City Council Agenda Packet 12-13-1993AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, Deoember 13, 1998 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held November 22, 1993, and
the special meeting held December 6, 1993.
3. Citizens commentstpetitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Public hearing --Adoption of 1994 budget and consideration of a resolution
setting the 1994 tax levy.
6. Consideration of a request for an open burning permit - Monticello Country
Club.
1
6. Consideration of salary schedule adjustments for 1994.
7. Consideration of proposal for facilities plan for the Monticello Wastewater ✓
Treatment Plant.
8. Consideration of city membership and endorsement of the Economic
Development Partnership of Wright County, Inc.
9. Consideration of accepting responsibility for administering the rules
developed pursuant to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.
10. Consideration of change order pl and ordering of an assessment hearing for
City of Monticello Project 93-13C (Monticello Ford Storm Sower).
It. Review of preliminary concepts for establishing a storm sewer funding
program and consideration of authorizing City staff to implement program.
12. Consideration of fund transfers for 1993. Sck gY 1
13. Considerution of bills for the month of December.
14. Adjournment.
f"
L
MINUTES
REGULAR >VIEETING - MONTICELID CrrY COUNCIL
Monday, November 28, 1988 - 7 pm -
Members Present: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty
Olsen
Members Absent: None
1. Call to order.
2. Consideration of $ovroval of minutes of the regular meeting held
November 8. 1998.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Clint
Herbst to approve the meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Citizens commentstnetitions. reauests. and comnlaints.
Steve Birkeland was present to ask for a clarification on one of the
conditions associated with the conditional use permit. Birkeland noted that
j the conditional use permit required a screening fence that is 8 ft high. A
e fence of this height must meet stringent structural requirements.
Birkeland indicated that the materials that will be stored on site will not
exceed a height of 6 B; therefore, he will be able to meet the intent of the
conditional use permit through installation of a less expensive but equally
effective 8 -ft high screening fence.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad
Fyle to allow installation of a screening fence at a height less than 8 B with
the understanding that materials stored on site will not be stacked or
placed at an elevation that would place the materials in view from the
adjacent roadways. Motion represents a clarification of the previously -
awarded conditional use permit and does not represent an amendment
thereof. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Qublic hepring on the adontion of an assessment roll for the School
Boulevard improvement proied
Mayor Maus opened the public hearing.
Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reviewed the assessment roll. In his review
he noted that the total project cost for the street construction storm sewer
improvements came to $287,679. After adding to this cost all indirect costs
for engineering, inspection, and bonding fees, etc., the total project cost
Page 1
Council Minutes - 11/22/93
came to $355,108. The City's share for oversizing expenses, which is 20% of
the cost, amounts to $55,076. The balance of the total project cost of
$300,000 is split evenly between the Cardinal Hills development and the
School District.
There being no comment from the public, the public hearing was closed.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to adopt the resolution and assessment roll as proposed.
Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 9343.
Review the third ouarter liuuor store financial statements.
Rick Wolfsteller reported that in terms of gross profit, the major sales
categories appear in line with our expectations, and the overall gross profit
percentage for all sales is at 24.47%. Due to a 3 1/2% drop in beer sales,
the resulting net operating income is lower than last year by about $5,600.
The entire drop in operating income can be attributed to lost beer sales,
which has been experienced industry -wide due to the cooler and wetter -
than -normal spring and summer. The overall operating income for the first
9 months is $114,814 versus $120,399 last year.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to accept the financial statements as submitted. Motion
carried unanimously.
Considgration of Gnat payment on Hart Bouelyard trunk storm sewer
extension. Proiect 934)6C.
John Simola reported that L.aTour Construction of Maple Lake has
completed the work on the Hart Boulevard trunk storm sewer extension,
including the stub street coming out to County Road 75 for the new Hart
Boulevard entrance. The original contract amount for the project was
$134,881. Total construction cost came to $137,252. The $2,371 cost
overrun resulted from the unexpected need to remove construction debris
from an excavation area.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to approve final payment to Latour Construction for City of
Monticello Project 93.060 in the amount of $34,349.50. Motion carried
unanimously.
Page 2
Council Minutes - 11/22/93
Consideration of nurchasine optical scan election eouipment.
Rick Woifsteller reported that for the past 10 years, the City has been using
an electronic punch card voting system for elections. The City was one of
the first communities in the county to automate the election process by
going to the punch card system. But now it appears that our equipment is
becoming outdated, and the City should consider switching to an optical
scan paper ballot type system that is widely used in the state of Minnesota.
Wolfsteller noted that a number of communities have also automated their
election system by going with a new method of reading ballots. The cities of
Otsego, Rockford, Delano, and Buffalo are current users of the optical scan
system supplied by Business Records Corporation.
Wolfsteller indicated that the punch card system has worked fairly well for
the past 10 years; but due to the fact that very few locations are currently
using the punch card system, support of the system is becoming very
limited. Therefore, we really don't have much choice if we want to remain
with the majority of communities.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to authorize the purchase of a used OPTECH11I-P optical
scan system for $4,500, a backup PROM pack for $315, and a demonstration
PROM pack, with said purchase to be delayed until early 1994 to coincide
with the budget schedule. Motion carried unanimously.
8. Considerption to revie%y Grealter Monticello Enterprise Fpgd (GMEF) Loan}
No. 007. Lawrepce T, Demeulgs. dba Standard Iron and Wireworks. Inc.. for
compliance with GMEF Guidelines.
Economic Development Director, 011ie Koropchak, reported that the EDA
requests the City Council to review GMEF loan No. 007 for compliance
with GMEF Guidelines. Koropchak noted that GMEF Guidelines state that
the EUA shall have authority to approve or deny loans; however, within 21
days of EDA approval, the City Council may reverse a decision of the EDA
to approve a loan if it is determined by Council that such loan was issued in
violation of tho GMEF Guidelines.
Koropchak reported that an equipment loan was approved by the EDA for
$78,000 at a 5% fixed rate of interest amortized over 7 years. The loan fee
was set at $1,125, and the GMEF legal fees are the responsibility of the
borrower. The GMEF State Economic Recovery Grant and Central
Minnesota Initiative Fund loans will sham a first purchased money on the
horizontal machine center. Koropchak went on to note that the GMEF loan
fund balance is at $157,800. Approval of the proposed loan will result in a
remaining balance of $78,750 available for future loans.
Page 3
Council Minutes - 11/22/93
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to determine that the EDA -approved GMEF Loan No. 007 was
issued in a manner consistent with the GMEF Guidelines. Therefore, the
City Council should support the decision by the EDA for loan approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of renewine earbaee contract with Vasko Rubbish Removal,
Inc,
John Simola reported that our current 3 -year contract with Vasko for
garbage pickup expires on the last pickup day of March 1994. It has been
the City's past policy to negotiate its garbage contracts approximately five
or six months before they expire. The primary reason for this is that should
negotiations prove unsuccessful as they were with our last contract, a
significant amount of lead time is often needed for contractors to gear up
and give the best possible prices in a new bid. Simola noted that we have
negotiated what he feels is a very favorable contract for the City of
Monticello. Our last 3 -year contract was for a fixed amount (once -a -week
pickup for single family through triplex at $3.80 a month, and twice -a -week
pickup for 4-plex and above apartments was $4.73 a month). The contract
proposed is for a 10% increase beginning in April of 1994 and an additional
3% in April of 1995 and April of 1896.
A concern was expressed by council members about the current level of
service provided to apartments, which provides for two pickups per week. 11
was thought that perhaps the apartment unit pickups could be reduced to
one per week, which would result in a reduction in cost. John Simola
responded by saying that most apartment complexes are set up with space
available for two pickups per week. If reduced to one pickup per week, it
would require additional dumpster space, which would result in a loss of
parking. In addition, reducing the number of pickups to one per week
would result in the need to provide an additional truck during the day of
the pickup, which would result in a loss of efficiency and little savings.
Therefore, from an efficiency standpoint, it makes sense to continue with
the apartments on a two pickup per week schedule.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad
Fyle to approve the concept of a 3 -year contract but fix the 1985 and 1996
cost increases at 3% without adjustments should the CPI fall below 2% or
above 5 IPi%. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 4
Council Minutes - 11/22/93
10. Consideration of bills for the month of November.
A motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Patty Olsen to
approve payment of hills as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
After adjournment, Council convened in a closed session to discuss court litigation
relating to the Westside Market rezoning request.
.Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Page 5
MINUTES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, November 18, 1993 - 7:00 a.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson John McVay, Ran Hoglund, Shelley
Johnson, Arve Grimsmo, Lowell Schrupp, Don
Smith, Harvey Kendall, Ken Maus, Dennis
Taylor, Linda Mielke, Merrilyn Seefeldt,
Cyndie Johnson, and Dr. Glenn Nemec.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Doty, Jay Morrell, Dave Peterson, Tom
Lindquist, Steven Lemme, and Mary Micke.
