City Council Agenda Packet 01-27-1992P AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 27, 1992 - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Dan
Blonigen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 13,
1992.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of a resolution adopting an ordinance requiring
licensing businesses conducting adult use/principal or adult
use/accessory activities.
5. Consideration of ordering plans and spec's for new warming
house/community building/year-round restrooms for West Bridge
Park.
6. Consideration of authorization of soils investigation for new
public works building.
7. Consideration of ordering plans and spec's for ballfield
lighting for two or four of the City's fields.
8. Consideration of a request to abate special assessment
penalties and interest on 82-2 Improvement Project --Ultra
Homes, Dickman Knutoon.
9. Consideration of bills for the month of January.
10. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 13, 1992 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad
Fyle, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of minutes.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the minutes of the special
meeting held December 5, 1991, and the regular meeting held
December 9, 1992, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
A. Consideration of adoptinq an ordinance amendment covernino
adult land uses. AND
5. Consideration of adoptinq an ordinance amendment establishing
a license requirement for adult uses/principal and adult
uses/accessory.
Mayor Maus reviewed the need to adopt a zoning ordinance
amendment regulating adult land uses. He noted that without
the zoning ordinance amendment, adult land uses such as adult
book stores and X-rated movie theaters could locate anywhere
in the commercial districts within the city of Monticello.
The proposed ordinance amendment is designed to regulate adult
land use activities in a manner that protects the City from
the negative secondary effects of the adult land uses. He
went on by saying that the City cannot legally ban adult uses.
I it the City attempted to ban adult uses, if taken to court,
the ordinance amendment would be thrown out as invalid, and
the City would lose the regulating power it does legally
possess. Assistant Administrator O'Noi11 reviewed the
proposed zoning ordinance amendment and associated resolution
In dotal 1.
Clint Herbst noted that tho definition of adult use/accossory,
which allows 10% of retail space to be used for adult videos
and adult magazines, is too 10090. He suggested that the City
establish a cap on the amount of square footage that a
business could dedicate to adult accessory uses.
Pago 1
C
Council Minutes - 1/13/92
Paulette Conroy noted her concern regarding the proposed
ordinance establishing a license requirement for adult uses/
principal and adult uses/accessory. She suggested that the
fee for adult use/accessory be at least $250, and the fee for
adult use/principal should be $1,000.
Paulette Conroy asked how Buffalo justified the $1,000 fee.
She suggested that the City of Buffalo must have been able to
document the fee.
Lieutenant Don Lindell of the Sheriff's Department noted that
to conduct a thorough investigation of an individual's
background that might be applying for an adult use/principal
license could require up to 25 hours, which would cost about
$600.
Dennis Dalen, attorney representing the City, noted that
licensing cannot be used as a revenue raising measure. If the
court finds that the City is charging a high licensing fee as
a cover for trying to keep this type of use out of the city,
the entire ordinance could be thrown out. Dalen went on to
note that the City can charge more for a liquor license than
an adult use license because there is a state law that allows
the City to charge a higher fee for liquor licenses.
John Klipper, attorney representing Jim and Cheryl wolf, noted
that the licensing requirement amounts to a punishment for his
client. He asked how harmful adult accessory use activity at
the A-V Room actually is. The A-V Room has shown a good track
record with no complaints. Klipper suggested that the City of
Monticello adopt Buffalo's policy, which is to not require
licensing of video stores and convenience stores that dedicate
less than 10% of their retail space for the sale of adult
materials.
Jim Hornet stated that he understands that Council's hands are
tied and that the City cannot legally ban adult uses. He
implored the Council, however, to keep it as hard as possible
for adult uses to got into the community.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Dan Blonigen to adopt a resolution adopting
findings and conclusions supporting establishment of
regulations governinq adult land uses and modify the proposed
zoning ordinance by requiring that adult accessory uses shall
not exceed 10% of retail space or shall not exceed a maximum
Pago 2
D
Council Minutes - 1/13/92
of LOO sq ft, whichever is smaller. Voting in favor of the
motion: Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, Brad Fyle.
Opposed: Clint Herbst.
SEE RESOLUTION 92-1 and ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 217.
At this point in the meeting, Council discussed the proposed
ordinance requiring licensing of adult uses/principal and
adult uses/accessory.
Ken Maus noted that it has been shown in other communities
that adult uses result in an increase in crime in the areas in
which they are located. Maus suggested that the licensing Pee
should reflect the need for additional police protection in
the area .
City Attorney, Dennis Dalen, responded by saying that the City
cannot pay for extra policing through the licensing fee and
that the fee can only be tied to the cost to process the
license.
Clint Herbst suggested that the initial fee for adult
use/ principal be $1,000. This would make Monticello's fee
consistent with what Big Lake and Buffalo charge.
Brad Fylo noted that the businesses that now sell adult
magazines and videos as accessory adult uses have not caused
any problems. There have been no complaints about these
businesses; therefore, he wondered whether or not the City
needed to require licensing of these establishments.
Council then discussed whether or not an individual convicted
of a felony should be ineligible for an adult use/accessory or
adult use/principal license.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and
seconded by Shirley Anderson to direct City staff to prepare
a resolution outlining findings that support adoption of an
ordinance requiring licensing of adult uses/principal and
adult uses/accessory. Associated fees to be $50 for accessory
uses and $1,000 for principal uso. In addition, the ordinance
should include a provision making anyone convicted of a felony
as being ineligible for adult use/principal license. Anyone
convicted of a felony would be eligible for an adult/use
accessory license, depending on criteria as noted in the draft
ordinance. Voting in favor of the motion: Ken Maus, Dan
Blo nfgen, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst. opposed: Brad
Fyla.
Pago 3
l
Council Minutes - 1/13/92
Consideration of adapting an ordinance establishing a Police
Advisory Commission.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Clint Herbst to adopt an ordinance amendment
establishing a Police Advisory Commission. Motion carried
unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 218.
Consideration of approvinq 1992/1993 contract for police
Protection with Wriqht County Sheriff's Depart^ient.
In his written report, Rick Wolfsteller stated that the county
has recently prepared a two-year law enforcement contract for
police protection that the City Council is asked to ratify.
Currently, the City receives 7,321 hours of coverage for the
year 1992. The hourly rate has been set at $26 for a total
contract cost of $190,346. In the past, our law enforcement
contracts with the sheriff's department have been on an annual
basis; but since the county commissioners have established a
contracting rate for 1992 and 1993 in advance, they are
proposing two-year contracts. The second year of the contract
for 1993 would total $28.50 per hour. Wolfsteller went on to
recommend that the contract be ratified at the hourly rate of
$26 for 1992 and $28.50 for 1993.
Ken Maus noted that the service from the sheriff's department
has been satisfactory, and he sees no reason at this time to
change the contract as proposed.
Council discussed in general terms the potential of
establishing its own police department at some point in the
future. It was the consensus of Council to maintain the
present method for providing police service to the citizens of
Monticello.
Ken Maus requested that the Police Commission review the
sheriff's department fee structure and make sure that the
costs are fair.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Dan 8lonigen to approve the 1992/1993 contract as
submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
Pago 4
V
Council Minutes - 1/13/92
Consideration of autho rizinq preparation of aquatic center
feasibility study and consider establishment of aquatic center
development task force.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the Parks
Commission recommends that the City Council authorize
preparation of a feasibility study that would investigate
development of a water park. The study would examine the
market or need for such a facility and determine the proper
size, configuration, complexity, location, construction and
operating costs, and anticipated revenues. In addition, the
Parks Commission requested that Council consider establishment
of a task force charged with providing input during the
feasibility study process. O'Neill noted that a number of
factors motivated the Parks Commission to investigate the
possibility of developing a water park, which included general
input from individual citizens requesting that the City pursue
this concept. In addition, a citizen survey conducted in late
1988 showed that 561 of Monticello residents indicated that
they would support development of a municipal pool. O'Neill
went on to note that the Parks Commission was attracted to
development of a water park rather than a municipal pool, as
a water park includes many amenities that a basic swimming
pool does not have. According to experiences of other
communities with pools, water park amenities are necessary to
make the facility attractive for use by people of all ages,
thereby maximizing the facility usage. O'Neill stated that
many other communities that currently havo a municipal
swimming pool are converting it into the water park concept in
order to encourage people to use the facility. High use of
the facility would assure the City that fees will be
sufficient to cover operating costs. O'Neill went on to
describe some of the amenities that have been included in
other municipal water parks that would be reviewed via the
feasibility study process. !'hese amenities Include a wet sand
area, zero -depth wading area, dump slides, a 30 -foot high
water slide, sand volleyball court, and other features,
including bathhouse, dock areas, picnic tables, otc.
O' Noill summarized preliminary cost estimates and reviewed the
impact on City debt. He informed Council that the cost to
construct a water park as described in the concept plan is
estimated at $1.5 million. This cost does not include
potential additional cost to acquire land. It is proposed by
the Parks Commission that the project be financed via bond
issue, which would require a referendum. O'Neill noted that
debt service on projects already completed prior to 1992 is
dropping significantly duo to completion of debt repayment
associated with projects completed in the late 1970's. Adding
Pago 5
Council Minutes - 1/13/92
the aquatic center debt to the existing debt will result in a
reduction in the pace of the overall debt retirement.
Therefore, development of this facility will not result in an
increase in the City debt service and will not result in an
increase in taxes. what it does result in is less of a
decrease. For a $70,000 home, in 1993 a taxpayer could expect
a $21 decrease in taxes due to debt retirement. If the bond
issue passes, the decrease is reduced to $14 for a $70,000
home. O'Neill and Koropchak also reminded Council that due to
the tax increases associated with recent county and school
bond issues, overall debt is increasing; therefore, it could
be concluded that added cost to the taxpayer is not proper at
this time. In addition, despite the fact that the overall
City debt is decreasing, there are numerous projects as
outlined in the supplemental data in the draft 5 -year capital
improvement plan that will be developed in the next few years.
Council could take the position that many of these projects
may take precedence over aquatic center development. The
financial resources needed to conduct future projects should
be preserved; therefore, development of the aquatic center
should be discouraged.
Ken Maus asked pool consultant Richard Greenlee of Indeco, who
i assisted the Parks Commission with their research, why develop
this size project. Greenlee noted that the water park concept
is the latest thing in pool development. He noted that it has
been demonstrated that the standard pool simply does not
attract crowds. Amenities need to be added to the pool in
order to attract crowds.
Parks Commission member, Bruce Thielen, noted that this type
of facility will be popular for many years to come. He went
on to say that there is very little for families to do in
Monticello in the summer months. This type of park will give
the kids something to do other than cruising.
Dick Frio stated thdt the Parks Commission is requesting that
the Council move forward with ordering the feasibility study
so that ultimately a referendum could be conducted prior to
Issuance of bonds. Frio noted that the Parks Commission is
excited about the project because the water park concept
provides something for overyono making it a facility that the
ontire family can enjoy.
Clint Herbst noted that it was a nice plan. He would like to
have it In Monticello, but it would be unfair to the public to
add to the debt. It was his view that we are on the right
track if we continue to eliminate City debt.
Pago 6
9
Council Minutes - 1/13192
Dan B1 onigen stated that he was shocked at the proposal
prepared by the Parks Commission. He was certain that given
the present economy, there is noway that the citizens would
pass a referendum supporting construction of the water park as
presented.
Parks Commission member, Roger Carlson, stated that the City
has done very little in the past in providing recreational
facilities. Voters should have a chance to decide on whether
or not they want this type of facility. It's a public
decision.
Parks Commission member, Larry Nolan, stated that the people
he talked to were very favorably in support of the pool.
There is a lot of interest shown by families with children of
all ages.
Parks Commission member, Fran Fair, noted that people she's
talked to are excited about the concept. They are very
interested in a pool being constructed in Monticello. It was
her view that it would be very difficult to say that a
referendum would not pass.
Dick F rie reiterated the point that the concept presented to
Council is nothing more than a concept. The task force will
be taking a hard look at the numbers and will work hard at
making it a cost-effective project. He ended by asking the
Council to give the citizens of Monticello an opportunity to
decide .
Shirley Anderson stated that she liked the concept of
development of a water park, and she stated that the citizens
should have the opportunity to vote on it.
After further discussion, a motion was made by Shirley
Anderson and seconded by Brad Fyla to authorize City staff to
prepare a request for proposals for a water park feasibility
study to be submitted to pool design engineers/consultants.
Voting In favor of the motion: Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle,
Ken Maus, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Dan Blonigon.
Council then established by consensus a task force charged
with assisting with preparation of the feasibility study.
Task force membership to include Clint Herbst and Shirley
Anderson from the City Council, all Parks Commission members,
Leo Nelson, and one membor from the Industrial Development
Commit—too.
Pago 7
Council Minutes - 1/13/92
At this point in the meeting, Brad Fyle left to respond to a
fire call.
Consideration of adopting a resolution orderinq preparation of
School Boulevard feasibility study.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the City of
Monticello received a petition from Monticello School District
requestinq construction of School Boulevard, which is a
proposed section of roadway connecting Fallon Avenue to County
Road 118 along the southern boundary of the 120 -acre parcel
owned by the school district. This petition has been
expected, and the two major property owners affected (school
district and Value Plus developers) understand they will be
paying for the entire cost of the project except that portion
attributed to roadway oversizing necessary to serve the city
at large.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Dan Blonigen to adopt a resolution authorizing
School Boulevard feasibility study at an estimated cost of
$3,000 with the understanding that the school district will be
charged for the feasibility study in the event the project
does not proceed in 1992. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 92-2.
Consideration of approvinq the Monticello Joint Fire
Department enterinq into a contract with the City of Otsego.
In his report to Council, Administrator Rick Wolfsteller noted
that the City of Albertville has notified Otsego that it
intended to substantially increase its cost of providing fire
protection to Otsego because of its need to acquire additional
equipment and now facilities. Because of the large increase
In cost, Otsego mot with the Monticello Joint Fire Board to
discuss Mont.icello's interest in servicing a purllun of
Otsego. Initially, Otsego wanted the City of Monticello to
cover all the territory previously covered by the Albertville
Fire Department; but it appeared that some of the area
requested was quite a distance from Monticello, and it did not
appear that the Monticello Fire Department could provide an
adequate level of service to these areas.
Wolfstellor went on to note that it remains to be soon if the
proposed contract between Monticello and Otsego will remain a
long-term arrangement with Otsego. Wolfstollor stated that so
that Otsego was not without coverago, the Monticello Fire
Department has boon providing coverage as of January 1.
Page 8
Council Minutes - 1/13/92
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and
seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve entering into a contract
with the City of Otsego for fire protection as outlined on the
map enclosed with the agenda item. The annual charge is
estimated at $6,675 payable in four quarterly installments.
In addition to awarding the contract, the motion is to include
a letter to Otsego notifying them that they may break the
contract with the City at any time. Motion carried
unanimously.
11. Consideration of a change in scope of services provided by
Professional Services Group at the City's wastewater treatment
plant due to increased flows and loadinqs.
John Simola, Public Works Director, noted that during 1991,
flows and loadings to the treatment plant were in excess of
those outlined by the contract. The increased demand on the
wastewater plant beyond the contract are believed to be
attributable to increased loadings from Sunny Fresh Foods,
increased usage by residential and commercial properties, and
infiltration of ground water into the sanitary sewer system.
Since the recognition of a change in scope of services
incurred at the wastewater treatment plant due to tho increase
in flows, we have been In negotiations with Professional
Services Group to look at actual cost or effect of those
increases on the operation of the plant.
Simola went on to recommend that the City Council recognize
the change in scope of operations at the treatment plant and
reimburse PSG $1,326 for 1991 and modify the baso contract
figure for flow to 600,000 gallons per day at an increased
annual cost of $2,545 and modify the contract language to
reflect actual snow removal operations at the wastewater
treatment plant and to modify sections regarding costs for
change in scope from loadings and flow.
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and
seconded by Clint Herbst to reimburse PSG $1,326 for 1991 to
compensate for treatment of added flows and to modify the base
contract figure for flow to 600,000 gallons per day at an
Increased annual cost of $2,545 and modify contract language
to reflect current snow removal operations at the wastewater
treatment plant and change of scope costs. Motlon carried
unanimously.
Ken Maus reminded Larry Breimhurst of PSG that odor control
should be continually evaluated at the plant. Bre imhurst said
that odor control is at the top of their list.
Pago 9
Council Minutes - 1/13/92
12. Consideration of making annual a000intments.
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and
seconded by Clint Herbst to approve annual appointments as
follows:
Official Depositories: Wright County State Bank
Security Financial Savings 6 Loan
First National Bank of Monticello
Chief Financial Officer -
authorized to designate
other
depositories for investment
purposes only.
Newspaper:
Monticello Times
Housing 6 Redevelopment
Authority:
1. Tom St. Hilaire
12/96
(5 -yr staggered terms)
2. Ben Smith
12/95
3. Bud Schrupp
12/94
4. Al Larson
12/93
5. Everette Ellison
12/92
Planning Commission:
1. Richard Carlson
2. Jon Bogart
3. Cindy Lemm
4. Richard Martie
5. Dan McConnon
Health Officer:
Dr. Donald Maus
(1 year)
Acting Mayor:
Dan Blonigon
(1 year)
Joint Commissions:
Community Education:
Shirley Anderson
Fire Board:
Rick Wolfsteller
OAA:
Kon Maus
Library Board:
1. Ed Solberg
12/93
(3 -yr staggered)
2. Duff Davidson
12/94
3. Mary Jane Puncochar
12/93
4. Ruby Ronson
12/94
5. Rebecca Jesinski
12/92
Attorney:
Paul Woingardon
Planner:
Not established
Page 10
Council Minutes - 1/ 13/92
Auditor: Gruys, Borden, Carlson & Assoc.
Recycling Committee: Dan Blonigen
Economic Development
Authori ty: 1. Brad Pyle, Council 12/94
2. Clint Herbst, Council 12/94
3. Harvey Kendall 12/96
4. Al Larson 12/92
5. Barb Schwientek 12/93
6. Bob Mosford 12/94
1. Ron Hoglund 12/95
Engineer: Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates
Police Advisory
Commiss ion: I. Brad Fyle, Council 12/92
2. Warren Smith 12/94
3. David Gerads 12/94
4. Jim Fleming 12/92
5. Curtis Schmidt 12/93
Parks Commission: 1. Dick Frie 12/93
�✓ 2. Larry Nolan 12/93 Ct&-7
3. Fran Fair 12/91 k-- joy
4. Bruce Thielen 12/92
5. Roger Carlson 12/92
Motion carried unanimously.
13. Consideration of repairs to sanitary sewers on River Street
and Linn Street.
John Simola noted that due to increased flows at the
wastewater treatment plant, City staff has been reviewing the
condition of the collection system, including lift stations,
for possible infiltration of ground water. Simola wont on to
show a video of sections of sanitary sewer along River Street
In tho area of Linn Street. The video revealed a significant
amount of infiltration on River Street between Minnesota and
Linn Street and Linn Stroot between Rivor Street and Front
Street. The video revealed substantial amounts of ground
water entering the sanitary sower system. Simola wont on to
recommend that the City Council authorize staff to direct
Solidification, Inc., to seal the leaks.
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and
seconded by Clint Herbst to authorize City staff to have
Solidification, Inc., to toot and soal looks of the sanitary
Pago 11
0
Council Minutes - 1/13/92
sewer lines for two blocks on River Street and one block on
Linn Street at an estimated cost of $4,959 plus the cost of
$250 for inspection of the Abrahamson sewer service. In
addition, this alternative authorized City staff to obtain
quotes from various local contractors for the repair of the
broken sanitary sewer main in the area of the Abrahamson
driveway, with staff authorized to proceed with repairing a
broken sanitary sewer main using a contractor that submits the
lowest bid. Motion carried unanimously.
14. Consideration of qurchase of chlorine leak detection equipment
for pump houses Nl and A2 and a chlorine scale for puma house
#1.
John Simola and Matt Theisen recommended that the City Council
authorize the purchase of chlorine leak detection equipment
interfacing for pump houses N1 and #2 and one two -cylinder
chlorine scale for pump house 01. The installation of this
equipment will result in a safer chlorine injection operation
in the downtown area, which is considered a high-risk area
should a problem develop.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Clint Herbst to authorize the City staff to
purchase two capital chlorine alarm detectors from Feed -Rite
Controls for 42,523.60 for the pair, interfacing of the
chlorine detectors and the alarm dialer at the reservoir from
Automatic Systems at $1,134, and purchase of a Wallace and
Tiernan two -cylinder chlorine scale from Jim Henry Sales of
St. Cloud, Minnesota, for $965 for a total of $4,622.60.
Motion carried unanimously.
15. Consideration of liquor license ownership transfor--Monticello
Liquor, Inc.
In his report, Rick woltsteiier noted that Marilyn
Lindonfelser, owner of Monticello Liquor, Inc., has been
Issued an on -sale license for a number of years for the
establishment at 130 East Broadway. The corporation was owned
by Marilyn Lindonfelser along with her four children. As part
of the estate plan, Marilyn Lindenfoiser has transferred all
of her shares of the corporation to her four children equally.
Since Marilyn was the original applicant that received
approval for the license from the City, this transfer of
ownership should technically be approved by the City Council.
Pago 12
'u
Council Minutes - 1/13/92
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve liquor ownership transfer
contingent on completion of a background check on all
Individuals owning a share of the Monticello Liquor, Inc.
