 (D]9(s)
(q) ALL DRIVEWAY ACCESS OPENINGS shall require a
culvert unless the lot is served by storm
sewer or is determined unnecessary by the
Building Inspector. Size of culvert shall be
determined by Building Inspector but shall be
A minimum of twelve 112) tnrh es to di.Am?t?r.
(r) CURBING:
I. All commercial and industrial off-street
parking areas and driveways in commercial
areas shall have a six (6) inch
nonsurmountable continuous concrete curb
around the perimeter of the parking area
and driveways.
ii. All off-street parking in the I-1 and I-2
districts shall have an insurmountable
curb barrier which, if not constructed of
six (6) inch continuous concrete curbing,
shall require prior approval from the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Driveways in the I-1 and I-2 districts
shall have a six (6) inch insurmountable
continuous concrete curb along its
perimeter.
iii. All curb designs and materials shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and
Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit.
(0192, 7/9/90)
(s) STALL AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT:
Stall aisle and driveway design requirements
as noted in (k) Surfacing, (o) Curbing and
Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may be lessened
subject to the following conditions:
I. Any reduction in requirements requires
completion of the conditional use permit
process outlined in Chapter 22 of this
ordinance.
ii. Final approval of parking and driveway
drainage plans associated with
conditional use permit request shall be
provided in writing by the City Engineer.
Engineering expenses greater than portion
of building pe -1: fee allocated for
engineer plan review shall be paid by
applicant prior to occupancy of
structure.
0
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
12. Consideration to review Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund
(GMEF) approval. (0. K.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On September 28, 1990, the Economic Development Authority
(EDA) met with the four members present and reviewed the GMEF
loan application from Mike Muller for the Muller Theatre
expansion.
Mr. Muller explained the theatre expansion plans to the EDA
and responded to questions. Mr. Muller expects the demolition
of the Stoke's property and the beginning theatre const ruction
to occur simultaneously. The planned parking lot to the west
of the theatre expansion will not receive hard surfacing until
the frost is out of the ground in the spring. Mike hopes to
open the new addition in the spring.
Kevin Doty, Commercial Lending Officer for the Muller project,
determined and so stated that Mike and Bob Muller, an informal
partnership, to be acredit worthy partnership. Jack Maxwell,
Century 21, appraised the total new expanded facility at
$900,000. The anticipated loan structure would consist of.:
Wright County State Bank, $360,000; Another Bank, $35,000;
GMEF, $50,000; and the family, $112,000. Mr. Muller has
already invested $110,000 for theatre seats, projectors, etc.
EDA Attorney, Tom Hayes, viewed the expansion as a good GMEF
project as It meets the criteria of our loan policies, and
agreed with Mr. Doty on the difficulty for businesses to
obtain adequate c ommorcial funding at this time.
Barb Schwientok made a motion to approve the GME F loan
application for Michael and Robert Muller, an informal
partnership. The loan amount is $50,000 at 81 interest,
amortized over 20—years, with a balloon payment in five years.
The GMEF will be in second position on real estate and M 6 E.
Loan fee not to exceed $500. Mr. Hayes is to draft
appropriate documents and a commitment letter with terms and
conditions. The motion was seconded by Harvey Kendall. With
no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously. The
loan was approved because the Muller loan application mot the
GMEF public purpose policies, the partnership was dot erminod
to be credit worth by the lending officer, the project creates
six new full-time jobs, assists in maintaining a more vibrant
downtown, supports strectscape, increases utilization of the
proporty, adds aesthotic value to the downtown, increases the
local tax base (project not gain approximately $8,350
annually), assts is a non-compotitivo commercial business
within the City 1 1mlts, and will assist an existing business
expansion.
Council Agenda - 10/9/90
` With the approval of two GMEF loans to Tappers, Inc. and
Michael Muller, $88,000 and $50,000 respectively, the
remalnlnn halance of the loan fund 1R S62,0nn. Th1.R means the
maximum we can consider for our next loan applicant is
$31,000.
In accordance with the GMEF policy, "The EDA shall have
authority to approve or deny loans; however, within 21 days of.
EDA approval, the City Council may reverse a decision by the
EDA to approve a loan if it is determined by Council that such
loan was issued in violation of GMEF guidlines". Therefore,
unless the Council determines the EDA approval for Michael and
Robert Muller to be in violation of the GMEF guidelines, no
action is necessary.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The Council determines the Michael and Robert Muller loan
to be in violation of the GMEF guidelines; therefore,
reverses the EDA loan approval.