STAFF PRESENT: Jeff O'Neill and 011ie Koropchak.
STAFF ABSENT: Rick Wolfsteller.
GUESTS: Neil McMillin, Treasurer, Economic Development
Partnership of Wright County.
Bill Enders, Marquette Bank - Monticello.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairperson McVay called the IDC meeting to order at 7:00 a.m.
2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 21, 1993 IDC MINUTES.
Ron Hoglund made a motion to approve the October 21, 1993 IDC
minutes. Seconded by Lowell Schrupp and with no additions or
corrections, the minutes were approved as written.
3. CONSIDERATION TO HEAR AND ACCEPT THE IDC FINANCIAL REPORT.,
Treasurer Hoglund reported monthly balances of 910,352.55 at
Marquette Bank - Monticello and of $1,594.19 at Metropolitan
Federal for a total balance of $11,946.74. All banquet
expenditures have been paid except for Little Mountain
Flowers. Harvey Kendall made a motion accepting the November
financial report as given. Seconded by Lowell Schrupp and
with no additions or corrections, the report was accepted and
filed.
4. CONSIDERATION TO HEAR A PRESENTATION FOR ENDORSEMENT OF THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP OF WRIGHT COUNTY.,
Chairperson McVay introduced Mr. Neil McMillin. Koropchak
informed IDC members that Mr. McMillin made a presentation to
the City Council on November S. Because the City of
Monticello has an economic development budget and staff
V person, Council directed City Staff to research the pros and
Page 1
O
IDC MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 1993
ons of city membership prior to their consideration of
membership; therefore, the IDC is being asked for input.
Mr. Neil McMillin, Treasurer for the Economic Development
Partnership of Wright County and Economic Development Manager
for Wright -Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association, told IDC
members that the idea of a County Economic Development
organization has been a "buzz word" for the past twelve years.
The Economic Development Partnership of Wright County has been
established as a Minnesota non-profit organization. The
public/private partnership, which is not comprised of elected
officials, has an office at the County Court House. The 15 -
member board of directors' mission statement includes plans
for development of county marketing, job retention and
creation, code of ethics, small business education, quarterly
newsletter, and a revolving loan fund. The partnership has
developed and filed their Articles of Incorporation and
Bylaws, received endorsement from the County Commissioners,
received a $2,500 grant from Minnesota Technology, and
participated in the development of the Quad County "blue
print" in cooperation with Department of Trade and Economic
Development. Currently, informational presentations have been
made to the Cities of Clearwater, Maple Lake, Buffalo, Cokato,
Monticello, Annandale, and Ostego. Membership commitments
have been received from all the above except Buffalo,
Monticello, and Ostego. After completion of city
presentations, the directors will meet with the townships,
private businesses, and organizations completing a 65 -day
membership drive.
Mr. McMillin presented IDC members with a list of the names of
the chartered boardmembers. Directors have staggering three-
year terms and meet every other month on the fourth Thursday
at 9:00 a.m., membership meeting at 10:00 a.m. Additionally,
he spoke of the five -level membership structure and expressed
"Monticello and Buffalo memberships" as key to the success of
the partnership.
In response to IDC questions, Mr. McMillin said the county
would develop a data base for industrial leads. Leads as from
the Minnesota DTED would than be distributed to governmental
unit members. However and for example, Monticello or Wright
County would receive secondary benefits from the tax base or
jobs created by a development In another community. The
partnership could enhance the working relationships for
development between cities and townships.
Page 2
d
IDC MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 1993
Don Smith responded that Monticello has been self-sufficient
and years ahead of the County with respect to economic
development because of its freeway accessibility and
land/utility availabilities. He saw the county partnership
not as a threat but as an opportunity for expansion in
economic development. IDC members endorsed the county
partnership; however, saw the need for local representation on
the board. Arve Grimsmo made a motion for the IDC to
contribute $500 towards the City's approximate $1,500
membership fee; therebye, indicating IDC support of the
partnership and encouraging City Council to endorse the
Economic Development Partnership of Wright County. The
partnership benefits to be reviewed every other year.
Seconded by Harvey Kendall and with no further discussion, the
motion passed unanimously.
5. CONSIDERATION OF PROSPECT UPDATES:
a) Dungannon/Monticello Connection - Don Smith reported that
Monticello Rotary delegates to Northern Ireland were
welcomed with open -hearts, left a good impression, and
felt very satisfied with the initial established
connection. The group toured various manufacturing
operations in Belfast and Dungannon. Arve Grimsmo
reported seeds were planted and told of his personal
contact with individuals. Koropchak received a fax from
Mr. William Beattie, Chief Executive of the Dungannon
District Council. The Dungannon delegation is interested
in visiting Monticello, this will be coordinated through
the Rotary Club. Some of the Monticello School District
classrooms and teachers are already experiencing
Dungannon exchanges.
b) Food Processor - On November 2, the Monticello Prospect
Team and City Staff met with Mr. Jim Devine, Advanced
Food Sciences, Inc., and Mr. Peter Lytle, Land O'Lakes,
Inc. The two Individuals were accompanied by Deb
Palmquist, NSP Economic Development Consultant. Mr.
Lytle described the OHMIC process in detail. Food
particulates, which arrive via truck transportation, are
placed in vertical columns designed with heater electrode
wiring. The process sterilizes the particulates evenly
and quickly; ultimately, increasing the shelf -life up to
three years while preserving a fresh, crisp texture upon
consumer preparation. The process which is utilized in
Japan and Europe has not received FDA approval. The
capital investment has increased from the initial 98
million to 915 million. Initial building size increased
from 10,000 sq ft to 21,000 sq ft with the greatest
Increase attributed to the high-tech research and
Page 3
O
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
9. Consideration of accenting resDonsibility for administering the
rules developed pursuant to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.
1.1.0.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider accepting responsibility for administering
the rales and regulations associated with administering the 1991 Wetland
Conservation Act. On January 1, 1994, the rules developed pursuant to the
Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 will take effect. Under these rules, the
local government unit responsible for administering the rules is either the
county or the city in which the wetlands in question are located. The LGU
(local government unit) administering the odes has a responsibility for
making exemption and no loss determinations, as well as responsibility for
approving replacement plans.
At this point, City Council has two alternative, for administering Like rules.
The first alternative would be, to aaccept responsibility for administering the
rules. The second alternative would beccept responsibility to delegate the
responsibility to the Wright Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD).
This is the agency that will be administering the program for the County.
Please see the attached memo from Brian Asleson, Assistant Wright County
Attorney, regarding the County's decision to delegate their responsihility to
the Soil and Witter Conservation District. As you will note in his memo,
Asleson outlined a number of reasons why cities may wish to consider
delegating the LGU responsibilities to the Soil and Water Conservation
District. Asleson notes that the City should consider delegating the
responsibility to the SWCD Ia7cauSe 1 I the wetland rules can he difficult to
administer; 'll the SWCD will Ix involved in wetland cases whether the
City is Lite LGU or not. The rules provide that the SWCD must provide one
member of any technical panel that the City would employ to evaluate at
wetland issue, and the SWCD is mandated to prepare it restoration plan
once it cease and desist order has been issued by the enforcement authority;
;11 having one LGU such as the SWCD covering the entire county would
facilitate it more even-handed application of the wetland rules across the
county; 41 the total cost to all units of government for administering this
program would he reducod if one LGU provides administration for the
entire county.
Asleson makes some excellent arguments supporting delegation of the LGI1
responsibilities to Lhe SWCD. City stuff agrees (hat the wetland rules can
he difficult to administer. The wetland ndes are very complex and will he.
somewhat difficult to administer. The problem created by the rule
complexity is compounded by the fact that the City will not he dealing
Frequently with wetland issues; therefore, every time a case involving it
wetland arises, stafrinvolved will need to re -learn the administrative
process associated with administering the rules.
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
Entire careers are being built around administrating the complex rules that
have been prepared. It will be a challenge for the City staff to do justice to
the responsibilities when wetland rules administration is only be one small
portion of the overall duties.
REASONS SUPPORTING CI'T'Y AS LGIJ
The most overriding reason for City administration of the rules is the
benefit of local control. The rules are written in a relatively strict fashion,
which limits the LCU's ability to make a creative interpretation of rules to
fit a particular wetland development problem. However, when applying the
regulations to the real world, situations invariably arise that require an
interpretation of the rules. If the City is in control of the administration of
the rules, it is in position to make the interpretation that fits the values of
the City.
If the Wright County Soil and Conservation District is administering the
rules on behalf of the county, the City has no guarantee that decisions will
fall in the direction that the City would support.