Motion carried unanimously.
16. Consideration of bills for the last half of December and first
part of January.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Clint Herbst to approve bills as submitted.
Motion carried unanimously.
17. Other matters.
John Simola requested that the City Council authorize adding
magazines to the list of items that are recyclable. He noted
that there is now a market for this type of material and that
the City can save $25 a ton by including magazines to the list
Of items that are recyclable.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Dan Blonigen to direct City staff to include
magazines among the items that may be Included in the
Monticello recycling program. Motion carried unanimously.
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Pago 13
Council Agenda - 1/29/92
4. Consideration of a resolution adopting an ordinance reauirinq
licensin4 businesses conducting adult use/principal or adult
use/accessory activities. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, at the previous meeting Council adopted the
zoning ordinance amendments defining and regulating adult uses
and tabled consideration of the companion ordinance requiring
licensing of adult uses/principal and adnlr. uses/accessory.
The ordinance establishing the licensing requirement was
tabled pending development of a resolution outlining findings
supporting establishment of the ordinance. In addition, a few
modifications to the ordinance were needed in response to
Council discussion. The modifications that were made are
highlighted in yellow on the attached copy of the ordinance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution supporting establishment and
requiring licensing of adult uses/principal and adult
uses/accessory.
If Council agrees with the findings and if Council is
comfortable with the changes made to the ordinance, then
this alternative should be selected.
2. Motion to deny adoption of a resolution supporting
establishment and requiring licensing of adult
uses/principal and adult uses/accessory.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution unless the
changes to the ordinance do not reflect Council direction
provided at the previous meeting. It is the view of the City
Attorney that the findings contained within the resolution
provide sufficient support for establishment of the proposed
ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution adopting ordinance; Copy of proposed ordinance.
For additional information, see previous mooting minutes.
RESOLUTION 92 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
SUPPORTING LICENSING OF ADULT LAND USES
CITY OF MONTICELLO
ADULT LAND USE STUDY
WHEREAS, on January 14, 1991, the City Council for the City of
Monticello established an interim ordinance imposing a moratorium
on adult -o rientcd land uses on certain property located within the
city of Monticello; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
matter on April 2, 1991, to consider the matter and to receive
public input on the issues; and
WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the staff's report on
various adult land use regulatory schemes and legal considerations
related to adult entertainment land use restrictions; and
WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Covncil have
considered all of the documentary evidence presented to It by staff
through the public hearings and staff reports;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO MAKES
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
FINDINGS:
1. The findings set forth in Resolution 92-1 are hereby
adopted by reference.
2. Persons convicted of felonies relating to violence,
drugs, dnngerous weapons, firearms, prostitution, and
criminal sexual conduct are more likely to be involved in
such crimes than the ge noral public.
3. The adverse impacts of adult uses can be regulated
through Ilconsing those ongnged in such businesses.
A ti 4. The co9t. to the City of conducting investigations and
lei iasuing Iicenses for adult use/princlpal are as follows:
+f„0 Polico Inveatigat tons: $500 /oc
do Cost of Assistant City Administrator: $120 .Do
go Publication costs: $80
Yo
U3 Cost of City Administrator: $50
Legal fees: $200-$300
'lbw
r
a
01V
l
Resolution 92 -
Page 2
CONCLUSIONS:
The City Council adopts conclusions 1-9 of Resolution 92-1.
2. Based on the findings and conclusions outlined above, the
City Council of the City of Monticello does hereby adopt
the Adult Use Licensing Ordinance, a copy of which is
attached.
3. The aforementioned ordinance shall be effective upon
publication, and staff is directed to cause the ordinance
to be published at the first practicable date.
Adopted this 27th day of January, 1992.
City Administrator
Mayor
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT TITLE 3 OF THE
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUSINESS REGULATIONS BE
AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER:
CHAPTER 13
LICENSING OF ADULT USE BUSINESSESES
SECTION:
3-13-1: License Requirements
3-13-1: LICENSE REQUIREMENTS:
(A) No person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall operate an
adult use, either principal or accessory, without having first
secured a license as hereinafter provided. Licenses shall be
one of two types:
1. Adult Use/Accessory
i 2. Adult Use/Principal
(B) Application: In addition to such information the City Council
may require, the application shall also include:
1. If the applicant is an individual, the name, residence,
phone number, and birthdate of the applicant. If the
applicant is a partnership, the name, residence, phone
number, and birthdate of each general and limited
partner. If the applicant is a corporation, the names,
residences, phone numbers, and birth dates of all those
persons holding more than five (5) percent of the issued
and outstanding stock of the corporation.
2. The name, address, phone number, and birthdate of the
manager of such operation, if different from the owners.
3. The promises where the adult use is to be located within
the entire building.
4. A statement detailing any felony convictions by the
applicant and whether or not the applicant has over
applied for or held a license to operate a similar type
of business in other communities. In the case of a
corporation, astatement detailing any felony convictions
by the owners of more than five (5 ) percent of the issued
and outstanding stock of the corporation, and whether or
Ordinance Amendment No.
Page 2
not those owners have ever applied for or held a license
to operate a similar type of business in other
communities.
5. The activities and types of business to be conducted.
6. The hours of operation.
7. The provisions made to restrict access by minors.
8. A building plan of the premises detailing all internal
operations and activities.
(C) License Fees:
1. Each application for a license shall be submitted to the
City Administrator and payment made to the City of
Monticello. Each application for a license shall be
accompanied by payment in full of the required fee for
the license. All fees shall be paid into the general
fund. Upon rejection of any application for a license,
the City of Monticello shall refund the amount paid
except for that cost to investigate the applicant.
2. All licenses shall expire on the last day of December in
each year. Each license shall be issued for a period of
one (1) year, except that if a portion of the license
year has elapsed when the application is made, a license
may be issued for the remainder of the year for a prorate
fee. In computing such fee, any unexpired fraction of a
month shall be counted as one (1) month.
3. The annual fee for an adult use/accessory shall be $50.
The annual fee for an adult use/principal license shall
be $1,000.
4. No part of the fee paid by any license issued under this
ordinance shall be refunded except in the following
instances upon application to the City Administrator
within thirty (30) days from the happening of tho event.
There shall be refunded a prorate portion of the fee for
the unexpired period of the license, computed on a
monthly basis, when operation of the llconsed business
ceases no less than one (1) month before expiration of
the license because of:
a. Destruction or damage of the licensed premises by
fire or other catastrophe.
ordinance Amendment No.
Page 3
b. If the licensee is an individual, the licensee's
disabling illness. If the licensee is a
partnership, the disabling illness of any general
partner. If the licensee is a corporation, the
disabling illness of any shareholder or
shareholders who in the aggregate hold fifty (50)
percent or more of the issued and outstanding
shares of the corporation.
c. If the licensee is an individual, the licensee's
death. If the licensee is a partnership, the death
of any general partner. If the* licensee is a
corporation, the death of any shareholder or
shareholders who in the aggregate hold fifty (50)
percent or more of the issued and outstanding
shares of the corporation.
d. A change in the legal status making it unlawful for
the licensed business to continue.
(D) Grantinq of License:
The City Council shall investigate all facts set out in
the application and hold a public hearing within forty-
five (45) days after the City Administrator receives the
application. Opportunity shall be given to any person to
be heard for or against the granting of the license.
After such investigation and administrative hearing, the
City Council shall grant or refuse the application. The
City shall grant or refuse the application within forty-
five (45) days after the public hearing has closed.
Each license shall be issued to the applicant only and
shall not be transferable to another holder. Each
license shall be issued only for the premises described
in the application. No license may be transferred to
another premise without the approval of the City Council.
If the licensee is a partnership or a corporation, a
change in the identity of any of the principals of the
partnership or corporation shall be deemed a transfer of
the license. All adult uses existing at the time of the
ordinance adoption shall be required to obtain an annual
license.
(E) Persons Ineliqiblo for License:
No license shall be granted to or held by any person:
Under twenty -ono (21) years of ago.
Ordinance Amendment No.
Page 4
2. (a) Who has been convicted of any of the following
felonies, or a shareholder, director, officer, or
partner of which has been convicted of any of the
following felonies:
1. Homicide,
2. Assault,
3. Any felony relating to controlled substances,
4. Kidnapping,
5. Robbery,
6. Any felony relating to prostitution,
7. Criminal sexual conduct,
8. Incest,
9. Malicious punishment of a child,
10. Receiving stolen property,
11. Any felony relating to gambling,
12. Any felony relating to dangerous weapons
and/or firearms,
13. Any felony in which a dangerous weapon or
firearm was used,
14. Any other felony involving moral turptitude.
(b) The City Council may waive the provisions of
subsection (E)2(a) with respect to an adult
use/accessory license and grant an adult use/
accessory license to a person, partnership, or
corporation a principal or principals of which have
been convicted of a felony or felonies. In
deciding whether to make such a waiver, the City
Council shall consider:
1. The number of felony convictions;
2. The nature of the felony or felonies;
3. The length of time that has passed since the
conviction or convictions;
4. Whether the license is for a use that existed
prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
3. who is not the proprietor of the establishment for which
the license is issued.
(F) Places Ineliqible for License:
1. No license shall be granted for adult uses on any
premises where a licensee has boon convicted of a
violation of this chapter, or where any license hereunder
has been revoked for cause, until one (1) year has
r elapsed after such conviction or revocation.
n
Ordinance Amendment No.
Page 5
2. Except for uses lawfully existing at the time of this
ordinance adoption, no license shall be granted for any
adult use which is not in compliance with the City's
zoning regulations.
(G) Conditions of License:
1. Every license shall be granted subject to the conditions
in the following subdivisions and all other provisions of
this chapter, and of any applicable sections of the Code
of the City of Monticello or state law.
2. All licensed premises shall have the license posted in a
conspicuous place at all times.
3. In the case of an adult use/principal, no minor shall be
permitted on the licensed premises unless accompanied by
his/her parent or legal guardian. ''''yyyy
4. Any designated inspection officer of the City of�
Monticello shall have the unqualified right to enter,J(
inspect, and search the premises of a licensee during
business hours.
5. Every licensee shall be responsible for the conduct of
his/her place of business and shall maintain conditions
of order.
6. No adult goods and/or services shall be offered, sold,
transferred, conveyed, given, displayed, or bartered to
any minor.
(H) Penalty:
1. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance is
guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be
punished not more than the maximum penalty for a
misdemeanor as prescribed state law.
2. Any violation of this ordinance shall be a basis for the
suspension or revocation of any license granted
hereunder. in the event that the City Council proposes
to revoke or suspend the license, the licensee shall be
notified in writing of the basis for such proposed
revocation or suspension. The Council shall hold a
public hearing for the purpose of determining whether to
revoke or suspend the license, which public hearing shall
be within forty-five (45) days of the date of the notice.
Ordinance amendment No.
Page 6
The City Council shall determine whether to suspend or
revoke the license within forty-five (45) days after the
close of the hearing and shall notify the licensee of its
decision within that forty-five (45) day period.
(I) Riqht of Appeal: Any applicant whose application for an adult
use license is denied, or any licensee wnose license is
revoked or suspended, may appeal such denial, revocation, or
suspension to the District Court of the County of Wright
within 30 days after the denial, revocation, or suspension of
such license.
Adopted this day of , 1992•
Mayor
City Administrator
r
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
Consideration of orderings plans and spec's for new warming
house/community building/year-round restrooms for West Bridge
Park. (J.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning for this project actually began in 1988. The
restrooms in West Bridge Park built some 30 years earlier were
in poor condition and needed to be replaced. Additionally,
the City was receiving complaints from users of the park for
winter activities due to the absence of year-round restrooms.
Staff placed an amount of $20,000 in the 1989 budget in the
general fund to replace the restrooms.
In 1989, it was determined that the restrooms should actually
be part of a new warming house/community building. It was,
therefore, planned to not only build the restrooms in 1990 but
to also build the footings for a future warming house/
community building. An amount of $30,000 was placed in the
1990 budget in the capital outlay fund for such purposes. In
March of 1990, the Lions requested that the City build a large
picnic shelter in Ellison Park on a cost sharing basis.
Consequently, over $15,000 of the new restroom/warming house
budget was spent on the log shelter, and the Bridge Park
project was put off for another year.
In 1991, an amount of $50,000 was placed in the budget within
the capital outlay fund, and it was decided that the now Parks
Commission should review the project. Consequently, in 1992,
an amount of $60,000 was placed in the budget under the
capital outlay fund.
During the past few years, we have had the opportunity to look
at several building plans and also other park buildings. The
Park Superintendent suggested the possibility of using A -frame
construction In the park to tAke advantage of the view of the
river. The Parka Commission liked this concept along with a
modification of the skating rink to provide a more family-
oriented skating area. City staff then developed a concept
plan which was approved by the Parks Commission.
City staff has met with throe architoctural/engineering firms
to obtain proposals for the development of plans and spec's
nocossary to moot regulatory agency requirements and to
include two or throe routine inspections of the building
during the construction phases. The throe firms from which
proposals were sollcitod wore TKDA, OSM, and RCM. The
proposals ranged from a low of $5,250 from TKDA to a high of
$8,700 from OSM. Based upon review of the proposals, TKDA's
proposal would result In the lowest dollar cost to the City,
probably in the area of $5,500, as they have Included an
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
hourly rate for checking calculations of the trust company's
engineer, whereas the other firms have included it as a lump
SUM. Although we have no actual estimates yet as to the cost
of the building, we are still assuming that the actual
building construction cost will still be around $60,000. This
does not, however, include approximately $5,500 for
engineering/architectural services and $3,000 to $5,000 worth
of soil investigation, site work, and utility hookup.
Therefore, a preliminary estimate for the entire construction
w-ou'-d be $68,000 to $70,000. Some of the features of the
building would be as listed below.
A -frame construction using standard shingled roof.
Incorporation of a loft over the restroom area for
a view of the river.
The use of 4 -foot high burnished block on the
exterior walls and burnished block on the interior
walls to provide durability and low maintenance.
The use of pine or popple 6 -inch wide paneling in
the community room area, loft, and ceilings to add
warmth to the building.
Low -maintenance concrete floors throughout.
Handicapped -accessible year-round restrooms,
accessible when the community room/warming house
area is locked.
Cross-flow ventilation using openable windows and a
ceiling -mounted exhaust fan.
A two -zone gas-fired boiler heat system to provide
cooler temperatures in the community room/warming
house area when not in use.
A central woodburning stove such as used as the
state park building at Lake Maria State Park. The
woodstove could be utilized when the skating rink
attendant Is on duty.
It is staff's opinion thnt the addition of this building to
Bridge Park will enhance the winter usage as well as summer
usage of the park. There are no current pians to remove the
older community building at this time, as it has a now roof.
It is possible that the doors and windows could be removed and
some siding added to match the decor of the now building, and
It could be loft in place as an open-air summer shelter. This
could be done without significant cost in the future.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to order the preparation of
plans and spec's from either TKDA or RCM. Both proposals
are reasonably priced and would result in a quality
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
product. TRDA's proposal will most likely result in a
lower cost than RCM and, therefore, is the best value for
the dollar.
The second alternative would be to redirect staff and the
Parks Commission to consider additional concepts.
The third alternative is to do nothing at this time.
This does not appear to be in the best interest of the
r1ty, as anyone who has used the restrooms in one of the
recent summers knows that they need to be replaced.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council authorize
preparation of plans and spec's as outlined in alternative $1.
The concept is a good one which can be turned into reality
this summer and can enhance the use of a valuable asset,
Bridge Park.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of three proposals from architectural/engineering firms;
Copy of the consultant proposal evaluation done independently
by Tom Bose; Copy of the site and building concept plans.
DUV
ADT2. KING. . ANDERSON
TKDMSMD V90IATES, INCONVOAATE
D
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS EOE AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA MIGI.100
.Iz=R
EM 11H 4XRO
January 14. 1992
Mr. John Sunola
Public Works Director
Pity of Monticello
P.O. Dox 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Re: Waning House for Municipal Ice Rink
Park Board of the City of Monticello, Minnesota
LDear Jolut:
Thank you for the opportunity to present the attached proposal for the above -referenced project.
We are pleased to he considered and look forward to working with you and the Park Board.
Sincer�
Peter M. Brozek, AW
Project Mtutager
0
Proposal to Protide
Professional Services fur:
Municipal Ice Rink Warming House
Submitted to:
The City of Monticello
January 14. 1992
TKOA
Totiz. King. Duvall. Anderson and Associates, Incorporated
Engineers. Architects, Planners
2500 American National Bank Building
St. Paul. Minnesota 55101
(612) 292.4400
D
TKDA
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
January 14, 1992
Ken Mayor
i"
and City Council Members
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Re: Proposal to Provide Architectural and Engineering Services
for a Wamung House for Municipal Ice Rink
Park Board of the City of Monticello, Mumesota
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members:
TOLTr. RING. DUVALL. ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES. INCORPORATED
T ANETSCAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
BUNT PAUL ATTNNESOTA AISI.IM
elaltv+.00
GM GItR02-0DeJ
We are pleased to present this proposal mid work scope for the construction documents for your
proposed Warming House. We are looking forward to working with the City of Monticello on
this project.
If this proposal is accepted, we shall provide a standard agreement for your signature.
Sincerely, �� �•
Duane Z(. Prew, PE Peter M. Brook, AIA
President Project Manager
0
Table of Contents
TKDA....
Page I
Key Personnel
Page I
Current Workload
Page 2
Workscope
Page 2
City Responsibilities
Page 3
Compensation
Page 3
0
11WA.... Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc. (TKDA) is a multi -
disciplined architectural and engineering firm located in St. Paul,
Minnesota. TKDA personnel have developed a specialized expertise in
the planting and design of public and recreational facilities. Our
architectural philosophy places an emphasis on designing public
buildings that convey and enhance community identities.
In addition to architects. TKDA's staff includes structural, electrical,
mechanical, civil, and environmental engineers. Having professionals
from all disciplines "in-house" allows a close working relationship
between team members and promotes efficient project completion.
Each member of our project team has experience in the planning and
-..be= ha.,...,�r4..1 rnno.rl..r
design of public facilities. Project team me....._._ have
on previous projects and have demonstrated their talents in developing
facilities which are functional as well as aesdnetically pleasing. Mr.
Brozek, as your project manager, has a strong background in light frame
and masonry construction.
TKDA is an equal opportunity employer and maintains a current
affirmative action policy which has been approved by the State of
Minnesota.
Key The following TKDA will play significant roles on the development of
Personnel your Municipal Ice Rink Warning House. They are supported by the
remainder of TKDA's architectural, mechanical, structural, and electrical
department personnel.
Peter Brozek, Registered Arch►tect
Master ojArchitecture, Columbia University, New York
Bachelor ojArrs. Moravian College. Pennsylvania
Mr. Brozek has 17 years of architectural design experience. He has been
involved with a variety of building types including vehicle maintenance
garages, municipal facilities, and telephone switch buildings. He has
experience in space planning, progrmruning design, construction
document preparation, and construction administration.
Kathryn Poore -Larson, Graduate Architect
Bachelor ojArchirecrure. University njMinnesora
Bachelor ojArrs. University of Minnesora
Kathryn Poore -Larson joined TKDA in 1987. Her work experience with
TKDA has included school, office, retail, manufacturing, public works,
municipal, anti athletic facilities. I ler project involvement includes
progrwruning, cost estimating, space planning, exterior and interior
schematic design, design development, detailing, and production.
CRY o/Mmukeno Munklpol Iry Rink Warming Ilouu „»..............._----._--- —_ Par I O
Bill Deitner, Registered Structural Engineer
Bachelor of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota
Mr. Deitner has been responsible for foundation and framing design for
commercial, industrial, collegiate, institutional and municipal buildings.
He is experienced in the design of structural steel, cast -in-place concrete,
prestressed concrete, and wood.
Tom Russell, Senior Mechanical Designer
Dunwoody institute, Certificate of HVAC Design
Mr. Russell is a senior designer in TKDA's Mechanical Engineering
Department. lie is responsible for the design of mcchanica! sy.—=ns
including HVAC, plumbing, fire protection, and process piping. Mr.
Russell is also involved in preparing specifications and inspecting
construction for these types of projects. Mr. Russell has been with
TKDA since 1975.
Current We understand that o spring construction start is anticipated. TKDA's
Workload project team numbers are available to begin work on this project upon
written notification. Our size and current workload permit us to
accommodate any reasonable project schedule requirements.
Workscope Design Development based upon a schematic design prepared by the
City of Monticello. Review with city staff, the design and proposed
materials. Revise the design to tneet the city's needs and to utilize
standard construction system.
Based upon the above, prepare Construction Documeno which will
include drawings and specifications of the construction of the
building to a distance of S-0" from the buildhtg perimeter.
Assist the city during the Bidding process, including the preparation
of addendum and participation in a pre-bid conference.
Provide two On -Site Observation visits or mora as requested by the
city.
Provide Structural Calculadon Review of pre-engineered
components.
City w Mamke®e ManklPai lea RW Waralrq Ilaose /qe 2
O
s
a
City We understand that the city will be responsible for.
Responsibilities
Obtaining soil boring for the building site.
Any soils corrections necessary to provide proper bearing capacity
(building footings shall be designed to 3000 psf).
Bringing all utilities to the building.
All site work, landscaping, and utility hook-ups.