2. The Council determines the Michael and Robert Muller loan ,
not to be in violation of the GMEF guidelines; therefore,
no action is necessary.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the EDA approval; however, gives no
recommendation.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
14
Council Update
MONTICELLO WINS ONE OF THE STAR CITY MARKETING AWARDS,. (O.K .}
After Monticello received Star City Recertification last April, the
City qualified as a candidate for one of the All-Star City Awards.
Thirty-tive Star Cities out of one hundred three quaiiiied a s a
candidate. Awards were presented at the Annual Star City Banquet
held in late September which was attended by Jeff O'Neill anti
myself. I was disappointed Monticello didn't win one of the All-
Star City Awards because people worked so hard. We accomplis hed
many great projects. The communities awarded All-Star City Awards
were Champlin, Two Harbors, Hallock, Windom, and Plainsview.
Monticello's marketing program was also submitted for state
competition. The good news is that Monticello shared first place
for its overall marketing program. The City's stationery, business
cards, teaser/mailer, and brochure were submitted along with the
Chamber's T-shirt, sweatshirt, stationery, and note cards. A short
paragraph or two explained Monticello's logo concept and explained
how Monticello's total marketing materials are being use. Included
In the explanation was the Chamber's proposed media marketing
program using the City logo.
Monticello received 282 points out of a possible 330.
Comments: Overall a very strong, well thought out
campaign. The repeat appearance of the logo
re -enforces the Monticello image and is easy
to identify. Also, neatly ties in all of the
various elements used in a strong marketing
campaign. Excellent materials - very well
coordinate. Unfortunately, I do not got any
sense of the town itself. The consistency and
attractiveness makes this program work.
Brochure was tasteful - not over done - great
piece.
Other winners were Litchfield and New Brighton. Honorable ment ions
went to Burnsville, Northfield, Fairmont, and Fairbault County.
Video awards were presented to Lakeville and Windom.
CONGRATULATIONS Hats off to Monticello.
Council Update
1991 Budqet Update. (R.W.)
The staff is currently in the process of preparing the proposed
1991 budget which I am proposing to have the Council review at its
November 13, 1990, Council meeting. The actual public hearing on
adoption of next year's budget will not take place until our
meeting on Decemoer 10, 1990.
I have asked all of the department heads to prepare a list of
capital outlay type items and costs of any large or new projects
that we plan on incorporating into next year's budget. I will be
sending this information to each Council member in the next week
for your review and comments.
Prior to assembling the proposed budget for the November meeting,
if the Council would like to see any new projects or items added to
the budget for our consideration, the Council may want to set a
special meeting for an hour or so to review these items and to
direct staff on what the Council would like to see included in next
year's budget. This would allow staff sufficient time to
incorporate these items into the budget. If the Council feels this
is unnecessary at this time, the budget can be reviewed at our
first meeting in November and any adjustments can still be made
before the actual public hearing on December 10, 1990.
C
Council Update
Renaminq Laurinq Lane to 7th Street. (J.S.)
After the last Council meeting, I spoke with Jack Hutchinson, the
-
Lane to East 7th Street. Mr. Hutchinson was in favor of the change
and indicated that it should have been done years ago. He was
totally In favor of the continuity of 7th Street throughout, from
County Road 39 all the way over to County Road 118. He indicated
that most residents are given 90-days in which to change their
addresses and sometimes six months on the outside. In this case he
would have no problem with giving residents up to twelve months to
make their address change from Lauring Lane to East 7th Street. He
did say, however, that under no circumstances should we have a dual
street such as Lauring Lane/East 7th Street. This would only
complicate matters.
He thought that it would be beat if the City of Monticello drafted
a let ter to those residents on Lauring Lane to utilize East 7th
Street as soon as possible, indicating that the post office would
continue delivering mail with the Lauring Lane address for the next
twelve months. Jack went on to mention that. conceivably mail that
is still labeled Lauring Lane after twelve months would still get
to the address on East 7th Street. Keeping this information in
mind, it appears that no further action is needed by the City
Council and we will order the replacement signs and draft the
letters to residents as soon as possible.
k—
C