Here is a specific example of a decision that the City would lose control
over. The Wetland Act requires that avoidance of the wetland take first
priority when addressing a development problem. Filling of a wetland is a
last resort and should not be taken until all options for avoiding the
wetland have been exhausted. At the Oak Ridge project, there was a very
small wetland pocket embedded in a wooded area that the developer wanted
to fill by extending a road over the wetland. According to the strict
requirements of the Wethmd Act, the road proposed to extend over this
wetland would need to he relocated through a heavily -wooded area. After
review of this proposal, the City accepted the concept of filling this small
pocket wetland for the sake of saving the heavily-w000led area. In turn, the
filling of the wetland was mitigated through creation of a wetland at
another location. The Wetland Act provides some flexibility to make these
types of decisions. The City can he guaranteed that the decision will match
its values only if it hits control over the decision making.
It. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Motion to accept responsibility for administration of the rules
developed under the Wetland Conservation Act.
Under this alternative, City Council believes that local administration
and control of the wetland rules outweighs the added efficiencies
associated with delegating the duties to the SWCD. Under this
alternative. City staff will need continued ongoing training on
administration of the rules, which will reduce the amount of time
available fear work in other areas. In the event that administration of
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
the rules becomes a burden, it is possible to delegate the LGU
responsibility at a later date to the SWCD.
2. Motion to delegate the LGU authority to the Soil and Water
Conservation District.
Under this alternative, the City Council is comfortable with
delegating the authority of administering the rules and regulations to
the Soil and Water Conservation District, Under this option, the cost
to administer the program falls on the SWCD. It is likely that much
of their cost to administer the program will be reimbursed to them
through grant monies and through fees charged directly to
developers.
Under this alternative, any development proposal that would
potentially impact a wetland would need to be submitted to the
SWCD for review. The SWCD would analyze the development
proposal and provide direction with regard to any steps that would
need to be taken to avoid a wetland or, if avoidance is not possible, to
mitigate the impact by developing a comparable wetland at another
location. The City of Monticello would have a representative on a
technical panel, but would have no authority to vote on wetland
rulings under this alternative.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff finds the possibility of delegating the LGU duties to the SWCD as
quite attractive. This is because the wetland rules require considerable
ongoing education and invest.menty of time and energy that may he hest
suited for an organization that regularly deals with wetland related issues.
On the other hand, City staff is concerned about relinquishing local control
to tui organization that may he subjLwt to countywide pressures and
influence. It, is our view that the heneficial aspects of having local control
despite the higher staff expenses exceeds the benefit of the added efficiency
gained by delegating the authority to the SWCD.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Leuer from Brian Asleson, Assistant Wright County Attorney, to cities in
Wright County regarding implementation of wetland rules, status as foal
government unit.
3
FROM: WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BRIAN J. ASLESON, Assistant Wright County Attorney RIP
nTn
Ar.0 .
Anne L Nahaape
I— C Zi—
Drh.a d Xuaala
Te ry F.at
Kathtrrn A. ,Mold
RE: Implementation of Wetlands Rules - Status as Local Government Unit
On January 1, 1994, the rules promulgated pursuant to the Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 will take effect. Under these rules, the local government unit (LGU) responsible for
administering the rules is either the County or City in which the wetlands in question are
located. The LGU administering the rules has the responsibility for making exemption and
no -loss determinations, as well as for approving replacement plans.
Wright County expects to receive a 1994 grant from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil
Resources (BWSR) for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act. This grant is
expected to be in the sum of 836,000, with a 1:1 match required from County funds. In
order to insure receipt of this grant, the County must provide BWSR with proof that the
ent!re County !s covered for purposes of administering the Wetlands Conservation Act. The
purpose of this letter is to request that each city in Wright County formally elect to either act
as local government unit (LGU) for purposes of administering the rules, or delegate Wright
County as the LGU for that purpose.
On August 17, 1993, the Wright County Board of Commissioners voted to delegate local
government unit responsibility for Wright County to the Wright Soil and Water Conservation
District (SWCD). The Board also designated any grant funds and other County funds allutted
for such administration to the SWCD. There were two primary reasons for the County's
delegation of responsibility to the SWCD:
H
WRIGHT COUNTY
i
Office of County Attorney
Cm
Wright County Government Center
4 O
10 V. IV. 2nd Street
3 dy
Buffalo, Minnesota 58313-1193
'rase
Wyman A. Nelson
Phone: (612) 682.7340 !Metro: (612) 339.6881
C.—y Atwrar>
Toll Free: 1-800-362-3667 Fax: (612) 682 61 i8
Thomas, N. Kelly
CAW - C--1 D, .0
Brian J. Asleson
Cheri - C-1 D--
14 October 1993
TO: CITIES IN WRIGHT COUNTY
FROM: WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BRIAN J. ASLESON, Assistant Wright County Attorney RIP
nTn
Ar.0 .
Anne L Nahaape
I— C Zi—
Drh.a d Xuaala
Te ry F.at
Kathtrrn A. ,Mold
RE: Implementation of Wetlands Rules - Status as Local Government Unit
On January 1, 1994, the rules promulgated pursuant to the Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 will take effect. Under these rules, the local government unit (LGU) responsible for
administering the rules is either the County or City in which the wetlands in question are
located. The LGU administering the rules has the responsibility for making exemption and
no -loss determinations, as well as for approving replacement plans.
Wright County expects to receive a 1994 grant from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil
Resources (BWSR) for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act. This grant is
expected to be in the sum of 836,000, with a 1:1 match required from County funds. In
order to insure receipt of this grant, the County must provide BWSR with proof that the
ent!re County !s covered for purposes of administering the Wetlands Conservation Act. The
purpose of this letter is to request that each city in Wright County formally elect to either act
as local government unit (LGU) for purposes of administering the rules, or delegate Wright
County as the LGU for that purpose.
On August 17, 1993, the Wright County Board of Commissioners voted to delegate local
government unit responsibility for Wright County to the Wright Soil and Water Conservation
District (SWCD). The Board also designated any grant funds and other County funds allutted
for such administration to the SWCD. There were two primary reasons for the County's
delegation of responsibility to the SWCD:
H
Cities in Wright County
PAGE TWO
14 October 1993
Staff Resources, The SWCD has personnel on staff who have been
trained in the wetland delineation procedures and who have also been
working with wetland restoration for many years. These personnel are
also familiar with Federal Swampbuster regulations affecting agricultural
areas and can facilitate coordination with the Soil Conservation Service
and ASCS.
2. Physical Resources, The SWCD has direct access to an array of aerial
photographs from different years, which photographs can be used to
ascertain wetland size, type, surrounding land use history and exemption
potential.
For the above reasons, and several others, cities may wish to consider delegating to SWCD
the responsibility to act as LGU for wetlands within their boundaries. Cities should be aware
of the following:
1. The wetlands rules can be difficult to administer. A city electing to be
LGU will need to have a technical evaluation panel ready to meet to
consider individual cases and will need to fund that panel and fulfill
various administrative duties required under the rules. Election to act as
LGU is an "all or nothing proposition". Whether the particular matter is
simple or very complex, the LGU will need to administer the rules.
2. The SWCD will be Involved in many wetlands cases whether the city is
LGU or not. The rules provide that the SWCD must provide one member
of any technical evaluation panel and the SWCD is mandated to prepare
a restoration plan once a cease and desist order has been issued by the
enforcement authority (usually the DNR).
3. Having one LGU covering the entire County would facilitate a more even-
handed application of the wetlands rules across the County. This should
provide for more equitable treatment for all Wright County citizens and
proposed developments. Those persons Involved In development would
only need to learn one process and deal with one set of officials
regarding wetlands on a County -wide basis.
4. The total cost to all units of government for administering this program
could likely be substantially reduced if one LGU provides administration
for the entire County.
In order to prepare for implementation of the rules on January 1, 1994, we are requesting
that each city determine whether it intends to exercise LGU status for purposes of the
Wetland Conservation Act. We are asking that you respond, if at all possible, by e
Cities in Wright County
PAGE THREE
14 October 1993
November 15, 1993. Notice of your council action (a Resolution or copy of the Minutes)
should be sent to the SWCD at the address listed below. This Notice should also be sent to
the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources at:
155 South Wabasha Street, Suite 104
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
If you have questions regarding the LGU election process or about the wetlands rules in
general, please feel free to contact either of the parties identified below. If you do not have
a copy of the final wetlands rules as approved earlier this year, you should be able to obtain
a copy by contacting BWSR at 296-3767. If you think it would be beneficial to have a
County representative attend your Council meeting to answer questions, we will attempt to
do that as well.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Brian J. Asleson
Assistant Wright County Attorney
Wright County Government Center
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Phone: (612) 682-7342
Kerry Saxton, Office Manager
Wright Soil and Water Conservation District
306C Brighton Avenue
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Phone: (612) 882-1970
�01
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
10. Consideration of chanee order 01 and ordering of an assessment
hearine for Citv of Monticello Proiect 93-13C (Monticello Ford
Storm Sewer). W.S.I
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Monticello Ford Storm Sewer project is almost completed. The
contractor, Bituminous Consulting and Contracting of Minneapolis, has only
a small amount of sodding and curb replacement left which will have to
wait until spring. Consequently, we are not looking at final payment for
the contractor but we do have a good handle on the total project costs.