All shop drawing review, except review of structural calculations
which TKDA will review and bill for on a hourly rate basis.
AU contract negotiations.
All processing of contractor applications for payment.
All construction observation, project meetings, change order
negotiation, and administration.
Punch list and final project close -oat.
Compensation We propose to provide architectural and engineering services for die
construction documents through bidding, as outlined in the above
workscope section, for a Ise» p suns fee of $5,250.
We propose to provide additional construction administration services, as
requested, on an hourly rate basis plus mileage ($0.275hnile).
City of Munika0o Municipal Ica Rlnk Warming House __......... ---- Pap 3 O
S
January 14, 1992
0
Mr. John Simola
Director of Public Works
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
RE: Architectural/Engineering Services Proposal
West Bridge Park -Warming House
Dear Mr. Simola:
Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. (RCM) thanks you for the opportunity to
offer professional assistance to the City of Monticello for the proposed West
Bridge Pork Warming House building.
RC,11 is a multidisciplined Architectural/Engineering firm with considerable
uu
experience with public and commercial facilities. Our staff of design
professionals can utilize our integrated in-house expertise to provide the City
riekel
carr
of Monticello and Parks Department with a quality design for the proposed
^uller
building.
1 oclatm Inc.
`e47ineers
As a full service firm. RCM has expertise in the following major disciplines
arc iws
land surveyors
encountered in building design.
equal opportunity
Architecture Structural Engineering Civil Engineering
emPbyer
Planning Mechanical Engineering Construction Administration
Surveying Electrical Engineering Water Resources
Our proposal is presented in a brief outline to facilitate your review. It
covers our perception of the tasks necessary to perforrn the project design we
have discussed. Should you core to review our proposal in greater depth, we
will be plensed to do so at your eonvcnience.
Thank you again rot your consideration. We sincerely hope that we may have
the pleasure of working with you and your staff.
Sincerely,
RIIIEKE CARROLL MULI.ER ASSOCIATES, IN?cry
4Dn.1.7E.e
Brian E McCarty,
BMc/ch
0
Enclosure
10901 rodenclodrivo
box 130
minnetonla, minnesola
55343
612.935.6901
0
v BASIC SCOPE OF SERVICES FROM ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
Professional design services will include Architectural. Structural, and limited Mechanical
and Electrical Engineering.
Final Deslcn Services
Based on the preliminary sketches prepared by the City of Monticello, the A/E will develop
the final design drawings and develop graphic drawings of the building construction
systems for the Owner to review.
a. Meet with Owner to review the specific requirements of the building project
and review the preliminary plan prepared by the City. This would include
reviewing with Owner the intended construction materials requirements and
necessary modifications to the preliminary design.
b. Prepare floor plans and framing schemes of proposed building.
C. Perform a building code analysis of the proposed Park Worming House
building.
Construction Documents Phase Services
The A/E will provide Construction Documents based on the approved preliminary design
for a single phase construction project. Architectural, Structural, Mechanical and Electrical
l design documents will be provided. Preparation of technical specifications for basic project
construction materials is included. Structural design proposal will be predicated on typical
spread footing foundations with the loads based on one-story building construction.
a. Prepare drawings depicting Architectural, Structural, Mechanical and
Electrical systems of the proposed building.
b. Prepare technical specifications of sections of the construction materials for
use in obtaining construction bids by the City of Monticello.
IlIddiny and Construction Services
a. Print and mail sets of drawings and project manuals for the purpose of
competitive bidding.
b. Administer the construction agreement including preparation of the Contract
for Construction, review shop drawings and product samples provided by the
Contractor, answer questions from the Contractor and provide interpretation
of the Contract Documents as necessary.
C. Periodically, on an appropriate schedule, visit the construction site up to
three times and determine, in general, if the work is being performed in
accordance with the Contract Documents.
d. Review the Contractor's Application for Payment for work completed for
consisting with the work actually performed.
0
Owner Resnon
The City of Monticello and Parks Department will be responsible for providing all
information regarding project requirements, constraints and special systems to the A/E.
It is our understanding that the following items are to be provided by the City of
Monticello.
a. Soil information and materials testing.
b. Coordination as to permit and zoning requirements.
C. Provide drawings and/or available information of the project site and
location and general assistance during design.
d. Be responsible for providing site work, water and sanitary sewer services.
Compensation
RCM has consistently recommended a basis of compensation which is both fair to all parties
involved and reasonable for the scope of services provided. With a clear understanding of
the scope of services necessary, RCM and the City of Monticello can agree on a lump sum
fee.
We propose that Arch itecturnl/Engineering basic professional services, as described in the
proposal, be provided at a lump sum of $5,800.00 for the Design and Construction
Documents services of the Park Warming House building.
Reimbursable expenses (travel, printing, etc.) will be charged at RCM's actual cost and are
not included in the lump sum amount.
Additional services will he performed only after authorization from the City of Monticello
C
0
Orr
Schelen
Mayeton &
Associates, Inc
!� 2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55413
612-331-8660
January 14, 1992 FAX 331.3806 Engineers
Arcnitecl-s
Planners
Surveyors
Mr. John Simola
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: West Bridge Park Warming House
OSM Proposal No. 0012.92
Dear John:
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide our proposal to provide
Architectural/Engineering services to the City of Monticello for the design of your new
Parks Building. As you are aware, OSIv1 has a full complement of Architects and Engineers
on staff who are capable of, and experienced in, providing the services required to
a successfully complete this project.
Our proposal is based on the preliminary building drawing produced by the City dated
December 17, 1991, preiiminary site plan dated July 11, 1991, and our meeting with you on
January 10, 1992. As we discussed in that meeting, it is our intent to follow the concept of
your preliminary plans, with minor modifications which will result in a more functional
facility. Bob Kilgore, OSM's Structural Department Manager, will serve as OSM's Project
Manager on this project.
The detailed scope of services proposed by OSM includes:
Kick-off meeting with the City staff to go over the building layout.
Prepare Architectural, Structural, Mechanical and Electrical construction
documents for the warming house. 'lltese documents will be based on the
following assumptions:
--- OSM documents to provide utilities only to the perimeter of the
building. Outside utilities will be by others.
--- Conventional spread footings will be utilized.
i --- Two -zoned heating of the building.
A site grading plan will be prepared by others.
1 Vwl fgmn�nin 1 mlWryn
Mr. John Simola
January 14, 1992
Page 2
► Project presentation at a City Council meeting.
► Attend a preconstruction conference.
► Two site visits during construction.
► Review of required shop drawings.
It is assumed that the City will provide OSM a soils report with foundation
recommendations.
OSM proposes to provide the above scope of services to the City of Monticello for a lump
sum fee of $8,700. We are prepared to commence work on this project as soon as
authorized.
Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to call Bob Kilgore
at 378.6394.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal to you. We are sincerely
appreciative of the excellent working relationship between OSM and the City of the
Monticello.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASS0CIATES, INC.
Robert C. Kilgore, P.E.
Project Manager
Edward J. DeLat:orest, PX—
Vice President
jah\001292
c: BAW
File 0-S--
Park and Recreation Experience
Hester Park
St. Cloud, Minnesota
OSM completed the park master plan for the City of St. Cloud's Hester Park.
Included in the project was the design of a new restroom facility, which is used as a
warming house during the winter months, a wading pool, walking paths, seating areas
and sliding hills.
Veterans Memorial Park
Richfield, Minnesota
The City of Richfield wanted to design a major community park on 106 acres located
at Portland Avenue and Crosstown Highway. Approximately one-half of the site was
a stormwater ponding facility and a designated wetland area. OSM provided the city
with a complete park master plan. Included in the design was an open. air park
shelter to be used as a picnic and resting area.
Festival Park
Chisholm, Minnesota
OSM provided consulting services for the design of a park shelter and three
pedestrian bridges over ponds in Festival Park at Ironworld.
Badger Field Park
Shorewood, Minnesota
OSM provided consulting design services for the renovation of an existing warming
house at Badger Field Park in Shorewood. The design included the addition of new
concrete floor and drainage system.
Park end ReeRaUm F.xperhnce 0
EXPERIENCE
CAPABILITIES
MEETINGS
PAYMENT REQUEST
PLANS
( CODE ANALYSIS
SPECS
SHOP ORAMNC33
INSPECTIONS
CONSULTANT EVALUATION
WEST BRIDGE PARK WARMING HOUSE PROPOSALS
January 15. 1992
RCM
Considerable In public
and commercial.
Services speculcaey listed:
ArChlleclufal, structural. 6
limited mechanical 6 elecl.
Architect Civil
Planning Water Resources
Survey Mechanical
Structural EloClrlcal
Review specific requirements,
review prelim. plan, rovlow
Intended material
requirements 6 necessary mods
to proem, design.
Review Conllactoi's
application.
Architectural, structural.
mechanical. I electrical.
Perform building code
analysts.
Yes
Review.
Periodic up to 9 times.
TKDA
Specialized expertise in
planning b design.
Broxek has strong background
In light frame 6 masonry
construction (17 yrs).
Russell with 16 yrs
at TKDA in mechanical,
Staff includes (Innouso):
ArcmtoCts, stfuClural,
olectrical, mechanical, chill,
I environmental engineers.
Review design A proposed
materials Proloct meetings
done by City.
By City.
Contact documents.
Included In plana 4 specs.
Yes
Structural calculation
review to be billed on hourly
basis: shop drawing review
by City.
Two on alto or more as
roqumod by City.
Construction obsorkrallon
by City.
OSM
Park master plans listed
for 2 parks, 1 renovation,
2 consulting on design,
1 of which lists design
of restroomlwarming house.
F0 range.
Building layout project
presentation to City Council,
attend proton.
Not addressed.
Two zoned heating of building,
contract documents.
Included in plans a specs.
Yes
Review shop drawings.
Two visite to silo.
J
PRINT 6 MAIL DRAWINGS
BIDDING
EXTRAS:
Mileage
Other
Price
Survey
CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY
0
RCM
Not included in lump sum;
at hrm's actual cost.
Not addressed.
At RCM'9 actual cosi:
not included in lump sum.
Additional services only
after authorization.
&5,800.00
Not Included in lump sum:
not addressed.
Sells information;
Coordination of permits & zoning;
Provide silo d location drawings:
General design assistance.
TKOA
Not addtessed.
Assist City in telling bids.
include preparation of
addendums 6 participate in
pre-bid conference.
@ $0.275/mlle: not Included
&5.250.00
Not Included In lump sum;
not addressed.
Soil borings:
Solis corrections:
Bring utilities to bldg:
Sit0 work. landscaping;
Utility hookups:
Shop drawing review;
Contract negotiations:
Pay ostlmatos:
Construction observation;
Project meetings;
Change orders;
Administration;
Punch list;
Project closeout.
OSM
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
&8.700.00
Not addressed.
Soils report with foundation requirements.
She grading;
Utility hookups.
INL)T BR.OGE PARK
A
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
6. Consideration of authorization of soils investigation for new
public works buildinq. (J.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On September 23, 1991, the City Council authorized TKDA to
work with a building committee to develop concept plans and
budget estimates for expansion of the public works facility.
We had expected to return to the City Council In December with
the final report. The in-depth study, however, performed by
the building committee, consisting of Councilmember Dan
Blonig en, Councilmember Brad Fyle, the Public Works Director,
and the Street Superintendent, and analysis and concept
development by TKDA took much longer than originally
anticipated. During the past few months, the building
committee has not only looked at a significant number of
concepts and alternatives but has visited several public works
facilities utilizing various types of construction.
The final report showing a three-phase public works expansion
has been approved by the building committee and is currently
undergoing cost analysis. We expect the final report to be
presented to the City Council on February 10. It has become
apparent that additional information is needed, however, about
the underlying soils at the site. Anyone familiar with the
area of the public works building knows a large gravel pit
existed on the easterly portion of the site and was filled up
over tho years with demolition materials and unwanted junk by
the p rovious owner. A certain amount of soil correction was
necessary in the area of the existing public works building
during its construction in the mid 70's. City staff is,
there fore, requesting that the Council authorize a soil
Investigation to be performed at the site to determine the
ext.ont of soil correction necessary for the proposed first
phase. This information is crucial to the development of a
proposed budget for the project and is also nocessary In
soliciting proposals for design of the building.
We have obtained two quotes for soil investigation at the
public works building. The quotoa also include some work
needed for the School Boulevard feasibility study and a single
Boll boring for the proposed Bridge Park warming house. The
lowest price received was from Braun Intertec of St. Cloud,
Mlnno solo, at a coat of $1,150 for the soil borings for the
public works buildinq along with the appropriate report. The
field work could be completed as soon as January 31. This
would give us ample time for preliminary information to be
used In preparing the budget for the final report of the
public works building.
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize City staff to have
a soil investigation performed In the area of the new
public works building by Braun Intertec at an estimated
cost of $1,150. The cost would only be higher if
unstable soil conditions were encountered below 15 feet,
which is not expected, as the maximum depth of the gravel
pit was believed not to exceed 15 feet. At the same
time, Braun Intertec would perform the soil boring for
the Bridge Park warming house at a cost of $775 if that
agenda item is approved, and perform soil borings on the
School Boulevard project to be used in development of the
feasibility study at a cost of $500. Should the Bridge
Park warming house building soil investigation not be
performed, we would have to renegotiate a price with
Braun for the other two items, as mobilization was spread
throughout the three projects.
2. The second alternative would be not to perform a soil
investigation at this time. This does not appear to be
appropriate, as the information is needed for any future
planning on this site and is vital to giving realistic
cost estimates.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the
City Council authorize a soil investigation for the proposed
public works building as outlined in alternative i1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of the proposals from the soil engineering firms.
6
BRAUN" Braun Ineerbe engineering, Inc.
1520 icrh A.anw Noah
P.O. ao. 169
N T E R T E C SrClod, Minneww S6302 0169
.
e17 253.99e0 ra.-253-7054
Engw and kiennm S—if g
rhe 6w01 and N.—I E-;-
January 23, 1992 Project BDBX-92-P018
Mr. John Simola
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 83A
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Simola:
Re: Proposal for Soil Borings and Geotechnical Report Services, Bridge Park Warming
House, Public Works Building expansion and School Boulevard construction in
Monticello, Minnesota
As requested by your telephone call of January 22, 1992, we are pleased to furnish this
proposal for soil borings and preparation of a geotechnical evaluation report for the three
referenced projects in Monticello, Minnesota.
Description of Project
You have indicated the Bridge Park Warming House will be a one-story, slab -on -grade
building with dimensions of 24 by 36 feet. The Public Works Building expansion will be a
one-story, slab -on -grade building addition with dimensions of 87 by 174 feet. The School
Boulevard project will consist of a new roadway extending into an existing farm field. The
roadway will have a length of approximately 4,300 feet.
Scope or Services
One boring has been requested for the Rridge Park Warming House project and six borings
have been requested for the proposed Public Works Building expansion to evaluate the soil
conditions. Each of the borings will be taken to a depth of 15 feet. Sampling will be
conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1586 and D 1587 procedures. Penetration resistances
(blows per foot) will be recorded.
Four power auger borings have also been requested for the School Boulevard project.
Sampling will be conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1452 procedures.
A laboratory testing program on the soil samples is currently not anticipated. Should
laboratory tests be needed to provide additional data for making engineering
recommendations, we will contact you for further authorization.
9
City of Monticello
Project BDB\-92-P018
January 23, 1992
Page 2
An engineering report will be prepared for the Bridge Park Warming House project and the
Public Works Building expansion project. These repons will furnish the following
information:
• Log of Boring sheets indicating the various soil strata encountered.
• water level observations.
• a sketch showing the approximate boring locations.
• recommended grading procedures for structural support.
• structural fill and compaction criteria.
• allowable soil bearing pressure for design of spread footings.
• estimates of potential foundation settlement.
• recommended R -value or CBR value for pavement design recommendations.
• the sampling and classification procedures used.
A factual report will also be prepared for the School Boulevard project, furnishing the
following information:
• Log of Boring sheets indicating the various soil strata encountered.
• water level observations.
• a sketch showing the approximate boring locations.
• the sampling and classification procedures used.
The scope of our services on this project is defined above. Therefore, our scope of services
will not include the following services:
• a Phase 1 environmental site assessment.
• steam cleaning of the drill rig and/or special sampling of the soils for environmental
testing services.
• screening of the soils with an organic vapor detector.
• chemical testing of the retrieved soils samples to identify any contaminated soils.
• laboratory R value or CBR testing of soil samples.
• recommended pavement design.
However, our field personnel will identify any obvious contamination within the retrieved soil
samples which is easily detectable with human senses (sight or smell). If desired, the above
services can be provided at additional cost.
Basis For Proposal
We will furnish these services on an hourly or unit cost basis as stated in our current
Schedule of Charges. We have not seen the site but, from your description, have assumed the
boring areas are accessible to a truck -mounted drill rig. We estimate that the mobilization,
demobilization and drilling will require approximately 12 hours, so the estimated total cost of
field services Is S 1,500.
D(p
City of Monticello
Project BDBX-92-P018
January 23, 1992
Page 3
We estimate the total cost of the engineering services as previously outlined at S 925
Based on our current understanding of site conditions and the assumptions stated, we project
the total cost to perform the previously discussed scope of services will be approximately
S 2,425. The actual cost rnay be more or less but will not be exceeded by more than 10
percent without additional authorization.
The estimated costs for each project are as follows:
• Bridge Park Warming House = S 775.00
• Public Works Building Expansion = S1,150.00
• School Boulevard Project = $ 500.00
General
We will begin work on this project upon receipt of your written authorization. Based on our
current schedule, we will provide you with a written report presenting the results of the scope
of services described in th is contract approximately two to three weeks following receipt of
authorization unless there are delays due to circumstances beyond our control.
You have indicated the City of Monticello will locate and stake the borings in the field,
provide surface elevations at the borings and contact Gopher State One Call to request they
make arrangements for public utilities to determine the locations of public underground
utilities. We request that you or your authorized representative notify the Braun Intenec
project manager immediately of the presence and location of any underground objects which
are not the responsibility of public utilities. Braun Intenec will take reasonable precautions to
avoid damaging underground objects. In authorizing this contract, you agree to waive any
claim against Braun Intenec and will indemnify and hold Braun Intenec harmless from any
claim of liability, injury or loss allegedly arising from our damaging of underground objects
not called to our attention prior to beginning the work. We also assume that site access has
been discussed and approved with the current property owner.
Frozen soils do not significantly impede the investigation. Snow removal, if necessary, can
be provided by the City of Monticello. We request this be performed before the field work is
started.
Costs presented in this proposal are based on the assumption the proposal will be authorized
within 60 days and the project will be completed within the proposed schedule. If the project
is not authorized within 60 days, we reserve the right to resubmit the cost estimate. If the
project cannot be completed within the proposed schedule due to circumstances beyond our
control, we reserve the right to resubmit costs for completion of the tasks remaining.
Terms of payment for services are net 30 days with Interest added to unpaid balances In
accordance with the attached General Conditions which are a pan of this contract.
9
City of Monticello
Project BDBX•92-PO18
January 23, 1992
Page 4
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposed contract to you. It is being presented
in duplicate so if it is acceptable to you, one copy can be retained for your records, and one
copy can be signed and returned to us as written authorization to proceed. We will begin the
project upon receipt of your written authorization.
If there are questions on this proposal, please call Mr. Michael McCarthy at (612) 253-9940
Sincerely, a �/
Michael P. McCarthy, P.E.
Senior Project Engi r
/1
Thomas L. Henkemeyer
Marketing Representative
Attachments:
General Conditions
Ms. Gayle Cowan
Braun Intertec - Minneapolis
mymnea:binyAt92-co1e
D
City of Monticello
Project BDBX•92-P018
January 23, 1992
Page 5
Please proceed according to the above-statod terms.
Date
Client Name
Authorized Signature
Title
0
BRAUN"
INTERTEC
General Conditions
These General Conditions are used by Braun Intense Engineering, Inc, Braun Inlertec Environmental, Inc., and
Braun Intense Pavement, Inc. As used in the following, Braun /ntertec shall refer to the contracting company.
section It RespommWtle
1.1 8— butertac will provide the
Professional d aio al S— dorftdta this
contact. Tots aM observations vi0 be
cooduc ed wing aardard tot p—edures,
what, applicable. and Brown huarac
laboratory protocols. H Clint dlfeas the
mato of taking samples or nuking
observations or tests (In numb., type.
location, depth or In my other way), CLwu
agrees to hold Banana huursc harmless front
W charts, damages, and cap— arising
out of that direction. Crim acknowledges
the fuk of variation that b Inhcmt In testing
by umplhg and that samples or oba.va•
tions may not be repiesersauve of things not
sampled, anti, fuller, that the repraotu.
tiven of aaitples or observations my
change over tkne.
1.2 Brash htrerac will provide Own v.ah
water reports containing professional
opinions and recti n re dallons regarding
conformance to established criteria.
IJ where wch poklu are available. Bream
btuarrac will reference b data and obswa•
tions to rtfaence points set u per of
surveying or conarudlon making by mhers.
B.mun huermac wW not survey, ser or check
the =scy of conmruahm making, or
make or rderence locations d pithp,
awons or footings, adds such responsi.
biluica are apacifically inducted in this
contact.