During the construction, we found it necessary to change from the planned
24" reinforced concrete round pipe to 24" reinforced concrete arch pipe to
clear the existing water main in Sandberg Road and provide insulation
between the water main and the storm sewer. Due to the cost difference
between the two pipes, the contractor is requesting an additional $1,008 for
the change. The total value of the work complete and to he completed next
spring by the contractor is estimated at $33,970.25. Adding an additional
$1,600 for tree replacement on the Southside Dental Clinic and Health Club
property brings the total construction cost to $35,570.25. Adding
engineering costs of $6,300 which include not only an original pond design
but the sturm sewer project itself and adding inspection costs of $1,120 by
the City brings the total project cost to $42,990.25. Dave Peterson of
Monticello Ford has given us $4,000 upfront money for the project so this
leaves a balance of $38,990.25. This is the amount to he assessed to
Monticello Ford. a
�,✓ 3 S
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 0
1. To approve change order 01 for the pipe type configuration change in
the amount of $1,008 and to call fir an assessment hearing on project
93-13C forJanuary 10, 1994, based upon the amount W be assessed
of $38,990.25.
2. To deny the change order and not call for the public hearing for the
assessment.
C. STAFF ItECOMMh:NDATION:
It. is (he recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council
approve change order #I and authorize for an assessment hearing as
outlined in alternative kl.
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of pay estimate kl and change order fl.
GSA =Orr
Widen
tnc.
390 Park Puce CmW
5175 Wa}¢ata 9adevard
MhneapoB. MN 554161225
612-595.5775
1.90)-753-5775
PAX 595.5774
December 8, 1993
i natneers
Arc�JlKL9
PIam rs
surveyors
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362.9245
Re: Storm Sewer Extension & Appurtenant Work
Monticello Ford/Sandberg Road
City of Monticello Project No. 93-13C
OSM Project No. 4960.09
Dear Mayor and City Council:
Enclosed are four (4) copies of Construction Pay Voucher No. 1, together with Change
Order No. 1, on the referenced project in the amount of $30,850.06.
Please make payment in this amount to Bituminous Consulting & Contracting, 2456 Main
Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55434 at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
'B� 4 ��
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Project Engineer
Enclosures
c: Bituminous Consulting
Tom Bose, City of Monticello
rLM
1lJ
N.\naao�CML\UnTaMV01cry 4W Omm—Y G PI.Y.
CONSTRUCTION PAY VOUCHER
Estimate Voucher Number: 1 Date: December 8, 1993
OSM Project Number: 4960.09 Period Ending: December 8, 1993
Project: STORM SEWER EXTENSION & APPURTENANT WORK
MONTICELIQ FORD/SANDBERG ROAD
CITY OF MONTICELL40 93-13C
Contractor: BITUMINOUS CONSULTING & CONTRA
2456 MAIN STREET N.E.
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55434
Contract Date: October 20, 1993 Work Started:
Completion Date: Work Completed:
Original Contract Amount 34,510.00
Total Additions 1,008.00
Total Deductions 0.00
Total Funds Encumbered 35,518.00
Total Work Certified to Date 32,473.75
Less Retained Percentage 5.00% 1,623.69
Less Previous Payments 0.00
Total Payments Incl This Voucher 30,850.06
Balance Carried Forward 4,667.94
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT, THIS VOUCHER 30,850.06
APPROVALS
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Pursuant to our field observation, as performed in accordance with our
contract, and based on our professional opinion, materials are
satisfactory and the work properly performed in accordance with the plans
and specifications and that the total work is:
91% completed as of December 8, 1993.
We herby recommend payment of this voucher. Signed: Signed: JJ_�
Construction observer Project Manager/Engineer
BITUMINOUS CONSULTING & CONTRA
This is to certify that to the best of my knowlodge, information, and
belief, the quantities and values of work certified herein is a fair
approximate estimate for the period covered by this voucher.
Contractor: Signed By
Date:
Title
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Checked By: Approved for payment:
Authorized Representative
Date: Date:
PAGE 1 9
�o
Estimate, Voucher Humor-. 1
OSM Project Number: 4960.09
for
CITY OF MONTICELLO
SCHEOUIF A - STORM SEWER
V 0 U C MER DETAIL LIST -�
Project: $TORN SEYER EXTENSION i APPURTENANT YORK Oat*. DECEMBER 8, 1993
CITY OF MONTICELLO PROJ. NO.: 93-13C
MONTICELLO £(RDISANQfERG ROAD
Contract
Contract
Co pMed This Month
Total To Oat*
Item Spee No Description
.... ...............................................................................................................
Quantity Units
Unit Price
Total Price
Quantity
Total
Quantity
total Price
1
REMOVE AND REPLANT EXISTING TREES
6 EACN
250.00
1,5W.00
2
500.00
.........
2
............
$00,00
2
REMOVE AND REPLACE 11"INOUS
200 So TD
7.50
1,5OO.OD
166.4
1,248.00
166.4
1,248.00
3
REMOVE AID REPLACE CONCRETE CURE
125 LIN it
11.00
1,375.00
125
1,375.00
12S
1,375.00
4
6AWCJ7 EXISTING AITUMJxQUS (FULL
150 LIN FT
1.00
150.00
137
137.00
137
137.00
DEPTH)
5
21• RCP CL. 3 (INCLIA)ING PLUG)
0 LIN FT
35.00
280.00
10
350.00
10
350,00
6
24• RCP CL. 1
100 LIN IT
44.00
4,400.00
107.5
4,730.00
107.5
4,730.00
7
30• RCP CL. 3
200 LIN (1
$9.50
11,900.00
190.3
11,810.X1
198,5
11,810.71
8
30• CONCRETE APRON YITRASH GUM
i EACH
1.500.00
1,500.00
1
1,500.00
T
1,500.00
9
C.B. 48• CIA.
3 EACH
1,250.00
3,750.00
3
3,750.00
3
3,750.00
10
C.S. 54• CIA.
2 EACH
2,350.00
4,700.00
2
4,TOO.00
2
4,700.00
11
4" INSULATION
50 $0 IT
5.00
250.00
32
160.00
32
160.00
12
RIPRAP CL. 3
13 CU TO
33.00
455.00
13
453.00
13
455.00
13
FOUNDAI(OM MATERIAL
50 CU TO
12.50
625.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
14
SCODING
SOD SQ TO
2.50
1,250.00
300
750.00
$00
750.00
15
SEEOING WINULCK AXD FERTILIZER
.S ACNE
1,000.00
500,00
0
0.00
0
0.00
16
SILT FENCE - HEAVY QUIT
250 LIN FT
1.50
375.00
0
O.00
0
0.00
TOTAL SCHEDULE A - STORM SEWER
........................................
S 34,51o.00
S 31, 465.75
....................
f 31,465.73
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
Contract
Contract
Completed This Month
Tota( TO Date
Item Spec No Description
.... ............................................
Quantity Units
......... .......................
Unit Price
Total Price
Quantity
Fetal
Quantity
Total Price
1
24• RCP ARCK EQUIVALENT
i USP SUM
1,006.00
....................
......................
1,008.00
.............
i
/.008.00
.........
i
............
1,008.00
TOTAL CHANGE
ORDER NO. i
1
S, ,006.00
....................
1 1,008.00
....................
f 1,008.00
GRAND TOTAL
i 35.518.00
6 32,473.75
f 12,473.73
2 07 2
OrrChange Order
OAWS%t Schein 300 Park Place Center 612-545-5775
=A3ayerotr5775 Wayzata Boulevard t-800153-5775
.a. hr- Minneapolis, MN 55416-1228 FAX $45-5774
Change Order No: t City Project No. 93.130
Project: Storm Sower ExtensW & Appurtenant Work
Ctty of Monticello OSM Project No. 4960.09
Owners: Clly of Mordiceao Date of issuance: December 9. 1993
P.O. ar B 1147
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MAS 65362.9245
Contractor. Bituminous Consufting & Contracting, I= Engineer. OrrSchelen-Mayeron
2456 Main Street NE & Associates, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN 55434
Yau are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents:
Description:
During the construction process, existing and proposed utility elevations were determined to be citfferent
than anticipated, which necessitated a change in the pipe type. This change order reflects the difference In
material cost between the specified and Installed pipe materials.
Purpose of Change Order.
The purpose of this change order is to correct the contract amount due to changed conditions.
Attachments plat documents supporting change):
Not applicable.
t CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE
Original Contract Price: $34,510.00
Previous Change Orders No. = to No.