IA Except u is .pedfk.By providol for In
this eeano. Brmun hua+ue vel rem be
resporalble for directing the work of
contractors or others, or for job or age
safety, those being the sok responsibilities
of others, nor vW Brewrt Marne be
responsible fa the failure of ahem to
pedosm in accordance with the maraa
d ... crus, and Brm.n humsc servrb shall
In no way relive Men of their resporutbul•
Llb
1.5 Chani shag furnish Brawn hua.mc wgh
areata to the we. b is urdera-A by Guru
that in the nand course of the work ane
damage to the it. . MI.W. rtuy ocau.
while Braun huwYc will take mate—ble
peaswi ns to Mnunue damago, Brawn
Asrruc has not klduded the cow of
maoratton m the enimtd charges and wW
na be liable for restorable damage. Thin
corractwn of such damage u the scai—lbil-
icy of Clans At ChOU11 option, H.—
hur.uc vill mmore the site u Cwnrt
--penes.
1 6 Count alwo be mapautble for the
cooperation of W anploycrs and comacton
In observing au adlaton Way nandards
where radiographic or gamrns ay equip-
roan
quiprust or other nods devices tae employed.
1.7 Cunt shall notify Bream hsre.uc d any
knowledge a suspicion of the presence of
hazardous materials m the —it.=. If
Bruen Aunuc observes or suspecu the
preaerlce of unanticipated huardous
noterials, a may tertnkute u work without
Ihbiliry to Cinu or ethers, and a shall be
pad for services provided according to the
Schedule of Charge!.
1 B Cisru thail timely provde Bwun
tnv.ac wish all known Womutcn
regarding .itting and proposed conndW=
of the site and undertaking and with new
Wo anion which becomes available to it or
W contaaon and which differ, materWy
from Wamauon prtvi—ly prwidd.
Cant shall provide all changes in plans to
Brm.n MUrtac. Curer shall hold hamJm
Brews Aounoc, as aflJutes, and the
respective directors, officers. employees,
.genu and wbcontncas, from au claims,
danag., losses. and related eapoulw
Involving sutsm,mean structures which are
not caul to Brown hsunm aamtton a
correctly shown on the plans furnished.
1.9 Chant dull include Brawn hum uc u a
beneficiary N any hold hamilm or
udemngy .gnemew between Clievu and
as contractus. Nosh. parry shall asalgn
this Agreement without the express wvrmen
approval of the other.
1.10 Neither the Agmanw nor the
providing of services shall operate to nuke
Brew. twanc an owner, operator,
generator, Innsponer. Yeats, a.m. a a
disposal facJ'ay wahus the meaning of the
Resource r—ation Recovery Act, u
amended. a within the mesnlng of any
other law gnvemtng the handling, tneatmbtt,
aaage or dbposal of budoas naterula.
Cunt agrees to hold Rrewn hu~
harml.s from any such dam.
1,11 CureracknovldgothatcoruroNy
urd methods of irlvestlgmtm involve an
Inherent risk of contarttutton of prevbuay
unonwminatd ler, soli and rater and that
Wuanoe fa lawns Invntvutg harardous
wbmames, pollutants or cvraandrtaw or
har-loua rum ('huand-. mamrlab�
ether is rtes available a it pmhibalvdy
eaperol— If Clurit is requesting 11—
fnuvrrc to undertake work involving the risk
of cha inns conceming the presence,
dbcharge, release or step. of harwdous
matalah,.Rums agrees m hold 0—
/.&~ harrtJesa from W wit claims m the
exert that they are not in ured
section 2: Reports and Records
21 Bram Acerae wW fumidl three copies
of each mpon to Curt wkhout atldaionu!
HBe.
22 Brous Auertec vW retain principal
documerm rising m the lmico per.
forced lor five years following submission
of the mpon. AB -napless nemaksing atter
teas are coduaed and Iidd and laboratory
equiprrvtt .huh tanner be adequately
dearsed of huardoua muedlb remain the
property of Ctana They wJ1 be dlx ded
a returned to Cony at 8— hum tar
discretion, urdes! vkhin 60 dap of the
report date Cart gives written dkectlon to
more a transfer the mush la, at Curs.
.penin.
2,5 If Owadoes not Wy for Brm.n hwruc
smoke! as .greed, Chars agrees that W
repons and ahet work will be raurned to
Breen huanc upon dertud, and that
repos and adv work will not be used by
Curse for any Purpose whauceva.
2./ Repass, notes, Wculmionla and aha
document, u Insuunttma of service, remain
the property, of Brews hussar Banco
Iwrw will provide mdasertrnb of W
repost to others, or leaen of ndiance, only
if those ohm agree to be bound by the
conditions of the underlying masa for
suvkes, and these GENERAL CONDMOM
N full, and only if 8rmtw Arnrac b paid the
aMdr"radve ree let fonh b ler Nen Nadu
Schedule of Cnsrges.
2.5 Cyuns.gnes b nuke dbdosura
mquird by law to the appropriate agency.
Irl the evas than doe! IM own the .Ile,
Ctwst acknowidges that k is as duty to
Worm the airmen of the discovery of
ha—dow —dials. C7ru agrees to hold
harenlbs and indannAV 8rgwn fwrae from
all dart. mlud to dicJosuro nude by
group hunrc whkh am requtrad by law,
and from all darts misted to the Wovoung
Of fsuam rut Worm the sae owner of the
discovery ti huardnua mmerub.
section jl compensatlon
1 Cwnr well pay fm seniles as agreed
up,^ or acceding to the W.W. of
Charges if Nem t no other agmenea. Tin
p, k. pscptr.l fa the won b predicated
upon Cemry acepumnua of the conditions
and allmtiau of ruks and mporslbiWles
described N the Agreerty 1. A ataremertt of
pntab.ble com Is not a rima figwe udeu
and as such. Clore a agrees to pay invorces
is
u stated unlet Cham+ nudes Braun
hums A venting of • particular kern that is
alleged to be incorrect within IS days from
receipt of Inwice.
3.3 If Brown hwrrac is delayed by factors
beyond is control, or U Pmjea conditions
dtange, or if the standards or methods of
testing lunge, firman huaruc dull recelve
an equwble adluamem of W comperaatkn.
Unless an a qutable adhuunan is made,
Brmm Intern, may term=. this Agree-
ment; walnut lability to Cuau or others.
and it stall be paid for u work to that ume.
33 Curr agree ro pay brvoices on reedpt,
and to pay Worm on urpsid balances
beginning thirty day. after brvoim date u
the rue of 1.5% Per math, but not to
exceed the muiaum cue allowed by law.
For eMended projects, the billing rues may
ararase on each atvtvmLry of the date of
this AgrSnEn u an annual tale flat to
earned IOM.
)A in the even Cure fags to pay Braun
bumaw within 60 days following he imaice
date. Braun harts tray conalder the
default a tad breach of this Agreerrcn and
may. u W opim, teamWte W of W Quin
without labWry to Caansa other.
Section 4. ampomes
Guru agree to canpenue Braun bui nae,
at W standard hourly rates, if Broun huarsac
Is required to respond a date Ines It
necmuty, to respond to a subpoau or other
legal Protea a threat d legal process
arising an of my .ervi n rendered fa or
an behalf of Chau Cwt alarm agrees to
reanbmae Brmm buarac for W attorneys'
fm and cher reasonable ezp— incurred
In contleabn with • resporor, unless Gaunt
dernontntes that the amount of reitnburse-
rnrru da Wed b unre ble under W of
the cbcumtases.
Section 51 Co must uby of Services
Chan aclanowiedges that a a customary for
the consultant which pmhdca ernutmabn
or renscdulm rutammedatons to be
rewind to Provide o0aervat ion and related
—ko dunq conswabn or nemedial
work. if Brow huans it nee retailed to
provide continuing suvae. Cluny agrees to
hold Braun hvarue hard.. from W
d.1», damage, lossesaM eapemao,
Including atony.' fee, arising cwt of any
Wap atiom, darifleatiom, subalut ism ar
elod&si ons Provided by Ciwat a others-
Section 61 Disputes
6.1 If Braun murmur lamp • bwaut
.piw num to collect is invnwes, then all
as collect m eaporuea, tldudmg attorneys'
Ira, cod he paid by Cunt
67 O Curl Amp a I.wWa agaaha Braun
trumc which a dnratme l or as ro which s
wrdio a nenried fa 8- hsurtac, In
whole or In pan, Cunt will Pay Bnaan
Inmate as mus of deferue, including but
rmr limltd to amomeyi and expert witness
fen,
6.5 The parka agree that all dispute shall
be govancd by the bot of the Place aevkes
art radered
Section 7, Standard of Care
In performs ata mires. Braun hua•rts
will use that degm of arc and akin
ordinarily crerUxd under simBu elraurn,
aura by reputable membera of as
prdeslion practicing in the sarre locality.
M ah er .-.my b made or W ended.
Section Br linsur.nce and Walm of
Subroptlon
8.1 8— harm a wO fumah a Cenlfkate
of l—ratu a upon request. If Clara
requou incased hwu coverage,
&mat hunts will purehaae additional
iris n tobu imWe, at CharuS.peme
L. word.— wish the Srheclde of Ouages.
but Braun baunnu c dull have no labilky
beyond the limbs tad conditions of the
sdduwral Luurance.
8 7 Cluru tad Braun huerrec each hereby
wise, on their own behalves and an behalf
of thew respect Iva kuunen, W r*u Out
adh may rove agent the other by
operation of the doarkhe of subrogation
Section A Indemrllimucam
9.1 Eacep u to chum related to handout
natnbla, flmun hares agnea to hold
hamdeu and Indamty Ctueu from and
again all daims. loud. danuga. Ilabdity,
mus, and rnu+nabk mtrrheya' fm adsing
esu of the sole neglig n•• of Brmrn hueruc
or ta aubcawaaon
9 7 Ouru agree to hold harmiess and
W11-4 Bmuw hwrar. from and .g.ma
data described in Section 1.11, and all
drum, k—. damages. lability. cons, and
neamutie atioaneyi lea arubrg out of the
aaa a omiuksns of Dune W subcontraeon
and others not under direct supervision and
cawed of Brman hwru ,whether instated
or rot. To the enet necesury to it dem•
ndy and told harmica Brawn Mune
hereunder, Cuwtapreuly wait- any
umunly or .unplon froth lubtuy fes the
peronal Injury or death of Chants
effocryea that may exist urdet. and it
waives any rWu to receive conulbutlrn from
Braun Icons crewd by. the worker'
canpmution law.
93 Throughout 0. Agreement, the term
of Braun Iw.vc and Guru include theu
reapecttn dficen, anoalrees, agents,
aBJutn, and subcatuaaon.
Section lilt Rbk,llincitlon
10,1 Many rules poetially affect Braun
Intens by virtue clattering into this
Ageeenou to Provide s e,&cca on behalf of
Ctunt yes CI—t uobtain the benefit of a
fee which include a rasoruble I[—
far dealing with 8— Averts liability,
Chew agree to ] imt the liability of Braun
Marrs to Ount ab to all others for daim
.Wag out of the —ic.. The aggregate
Ibbby If 8— Aartac will nee .read
the fre paid fa the levied or 310,000,
whkhevc a greua, for negligers pnofo-
swrd am, erten or amiasioru, and Clu st
agrees to indemnify Bryn I.vuts from an
liabilities in ercevcfthat amount. If Oum
b unwilling to accept this allocation d risk,
Brmm hueruc will waive this pmvisi n
upon wrmen notice within five days of the
due of this Agreement, Provided that Curt
therein agrees to m additional payment of
10% of the total fee or 1500. whkhever b
grate, fa wch waver.
10.7 Guru agnea to notify all camaom
and others who nay perform work In
conrcaion with Brmua hueats—it. of
We Itnlutiaa of lability herein, and to
require u a condibn precedent to
Performing wort, to acceptance of like
umlukns in favord Breus bane,
10 3 Nether Bmur hatenac nee Cusco deg
be liable to the she for .pecul. Incidental.
consequent al cur Paul Inoses or daeuges.
UrcWding but not Welted to delay, lou of
use, les of pronu a revenue, m Cm of
.pad.
104 Braun Irsrenc shall nee be liable to
Cunt for losses. damages or claim url.a
nut a cannerhed wahm two years d the
date of Injury or tis date of the completion
of the services by Brmcn hu -W whicteve
u earlier. In no eaen dull 8—Amens
be table to Cuett uNess Creat las notified
Banta Amur d dot discovery of era or
ornlulah within a reasonable time of such
discovery, which anon nee weed 30 days
Section I I i Entire Agreeaneal
These Cencral CtmdWau and the accompa-
nying proposal or cadlmm Ion are tha
entire Agreerneni bemoan Braun hunYc
and nuru and a supetaedea all pia
.grcemrnis Any tract, COndhan, prior
course of dal UM, MM of performer,
usage of trade, udeaunding, purchase
ado. or "her apeertherht PuTM1.8 to
mddy. vary, .upplenan or .plain any
PrInUl n Of thJa Agreenr.N Is null and vold
and of no dfea Wdeu absetpently Placed
In wnmg and .ipd by both pan ie. In n
matt, hmwmu, chart the pruud tam ex
conditions stated m any Cunss Purchase a
von oda be cymiderad .n amendrnrm or
mddlrah
in, of Nu Agreemers,— B such
dnwneru is .ugnrd by brain pari.
OCC -Ml Ile". 1/1/91
rd
0
AMERICAN
d ENGINEERING
z�
TESTING, INC.
January 22. 1992
FF
City of Monticello
PO Box 1147
Monticello, NIN 55362
Attn: John Simola
RE: Geotechnical Exploration Proposal
Bridge Park Warming House, Public Works Building
Expansion and School Boulevard Paving
Monticello, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Simola
CONSULTANTS
• GEOTECHNICAL
• MATERIALS
American Engineering Testing, Inc. is pleased to provide you with this proposal to perform
subsurface exploration and geotechnical review services for the above -referenced projects. This
r proposal is being submitted per your verbal request on January 22, 1992. The purpose of this
letter is to define our scope of work, and to present you with an estimate of the associated fee.
Purnoce of Slndv
The purpose of this geotechnical work is to explore the subsurface conditions at the sites, and
based on our characterization of the obtained data, to prepare a geotechnical engineering reports
presenting comments and recommendations to assist you and your design team in planning and
construction of the projects.
Proiect Informntinn
The City of Monticello is currently involved in three projects where soil test borings and
geotechnical analysis is desired. These projects include the Bridge Park Warming House, Public
Works Building Expansion and the School Boulevard Paving project. We have very limited
information regarding the projects at this time. Our current understanding of the projects is as
follows:
Bridge 1'nrlt Warming Ilousc
1
We assume the Ilridge Park Warming House structure is a relatively small
structure. We understand masonry block and wood frame construction is
currently proposed. This structure is located within a park and should be
accessible with a truck -mounted drill rig. For purposes of this proposal, we
anticipate bearing wall lands of less than 5 kips per lineal foot.
2102Uni,enityMe.a•. Si. Paul, MN 55114 Phone 612.659.4001 Fit 612-659.1379 0
John Simola
January 22, 1992
Page 2
Public Works Building Expansion
2
We understand the Public Works Building expansion will be approximately
15,000 square feet. This addition is located within a relatively level area which
is currently being used as a gravel surfaced parking/storage lot area. We have
not been provided with structural details at this time. We assume maximum
bearing wall loads of less than 5 kips per lineal foot and maximum column loads
of less than 100 kips.
School Boulevard Paving
J
Approximately 4300 lineal feet of School Boulevard will be paved. We
understand this boulevard is in an area of Monticello where a transition between
granular soils and cohesive soils occurs. The purpose of these borings is to
/ document soil types at the boring locations. The report for this project will be
factual in nature and not include pavement design recommendations.
Scone or Scrviccl
field Work
We understand the field work for these three projects will be performed consecutively. Only
one mobilization to Monticello will be necessary. As discussed with you, the proposed field
work will include one boring to a depth of 20' at the Bridge Park Warming House site, three
borings to 15' and three borings to 21' at the Public Works Building Expansion site and four
auger borings to a depth of about 9' at the School Boulevard Site. This proposal is based on a
total of 125 lineal feet of standard penctmtion test boring and 36' lineal feet of auger boring.
You have indicated that the City of Monticello will do snow removal to allow access to the
boring locations with truck -mounted drill rigs. We have assumed that the City of Monticello
would also stake the boring locations in the field and provide either surface elevations at the
boring locations or benchmark elevations,
The standard penetration test borings will be sampled with a split -spoon sampler utilizing
standard penetration test methods per ASTM:D1586. Auger borings will be drilled and samples
taken by advancing the auger to the desired test depth and then pulling the auger to observe the
soils encountered at that test depth. Our services will also include arranging clearance of
underground public utilities through the Gopher State One Call System
0
John Simola
January 22, 1992
Page 3
The test borings will be sampled with a split -spoon sampler utilizing standard penetration test
methods per ASTAf:Dl586. Our services will include arranging clearance of underground
public utilities through the Gopher State One Call System.
$oil Lahoratory Testing
Our services will include mechanical laboratory testing of selected soil samples to aid in judging
engineering properties of the soils. In this proposal we have budgeted $50 for laboratory tests
on the Bridge Park site and $100 for laboratory tests on the Public Work Building Expansion
site, if conditions arc encountered which indicate the laboratory program should be expanded
for proper evaluation, we will review the recommended tests and associated cost with you prior
to proceeding.
Engineering Re op_rt
We arc proposing to provide a separate report for each of the projects. The report for School
Boulevard will be factual in nature and no engineering opinions or judgments will be presented.
The remaining two reports will be formal engineering reports. These reports will include logs
of the test borings, the laboratory test results, a review of engineering properties of the on-site
soils and our geotechnical opinions and recommendations regarding the following:
u Grading procedures to prepare the building areas for structural support, including
comments on the suitability of the on-site soils for reuse as fill
e Foundation types and depths, including allowable soil bearing capacity and estimates of
foundation settlement
o Ground floor slab support, including recommendations on the need for a vapor or
capillary water barrier
u Comments on other items which may affect final performance or constructability, such
as frost heave and drainage considerations
The scope of work defined in this proposal is intended for geostructural purposes only. This
scope is not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination at the
site. However, we will note obvious contamination encountered which can bejudgcd by human
sight or smell sensing.
C
D
John Simola
January 22, 1992
Page 4
Fees
We are proposing to perform the work defined in this proposal for a lump sum, not -to -exceed
cost of $3600. This cost assumes that all three projects will be performed consecutively and
only one mobilization to Monticello is required. The cost of mobilization, utility checks and per
diem expenses are divided equally among the three projects. A general breakdown of our costs
on a per site basis is as follows:
Project Site I Estimated Total Cost
Bridge Park Warming House $ 775.00
Public Works Building Expansion $2,050.00
School Boulevaid Paving $ 775.00
In the event the scope of our work is expanded, we have also included our current fee schedule.
Schedifle
Weather permitting, we anticipate drilling operations can begin within about five days of
receiving authorization from you to proceed. We understand this proposal will be presented to
the City Council on Monday night, January 27, 1992. If authorization is given, we will be
directed to proceed the following day. You have indicated your report for the Public Work:
Expansion project is needed about February 10, 1992. The Bridge Park Warming House report
is also needed by about that time. Weather permitting, we anticipate we can meet your schedule
for completion of the project.
Tome
Our services will be performed per the attached three-page'Service Agreement," along with the
"Subsurface Boring Supplement."
Accc t2�ncc
Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by endorsing the enclosed copy and returning
it to us. The original proposal is intended for your records.
D
John Simola
January 22, 1992
Page 5
Remnrks
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal to you and look forward to working with
you on this project. If you have any questions regarding our services, or need additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 659-1304.
Sincerely,
Steen D. Koenes, P�
Principal Engineer
SDK/jg
Attachments
PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE BY:
SIGNATURE:
COMPANY:
DATE:
C. 11
0
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC.
SERVICE AGREUNTENT
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
ION I - RESPONSFBILITIFS
Ll - The party to whom the proposalfcootract is addressed is the Client of American Engineering Testing, Inc.
(AET).
12 - Prior to AET performing work, Client will provide AET with all information that may affect the cost,
progress, safety and performance of the work. This includes, but is not limited to, information on proposed and
existing construction. all pertinent sections of contracts between Client and property owner, site safety plans or other
documents which may control or affect AET's work. If new information becomes available during AET's work,
Client will provide such information to AET in a timely manner. Also. Client will provide a representative for
timely answers to project -related questions by AET.
L? - Work by AET will not relieve other persons of their responsibility to perform work according to the contract
documents or specifications, and AEf will not be held responsible for work or omissions by Client and other
persons. AET will not be responsible for directing or supervising the work of others, unless specifically authorized
in writing.
L4 - Work by AET often includes sampling at specific locations. Inherent with such sampling is variation between
sampling locations. Client recognizes this uncertainty and the associated risk, and acknowledges that opinions
developed by AEf, based on the samples, are qualified to that extent.
J - AET is not responsible for interpretations or modifications of AET's recotnrneedations by other persons.
j,¢ • Should changed conditions be alleged, Client agrees to notify AET before evidence of change is no longer
accessible for evaluation.
ECTION I - SITE ACCF.SSL►NRRE
ZU - Client will furnish AET safe and legal site oecess.
L2 - It is understood by Client that in the normal course of the work, some damage to the site or materials may
occur. AET will take reasonable precautions to minimize such damage. Restoration of the site is the responsibility
of the Client.