$ --
I
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order.
$34.610.00
Not Increase of this Change Order:
$1,009.00
Contract Price with all Approved Change Orders:
$35.516.00
LRecommended By: /�a i Bros A. WoI{tImoP'E.
1 Approved By. I Approved By:
Public Works Director Administrator
I CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME
Original Contract Time:
November 12, 1993
Not Change from Previous Change Orders:
i Contract Time PAor to this Change Order:
Not Increase (decrease) of Change Order.
f
Contract Time with Approved Change Orders:
November 12. 1993 `
Approved By:
Bauminous Consulting & Contracting, Inc.
IData of Council Action:
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
11. Review of preliminary concepts for establishing a storm sewer
funding vrouram and consideration of authorizing Citv staff to
imalement grogram. IJ.O. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
This report includes a brief review of the various trunk storm sewer projects
that will need to be undertaken in the next, few years, along with a
description of some of the problems that we are facing with regard to
funding. Also included is a proposed plan for funding trunk storm sewers
which includes establishment of an access charge. Council is asked to
review the proposed funding program and consider providing staff with
further direction.
PROJECTED STORM SEWER FACILITY NEEDS
As we all know, Monticello continues to grow at a relatively rapid pace.
The major growth areas are located east of Highway 25 and south of 1-94.
In order fir the City to accommodate growth, significant investments in
storm sewer infrastructure will need to be made in the next 20 years in 4
major areas.
Meadow Oak: An outlet to the Mississippi River from the Meadow
Oak arca will need to be constructed in the near future. The total
cost of this project. will range from $250,000 to $3000)0. The cost
per acre is estimated at $2,700.
Hart. Boulevard: The City hits completed its work on the Hart
Boulevard storm sewer outlet, which serves a large area that includes
the Oakwood Industrial Park and Kelin farm to the south. This area
includes both developed and undeveloped properties. In addition to
the recently -completed storm sewer outlet, there will he a need to
develop other storm sewer facilities upstream as development
intensifies. For instance, at some point in the future, a stormwater
pond will need to be constructed in the open area directly east of the
Monticello High School. The cost per acre is estimated at $1,500.
Chelsea Corridor: The total area of this watershed is approximately
1100 acres. It includes the Cardinal Hills subdivision, the middle
school, the elementary school, and large areas of undeveloped
industrial land. Major storm sewer improvements will he needed in
order to convey water from this land mass to the Mississippi River.
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
Such improvements include 1) development of a storm water pond at
the southeast quadrant of the inner -section of County Road 118 and
1-94, 2) development of interconnecting piping conveying water from
developed areas to stormwater ponds, and 3) development of a system
that will enable storm water to pass by the ready -mix plant under the
railroad tracks, under County Road 75, and to the Mississippi River.
The total estimated cost of the improvements necessary to handle
storm water in this area is estimated at $2,000,000. The cost per
acre is estimated at $2,000.
Hiehwav 25/Oakwood Drive: This watershed includes the area south
of the intersection of Hwy 25/1-94. It is bounded on tire east by Cu Rd
117 and on the west by the city limits. This area includes all of
Kjellberg's Mobile Home Park, Posusta Mini Storage property,
Comfiort Inn, Silver Fox Inn, Dave Peterson Ford, etc. It is expected
that a trunk storm sewer will eventually he necessary to accomodate
future commercial development in this area. An estimation of the
total cost to provide trunk slonn sewer to this area is not yet
available.
Please see the attached map for more detail.
CURRENT STORM SEWER FUNDING PROGRAM
Under our current program for funding trunk storm sewer improvements, a
portion of the total cost of each project is assessed against benefiting
properties. The hahuice is paid via general taxes. Following are some
problems associated with this method.
I. It is nut always possible to obtain a large portion of the total cost
through assessment, revenues hecause it is difficult to demonstrate
thnt the benefit (increase in land value) is equal to a property's pro -
rata share of the total cost (assessment amount). In other words, it is
not always possible to completely pay for a storm sewer project
through assessment revenue; therefore, the unpaid balance must lie
financed through general taxes.
2. The current program requires development of an assessment roll in
conjunction with each storm sewer project as it is completed. In some
areas, this will become a problem in that there may be a need for
multiple projects, which means that certain properties will he
assessed on more than one occasion for trunk storm sewer
improvements. Multiple assessments create public relation problems
and push the City's limits with regard to justifying the assessment in
terms of added Ixuefit to the property.
Z
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
3. Historically, the City of Monticello has relied heavily on the capacity
of the power plant to provide tax revenue necessary to support
certain public improvements. Although the power plant continues to
be a major resource that the City can draw on to help finance
necessary improvements, the influence and relative capacity of the
power plant to help finance improvements via ad valorem is on the
decline.
At the same time that power plant valuation is decreasing, the
demand for public services is increasing due to residential
development. Unfortunately, the cost to satisfy this new demand
exceeds the tax revenue that accompanies the residential growth. In
light of this trend, it is the view of City staff that the City needs to
become less dependent on NSP and position itself in a manner that
would require that a larger share of the cost for improvements
associated with development he paid by revenues generated by
development itself.
During the process of developing the concepts outlined below, the City
contacted numerous communities to see how they fund trunk storm sewer
projects. What we found wits a variety of approaches and that there is no
magic cookbook formula for estahlishing a program for funding storm sewer
improvements. The systems adopted by each city seem adapted to fit their
particular environment.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF PROPOSED 'TRUNK STORM SEWER
FUNDING PROGRAM
It is the objective of the program to utilize it combination of assessment
revenue and access charees to fund it major portion of trunk storm sewer
development costs. General taxes and/ or G.O. hording will also he used
when sufficient assessment or access charges are not available to fund the
full cost of it particular project.
HOW 1'1' WOULD WORK
For each trunk storm sewer project, each developed parcel benefiting from
the project will he assessed a Share of the total cost (assessment amount
must not exceed benefit(. Undeveloped parcels would not be assessed.
However, an undeveloped parcel would pay an access charge at, time of
development.
3
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
DEVELOPED PARCEL DEFINED
A developed parcel is defined as a platted or unplatted parcel that contains
a structure or is actively used in conjunction with an adjacent or nearby
developed parcel.
Exception:
In the case of a parcel that has potential for a future subdivision that
also contains a structure (such as a farm house on 40 acres), the
assessment will he calculated based on the minimum lot area
necessary W accommodate the structure. The remaining land area is
considered to he undeveloped and would, therefore, not be included in
the formula for calculating the assessment. An access charge would
he paid at the time of development of the area not included in the
original assessment.
UNDEVELOPED PARCEL DEFINED
Vacant land that is platted or unplatted. Generally, vacant land is
considered to be it parcel that does not contain a structure or is not actively
used in conjunction with an adjacent or nearby developed parcel.
ASSESSMENT CALCULATION AND APPLICATION
Assessment amount is calculated based on land area benefited and the type
of land use present on the developed parcel. This formula for calculating
individual assessments would be the same as the storm water utility
formula that has been adopted by it number of communities.
No assessments will be levied against, an undeveloped parcel. Such parcels
will pay an access charge at time of building construction.
It is the objective of the program W assess parcels only once for trunk storm
sewer; however, it is possible that some developed parcels could he assessed
more than once due to multiple projects completed over a period of years.
As an alternative w multiple assessments where multiple small projects are
projected, the actual assessment could be delayed until after completion of
all of the area storm sewer projects. The assessment would include all of
the costs associated with each project with the goal of establishing an
assessment that is approximately equal to the access charge.
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
ACCESS CHARGE CALCULATION & APPLICATION
The access charge would roughly equal the total cost per acre to provide
trunk storm sewer on a city-wide basis. As with the assessment calculation,
the access charge for an individual parcel would he calculated based on land
arca benefited and the type of land use. This means that land use types
that have more hard surfaces and therefore generate more stormwater
runoff, such as industrial land, will pay more per acre than residential land.
The access charge would reflect the average cost to provide trunk storm
sewer on a city-wide basis. The formula establishing the charge can also be
adjusted over time for inflation and other factors. One factor could include
the extent to which Council would like to allow general taxes to help pay for
trunk storm sewer expenses. Perhaps Council believes that general taxes
should pay for 20''6 of the total trunk storm sewer expenses. The access
charge could he adjusted accordingly.
Following is a table that outlines access charges in other communities.
According to Bret, It is likely that the Monticello charge when calculated
based on needs will he at a level somewhat below what other cities are
charging.
ACC;El1WCONNyurION RATES FOR sTORMWAn R DRAINAGE
RESIDENTIAL FEE
If Council directs stuff to proceed with implementation, Bret will provide an
analysis of Monticello's projected trunk storm sewer costs and capacity to
fund via the access charge.
R1
$/Single Family
Commerciol/Ind.
CITY
$/Square Foot
I,ot 112,000 SF)
Fee $/Acre
Apple Valley
$0.049
$587
$3,195
Chaska
$0.050
$600
$3,0491
Cottage Crove
$0.060
$600
$3,100
Eagan
$0.049
$587
$3,1961
Lino Lakes
$0.041
$489
$2,779
Woodbury
$0.046
$551
$3,000
If Council directs stuff to proceed with implementation, Bret will provide an
analysis of Monticello's projected trunk storm sewer costs and capacity to
fund via the access charge.
R1
Council Agenda - 12113/93
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
It would be an objective of the City to limit the potential of future trunk
storm sewer assessments against properties that pay the access charge at
the time of development. It would also be important to maintain the access
charge and assessment at a similar level.
All undeveloped parcels in sections of the city that will ultimately need
trunk storm sewer improvements shall pay the access charge at time of
development. This is a policy statement that merits discussion. The
question is, should existing undeveloped lots in the developed areas (old
town) be required to pay the access charge at the time of development just
like lots developed in the new areas?
FUNDING IMPLICATIONS
The program is designed to maximize potential assessment and access
charge revenue. On a project basis, it's possible to obtain more revenue via
assessments and access charges than actually needed to fund a particular
project. For example:
A project is completed that serves 350 parcels, of which 150 are developed
parcels. The project cost is $200,000. Let's assume that the average
"benefit" to the developed parcels (including residential and commercial) is
$1,000 per parcel, which produces $150,000 in assessment revenue. This
leaves it deficit of $.50,000 to he financed via general luxes. As development
continues, the parcels not assessed with the original improvemcut (200
parcels) will pay an access charge at the time of development. If the access
charge is established at an average of $1,000 per parcel, the total amount
collected via the access charge would amount to $200,000. which when
added to the assessment revenue results in $350,1700. This amount is
$160,0011 more than the actual cost.
The additional $160,000 would he used to help finance future storm sewer
projects aflect.ing the local area or help to finance improvements in other
sections of the city.
At the meeting on Monday, Bret will hke providing a mock assessment roll
for both the Hart Ik)ulevard Lind the Meadow Oak storm sewer projects.
The assessment rolls arc based on the proposed program. It is hoped that
there will be time to review the information contained in the assessment
rolls in some detail at the meeting.
6
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to authorize City staff to initiate process of implementing
proposed storm sewer funding program.
Under this alternative, City Council is comfortable with pursuing
implementation of the basic concepts of the program described above.
If this alternative is selected, City staff would move forward by
reviewing the concepts with the Industrial Development Committee
and would review the concepts with major land owners in the area.
City staff would work with the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
ordinance amendments. The City Engineer would proceed by
analyzing the long-term storm sewer needs and calculate the access
charge necessary to finance construction of the storm sewer system.
Under this alternative, it is the goal of City staff to provide City
Council with the necessary ordinance amendments and
documentation supporting the proposed access charge by the first
Council meeting in January, which is scheduled to occur on the 10th.
At this meeting, Council will be asked to formally adopt the program
and will be asked to consider initiating the public improvement
process enabling construction of the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet.
In addition, Council may be asked to consider calling a public hearing
on adoption of the Hart Ikoulevard assessment roll.
As it modification of this alternative, Council may wish to direct City
staff to iwpicment establishment of a storm water utility program.
As you recall, a workshop was conducted this fall on the concept of
establishing a storm water utility program. At that Lime, the Council
response to establishment of this program was luke warm. Therefore
staff did not include a storm water utility as one of the funding
mechanisms. If Council would like a storm sewer utility to he
included in the mix of funding alternatives, then City staff would also
include development of the storm water utility program in the
implementation phase.
Motion to deny authorization for City staff to initiate process of
implementing proposed storm sewer funding program.
Under this alternative, City Council is generally satisfied with the
presentmethod of funding storm sewer projects and is comfortable
with relying on assessment revenue and ad valorem luxation to fund
storm sewer projects. Under this alternative, it is likely that general
laxation would pity it larger share of the cost to install storm sewer
projects.
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
3. Motion to table preliminary approval of plan pending review by
Industrial Development Committee and by owners of large tracts of
undeveloped property.
Under this alternative, City Council would rather have additional
input on the proposed plan from the IDC and others prior to directing
City staff to take steps to implement the plan.This alternative might
result in a delay in initiation of the Meadow Oaks project.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is Lite view of City staff that Council should select alternative 111. It is
our view that the plan as proposed is a reasonable and thoughtful response
to the storm sewer funding problems facing the City of Monticello well into
the next century. The program as designed calls for development to pay its
share of the cost to install storm sewer improvements, which we feel is
important in the face of a decline in the relative tax capacity of the power
plant. It is important to note that approval at this point should be
considered preliminary. The plan needs to he reviewed by the Industrial
Development Committee and should also be reviewed by major land owners
in the area. Their comments will need to he incorporated into the ongoing
process of refining the program.
SUppoRri,INfi DATA:
City map showing storm sewer watershed areas and locations of future
trunk storm sewer improvements; Assessment rolls for Meadow Oak and
Hart. Boulevard areas Ito be presented at meeting).
Council Agenda - 12/13/9:3
12. Consideration of fund transfers for 1993. IR.W.1
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the end of the year approaching, a few housekeeping items should he
approved by the Council concerning fund transfers to close unneeded
construction funds and/or other transfers to correspond with our budget.
Enclosed as a supplement is a listing of all the transfers recommended for
approval.
The following is a brief explanation of each transfer requested for approval.
1. This is a transfer of $14,381.95 that will essentially close out
the 1988 Streetscape construction fund and transfer the funds
to the debt service accounts that were issued originally to
construct the improvements. The $14,000 balance has
remained after the project has been completed and is required
to he used for debt payments since a bond was used to
originally finance the improvements.
2. This transfer is also needed to close out the 1991-1 Fallon
Avenue new construction fund and transfer the balance to the
debt service accounts. The transfer of $7,362.62 will close out
the construction balance now that the project has been
completed.
:3. This transfer of $31,653.74 is needed to cover the remaining
expenditures incurred to date regarding the final construciton
of Phase I of the Public Works Building Expansion project.
During 1992, $606,:3:39.28 was transferred from the liquor fund
and the transfer proposed today will cover the balance of the
entire project costs.
4. Annually, the HRA receives all tax increment monies
associated with all of the TIF districts, and the HRA is
required to transfer funds to each tax increment bond issue to
cover the upcoming debt payments. The total amount needed
for 199:3 to various debt service accounts is $241,790.
It. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the transfers its recontile tided. C�
Council Agenda - 12/13/93
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1 recommend for accounting purposes that the above transfers be approved
prior to the end of 1993. Technically, without official action. some
construction funds will show deficit cash balances while other construction
funds will be kept open uwiecessarily. The transfers are basically
housekeeping items to more accurately refect correct year end financial
statements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of proposed transfers.
RECOMMENDED TRANSFERS 1993
From
To
Purpose
Amount
Streetscape
'88 Bond
To close out Streetscape const. fund
$ 14,381.95
Const. Fund
Fund
surplus to bond fund
91-1 Fallon Ave.
'91 (A) G.O.
To close out const. fund surplus
$ 7,362.62
Const. Fund
Bond Fund
to bond fund
Liquor Fund
PW Building
To cover balance of const. cost
$ 31,653.74
Const. Fund
incurred for phase I of the maint.
building project
HRA Fund
Various
Annual transfers of tax increments
$241,790.00
TIF Bonds
to support debt payments
TRANSFERS: 12/8/93
S
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
December 13, 1993
Update on sludge land spreading activities and sludge storage tank inspection.
At the last meeting, Kelsie McGuire informed the City Council that land sludge
spreading activity would begin shortly on the Hobert Shierts farm. Approximately
350,000 gallons of sludge had been hauled out of the sludge storage tank before
difficulties were encountered both in the field and at the tank itself We had
already known that the gas line inside of the tank was not functioning. What we
hadn't known, however, was that the sludge withdrawal line was loose or
disconnected at the beginning of the bottom portion of the tank where the cone
starts. Consequently, the suction pump began sucking air prior to reaching the
bottom of the tank.
The current operation consists of lowering down a rental air -operated diaphragm
pump to pump the heavy sludge up and over the top of the tank and into the
sludge truck. It is a much slower process than the normal routine and will take
several days to complete. We hope to have at least a peek at the tank cover early
next week and begin the cleanup and washing process so that we can get a better
look at it by the end of next week. The timing appears to be working out fairly
well as Gridor Construction' will be back at the Monticello site between the 16th
and 23rd of December as this is the expected delivery time on the pieces for the
new cover for digester q2. We had hoped to have Gridor Construction repair the
gas line and maybe do some of the repairs to the section withdrawal pipe in the
sludge storage tank during the time they are here. Any additional information
that we have will he brought up at Monday evening's meeting.