E
11 - Client shall inform ALT of any known or suspected hazardous materials or unsafe conditions at the work site.
If, during the course of AET's work, such materials or conditions are discovered. AET reserves the right to take
measures to protect AET personnel and equipment or to immediately terminate services. Client shall be responsible
for payment of such additional protection costs.
12 - A ET shall only be responsible for safety of AET employees at the work site. The Client or other persons shall
be responsible for the safety of all other persons at the site.
SERVICE AGREEMENT
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 4 - SAMPI,
4.1 - Client is responsible for informing AET of any known or suspected hazardous materials prior to submittal to
AFT. All samples obtained by, or submitted to, AET remain the property of the Client during and after the work.
Any known or suspected hazardous material samples will be returned to the Client at AET's discretion.
4.2 - Non -hazardous samples will be held for 30 days and then discarded unless, within 30 days' of the report date,
the Client provides a written request that AET store or ship the samples, at the Clicm,s expense.
SECTION 5 - PROJECT RECM.
The project records prepared by AET will remain the property of AET. AET shall retain these records for a period
of three years following submission of the report, during which period the project records can be made available
to Client at AET's office at reasonable times.
SECTION 6 - STANDARD OF CARE
AET will perform services consistent with the level of caro and skill normally performed by other firms in the
profession at the time of this service and in this veographic area, under similar budgetary constraints. No other
warranty is implied or intended.
SECTION 7 - 1NrURANC -
AET carries Workci s Compensation, Property Damage and Professional Liability insurance. AET "I furnish
certificates of insurance to Client upon request.
SECTION g - DELAYS
If AET work delays are caused by Client, work of others, strikes, natural causes, weather, or other items beyond
AET's control, a reasonable time extension for perfortnanee of work shall be granted, and ALT shall receive an
equitable fee adjustment.
SECTION 9 - PAYMENT, INTFRFCT AND BREACH
2,1 - Invoices are due on receipt. Client will inform AFT of invoice questions or disagreements within 15 days
of invoice date; unless so informed, invoices are deemed correct.
2,2 - Client agrees to pay interest on unpaid invoice balances at a rate of 1.5 % per month, or the maximum allowed
by law, whichever is less, beginning 30 days after invoice data.
21 - If any invoice remains unpaid for 60 days, such non-payment shall be a material breach of this agreement.
As a result of such material breach, AET may, at its Soto option, terminate all duties to the Client or other persons,
without liability.
9,4 - Client will pay all Ah -T collection expenses and attorney fees relating to past due fees which the Client owes
under Jtta agreement.
D
SERVICE AGREEMENT
Page 3 of 3
SECTION 10 - LITIGATION REINIBURSENI[ENT
Payment of AET costs for Client lawsuits against AET which are dismissed or arc judged substantially in AET's
favor will be the Client's responsibility. Applicable costs include, but are not limited to, attorney and expert witness
&n, court costs, and AET costs.
SECTION 11- MUTUAL ❑N'DEMNMCATION
W - AET agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Client from and against liability arising out of AET's negligent
performance of the work, subject to any limitations, other indemnifications or other provisions Client sad AET have
agreed to in writing.
JU - Client agrees to hold harmless and indemnify A -ET from and against liability arising out of Client's negligent
conduct, subject to any limitations, other indemnification+ or other provisions Client and AET have agreed to.
11,). - If Client has indemnity agreement with other persons, the Client shall include AEI' as a beneficiary.
SECTION 12 - LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Client agrees to limit AET's liability to Client arising from negligent professional acts, errors or omissions, such
that the total aggregate liability of AET shall not exceed AET's project fee.
SECTION 13 - TERMINATION
After 7 days written notice, either party may elect to terminate work for justifiable reasons. In this event, the Client
shall pay for all work performed, including demobilization and reporting costs to comp!ete the file.
SECTION 14 - SEVERABILITY
Any provisions of this agreement later held to violate a law or regulation shall be deemed void, and all remaining
provisions shall continue in force. However, Client and AET will in good faith attempt to replace an involid or
unenforceable provision with one that is valid and enforceable, and which cornea as close as possible to expressing
the intent of the original provision.
SECTION 15 - ENTIRE AGREEMEMI[
This agreemem, including attached appendiw, is the entire agreement between AEI' and Client. This agreement
nullifies any previous written or oral agreements, including purchase/work orders. Any modifications to this
agreement must he in writing.
9
AINIERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC.
SUBSURFACE BORING SUPPLEMENT
TO TERIINIS AND CONDITIONS
SECTION IF - IfNDF_.RCROV%j ltfILITY AND WRIJEIVPE CLEARANCE
16.1 - It is necessary that borings, excavations and other penetrations be located such that they maintain a minimum
safe distance from underground utilities or other man-made improvements. Client shall advise AET of all utilities
that service or are located on the site, as well as any underground improvements located on the site. AET will
contact state notification centers, where available, or individual utility owners where a state notification center is
not available prior to drilling.
16„ - Public utility owners may not provide the locating service on private property. In such situations, the Client
is responsible for location of such utilities prior to drilling.
163 - The property owner may have private underground improvements which cannot be cleared through the state
notification center or public utility owners. The Client is responsible for location of these improvements.
Jyg - AET will not be responsible for any damages to 'non -located' or incorrectly located underground utilities
or other roan-nradc improvements.
SECTION 11 - CONTAMINATION
17.1 - Client acknowledges and accepts that unavoidable contamination risks may be associated with AET's
subsurface drilling, sampling and insullntion of monitoring devices. Risks include, but are not limited to, cross
contamination created by linking contaminated zones to uncontaminated zones during the drilling process:
containment and proper disposal of known or suspected hazardous materials, drill cuttings and drill fluids; and
decontamination of equipment and disposal and replacement of contaminated consumables. Client and AET agree
that the discovery of unanticipated actual or suspected hazardous materials may male it accessary for AFT to take
immediate measures to protect human health and safety, and/or the environment. Client and AET also agree that
the discovery of such materials constitutes a changed condition which may result in added costs to the Client, and
may require o renegotiation of work scope or termination of services.
j7e - Because subsurface sampling is a necessary aspect of AET's work performed on the Client's behalf, Client
agrees to hold harmims and indemnify ACT from and against liability associated with contamination.
SECTION IS - 1. ST EOUIPMQa
Equipment lost in bore holes may be required to be retrieved or properly abandoned by government agencies.
Client agrees to pay AET all costs related to retrieving and/or abandoning such equipment at AET fee schedule
ores, unless agreed otherwise.
ECTION 19 - LIMITATIONS OF SURSURFACF—EXPLORKT10N
Client recognizes that unavoidable risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify
subsurface conditions. Even a comprehensive sampling and testing program performed in accordance with a
professional standard of care ray fail to detect certain condition+, because they ate hidden. For similar reasons.
actual environmental, geologic and geotechnical conditions that AET characterizes to exist between sampling points
may differ significantly from those that actually exist. The passage of time also must be considered, and Client
recognizes that, due to natural occurrences or direct or indirect human activities at the site or distant from it, actual
conditions discovered may change. Client recognizes that nothing can be done to eliminate the risks associated with
these limitations.
2
AMERICAN
1 ENGINEERISG
TESTING. INC.
$HORT FORM FEE SCHEDULE
(Effective January I, 1992)
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ONLY
C'ONSO I. rA NIS
• C I:OTECIINICAI.
. "Ar[tRIAIS
.
1: N" I RON nI ENI AI
This fee schedule has been shortened from out full fee schedule for your convenience. We are available to perform more
specialized geotahnical testing/services on your project, as well as construction materiels or environmental services. A full
fee schedule can be submitted if requested.
N .0 riav lr 12.65 D
7107 u.I .-,.r w. w.. S6 ..✓, a1N 66a N. 21..8 I'll..9001 . r.. 11.16" 1379
..a. w.. r.o.r• u.... w,. ... o.w,n w 6.801. na.a:a.nn. ... res ua.. as
Drscrintion
Unital
I. Engineering/Technical Personnel Rates
A.
Engineering Technician I
per hour f 37.50
B.
Drill Crew Person
per hour
40.00
C.
Engineering Technician 11
per hour
45.00
D.
Drill Crew Chief
per hour
50.00
E.
Senior Engineering Technician III
per hour
53.00
F.
Engineering Assistant
per hour
60.00
G.
Engineer I. Geologist I
per hour
63.00
H.
Senior Engineering Assistant, Engineer II
per hour
73.00
I.
Senior Engineer, Geologist
per hour
83.00
1.
Principal Engineer
per hour
98.00
K.
Principal of Firm
per hour
125.00
L.
Word Processing Specialist
per hour
35.00
The
rates presented are portal to portal, with vehicle Inilena0. etpenses and equipment rentals being
additional.
Overtime for personnel categories A•F charged at above cost plus
25 R for over 8 hours per day or Saturday; and
at above cost plus 50% for Sundays or Holidays. Hazardous work charged at above cost plus 25%
II. Vehicle
Mileage (personnel time and rental extra)
A.
Personal Automobile/Truck
per resile
S 0.35
B.
314•tnn Truck/Van
per mile
0.45
C.
I•ton or 2 -ion Rig Auxiliary Truck
per mile
0.60
D.
1 -ton Truck with Drill Rig
per mita
0.65
E.
214•ton Truck with Drill Rig
per Dila
0.75
F.
Tractor/Lowboy Trailer
per mile
1.00
N .0 riav lr 12.65 D
7107 u.I .-,.r w. w.. S6 ..✓, a1N 66a N. 21..8 I'll..9001 . r.. 11.16" 1379
..a. w.. r.o.r• u.... w,. ... o.w,n w 6.801. na.a:a.nn. ... res ua.. as
Deceriotion Unit Rate
Site Exploration Equipment Rental/Services
A.
Drilling Services (Includes drill rig, carrier
and 2 -person crew. Auxiliary vehicle extra.)
1. Rotary Drill on 4WD I -ton Truck
per hour
S 121.00
2. Rotary Drill on 2WD 2'h -ton Truck
per hour
130.00
3. Rotary Drill on 4WD 21h -too Truck
per hour
136.00
4. Rotary Drill on All -Terrain Vehicle
per hour
162.00
S. Portable. Non -rotary Rig
per hour
130.00
B.
Rig Auxiliary Vehicle Rental
I. 3/4 -ton Truck
per hour
9.00
2. 1 -ton or 2 -ton Truck
per hour
15.00
IV. LAboratory Tests of Soil
A.
Moisture Content
per test
11.00
B.
Dry Density
per test
28.00
C.
Atterberg Limits (ASTM:D4318)
I. Plasticity Index
per test
49.00
2. Liquid Limit or Plastic Limit Separately
per test
30.00
D.
Sieve Analysis
per test
60.00
E.
Unconfined Compression
per test
42.00
F.
Electrical Resistivity
per test
45.00
G.
Organic Content of Soil
per test
38.00
H.
Standard Proctor, 4' (Method A)
per test
65.00
1.
Standard Proctor. 6' (Method B. C. D)
per test
76.00
1.
Modified Proctor, 4' (Method A)
per test
76.00
K.
Modified Proctor, 6' (Method B. C. D)
per test
86.00
V. Expenses
A.
Direct Project Expenses: includes out-of-town per diem,
plowirg and towing; special equipment. materials and supplics;
special travel, transportation and freight; subcontracted
services and miscellaneous costs
Cost + 0.8
B.
Equipment Replacement when Abandonment is more feasible
than recovering
Cost
C.
Equipment Recovery when required by Regulatory Agencies
or Project Specifications
Cost + 0.8
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
Consideration of orderinq plans and spec's for ballfield
liqhtinq for two or four of the City's fields. (J.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In 1987, the City completed the construction of four
ballfields near the NSP Training Center. Three of the fields
are softball fields, and one of the fields is a baseball
field. All of the fields have interchangeable bases at
locations to allow for the playing of both softball and youth
baseball. The fields were completed with the assistance of
the Monticello Softball Association and a state grant.
In 1988, a concession/restroom building was built using a
combination of contract labor and City labor. Excluding grant
funds of $27,000, the City has invested over $100,000 in the
four -field complex and concession building.
It is hard to realize that time has passed so quickly, and we
have already had five full plavina seasons on our ballfields.
The Men's Softball Association uses the facility and generates
revenue for the City in the area of $2,500 to $3,000 per year.
This revenue pays the majority of the upkeep and maintenance
for the facility. In addition to the 18 to 20 teams of men's
softball, the Monticello Baseball Association's 16 teams use
the fields whenever they are available. In addition, three
VFW teams, one and possibly two Legion teams, along with
girl's softball teams, use fields. Since the school district
only has one baseball field with 90 -foot bases, the junior and
senior high school teams play several games between April and
May on the City's baseball field. This use is prior to the
use by other teams and is not in conflict.
All of the youth ball programs havo grown significantly in tho
past five years, and there is a definite shortage of fields In
Monticello at which to play games or even practice. The
City's fields are kept in tip-top playing condition; and
because of their design, very little, if any, playing time is
lost due to wet weather. The three fields at Pinewood aro
heavily used with minimal maintenance by the school. The four
fields constructed est the Middle School are unable to be fully
used due to layout and design constraints. With the growing
demand, many of the young people in Monticello and the
surrounding areas may soon find themselves out of the program
due to the shortage of playing and practice fields.
The City of Monticello could essentially double the playing
capacity of our four -field complox by lighting the fields.
The current programs are managed totally by volunteers during
the summer. Thoso volunteers and parents don't got off work
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
until late afternoon, and the first game start is usually at
6:30 p.m. There is essentially only enough time to have one
game per night on the fields before dark. If the fields were
lighted, two games could be played each night, basically
doubling the playing capacity of the fields. Almost all
communities provide fields for baseball and softball use.
Many of those communities provide lighted fields to take
advantage of the existing facilities. It is much cheaper to
Increase the usage of a facility by installing lights than
building additional facilities and having to maintain those
facilities. Buffalo, for example, has over 900 kids playing
in their programs, and they provide four City -lighted fields
and four unlit ballfields, as well as other soccer fields.
Monticello Youth Baseball, the Legion, and the VFW currently
have about 20 teams involving over 300 youngsters with an
entry age of 11 Into the programs. Buffalo, for example,
starts youngsters in first grade. Monticello would like to
expand its program to 9 and 10 year olds rather than having to
cut back. If the City's fields were lighted, Monticello's
programa would not have to be cut back, but it is not for sure
whether there would still be enough fields to support
significant additional activity.
City staff has been working with lighting companies ever since
our original planning and construction back in 1985 and 1986.
The estimated cost for lighting two softball fields is in the
neighborhood of $65,000 to $80,000. The cost to light all
three softball fields and the baseball field could be in the
area of $140,000 to $160,000. Without defining lighting
specifications and obtaining cost proposals, we don't have
precise figures. our goal is to light all four fields. This,
along with the school's building of additional fields near the
new elementary school, would help fill the immediate need. It
doesn't mean the City may not still have to consider in the
future building some low -maintenance practico fields to help
fill the gap.
For 1992, we placed an amount of $80,000 in the budget for
lighting the first two fields of the complex. This, we feel,
would be enough money to light two softball fields. There is
some contention, however, that the baseball fiold should be
one of the first fields lighted and would allow for additional
flexibility in use of the facility. The $80,000, however, may
not be enough to light the baseball field and a softball
field. We had proposed to light two fields in 1992 and then
within a year or two later light two additional fields. It is
also possible that the lighting could be arranged under a
leasetpurchaso plan and tho system paid for over a period of
years.
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
Due to the location of the softball field complex in relation
to Interstate 94, It will be necessary to incorporate in the
design special cut-off lighting and eliminate as much glare as
possible. We will, therefore, need the assistance of OSM's
electrical engineers in preparing the specifications to be
used in the request for proposals for lighting the fields. In
addition, OSM's expertise would be needed in reviewing those
proposals. The request for proposals could be drafted in such
a way as to have cost options for lighting two fields or four
f ields .
The anticipated electrical cost to light the four fields from
May through August would be approximately $2,400. If the
fields are lit, the Monticello Softball Association and Youth
Baseball Association have agreed to pay the cost of operating
the lights. It is also possible that one or both
organizations could pay an annual amount toward the
construction cost. This annual amount is not expected to be
significant. With steel poles, the maintenance coat for the
lights is practically nothing. Bulbs can last 7 to 10 years,
and ballast and fixtures may last 20 to 30 years. We have
also requested that groups such as the VFW and Legion consider
contributing monies toward the actual const ruction.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize the City staff,
with OSM's aesis tance, to prepare and distribute a
request for proposals for lighting of two or four fields
at the City's ba llfield complex near the NSP Training
Center. It Is estimated the technical assistance from
OSM to complete the RFP would be in the area of $1,000.
It is expected that we could have proposals back for
Council review on February 24.
2. The second alternative would be to draft proposals with
OSM's technical assistance for the lighting of two fields
only.
3. The third alternative would be not to procood any further
with the possibility of lighting any fields of the
ballfleld complex.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and
Parks Superintendent that the City Council authorize City
staff to develop and distribute RFP's as outlined in
alternative 41 with the estimated cost to develop and
distribute those RFP's at $1,000. During the interim time
botwoon now and the 24th of February, City staff and the
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
softball and baseball groups can review the possibility of
obtaining additional fundinq through other organizations, and
the Council will have time to discuss with the public the
genuine need for these facilities. City staff feels confident
that the need is genuine and that the City should help fulfill
the need in this area as other communities around us are also
doing (see enclosed list).
The City of Monticello should provide ample summer
recreational opportunities for its youth, as they are
certainly our best investment in the future. The City's
recreational needs increase with its population, which by the
way has grown by 788 in the last ten years.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of city -owned fields in other communities; Lighting
information and various letters of support.
10
CITY -OWNED AND LIGHTED FIELDS
(Excluding School District Fields)
City
I of Fields
Liqhted
Fields
Population
Albertvi 1 le
1
1
1,251
Annandale
1
1
2,054
Buffalo
8
4
6,856
Corcoran
6
1
(in process
5,199
of lighting
2 add* 1)
Delano
4
2
2,709
Elk River
9
5
11,143
Med i na
2
0
3,096
Howard Lake
1
1
1,343
Loretto
5
1
404
Maple Lake
3
1
1,394
Orono
3
0
7,285
St. Francis
1
0
2,538
Watertown
6
1
2,408
Ramsey
13
2
12,408
Litchfield
5
2
6,041
Cambridge
4
2
5,094
Glencoe
7
2
4,648
V
0000
musc®o
CASE STUDY 87.1
Poway, California Community Park
Softball Fields
Two lighted softball fields were included in the planning for Poway.
California's new 28 -acro Community Park project. The primary concern of Mr.
Jim Bentz. acting director of Poway's Parks and Recreation Department, was
' spill light and glare control. It was considered of vital importance
that spill light be minimized on a mobile home park located just
100 feet from the edge of the fields, and on an adjacent older resi.
dental nelgnDornooc Not only did me city require that spill light
and glare be reduced to an absolute minimum. but that a
minimum lootcandle level be maintained on the playing field
CASE 87.1 SUMMARY
PROJECT:
Desi n Intal lion n-
s'stem for
area.
Based on these primary requirements. d was apparent to Jim
Bentz and the Poway city lathers that Musco's customized spill
and glare control sy slern was unmistakably the obvious choice 10
light the two now Softball fields. It was just a few years pnor that
Musco was successful in significantly reducing annoying spill
light emanating from the city's Lake Poway Championship soft.
ball field. The field was initially located in a secluded area. However. the area
surrounding the fieltl soon thereafter began to develop into a residential
neighborhood.
Musco was able to come in and retrofit our lighting system, even though it
wasn't Originally designed for glare control', Bentz said.
'Since it installed the Musco System. the city has yet to
receive a Complaint about The lights. So we were well aware
2 - 260 1001 raams sofloall
SOLUT.OR:
of the Musco's advanced IOthnolOgy.
uelas
SPECIFICATIONS:
A Musco spill and glare control
soons lighting system with
"We also know of Other companies that try to Contain spill
• Provide a minimum maintained
Dalenled reflectors mal endued
light' Bentz said, "bul, we felt quite strongly that MUSCO was
lo01eanale level on Ine held
spill light onto Ine field
the only one that could do the job, and are dolorminod That
• Minimize spill egnt from the
RESULTS:
we wanted to use Musco again for our now project."
helas on a mooue name oar
Puong field light levels of 37
The city of Poway was required by law to accept bids from
localca loo feet nom one edge
lootc3nales with 1 311 undoimny
other fighting Companies. but r p
g g p pro -evaluated IhOm nor 10
of ine field and an Older
resiaenual n*ighoonood on
were dclueve0 an me mheids and
24 Ioolcandles wiln 211 umlolmiiv
Oponingbids. using performance specifications astho gutoria.
the side of the held
on the ouilmld
Poway's City Council was thereby assured That other Compa•
Nw,
• Sign, reduce spin and
Soil lignl was reduced 80.05ti
nias who thought they Could compote with Musco had an op•
gorewhile mdiniammg
comoaica to the Dior generalmn
Onun1C to 00 $0.
P 1
sneGhep hgnt revels on the
oelas
Sponwilster system and eonven.
lienal types of sports lighting
'As it turned out'. Bentz repono0.'Musco was the only firm
• war4 wort previously eel Dole
louver glare was significantly
that Could meet The city's requirements. -
locations and neignis
r,au[ed, imor0ving puvaouny and
Working with previously Set pole locations and heights,
• Prnvrae an automatic tum oil
manng the oall ongnier and easier
Musco technicians designed and instilled a Sponseluster•2
for ine fignlmg systenl ID
conipry wan city guidelines
10 lollow
A pusn Duton timmo sysiem
lighting systom that resulted In an 80 to 95% reduction in spill
accessiele to city personnel was
light compared to the standard Sporlsduslof system. In ad.
Dlowaca wnn In, adpea safeguard
piton, the Mu8CO System provided 33 footcandles 0l light level
01 an auiom,d2 swden to OvwhOe
Iensu snot•
manual Sys
an the infield and 24 footcandles on the OUTI&OW, with playing
the
flop down Inc AriiPm By tthe Ip
field unilOrmity at 1.3 IO 1 On the infield and 2 10 1 On the
Dm deadline
oulllold.
- As 0 secondary requirement, the City of Poway requires
that recreational lights be turned Off OI a given time. MUBCo lachnictans
IOspondod with o push butlon timing system accessible to city personnel, with
the additional saloguara Of an automatic switch to OvorrWo the manual System
to ensure shutting down the systom by a 10 p m, Bloodline.
"Musco mot or surpasso0 all our requoomonts',Commonted Bontz.'and e'e
hard for anyone to Como in and Boll us a composing product.*
P O 80• 14 • 2107 Slowpn Road - Muscatine, Iowa 52761 • 319263 2281 • 1.800 553 9680 • In row* 1.806^921205
D
CXXX)
Musca.
Optional Features
li limtrc light nuntrul Cut.,
-rim" ptnlptrms
h .mv hnirrT 4.a VII uw Irchl rmmM IMr
4.,11\wn a.•d W14 rrcM ,maiti aVu.vu, Iw
nim+ wn„�M���w�l�4�ilwaihnwi.+w:itl
�.rh te.awrp.emw
15kv wn+uMulraP�alupn.
��mmF rr a {vv rnr— Iddl Inetl
w Mas er'^a nMlhtmmqq 4�)x
nuer,Aw Mamvium f�vb
6Av r�vmRm�� RnA em4r�
m�bd u..n�inmrrrld. rllh�
rq,mmwa.rarotYPIM I lamwww.
ew an.enwto.aslw�ra:®.mla,
Yr.rr Mma w a Mw YaYr. ra �
Remote Rallast fit enstl of Service Ptiitiprm
I:Im:lrlcnl maintimancit R-41atMham-nn{�b�tnm..rnr..11rla.0
1Mrnrrrp,nnPnfaontamir.RlM nuPP rintAui .n WR4na Rn.il Jimrtcluun ma,rnnam,
pnmMe141bPY, iu'u+.rrrycnnnlrw NbAl, IYti�rn+I Ra FMR tarn Ynd w{n,.rm•ybPt.m
�tUtiCOglulli•11'ntt programming
iaa .npPP.Fmnrnne.a„,,.Xh,r.m ketweganmkMdl•rke.ma4lPlnm.akhr
ilpttnn llrtividem two tivei lighting
`.A.rmmb, `4a.wl Wr�uFl�\m\'r4�lrna.u.,mSr4arcr\wmhmentu. U c
7Mnpmwuy m•wm1rrhtl,mWuacaaarua.nn.ierhrn:hp+x.mn,rnu.Ku.niYupr.0 aounn.inamm
l.rbk«^.MiImIrv,.uM+nmllrvnm..mhpe.. ApPlmufPichd.'.A1mi.alrP.itn o.+nnl�nnlwol nitli,a.t.wa ,ianrrfr
n,rrsn...nanmo.l lIwnaiclmtule
red:uaau3L11uu
1 m.
rh � M1vm.la.an raulma.rann w— mar aw , pwn,
AlurnllW IwarlarPv tlnw n, ' FhreeuA—M1vv whvu.mi
f nlp^, rtmn the. _rt, �•R�'l4.aa_ . i Jn J•1•tL ramm.irv.J ehrmlihm volt _ {4An
Mshmtu.t.ngt vvnnmt i Samtae pvalm4nt urM
_ II'Y . Yuk/ .nA uu v!V m �+'�^MM' N+aa p•a WR^ ori
\mwO IT :1
7”
nhr0 rvr nm+ta Amwy
.Irm �—wen am ••uYMMlII '�..
.. .I ,,•.i+veln �nlnh.nVnam � ' �
•� - .J�rt�laeh�mMmll. uau ` t
InN IRah.a Wmr. rPav ea•IAI .Iifipm�u Fele leiwp
•�W®vrAm�afM�y'�*� p,r 4 a luno) .
rvvmrrrmnwile Ynmaea waNd.af uW annd t
�IM.Y„ I�Ip Wor.q. vaflr. y� f
aMwi.PrcYRms ee.wP ..area �';= i
rrt.a w .auM a law 4a
Effective
Outdoor
Sports
Lighting!
QUaiite Professional Series" Patent Pending
The Qualite
Professional
Series...
innovations
in reflector
design
i±J
Oualito has dove!opod the totally now
the Professional Series saves you money...
Professional Series to be one of the most
fewer fixtures are required. resulting in tower up•
efficient• effective lighting systems available
front installation costs and reduced energy costs.
today ... anywherei
All components have undergone oxtcnsive and A
Exclusive Oua!ite reflector designs have
rugged wind -tunnel tests to ensure maximum
cuccc=Vly established now standards for the
J}j,
ro!iabi!,ty and stability under the most severe
direction and orchostralmn of light. The
condiuons... in all parts of the country.
Professional Series directs more tight to your
Ouatlto Professional Series... the new
playing field — not the surrounding area.
standard In sports lighting.
In addruon to its "Good Neighbor"" qualities,
Uti!izing combinations of customized NEMA
reflector designs. the Professional Series
diffuses hot center beams that are Inherent in
narrow basin spreads. This exclusive system
creates a greater variety of beam patterns that
match the ughl to the Gize and shape of a specific
13111i01:1: ficid.
Oualdo englnoors can orehol irate and shape
light patterns to achieve now revels of i:ghtmg
GmbolhnoGa and even coverage (A) --no hot
Cpots, unwanted shadows or dark areas (B)—
)Ucl the bolt, most offre!cnl, most cost-effective
lig;icing availab!o today.
The Oualito Professional Series daccts
offiCent, more oven tight to the fiord (C) by
clim!nalmg unlecuced light 1D) and uncanitol:ed
fight (E), ThiaisaCcompSZhcdwdlrouttessafup-
light, wh'.ch m!n,mizcs the risk of injury in aotial
[pato.
Retrofit —• Qrama»-a1y Imrioro thp ttghl:ng on
your alh!ouc he!ds by rotroml.ng Ouahle
Professional Series roRector assemb::cs. You
can expect an increaco in porfar mance of up
25'�—p'us bight, , more even t.ghr.
k:1
Jualite utilizes today's advanced computer
design and engineering concepts to create
outdoor sports lighting to meet your exact
requirements. Exact pole heights and locations
are fixed by our computers. Luminaire
arrangements a;e det ermined and aiming points
are established. The computer -design system
reaves no doubt that the lighting layout designed
for your installation is the finest available.
At your installation site, the crossarm or service-
basket assembly of preaimed, prowired
luminaires is easily mounted on the pole with
heavy-duty brackets. The assembled luminaires,
mounting system and pole are raised and
positioned for permanent installation. A patented
pole -cap option is available for ease of
installation.
The Oualito Professional Series lighting
system is designed and engineered for trouble-
free installation of minimal costl
t
One of the most influential factors in the
consumption of one rgy Is the type of lamp
sotocted. Tho Qualite Professional Serlea uses
the highly efficient motal halide lamp for its
natural while tight and directional qualities. High-
pressure sodium lamps aro more efficient• but
offor poor light quality and are nondiroetionat.
Lumens K.M.
Cpipt
tamp
1000•wetllamp ver wan Temp,
ounwir
I
Lira
Metal Hnlq. 102 epee• Nalulnl-while
12.00011,
Mlgh•PleSWO
sw., 120 2.100' Vullo-Red
24,000 M,
Me1cueyY3pP 50 3.000' ehm•fiiertn
2e,000M
nun"! 21 3,000' whlln
2,000 tP,
WW'dou" 24 3.000• wNt
iaoohr.
NOT; '"{angle- t !i'nnn pee ♦q I
NOTE in0a req metal neige L. P oom 05 iwrmne pgr.aq ane
u 000 inns
Computer -
Engineered
Designs...
guarantee
more cost-
effecti ve,
more
efficient
lighting
Professional
Installation...
Why
Metal Halide
Lamps?
Uniformity of light is equally as important as the T• w7, �' tT':';'�t. .
quantity and quality. tftholightonthoplaynraai9' ��`,TCm(trr,�f ��. Uniformity
not uniform, a shadow may occur on the bap and of Light
it will appear smaller. The ball may appear to
spood up In brighl Arens and stow down in �� 4
shadowed atQ04. The Bile Of thew in rotation h
to the speed must be considered: 1.0,, the Even quality weak lid. Pool bounce
baseball compared to the softball is smaller and light tight tight
spoodior.
s
0
;U: Ibli 9A LE Lti-w"f0i 9221
'Semi -Professional Softball
1. NS"
lPole^.�3OFootea'ndleinfield/20FOotdii'dle-'06tfi6id,
'86
S *rtslitir'l In
1 500 Watt Metal Halide
LIGHTING LEVELS
AA,
INITIAL
—'Total Luminaires,'24 - - "-26 - .4
,.�Total EnergiConsumPtion 38.64 KVi per hr41.86 KW per hr .%
rrMauntingHeight 60 toot 60 feet
-r,-�'InfFetc1Avei!geFb�iu:and1cs '--331
r%Vj�Inlietcl Oniformity Ratio ,, 1-16911"' 11.1141 It
v
'"'
-,Outfield Average Footcand!os 201 20.0
,,Outfield Uniformity Ratio 260.1.2.40:1'
fc. ira,, Sum aryp erPo0,a
& , 2 (1) SL4 I)SI.e.(1)SLC.'�lV. ';:.(I) W4',w bL5. (1)
-Bl (3) SL4:,(2) SL5 (3) SL4.(2) SL5,
(3) 1 SL5 (3) SL4.(2) SI -5-
C1 8101.* SL4. k,
j"TOTAa .1(I4)SL4.(8)SL5.(2)SL6 '.(14)SLt.(IO)SL5,(21SL6P,,.
S
B280'-
I MLO.'
5�
'" IMAINTAI ED.FCVALUESON20'x20-GRID
4
cl
j
.4
26,14
22 "24
11 s !4,19 is to"'" 10 -11, 111
2. 1111- iR *,10' 141" _14
.17 jr
V
2i Ali to ,17 14 1 '412ti :4 .1.sllG
C2•
X
14D "19 4 "*,.,^ AT'•
6
;4
33
.4
r 3
3U 0,41
33
A
30"!' 1Z :11� CC 02-Y I%r I I
35 41 I I .
Is, 30,i6t
4W
02
Iw
it
January 21, 1942
Monticello Softball Association
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
To: City of Monticello
The addition of lights to the city softball fields in Monticello
would greatly enhance our softball league in a number of ways.
First of all our league would be able to be much more flexible
to the needs of the teams, and the league in general. we
would possibly play later into the evening on league nigh£s.
Another option would be to start playing later and then finishing
later also. This could possibly make, the league grow and sepd
more money back to the city in usage fees.
Second, we could possibly drop down to playing just two nights
instead of three, by playing more games per night. This could
open up the fields one night for either a mixed couples league
or an over thirty five league or a womeno league. we have had
plenty interest in each of these three areas but could not get
any fields available for this to materailize. Should any of these
leagues materialize we would assume that they would also generate
more revenue for the city through usage fees, since they are
adult programs.
Third, with lights we would then be able to hold more and larger
district and state tournaments here. By holding larger
tournaments we are bringing more people into Monticello where
they would support the different businesses in town such as
restaurants, service stations, sporting goods stores, grocery
stores, hotels, campgrounds, liquor stores and bars etc. And
with lights we would then have n chance to host more state
tournaments where people come from all over the state and spend
the entire weekend here in Monticello. They are surely going
to support the town at such an event.
in conclusion, we'd just like to say that we have heard many
good comments about the softball complex throughout the league
and through the visiting teams coming to play here. we are very
proud and happy with the complex here in town and we try to
keep it in good condition. But the one missing element to making
it a state of the art complex is the addition of lights, which
could make its use so much /pore productive.
we strongly hope that you will agree that this is something
that could help recreation in Monticello. Enhancing the
programs of both the softball and baseball leagues.
We as board members of the Monticello Softball Association
would like to thank you for your consideration concerning
this matter.
Jeff Michaelis - League Director
Cory Pribyl - League President
Mark Hanyai - League Treasurer
Kevin Hoglund - League Secretary
0
( January 24, 1992
Mr. Roger Mack
Superintenant of
Parks and Streets
concerning the lighting of NSP and city fields.
In 1991 we had 20 ball teams playing .in the Monticello
Baseball Association during the summer. We have teams that
have to play their scheduled home games in the other towns
because we do not have enough fields. By lighting the city
fields we can play atleast 2 games a night on the same field
whereas now only one game.To have the fields lighted it
would satisfy our needs of increasing teams, cut players,
playing home games at other towns, having fields available
for practice, and keeping us one of the too notch baseball
groups in Minnesota. We are increasing our numbers between
15 to 20 percent per year which means we are going to have
more problems of either adding more teams or the thing we
would hate to do is only allow so many to play by having tr-y
outs because we would have no place to play games in
Monticello. We are all ready using three fields at
Pinewood, whatever fields playable at the Middle school(they
are not good at this time but use them anyway), and the city
fields only one night. We have absoiutely no place to
' practice this is -dealing only,-with'11. 12, 13, and 14, year
olds. By having lights we could play one or, wo games and;
mens -softball could play late one or two games with curfew.
like Elk .River, hasi[of 10:30, p.m. and no 'inning -starting
after that. 'time. We also have wanted to start 'a .9: and '10
year old_ Pr.ogram'but cannot do so because of the fact that
�thera is no'P1ace for' them to Play. If we do notlget
lightingor mora fields, added, the only, :way to solve our
problem would-be to have 'try, outs and only have enough teams.
'tc, be. able, to .play on the fields that we now hive.
We .also need theregulationsize field' lighted.. In
1991, we had ops legion team and three Mickey Mintle(VFW)
teams' playing on two fields with games for all teams so no
one really has Any nights for Prattice because games were
Playsij almost seven days a week at both parks. In 1992 we
have all ready added a town team which will play in 'the
North Star league and possibly one more Legion team will be
added. That would bring us up to sir teams•nd having 'two
fields(one with lights and one without) so we only be able
to provido for a limited number of players by using try
outs. only one team per catergory to orovide for both game
times and practice because we have got to the Point our
quality is going down without having practice fields
available.
:n 1991, we had 300 young men olaying summer baseball
through our association with guidelines of they must live ir,
the Monticello School District which makes them local where
they pay taxes. In 1992 if we do not have to cut players
0
�.t".,totall involvea in the summer program 41Y1 be around
�the 19 and 10 year old Program beg'i'ns dnd we get 1
the city fields another .150 clay ers, wllft be addded to our
total making A grand total of Soo Players,
Mr. Tom Moores will be representing us at your bear-
meeting if you have any questions Please contact me Roger
Pr;byl at '295-2102 or 295-5593 and leave a message. I W,
call yoc back. I hoop we can accomplish this goal so we
o not have to eliminate Players because of no f-Aelds
availab! e
Yours in Baseball,
Roger Pribyl
President of the MBA
WIF,
-P -
tT
I
January 24, 1992
Mr .Roger Mack
sunt. Pari and Street 7ept.
Monticello has really become a mecca for youth baseba__
in our Minnesota American Amatuer Baseball Association. We
held our state Pee Wee Reese and Sand', Koufax Tournaments
the last few years with the MBP. Our state board would like
to comment the MBA and City of Monticello for the nice
fields available in your communty. We are considering
Monticello for hosting the National Pee Wee Reese and Sandy
Koufax Tournaments which would bring in teams from other
states to your community for 6 days but you would reauire
lighted fields for this to hapoen. I know that in 1991 you
had 20 MBA Teams that played about 200 home games in
Monticello. That means about 3000 ballplayers from other
towns played on Monticello ball Parks for league play that
does not count coaches, family members or the 2 tournaments
the MBA sponsored. We hosted our State PWR and SK
Tournaments in Monticello which brougnt in 20 more teams for
a 6 day total of over 2500 players and fans. I am sure the
MBA program is probably the biggest drawing card to your
community bringing in over 5500 People totally from other
towns between June 1 and July 28. We as a state board are
very interested in the lighting of your city fields if this
could happen we would continue to have state and national
tournaments here bringing good revenues to your local
business community.
Thank You MN. AABC S[tp) to Br/%^/
Roger W. oribyl-Pres.
Andy Ferrenchek-v-Pres./
Jim Delaney -Trees.
Randy Block -Sec.
D
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
8. Consideration of a request to abate special assessment
penalties and interest on 82-2 Improvement Project --Ultra
Homes, Dickman Knutson. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In 1983, sewer and water, along with street improvements, were
extended to the Meadow Oak subdivision for the planned
residential development. The developers of the Meadow Oak
subdivision were property owner Jim Boyle and Dickman Knutson,
who eventually purchased portions of the property under the
name Ultra Homes. Ultra Homes is the owner of the Meadow Oak
Estates, including the yet undeveloped Outlets C and D of the
Estates plat. In addition, Ultra Homes developed the Meadow
Oak 2nd, 3rd, and 4th additions, which covers all of the
presently platted lots in what is known as the Meadow Oak
development.
Except for the individual lots that have been built upon in
the past eight years, a majority of the special assessments
have been delinquent. Two years after the original
assessments were established for the Meadow Oak Estates, Ultra
Homes requested that a portion of the assessments be reduced
on the Meadow Oak Estates lots to better enable them to market
the property. The City Council agreed to allocate $130,000 in
assessments from the Meadow Oak Estates lots to Outlets C
and D, which were not currently platted. This reduction
lowered the initial assessments on the Estates lots to
npproximately $11,000 from the original assessments, which
were nearing $15,000 per lot. Upon the allocation of $130,000
to Outlots C and D, the City obtained a first mortgage on
these two outlots for consideration of the assessments being
placed against them. The reallocated assessments for
Outlets C and D have grown to over $330,000 with interest and
penalties as of February 1992. The mortgage and special
asseoomonL agreement the City entered into with Mr. Knutson
required that the assessment payments be current as of
December 31, 1989, or the City could foreclose on these two
outlets. The City Attorney is presently in the process of
completing the foreclosure documents, as no payments have over
been made.
As we're all aware, the Meadow Oak development has not
progressed as rapidly as originally expected; and Mr. Knutson,
as owner of Ultra Homes, has also defaulted on his mortgage
through Midwest Federal Savings and Loan. Midwest Fodoral has
now boon taken over by the RTC Corporation, and they have
expressed an interest in working with Mr. Knutson in arriving
at a settlement to take care of his loan dobts. Likewise,
Mr. Knutson is also requesting consideration from the City in
reducing our special assessments against all of his property
d0
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
to a level that he could market the property in the near
future. Enclosed with the agenda is a listing of all the
outlots and individual parcels Mr. Knutson owns within the
Meadow Oak subdivision and the amount of special assessments
that are owing against each parcel. It appears that in some
cases, the special assessments alone probably exceed the value
of the property on the open market, not counting what other
mortgages might be against the property. For example, of the
remaining 15 lots Ultra Homes owns in the Meadow Oak Estates
development, each lot has approximately $22,900 in assessments
and taxes against each parcel. At this amount, even if the
City had title to each of these lots today, it is questionable
whether we would obtain this amount of money. In addition,
Outlots C and D are presently unplatted parcels with no
improvements within the property and have a total outstanding
debt of over $333,000. These two outlets could possibly be
platted into 48 residential lots, meaning that each lot has
assessments of almost $7,000 without any improvements yet
being installed. Based on past history, I would assume that
sewer, water, and street improvements would cost an additional
$7,000 to $10,000 per lot to construct. In addition, there
are 13 lots Ultra Homes owns within the Meadow Oak 4th
Addition which also do not have any improvements to the
property but have approximately $400 assessments per lot. The
assessments were originally placed against the property for
lift station unit charges.
In reviewing Mr. Knutson's request, I had the County Auditor's
office prepare a list of the penalties and interest that have
accumulated for each of his parcels. The total penalties and
interest have accumulated to $169,479 on all of the remaining
Meadow Oak development. The total amount owing as of 1992 is
$684,784. The penalties and interest amount to approximately
25% of the total outstanding debt, and this is the amount of
reduction Mr. Knutson is requesting. His request is similar
to what the City agreed to reduce the spacial assessments for
the Farm Credit property that was formerly owned by Mr. Jim
Boyle. As you may recall, the City agreed to abate the
penalties and interest on the Form Credit property provided
Farm Credit paid the balance in cash. On the Farm Credit
property, the total outstanding debt was $571,685 in special
assessments, with the penalties and interest being $80,377.
Upon abating the penalties and interest, the City accepted
$483,000 in cash to clear up all the assessment balances.