*Note: Gridor Construction is the building contractor for the 2nd stage
digester cover.
C0UNCIL IIFORMATI0IAL UPDATES
from the Office of Economic Development
Copy of the State Grant Award Letter to Wright County stating
approval the $250,000 loan to Standard Iron and Wire Works,
Inc.
Copy of the State's Letter stating no formal Star City
recertification process this year.
Copy of a letter received from the Dungannon District Council
and Koropchak's follow-up response.
MA4=0TA DPAa SCM OP
TaAor Ano Eca4oKc PrmopmL,4T
S MMSq"M
to ft rte so
kWhYLN"00u1l101.nN UA
Mr. Patrick sawatake, Chair
Wright County Courthouse
10 second street N.N.
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313-1100
Dear Chair sawatske:
r '
November 30, 1993 •',��'..+���
I am pleased to inform you that your application for a Ninneacto
Economic Recovery Fund grant has been approved in the atount of 0250,000.
As outlined in the approved application, the Wright County will make a
loan of 0250,000 to standard iron i Nita Works, Inc.
As you may know, the Legislature apq ropriated funds effective
July 1, 1993, to establish an Economic Racavity fund to supplement the
Small Cities Development Program. Your grant award will be made from
this fund. You should be aware that state legislation Creating the
tconomic Recovery Grant Program •a ecifise that "the portion of an
eaonamic recovery loan that exceeds 0100,000 must be repaid to the state
vhen it is repaid to the local connunie or recognised Indian tribal
government by the person or entity to which it was loaned..."
A grant agreement is being prepared by Business and Commit
additional
itiioStaff.
Taalso
piaiou informaon aboutyour grant awrd t help you cheve your economic
development goals. Also, please note that your approved application
becomes part of the grant agreement. go changes can be made regarding
the rates, term, use, schedules, or recipient of the loan funds without
approval from this Department. Tor additional information, contact
Jennifer Engh, Deputy Commissioner, at (812)391.2515.
finally, let me extend my congratulations to you and your staff for
developing d successful project application to help address your
community and economic development needs,
Binc ly,l/
41
s. cilletts, Js.
Commisaionas
nntatwtoPP+�MrP■P�
:ii.\\ESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRADE AND ECONomic DEVELOPMENT
500 Wt. Sq—
I2t 7th Place East
Sunt Paul, Mineseuna 53101-2146 USA
Memorandum
DATE: December S, 199#
TO$ Star Coordinators
FRONS Nark Lofthus, Director �^�* ✓� �
Office of Regional Initiatives
pB ns 612/996.9090
000-667-3058
ane Recertification
The Star program, Community Needs Assessment Program and other
community technical assistance programs within the office of
Regional Initiatives will be evaluated and improved to better
meet the needs of Minnesota communities in the first six months
of 1994. Local economic development organizations vill be
integrally involved in this process. This evaluation process is
one of several pilot projects within DTED'a Total Quality
Initiative.
There will be no formal recertification process this year.
If an organization would like assistance in facilitating planning
sessions or reviewing plans, your regional representative would
be happy to assist you. I know that many of you have already
called upon our staff for this type of assistance.
we will be gearing up our evaluation process after the first of
the year. If you would like to be actively involved in this
process, please call me at the numbers above or contact your
regional representative.
Thank you for being an active partner with OTED. Through this
evaluation process, we intend to make this partnership stronger
and even more productive.
An Equal Oi"mumn Empwo
_ 11,11 •u I7: to
I�
DUNGANNON DISTRICT COUNCIL
003687 22541 DhGAMWN DIST C fool
W.J. II -Lie M-I.RIf. P.N.S.".
COUNCIL OPPIC63
Uerk b Uw Cwndl
<'IM1C UI.A. M1OAD
.nd Chief Ez_ti"
D UNG A N N 0 N
CO. TY 901x[ 0-tDT
T[LL r'NOY[ till
IA[t r.tt � ttl�1
N—bw of pa9a (:[ind-9 thi-Lb r) 2
o.l.: / / NO✓tenhcr /99 3
Tc: OUCL. Ka-Pd,4,k.
From: 4j. J. f3ut/r/C
Not": .. .
u m�i.uA,/eLA
o.r�er
tanavlytua
orrrr.or
Ol1Mm14
WWtwm
Oilrri
uM.�l.44WAi. ,
Or�0YWi0.Y1�
Y,.�. WILIIYrI �
W.tY�t11Y�0.�.
11111 '83 12:23 Vu$6S7 22541
DUKANNON DIST C i�uo2
{
vB/FT/osA
9 November 1993
I
011ie ROROPCRAK
Economic. Development Officer
250 East Broadway
P.O. Boa 1147
Monticello,'MN '.
55362-4245
Dear 011ie
Let me firstly extend our appreciation on behalf of Council
to.all your members on the occasion of their visit 'on
October'1$th 1993.
I was very encouraged by what the Group had to say and,
particularly interested in the spirit of co-operation
offered in. the area of economic development. '
Council are considering how beat to move this forward and I '
believe that a .visit will be necessary to Monticello to
begin. the economic twinning process.
Perhaps you would kindly consider possible dates for a
programme of visits and let me know by'fax return.
I look forward to hearing from fou.
Yours sincerely
W J Beattie
Chief Executive .
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Fut: (612) 295-4404
William J. Beattie
Chief Executive
Dungannon District Council
Circular Road
Dungannon, County Tyrone
Northern Ireland
Dear Bill:
The arrival of your letter of interest to proceed in the economic
development twinning process was very timely. Your letter arrived
on the day the Monticello Rotary Group shared their experiences of
their visit to Northern Ireland. Their hearts and voices were
filled with a great appreciation of the warmth and receptiveness
they received from the people of Northern Ireland. Their mission
to initiate a connection between Dungannon and Monticello had been
accomplished.
The Monticello Rotary Club and the Industrial Development Committee
(IDC) are delighted and encouraged by the Dungannon District
Council's interest to proceed. We are pleased to make the
following suggestions for your consideration:
Travel via Northwest Airlines, London - Minneapolis/St. Paul.
Arrive in Minneapolis/St. Paul, either the Saturday or Sunday
prior to the second or fourth Monday of your desired month to
travel. Examples: Arrive March 12/13 or 26/27, April 9/10 or
23/20, or May 7/8 or 21/22, etc. This would allow your group
the opportunity to attend a Monticello Rotary Club meeting and
a Monticello City Council meeting on Monday.
Consideration of your desired month of travel may be
Influenced by the price of airline tickets which generally
begin to increase around the first of May.
Mr. Beattie
7 December 1993
Page 2
Home -stays and ground transportation would be provided by the
Monticello Rotarians.
Two to three days in Monticello would allow time to tour four
to five local industries and the Monticello School District
and to meet with the IDC.
One to two days in Minneapolis/St. Paul would allow for
options to tour the Minnesota Trade Office, State Capitol
Building, or Mall of America and/or attend a sporting, arts,
or cultural event. Additonally, free time should be a
consideration.
Depart Minneapolis/St. Paul Saturday or Sunday.
Bill, the suggested program and dates are flexible. If the dates
In March, April, or May aren't workable, you could choose another
week or consider February or June. Also, if your group has a
particular interest of which they wish to see or experience while
in the Monticello area, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Again, we are excited to have the opportunity to host the Dungannon
District Council Group. I look forward to hearing from you as we
continue to plan for your group's visit to Monticello.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
09&, `,-, dl S -919—J
011ie Koropchak
Economic Development Director
cc: Oliver Hanratty, President, Dungannon County Tyrone Rotary
Dr. Sue Reiner, President, Monticello Rotary
Kenneth Maus, Mayor, City of Monticello
John McVay, President, IDC
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
11/22/03 08:18:59
Otsbursement Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GENERAL CHECKING
35940
11/19/93
MN DEPART OF NATURAL
T18
WATERCRAFT TITLE 40.00
35941
11/19/93
MN DEPART OF NATURAL
119
WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 745.00
35942
1.1/19/93
SROC-9 WHITE
742
SHOP & GARAGE SLO REP 159.75
35943
11/19/93
WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD
254
PATHWAY EASEMENT/C MIL 19.50
35944
11/19/93
MN DEPART OF NATURAL
118
SNOW & ATV REG '1.144.00
35845
11/10/83
DR. JOHN C ERLANOSON
.00318
REIMS/TREES/MONTI FO 200.00
35946
11/19/93
FIREMEN'S RELIEF ASS
568
FIREMEN'S RELIEF P 29.382.00
35847
11/22/93
BEN FRANKLIN
20
MISC EXPENSE/MONTI FORD 4.59
35947
11/22/93
BEN FRANKLIN
20
MISC EXPENSE/CITY HALL 51.90
35947
11/22/93
BEN FRANKLIN
20
MISC EXP/HART BLVD STOR 6.54
63.03
35948
11/22/93
COMPRESS AIR & EQUIP
350
REPAIR COMPRESSOR/FIR 133.00
r
\`
35949
ti/22/93
J M OIL COMPANY
95
OIL/FIRE DEPT 24.05
3S95O
11/22/03
M & P TRANSPORT. INC
2$S
SAND/STREET DEPT 309.40
35950
11/22/93
M & P TRANSPORT. INC
26S
SANO/WWTP 1.178.19
35950
11/22/03
M & P TRANSPORT., INC
2$5
SANO/PARKS DEPT 2SO.11
1.735.70
35951
11/22/93
MIDWEST VISION DISTR
270
NOSE PADS/GLASSES/P WK 6.00
35952
11/22/83
MONTICELLO PAPER 6 S
724
CITY HALL SUPPLIES 55.48
3SOS3
1'1/22/03
NEENAH FOUNDRY COMPA
588
STORM SEWER S.O-M.0 E 447.57
35954
11/22/93
NORTHERN WATER WORKS
773
ROD/WATER DEPT 247.58
359SS
11/22/03
NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS
, SSO
PROF SERVICES/PLAN A 328.29
35956
11/22/93
O.E.I. BUSINESS FORM
159
COPY MACHINE PAPER/C 232.11
38851
11/22/83
ROCHON CORPORATION
SOS
BALANCE DUE/PW BLD 5.404.00
35059
11/22/93
SAFETY-KLEEN CORP.