Using the same analogy, if the City was to abate the penalties
and interest for Mr. Knutson, we would receive $515,305 out of
a total special assessment debt of $684,784. In comparing
percentages, Mr. Knutson is requesting almost a 25% reduction
in the total debt, whereas our previous settlement with Farm
Credit System amounted to approximately a 15-1/2t reduction.
12
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
The primary difference in the percentages is due to the fact
that the City was able to collect some of the penalties and
interest on the Farm Credit property when portions of the
property were sold to the school and to Remmele Engineering.
In Ultra Homes' case, the penalties and Interest are larger
because no sales have occurred on the parcels in question.
If the City Council is receptive to reducing the special
assessment debt, Mr. Knutson is requesting a six-month period
of time in which to market the property and come up with the
cash payment agreed upon. Mr. Knutson is trying to establish
a bottom-line figure from the City and is also negotiating
with Midwest Federal to see what amount they would accept for
his loan obligations. Once these amounts are established,
Mr. Knutson feels that he should be able to accomplish a sale
of the entire property within four to six months.
While it certainly appears that a reduction in the assessments
may be warranted in that some of the assessments may already
exceed the value of the property, we do have to be concerned
about setting a precedent of arbitrarily reducing assessments.
In our previous agreement with Farm Credit, the City also had
concerns that some of the assessments exceeded the market
value of the property, and it was In our best interest to
arrive at a suitable arrangement. I think this is also the
case with Ultra Homes In that the outlets with the large
$333,000 assessments, and even the 15 lots within the Meadow
Oak Estates, have assessments that would be hard for us to
recapture if we had the property in our name today. How much
of a reduction should be granted is really the question. if
the Council wanted to use the Farm Credit deal as an example
and apply the some logic, we could agree to reduce the
assessments by the penalties and Interest, which would amount
to almost a 258 reduction. Another option would be to offer
the some reduction that was granted to the Farm Credit
property, which was about 15-1/28. This would amount to
approximately a $106,000 reduction instead of the penalty and
interest amount, which is $169,478. While any typo of
reduction may result in a similar request from other property
owners who have delinquent assessments, there certainly seems
to be a good case for reducing the assessments because the
market value of the property does not moot the special
assessment balances.
Again, I refer to Outlets C and D, which aro currently
unimproved and unplattod. Although the original preliminary
plan Indicated 48 lots could be developed within those two
outlets, there are only approximately 18 acros of land in
those Lwo outlots, which means if the City foreclosed on the
property and markuLud it to developers, we would have to
receive over $18,500 per acre to cover the assessments. In
13
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
addition to this per -acre cost, a developer would have to then
spend between $7,000 and $10,000 per lot for additional
street, sewer, and water improvements before he had one lot
for sale. It seems unrealistic to expect to receive this
price per acre. As a result, if the City forecloses on this
property, we certainly stand to lose a substantial amount of
money, and it may be in our best interest to offer a reduction
to Mr. Knutson if he comes up with the entire amount within
six months.
If the Council is receptive to any type of reduction in the
special assessments, any action should be contingent upon
Ultra Homes providing the City with a deed for the remaining
park land trallway system that has not been provided as part
of the Meadow Oak 4th Addition. There is one trailway system
that abuts the Briar Oakes Estate development that the City
has not received a deed for. Any action could be contingent
upon this deed being provided.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Council could agree to accept a reduction In the special
assessments against all of the land owned by Ultra Homes
equal to the penalties and interest that have accumulated
against the parcels contingent upon Ultra Homes paying
off all the remaining assessment balances by August 1.
1992, along with deeding to the City the remaining park
dedication requirements. The special assessment
penalties and Interest reduction would total $169,478.93
leaving a balance of $515,304.84.
14
Under this alternative, the Council would be offering the
c}
3amo agreement It offered Farm Credit when it accepted
total payment with the elimination of penalties and
1rJ
interest that had accumulated.
The Council could agree to accept a reduction in the
\�
special assessments of approximately 15-1/28 or $106,141
%J
provided the balance of $578,643 was received by
August 1, 1992. Again, this alternative should be
contingent upon the City receiving the remaining park
dedication deeds.
This alternative does not specifically target the
abatement of penalties and interest but is targeting a
percentage amount reduction that was similar to what was
approved for Farm Credit previously.
3.
Council could choose to not propose a reduction at this
time.
14
Council Agenda - 1/27/92
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the amount of outstanding assessments against
some of the parcels involved, it is my opinion that a
reduction in the assessment balance may be appropriate if it
would encourage Ultra Homes to pay off all the assessment
balances in full. Even with a reduction, Mr. Knutson is
requesting up to six months to come up with the money, which
may mean that it will never happen anyway. I do have concerns
over the current special assessments that are against
Ou tlots C and D, which are not even developed, totaling over
$333,000. I think it would be very difficult if the City
owned these parcels to find a developer willing to pay
anywhere near $18,000 an acre for undeveloped property. It
also seems unrealistic for Mr. Knutson to try and sell Outlots
C and D to another buyer with this amount of debt against it.
As a result, I assume that if the City is successful in its
foreclosure action against Outlets C and D, we will not be
able to recapture our entire assessment balances owing.
Ou tlots C and D are nice wooded areas, but it seems unlikely
that a developer would pay almost $7,000 per potential lot for
undeveloped property. As for the amount of reduction we
should consider, I don't think I can provide a definite
answer. Either alternative has rationale to go by, one being
an equal percentage similar to what we did for Farm Credit,
the other also is similar in that we eliminated the penalties
and interest.
If we could realistically establish the present market value
of Outlets C and D as they exist, it would be easier to make
a recommendation on the amount of reduction we should
consider. If Outlets C and D could be markotod for $9,000 an
acre unimproved, the City would still stand to lose at least
$160,000 in special assessment debt. If we fool the valuo of
Outlote C and D excood $9,000 an acre, then it may not make
sense to reduce the assessments by the total penalty and
Interest that have accumulated but by a losser amount.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of outstanding assessment balances along with a map
outlining areas affected by the assessments assossod.
15
VARIOUS LOTS WITHIN MEADOW OAR
ULTRA HOMES
AS OF FEBRUARY 1992
Delinquent
Special Assessment Installments
(1986-1991)
$413,220.09
S.A.
- Penalties
57,860.03
S.A.
- Interest
111,618.90
$582,699.02
1992 S.A.
Installment
$55,417.82
Remaining
Asmt. Balances
46,666.93
$102,084.75
TOTAL DEBT
$684,783.77
Penalty 6 Int.
Portion (24.78 of total)
(169,478.93)
NET AMOUNT 1F
PENALTY & INTEREST ABATED
$515,304.84
C
SUMMARY
ULTRA HOMES
OUTSTANDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
(86-91)
Special
Assessments
1992
Remaining
Orig. P 8 I
S.A.
S.A.
S.A.
Assessment
Assessment
Installments
Penalty
Interest
Installment
Balance
Totals
155-043-000300
$129,176.66
$18,084.72
$35,519.90
$16,868.44
514,205.02
$2113.854.74
Oullot C
155-043-000400
$72,062.09
$10,088.68
$19,815.01
$9,410.16
$7,924.33
$119,300.27
Ou11ot D
r
Meadow Onk Estates„*^
155-044-001010. Lot 1, Blk 1=.
`
$12,861.64
$1,800.63
$3,532.33
$1,677.36
$1,412.51
$21,284.47
155-044-002030, Lot 3. Blk 2
$12,861.64
$1,800.63
$3,532.33
$1,677.36
$1,412.51
$21.284.47
155-044-002040. Lot 4, Blk 2
$12.861.64
$1,800.63
$3,532.33
$1.677.36
$1.412.51
$21,284.47
155-044-003010. Lot 1, Blk 3
$12,845.04
$1,798.29
$3,532.02
$1,677.36
$1,412.51
$21,265.22
155-044-003020, Lot 2, Blk 3
$12,845.04
$1,798.29
$3,532.02
$1,677.36
$1,412.51
$21,265.22
155-044-003030. Lot 3, BIk 3
$12,861.64
$1,800.63
$3,532.33
$1.677.36
$1,412.51
$21,284.47
155-044-003040, Lot 4, Blk 3
$12.861.64
$1,800.63
$3,532.33
$1.677.36
$1,412.51
$21,284.47
155-044-003060. Lot 6, BIk 3
$12,861.64
$1,800.63
$3.532.33
$1.677.36
$1,412.51
$21,284.47
155-044-004010, Lot 1, BIk 4
$12,845.04
$1,798.29
$3,532.02
$1,677.36
$1,412.51
$21,265.22
155-044-004020. Lot 2, Elk 4
$12,861.64
$1,800.63
$3,532.33
$1,677.36
$1,412.51
$21,284.47
155-044-004030, Lot 3, Blk 4
$12.861.64
$1,800.63
$3,532.33
$1.677.36
$1,412.51
$21,284.47
155-044-004050, Lot 5,131k 4
$12,861.64
$1,800.63
$3,532.33
$1,877.36
$1,412.51
$21,284.47
155-044-004060, Lot 6. Elk 4
612.8611.84
$1,800.83
$3,632.33
$1,677.36
$1,412.51
$21,284.47
155-044-004070, Lot 7, Blk 4
$12,861.64
$1,800.63
$3,532.33
$1,677.36
$1,412.51
$21,284.47
155-044-004080, Lot 8, Blk 4
$12,861.64
$1,800.63
$3,532.33
$1,877.38
$1,412.51
$21,284.47
.6'
,1
(09:91)
155-045-002080
Lot 8, Blk 2, 2nd Addn,
y
$322.50
545.15
$39.88
$88.08
$74.11
$568.74
t _J
(88-91)
Special
Assessments 1992 Remaining
Orig. P d I S.A. S.A. S.A. Assessment Assessment
Installments PenalPenall Inletes Installment Balance Totals
Meadow Oak 3rd Addition 3 Y
155-057-001040• Lot 4, Blk 1
$3,621.36
$507.00
$630.81
$752.64
$633.81
$6,145.62
155-057-002070, Lot 7, Blk 2
$3,621.36
$507.00
$630.81
$752.64
$633.81
$6.145.62
155-057-002080, Lot 8, Blk 2
$3,621.36
$507.00
$630.81
$752.64
$633.81
56,145.62
155-057-002060. Lot 6, Blk 2
$3.621.36
$506.99
$630.80
$752.64
$633.81
$6.145.60
(88-911
Meadow Oak 41h Addition
155-059-001010, Lot 1. Blk 1 'j '
$234.20
$32.79
$40.96
548.90
$41.14
$397.99
155-059-001020, Lot 2, Blk 1
$234.20
$32.79
$40.96
$48.90
541.14
$397.99
155-059-001030, Lot 3. Blk 1
$234.20
$32.79
$40.96
$48.90
$41.14
$397.99
155-059-001040, Lot 4, Blk 1
$234.20
$32.79
$40.96
$48.90
541.14
$397.99
155-059-001050. Lot 5, Blk 1
$234.20
$32.79
$40.96
$48.90
541.14
$397.99
155-059-001060. Lot 6. Blk 1
$234.20
$32.79
$40.96
$48.90
$41.14
$397.99
155-059-001070, Lot 7, Blk 1
$234.20
$32.79
$40.96
$48.90
$41.14
$397.99
155-059-001080, Lot B. Blk 1
$234.20
$32.79
$40.96
$48.90
$41.14
$397.99
155-059-002010, Lot 1, Blk 2
$234.20
$32.79
$40.96
$48.90
541.14
$397.99
155-059-002020. Lot 2. Blk 2
$234.20
$32.79
$40.96
548.90
$41.14
$397.99
155-059-002030, Lot 3, Blk 2
$234.20
$32.79
540.98
$48.90
541.14
$397.99
155-059-002040, Lot 4, Blk 2
$234.20
$32.79
$40.96
$48.90
$41.14
$397.99
155-059-002100, Lot 10. Blk 2
$250.80
$36.96
$41.28
548.90
$41.14
5419.08
155-059-002120, Lot 12, Blk 2
$250.80
$36.96
$41.28
$48.90
$41.14
$419.08
155-059-003030, Lot 3, Blk 3
$250.80
$36.96
541.28
$48.90
$41.14
$419.08
155-059-003060, Lot 6. Blk 3
$250.80
$36.96
$41.28
$48.90
541.14
$419.08
155-059-003070, Lot 7, Blk 3
$250.80
$36.96
$41.28
$48.90
$41.14
$419.08
155-059-004010, Lot 1. Blk 4
$234.20
$32.76
$39.98
$48.90
$41.14
$396.98
u
TOTALS
$413.220.09
$57,860.03
$111,618.90
$55.417.82
546,668.93
$684,783.77
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/23/92 15:52:07
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
32573 12/31/91 ARM EQUIPMENT & SUPP
32573 12/31/91 ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPP
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAIM INVO
601 CODE TO 101.43230.5 3.535.25CR
601 FROM 101.43230.2199 3.535.25
0.00
32133 12/31/91 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 CHECK VOIDED 219.O9CR
32763 12/31/91 SHINGOBEE BUILDERS 612 REIMB/LANDSCAPE ESC 1.600.00
32764 12/31/91 OLSON/JERRY 159 TEMP BLD INSP FEES 200.00
37765 17/31/91 CELLULAR ONE $55 CIVIL DEFENSE PHONE CH 57.35
32766 12/3t/91 MANPOWER, INC. 440 TEMP CITY HALL SERVIC 115.26
32707 12/31/91 MU DEPT OF NATURAL R ,90197 PROP AGREEMENT/FIRE D 306.00
32708 12/31/91 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 136 SUPPLIES/WATER DEPT 11.65
32769 17/31/ 91 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 136 COPY MCH PAPER/C HAIL 18.30
32768 12/31/91 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 136 OFFICE SUPPLIES/C HAL 302.75
332.77
32769 12/31/91 HOGLUND COACH LINES
32770 17/31/91 MINNESOTA STATE TREA
32711 12/31/91 UNOCAL
32772 12/31/91 WRIGHT-MENNEPIN COOP
32773 12/31/ 91 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY
32773 12/31/91 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY
32773 12/31/91 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY
32773 17/31/91 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY
32713 12/31/91 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY
32773 12/31/91 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY
32773 12/31/91 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY
32774 12/31/91 OREOGEWATER TELEPHON
32774 12/31/01 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
32714 12/31/91 BRIOGF.WATER TELEPHON
37774 12/31/91 DRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
3277h 12/31/91 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37774 17/31/91 BRIDGEWATER IELEPHON
32774 12/31/91 BRIDGEWATER TELF.PHON
37774 12/31/91 RRIOGEWATER TF,LEPHON
32174 12/31/91 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37774 17/31/91 DRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
32114 12/31/91 gRIO0EWATER TELEPHON
32774 17/31/11 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
I
483 DEC BUS CONTRACT 4.488.55
282 41H QTR BLD PERMIT 4,078.13
213 OA5/FIRE DEPT 10.31
512 STREET UTILITIES 8.26
V CHECK TOTAL
•CHECK TOTAL
115 UTILITIES 772.95
115 UTILITIES 100.77
110 UTILITIES 77.02
115 UTILITIES 739.99
115 UTILITIES 73.50
115 UTILITIES 3.50
115 UTILITIES 403.37
2.253.10 'vCHECK TOTAL
24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 321.01
74 TELEPHONE CHARGES 106.7h
24 'TELEPHONE CHARGES 05.2h
24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 33.50
24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 60.59
74 TELEPHONE CHARGES 73.25
24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 20.00
24 TELEPHONE CHARGEE 13.50
24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 81.51
74 TELEPHONE CHARGES 70.00
24 TELEPHONE CHARGE% 36.70
24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 49.40
BFCFINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/23/92 15:52:07
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
32774 12/3 1/9 1 BRI OGEWATER TEL EPHON
32174 12/31/91 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
32775 12/3 1/9 1 NORTHERN STATES ROVE
37775 17/3 1/0 1 NORTHERN STATES POWE
32775 12/31/91 NORT14F.R77 STATES POWE
37775 12/31/91 NORTHERN STATES POWE
32775 12/31/91 NORTHERN STATES POWE
32775 12/31/91 NORTHERN STATES POWE
3?775 12/31/91 NORTHERN STATES POWE
32775 17/31/91 NORTHERN STATES POWE
32775 12/3 1/9 1 NORTHERN STATES POWE
32778 12/31/91 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
32776 12/31/91 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
32777 12/31/91 DY14A SYSTEMS
32770 12/31/91 FOREST CITY ROAD LAN
37779 12/31/91 MAUS FOODS
32179 12/31/91 MAUS FOODS
32779 12/31/01 MAUS FOODS
32779 12/31/91 MAUS FOODS
32779 12/31/91 MAUS FOODS
32100 12/)1/91 COMM13SIONER OF REVE
32701 17/31/01 PACE, INCORPORATED
32702 12/31/91 AMERICAN ENGINEERING
37782 17/31/91 AMERICAN ENGINEERING
32783 12/31/91 ANDERSON 6 ASSOCIATE
32184 12/31/91 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS
32784 12/31/01 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS
32705 12/31/01 RIFFS, INC.
32700 12/31/01 BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAIM I. -JI.
24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 30.37
24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 21.30
1,133.88
148 UTILITIES 2,126.51
148 UTILITIES 54.57
148 UTILITIES 3,549.96
146 UTILITIES 29.02
148 UTILITIES 17.94
148 UTILITIES 40.59
148 UTILITIES 4.13
148 UTILITIES 338.65
148 UTILITIES 568.70
0,729.97
524 DEC GARBAGE CONTRAC 7,991.57
524 SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON 521.19
8,512.16
50 SUPPLIES/SHOP 6 GAR 35.01
563 DEC LANDFILL CHARGE 5,559.30
109 SUPPLIES/SHOP 8 GAR 35.07
108 CITY I4ALL SUPPLIES 1.38
108 CLEANING SUP/ANIMAL 77.57
108 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 19.11
109 CHEMICALS/WATER DEPT 13.94
01.88
37 4TH OTR WATER SALES T 708.44
380 PROF SERVICES 100.00
379 ENG FEES/BRIAR OAKES 325.00
379 ENG FEES/CARDINAL HIL 313.50
638.50
10 SIGNS/SIREET DEPT 736.63
17 2 RADIOS/FIRE DEPT 1,613.20
17 BLD INSP RADIO REPAIRS 34.70
1,041.40
305 LATRINE RENTALS/PARKS 70.00
25 PROF SERVICES/AROPL 1.760.28
1
OCHECK TOTAL
$CHECK TOTAL
ICHF,CK TOTAL
-CHECK TOTAL
-CHECK TOTAL
-CHECK TOTAL
J
CRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/23/92 15:52:07
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
32787 12/31/91 CENTRAL MCGOWAN, INC
32707 12/31/91 CENTRAL MCGOWAII, INC
32788 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32788 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32798 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32768 17/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32188 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32788 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32788 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32788 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32788 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32788 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32788 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32788 17/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32788 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
37788 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32780 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
37788 17/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32789 12/31/91 COAST TO COAST
32709 12/31/91 COMMUNICATION AUDITO
32790 12/31/01 COPY OUPLCAT114G PROD
32791 12/31/91 EMERGENCY APPARATUS
32702 12/31/91 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE
32793 12/31/91 GENERAL RENTAL CENTE
32794 12/31/91 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIP
32795 12/31/91 GOPHER STATE ONE CAL
3279012/31(91 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
32790 12/31/91 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
37790 17/31/91 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
32799 12/)1/01 HARRV'S AUTO SUPPLY
32797 12/31/91 LARKIN, HOFFMAN,OAI.Y
32790 12/31/01 LL'KACH/JOHN
32799 12/31/91 I,UKACH/JOHN
37790 12/31/01 LUKACH/JOHN
32799 12/31/91 LUKACII/JOHN
I
01s0ursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAIM INVO
30 BAND SAM/SHOP 8 GAR 2.145.00
30 MISC SUPPLIES/SHOP 8 G 75.01
2,220.01
35 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/SNO 49.65
35 EQUIP REPAIR PAkTS/WA 1 10.85
35 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 11.62
35 SMALL TOOLS/DARKS 17.99
35 MISC SUPPLIES/PW INSP 1.19
35 SMALL TOOLS/STREETS 65.98
35 MISC SUPPLIES/MUSEUM 4.99
35 OLD REPAIR SUP/SHOP 3.84
35 MISC SUPPLIES/SHOP 8 G 33.98
35 STREET MTC MATERIALS 26.51
35 MISC REPAIRS/STREETS 2.58
35 MISC SUPPLIES/MATER OE 37.63
35 BLD REPAIR SUPAISRARY 20.37
35 WWTP RENTAL HOUSE RFPA 17.49
35 CLEANING SUP/IAB RARV 12.79
35 MISC SUPPLIES/LIBRARY 10.18
35 MISC REPAIR SUP/LIORAR 38.84
4 70.45
39 EQUIP REPAIR/LIRE OEP 102.00
41 COPY MACHINE MTC/1.18RA 50.40
480 VEHICLE REPAIRS/FIRE 455.79
510 EQUIP/FIRE DEPT 598.80
6b SUPPLIES/SHOP i GAR 2.00
337 VEHICLE REPAIRS/FIR 2,487.75
60 PROF SERVICES/WATER 20.00
78 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/ST 170.96
76 VEHICLF. RP.PAIR PART$/ 147.23
76 VEHICLE REPAIR DARTS/W 33.16
70 RISC SUPPLIES/SHOD 8 0 55.26
411.61
497 LEGAL FEES 141.30
377 MILEAGE EXPENSE 20.19
321 MILEAGE EXPENSE 0.39
377 MILEAGE EXPENSE 9.39
327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 0.39
$6.35
*CHECK TOTAL
#CHECK TOTAL
4CHECK TOTAL
SCHECK TOTAL
L
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/23/92 15:52:07
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
32799 12/31/91 M $ P TRANSPORT, INC
32800 12/31/91 MAUS/KENNETH
32801 17/31/91 MCDOWALL COMPANY
32801 12/31/91 MCDOWALL COMPANY
37801 17/31/91 MCDOWALL COMPANY
32807 12/31/91 MOBIL
32802 12/31/91 MOBIL
37807 17/31/91 MOBIL
32802 12/31/91 MOBIL
32802 12/31/91 MOBIL
32803 12/31/91 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN
32803 12/31/91 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN
32804 12/31/91 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
32804 17/31/91 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
32004 12/31/91 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
32804 17/31/91 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
32004 12/31/91 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
32804 12/31/91 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
32006 12/31/91 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
32805 12/31/91 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS
37800 12/3 1/9 1 O'Nf ILL/JEFF
32007 12/31/91 PLUMBCRY-PURCELL'S P
37800 12/31/91 SCHARBER 6 SONS. INC
32000 12/31/01 TOLTS.KING.OUVALL.AN
37810 17/31/01 7ARN. INC.
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAIM rJ0:
265 SAND SALT/SNOW ICE 3,901.80
109 MILEAGE EXPENSE 38.00
111 PREVENTIVE MTC/FIRE D 280.84
III PREVENTIVE MTC/LIORAR 144.00
111 PREVENTIVE MTC/CITY H 191.30
625.22
131 GAS/FIRE DEPT 70.57
131 GAS/BLD INSP 48.58
131 GAS/WATER DEPT 49.11
131 GAS/SEWER COLL 45.11
131 GAS/STREETS 157.92
370.39
147 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/SNO 39.50
142 MISC PARTS/STREETS 4.99
44.49
164 VEHICLE REP PARTS/WAT 388.78
164 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/WATE 5.70
144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/SNOW 6.22
144 MISC SUPPLIES/SHOP 8 GA 5.13
144 EQUIP REPAIR DARTS/STR 13.96
144 VEH REPAIR DARTS/STREE 69.81
144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/FIR 17.98
509.33
550 PROF SERV/PLAN A 20 1.161.99
161 MILEAGE EXPENSE 50.45
251 INFO CENTER IMPPROV 2.603.15
229 PARTS/SNOW ICE 4.60
017 PROF SERV/PW BLD EX 1,315.00
610 GARBAGE CONTAINERS 7.722.00
TOTAL 60.393.41
SC14ECK TOTAL
*CHECK TOTAL
*CHECK TOTAL
1
@CHECK TOTAL
J
I:KC FINAUCIAI. SYSTEM
17/24/9 1 00: 10:56
WAI:k ANT DATE VI IJIICIR
UIF PAL CIIBCK TNG
17817 01/10/9? 0US)IJESS VFEK SOr•.RJ
)2010 U1/10/92 FO•,,r,iF-FPAtJ?!N -CARLS
')XI 111 UI/10/07 111-I:mt F•/d I PRY
32020 01/10/97 10 IN'iTITUFF i)F M1mil
r;?1 OI/10/uv MA vt0 0n1INFSE: PkOO!1
J"8?7 01/111/07 MILAN 1Jf POry RI_GI$r6.1
:17873 01/1N/•!? MlflfJ '.IATF FIRE CHIF
311174 01/10/112 M•Itir[CE•1-I.O A•11-fJCY. C
I^07'. 01/10/97 MOWI]CELLO ANIMAL CO
32A•IR 01/ 10: 9? MON 1 11110.1.0 SCN IUR C l
30'27 01/10/9: NATIONAL AUTONAMILF
32020 mil IO/9'1 rJORW1E;r INvESfMCNT b
37029 0I/10/9? I'kt USE414 CLI ANING S
121211) 01/10/92 PR0rC')$Wt1Af, iEWvICE
37811 01/10/97 9UINLAN PL1/11ISHING C
37037 01/10/92 5AMlirf.30N/yfgVF
!28)3 01/10/93 :•1CNf FL/PEGGY
12014 0I/10/91 IR11-0W Nr(1.(Tlf_S
92435 01/10/92 Y.M.(',.A. OI MI rJNFAPO
GEN Ij 1l 41, ila;1'K IrJ({
Oighurs-iment Jni.rnAl
OESCRIPTI074 AMOUtJI CLAIM TNVOIf-I
607 SUOSCRJPT) ON 55.00
GI fJAMF SCI1F•1-`IJI•F/FERE, OFP 50.00
N1 LTRACY CL EAUMC, CONI 277.50
494 Mc,MOF.RSHIP OUFS/RICK W 10.00
106 1 YPE NI:I1 f k MT'- Ai3REEMT 78, 00
121 McMRP"14(P 0UF5/nFP R 210.00
1.93 MEMOFr:5111F' NOF S/FIRE 0 65.00
132 INSURAfJl:r VINU/PICK V 50.00
185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRA 500.00
139 JAN CONTRLOUTION 2.013.33
424 SUOSCRIPTT 011/Uf P REG 43.00
155 COMPUTER P AYMEN r/JA 2.401.01
173 JAN CLEAN) 11G CONIRACT 400. UN
175 JAN 4WrII (:OfJTkA.'T 28.407.50
177 OIC, JOSP !-110SCR)PIION $9.76
570 .)All F(RF I-IIALL C1.15ANING 50.0)
1914 JANUAkY AS-Sf$%JNO SAL 9A9.',O
474 TRUCK PLNfAL/AMAO LIT 250.00
724 JANUARY CCINIRACT PYMI 875.00
TOTAL 37.411.17
i
10
DRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/23/92
17:11:26
013bursement
Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
CLAIM O
GENERAL CHECKING
c
32836
01/22/92
MINNESOTA ANIMAL CON
117
ANNUAL DUES/ANIMAL CON
20.00
32037
01/22/02
BUSINESS EDUCATION S
.90116
REG FEE/KAREN/WANDA/J
297.00
32838
01/22/92
MINN POLLUTION CON7R
127
REG FEE SEMINAR/MATT T
70.00
32039
01/22/92
P C MAGA21NE
609
SUBCRIPTION/DATA PROC
29.97
32840
01/22/92
INTERNATIONAL SOCIET
91
1992 DUES/FIRE DEPT
60.00
32841
01/22/92
MN DEPART OF NATURAL
118
WATERCRAFT/SNOW/ATV 1.042.00
32942
01/22/92
MN DEPART OF NATURAL
119
WATERCRAFT REG & TITLE
39.00
32843
01/22/92
BUSINESS EDUCATION S
.90116
REG FEE/KAREN/WANDA/J
297.00
32844
01/22/92
MINN POLLUTION CONTR
127
WATER LICENSE/WATER D
768.00
32065
01/22/92
MN DEPART OF NATURAL
118
WATERCRAFT/SNOW/ATV 1.128.00
37846
01/22/92
MN DEPART OF NATURAL
116
WATERCRAFT REG & TITLE
95.00
32867
01/22/92
OLSON/JERRY
159
BLD INSPECTION FEES
30.00
32848
01/22/92
MANPOWER. INC.
440
TEMP CITY HALL SERVIC
127.20
'
32849
01/22/92
LAKELAND FORD TRUCK
013
1992 FORD TRUCK 40.342.00
321150
01/22/92
RINKE-NOONAN
.90193
REG FEF/J ONEILL
45.00
32851
01/22/92
MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
185
CLEANING SUPPLIES/ANI
361.70
32851
01/22/92
MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
185
SUPPLIES/ANIMAL CONTR
754.96
602.00
•CHECK TOTAL
37052
01/22/92
U.S. POSTMASTER
710
POSTAGE/SEWER & WATER
142.00
32952
01/22/92
U.S. POSTMASTER
210
POSTAGE/SEWER & WATER
142.61
705.75
•CHECK TOTAL
32053
01/22/92
MN DEPART OF NATURAL
110
WATERCRAFT/SNOW/ATV R
562.00
37054
01/22/97
MN DEPART OF NATURAL
116
WATERCRAFT REG & TITLE
29.00
32055
01/22/92
BRIAN SAMUELSON
.90194
CLEANING CHAMOP.R OLOIN 10.00
37050
01/27/97
U.S. POSTMASTER
710
MAIL BOK FEES/FIRE DEPT 7.75
32057
01/22/92
ORENOA THEISEN
.90200
SEWER • WATER REFUND
10.00
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/23/92 17:11:26
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
32858 01/22/92 KEVIN OSTERLING
32850 01/22/92 •JOHN MORRIS
32860 01/22/92 RIVER PARKVIEW ADTS
32861 01/22/92 OONDHUS CORP
32862 01/22/92 TIM WIT:CHEN
32063 01/23/92 A T & T INFO SYSTEMS
32864 01/73/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
32864 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37864 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
32004 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37964 01/73/97 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
32864 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
32064 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
32904 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL OA
37064 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
32884 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37804 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
32004 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37984 01/73/97 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
32004 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL SA
37804 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
32964 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL SA
37004 01/23/02 AMF.R ICAN NATIONAL BA
32864 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL DA
32004 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
32804 01/23/92 AMERICAN RATIONAL BA
32884 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
32604 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37004 01/23/92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37005 01/73/97 ARA CORY REFRESHMENT
32000 01/23/92 CELLULAR ONE
32087 01/23/92 FIRST TRUST CENTER
32001 01/23/92 FIRST TRUST CENTER
32807 01/73/97 FIRST TRUST CENTER
32087 01/23/02 FIRST TRUST CENTER
37007 01/73/92 FIRST )RUST CENTER
33007 01/23/92 FIRST TRUST CFNTER
32807 01/73/97 FIRST TRUST CENTER
32067 01/23/92 FIR3r TRUST CENTER
37607 01/73/02 FIRST 1RU0T CFNTER
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAIM INVO
.00199 SEWER & WATER REFUND 10.00
.90198 SEWER & WATER REFUND 2.67
.90197 SEWER & WATER REFUND 20.79
.90198 SEWER & WATER REFUND 20.50
.90195 SEVER & WATER REFUND 2.89
15 FIRE PHONE CHARGES 15.90
7 TIF (KMART) BD INT 17.770. 00
7 1989-1 GO BO TNTERE 7.391. 25
7 1909-1 GO BD PRINC 70.000.00
1 1990 B GO 00 INTER 21,480.00
7 1990 B GO BD PRINC 55,000.00
7 TIF (NAWCO) BD INTI 5.405.00
7 TIF (NAWCO) 00 PRI 15.000.00
7 TIF (CONSTR 5)8D I 10,496.25
7 TIF (CONSTR 5)8D P 30.000.00
7 TIF (VEIT)BD INTER 12,902.50
7 TIF (VEIT)BO PRINC 10,000.00
7 1988-1 GO 80 INTER 11,810.00
7 1988-1 GO 00 PRINC 20,000.00
7 INTERCEPT SEWER 90 29,510.00
7 INTERCEPT SEWER BD 55,000.00
7 WATER SYS GO BO IN 34,410.25
7 WATER SYS GO 80 PR 50,000.00
1 1989-1 GO 0D INTER 53.287.50
7 1980-1 GO BD PRINC 90.000.00
1 TIF (ELDERLY) BD I 11.330.00
7 TIF (ELDERLY) BD PR 5.000.00
7 1990C (SANOB) GO IN 9.150.00
7 TIF (REM/TAP) GO I 13,303.70
587.402.53
408 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 60.00
555 CIVIL DEFENSE PHONE CH 40.54
50 1994-1 GO PO PRINC 20.000.00
58 1984-1 GO OD INTEOF, 3,500.00
51 1975-ISOW GO 8D INT 2.550.00
59 1915-156W GO 00 PR 15,000.00
50 1975-1S&W GO BD FEES 374.63
59 TIF (FSI) 00 PRINC 20,000.00
90 TIF (FSI) SO INTERE 2,911.?5
51 FIRE NAIL GO OD PR 50,000.00
51 FIRE HALL GO 60 IN 70,775.00
•CHECK TOTAL
I
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/23/92 17:11:26
Disbursement Journal
WARRANT DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
CLAIM
j0
GENERAL CHECKING
701080.88
*CHECK TOTAL
32868
01/23/92
GLOBAL EUIPMENT COMP
67
SHELVES/DEP REGISTRAR 231.26
32669
01/23/92
GOVERN F114ANCE OFFIC
71
MEMBERSHIP DUES/RICK W 95.00
32070
01/23/92
GOVERNMENT TRAINING
72
SEMINAR REG/SHIRLEY A 75.00
32871
01/23/92
HERMES/JERRY
81
LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50
32072
01/23/92
HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC
05
GAS/FIRE DEPT 70.67
37073
01/23/92
J M OIL COMPANY
95
GAS/FIRE DEPT 17.60
32874
01/23/92
MILBANK INSURANCE CO
116
INS PREM/WWTP RENTAL 410.00
32875
01/23/92
MINN RECREATION & PA
610
MEMBERSHIP DUES/PARKS 100.00
32076
01/23/92
MINNESOTA SAFETY COU
400
MEMBERSHIP OUES/JOHN S 95.00
32077
01/23/92
MN GOV FINANCE OFICE
122
MEMBERSHIP DUES/RICK W 15.00
32070
01/23/92
MN 30/400 USER GROUP
300
MEMBERSHIP DUES/COMPUT 80.00
32879
01/23/92
MONTICELLO CHAMBER 0
133
MEMBERSHIP DUES 300.00
32800
01/23/92
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
BUDGET INFO 90.54
32800
01/23/92
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 798.52
32880
01/23/92
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
*FYI LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 60.30
37080
01/23/92
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
•FV• PUBLIC HEARING NO 17.30
32000
01/23/92
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
•FY+ PW INFO/HELP WAN 105.60
32800
01/23/02
MONTICELLO TIMES
1L0
*FYI BLD INSPEC INFO t70.00
32800
01/23/92
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
•FV' HEARTLAND EKPRES 139.20
32000
01/23/92
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
IFY• REFUSE I14FO 43.50
1,375.02
*CHECK TOTAL
32881
01/73/92
NORWEST BANK MINNESO
154
1901-1 GO BD PRINC 50,000.00
32801
01/23/02
NORWEST BANK MINNESO
104
1901-1 GO 00 INTERE 3.000.00
'
32001
01/23/92
14ORWEST BANK MINNE£O
164
1001-1 GO BD AGENT FE 200.00
32801
01/23/92
NORWFST DANK MINNESO
154
1977-1 GO 80 PRNC 270,000.00
32001
01/23/92
NORWEST BANK MINNESO
104
1077-1 GO 50 INTER 24,087.90
32001
01/23/02
NORWF,ST BANK MINNESO
154
1971-1 GO BD AGENT FF. 280.00
32001
01/23/92
NORWEST BANK MINNE $0
154
LIBRARY GO BO PRIM 40.000.00
72001
01/23/92
NORWEST BANK MINNESO
154
LIBRARY GO BO INTER 1,650.00
37001
01/23/92
NORWEST BANK MINNESO
154
LIBRARY GO BO AGENT F 200.00
32401
01/23/92
NORWEST BANK MINNESO
174
1060-1 GO 80 PRINC 20,000.00
32601
01/23/97
NORWEST BANK MTNNEEO
194
1900-1 GO 0D INTEREST 075.00
32081
01/2)/92
NORWE4T DANK MINNF,SO
164
1000-1 GO 0D AGENT FE 200.00
12801
01/73/97
NORWEST BANK MINNEEO
154
1978 SW GO 80 PRI 110.000.00
32001
01/23/92
NORWEST BANK MINNESO
154
1970 SW GO 80 INTER 0,300.00
P,
�J
CFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/23/92 17:11:26
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
32981 01/23/92 NORWEST BANK MINNESO
32692 01/23/92 O.E.I. BUSINESS FORM
32883 01/23/92 OLSEN CHAIN A CABLE
32883 01/23/92 OLSEN CHAIN A CABLE
32886 01/23/92 RELIABLE CORPORATION
32085 01/23/92 ROAD MACHINERY A SUP
37886 01/73/92 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP.
32887 01/23/92 SHUMAN/CATHV
37088 01/23/92 THE STAMP PAD COMPAN
32808 01/23/92 THE STAMP PAD COMPAN
37808 01/73/92 THE STAMP PAD COMPAN
37080 01/23/02 TRUCK UTILITIES
32890 01/23/92 WILBRECHT ELECTRONIC
37801 01/23/92 WRIGHT COUNTY AUOITO
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAIM INV,
154 1976 SW GO BD AGENT F 700.00
521.811.30
159 COPY MACHINE PAPER 217.95
619 DRILL/WATER DEPT 215.12
619 *FY• CHAIN/CARDINAL H 152.00
367.12
179 COMPUTER RIBBONS & OI 105.63
182 PARTS/STREETS 123.95
186 MTC AGREEMENT/ STREETS 107.75
191 MILEAGE EXPENSE 11.50
615 STAMP/RECYCLING PROG 11.75
615 STAMP/WATER DEPT 5.88
015 STAMP/SEWER COLL 5.67
23 .50
476 FUEL CLEANUP/XMAS LITE 25.00
614 COMPUTER CARTRIDGES 190.00
219 JAN SHERIFFS C ONTR 15.862.16
TOTAL 1.392.906.09
(CHECK TOTAI
-CHECK tOTA1
'CHECK TOTAI
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/23/92
15:53:21
Di3bursement .Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
LIQUOR FUND
16073
12/31/91
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I
800019
BEER PURCHASE
12,133.50
18073
12/31/91
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1800019
MISC ITEMS FOR RESALE
55.20
12,188.70
16074
12/31/91
MINN DEPARTMENT OF R
000006
DEC SALES TAX
12,985.66
16075
12/31/91
XRWC RADIO STATION
800024
ADVERTISING
96.00
16076
12/31/91
DAVMOR HAMCO
800085
CASH REGISTER SUPPLIES
79.16
16077
12/31/91
MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
800031
OFFICE SUPPLIES
32.24
16078
12/31/91
MAUS FOODS
800027
SUPPLIES
2.97
16079
12/31/91
MIDWEST GAS COMPANY
800028
UTILITIES
227.60
16080
12/31/91
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
900002
TELEPHONE CI/ARGES
119.61
16081
12/31/91
MONTICELLO TIMES
800032
ADVERTISING
385.68
16082
12/31/91
WRIGHT WAY SHOPPER
800106
ADVERTISING
29.95
16083
12/31/91
LIEFERT TRUCKING
000025
FREIGHT CHARGES
718.49
10084
12/31/91
PAUSTIS 8 SONS
600103
WINE PURCHASE
256.85
(� 16085
12/31/01
ELLESTAD/CRAIG
800127
COMPUTER SET UP SER
1,090.00
LIQUOR FUND
TOTAL
28,212.91
CLAIM INVO!
-CHECK TOTAL
CRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/23/92 17:12:31
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAIM I.�
*CHECK TOTAI
•C:HECK TOTAI
$CHECK TOTAI
P
*CHECK TOTAI*J
-CHECK TOTAI
LIQUOR FUND
16086
01/23/92
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
600022
WINE PURCHASE
371.65
16067
01/23/92
TOTAL REGISTER SYSTE
600112
CAS14 REGISTER TAPE
60.99
16088
01/23/92
U S WEST COMMUNICATI
800093
ADVERTISING
23.30
16089
01/23/92
PHILLIPS 8 SONS CO/ E
600037
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1.600.95
16089
01/23/92
PHILLIPS A SONS CO/E
800037
WINE PURCHASE
1.984.75
16080
01/23/92
PHILLIPS A SONS CO/ E
800037
MISC ITEMS FOR RESALE 19.05
3.804.65
16090
01/23/92
M14 DEPT OF PUSLIC SA
900125
APPL FOR RETAILERS
CAR 12.00
16001
01/23/92
QUALITY WINE A SPIR I
900040
LIQUOR PURCHASE
2.026.89
16091
01/23/92
QUALITY WINE A SPIR I
800040
WINE PURCHASE
1.142.35
3 .169.24
16092
01/23/92
PHILLIPS 8 SONS CO/ E
900037
LIQUOR PURCHASE
7.604.14
16093
01/23/92
JOHNSON BROS WHOLES A
800022
WINE PURCHASE
2.217.39
16093
01/23/92
JOHNSON BROS WHOLES A
900022
LIQUOR PURCHASE
2.396.33
4.613.72
10004
01/23/92
GRIGGS. COOPER A COM
800018
WINE PURCHASE
3.450.83
1G004
01/23/92
GRIGGS. COOPER 6 COM
800018
MISC ITEMS FOR RESALE 159.19
3 .608.02
16005
01/23/02
GTE DIRECTORIES SERV
900126
1992 BIG LAKE DIRECTOR 34.00
16096
01/23/92
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
MISC ITEMS FOR RESALE 284.33
16090
01/23/92
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
WINE PURCHASE
409.80
914.13
16007
01/23/92
GRIGGS. COOPER 8 COM
000010
LIQUOR PURCHASE
2.503.02
LIQUOR FUND
TOTAL
26 .510.65
*CHECK TOTAI
•C:HECK TOTAI
$CHECK TOTAI
P
*CHECK TOTAI*J
-CHECK TOTAI