184
VEHICLE MTC/SHOO A GAR 65.50
35059
11/22/03
SHAMROCK INDUSTRIES.
576
RECYCLING BINS/REFU 2.008.80
35900
11/22/93
UNITED STATES CELLUL
75$
CELLULAR PHONE CHGS 54.92
35960
11/22/03
UNITED STATES CELLUL
759
CELLULAR PHONE CHGS 0.50
35960
11/22/93
UNITED STATES CELLUL
758
CELLULAR PHONE CHGS 50.55
114.87
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
11/22/93 08:16:59
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
959G1 11/22/93 WALOOR PUMP 8 EOUIPM
35962 11/22/93 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
GENERAL CHECKING
A
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
369 PUMP REPAIRS/LIFT STA 365.96
219 INTEREST/LAND FILL CMG 31.45
TOTAL 43.941.63
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
12/01/93 07:50:36
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
35963 11/30/93 KRAEMER/WANDA
35064 11/30/93 SHUMAN/CATHY
35965 11/30/93 KOP.OPCHAK/OLIVE
35966 11/30/93 LATOUR CONSTRUCTION
35867 11/30/93 WALT'S PAWN SHOP
35968 11/30/93 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
35969 11/30/93 U.S. POSTMASTER
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT JC,
358 REIMS/EXPO EXPENSE 26.32
191 TRAVEL EXPENSE/COMPUTE 12.88
97 REIMS/TRAVEL EXPENSE 60.32
465 CONST COSTM ART SL 34.349.50
.90319 WEST BRIDGE PARK SUP 26.63
118 SNOWMOBILE REG 568.00
210 POSTAGE/NEWSLETTER 282.98
TOTAL 35.328.63
l
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
12/03/93 12:53:52
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
35970 12/01/93 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
35971 12/01/93 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI
35971 12/01/93 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI
35972 12/01/93 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI
35973 12/01/93 NORTHWEST MINNESOTA
35973 12/01/93 NORTHWEST MINNESOTA
35974 12/03/93 AMERICAN PLANNING AS
35975 12/03/93 ARA CORY REFRESHMENT
35976 12/03/93 BERGSTROM BROS. INC.
35977 12/03/93 C J BROWN BUSINESS S
35978 12/03/93 CENTURY LABS
3SO79 12/03/93 FIRE SAFETY CORPORAT
35979 12/03/93 FIRE SAFETY CORPORAT
35979 12/03/93 FIRE SAFETY CORPORAT
35979 12/03/93 FIRE SAFETY CORPORAT
35990 12/03/93 GME CONSULTANTS. INC
35981 12/03/93 HATCH -PETERSON SALES
35982 12/03/93 HERMES/JERRY
35983 12/03/93 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC
35984 12/03/93 HOLMES & GRAVEN
35884 12/03/93 HOLMES & GRAVEN
35085 12/03/03 J M OIL COMPANY
35985 12/03/93 J M OIL COMPANY
35886 12/03/93 JOHNSON FIRE EOUIPN.E
3$087 12/03/93 K MART STORE
35987 12/03/93 K MART STORE
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT i
118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 967.00
221 WIRE TO 4M FUND 500.000.00
221 WIRE CHARGES 15.00
500.015.00
221 WIRE TO 4M FUND 500.000.00
156 REG FEE/SEMINAR/GARY A 10.00
156 MEMBERSHIP DUES/GARY A 15.00
25.00
666 SUB/PLAN & ZON 29.00
408 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 84.00
21 REPAIR PARTS/SNOW & IC 17.07
597 CITY NEWSLETTER PRINT 834.03
276 CLEANING SUP/SHOP & G 135.41
505 CLOTHES/WATER DEPT 34.29
595 CLOTHES/SEWER COLL 34.28
595 SMALL EQUIP/MATER DEPT 72.06
595 SMALL EQUIP/SEWER COLL 72.06
212.69
341 ENG FEES/MONT FORD ST 391.35
94 HOSE & NOZZ9/STREET 276.29
91 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50
85 GAS/FIRE DEPT 68.92
86 LEGAL FEES/CUSTOM CAN 130.00
86 LEGAL FEES/SHING09E 1.690.00
1.820.00
OS OIL/STREET DEPT 230.70
95 GAS/STREET DEPT 899.10
1.120.89
774 WRENCHES/FIRE DEPT 21.30
460 SULBS.LITES/PARKS DEPT 61.26
460 BATTERIES.ETC/FIRE OE 115.62
171.08
vc
•C
v,
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
12/03/93 12:53:52
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
35988 12/03/93 L "N" R SERVICES - L
35988 12/03/03 L "N" R SERVICES - L
35089 12/03/93 LIBERTY COMPUTER SUP
35990 12/03/93 LIQUOR STORE'FUNO
35991 12/03/93 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE
35992 12/03/93 LUKACH/JOHN
35092 12/03/03 LUKACH/JOHN
35992 12/03/93 LUKACH/JOHN
35902 12/03/93 LUKACH/JOHN
35893 12/03/93 MATERIALS DISTRIBUTI
35994 12/03/93 MIKE MAKE
35995 12/03/93 MIKE MAKIE
35996 12/03/93 MINNEGASCO
35996 12/03/93 MINNEGASCO
35996 12/03/93 MINNEGASCO
35906 12/03/93 MINNEGASCO
35896 12/03/93 MINNEGASCO
35998 12/03/03 MINNEGASCO
35097 12/03/03 MN DEPUTY REGISTRAR'
35998 12/03/93 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
35090 12/03/03 MONTICELLO SENIOR Cl
38000 12/03/93 MONTICELLO VACUUM CE
36001 12/03/93 REACH EQUIPMENT
36002 12/03/93 SENTRY SYSTEMS
36003 12/03/93 SIMOIA/JOHN E.
36004 12/03/93 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO.
36004 12/03/93 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO.
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
103 BLD REPAIR SUP/PARKS 348.23
103 REPAIR BROKEN KEY/SHOP 30.00
378.23
90 COMPUTER PAPER/C HALL 189.04
100 INS REIMS/LIQUOP. STOR 449.00
709 VALVE/SNOW & ICE/PART 102.91
327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 41.26
327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 1'3.75
327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 13.75
327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 13.74
82.50
246
WATER DEPT/DESK
26.53
.90320
REIMS/DARK RENTAL
35.00
.90320
REIMS/PARK RENTAL
10.00
772
UTILITIES
192.11
772
UTILITIES
136.67
772
UTILITIES
60.77
772
UTILITIES
22.25
772
UTILITIES
263.35
772
UTILITIES,
2.008.94
2.684.09
12t
DEP REG MEMBERSHIP OU 210.00
185
ANIMAL CONTROL CONT
1.100.00
130
MONTHLY CONTRACT PY
2.833.33
141
VACUOSELT/LIBRARY
17.20
705
XMAS LITES BUCKET REN 244.05
188
ALARM SYSTEM MTC/FIRE 105.08
308
REIMS/CABINESTS FOR
P 351.27
498
CLOTHES/STREET DEPT
63.85
498
TOWELS. ETC/PARKS DED 115.82
180.67
ac
w(
)1
L
c
BRC'FINAr4crAL SYSTEM
12/03/93 12:53:52
WARRANT DATE VEtrOOR
GENERAL CHECKING
36005 12/03/93 STATE OF MINNESOTA
36005 12/03/93 STATE OF MINNESOTA
36005 12/03/93 STATE OF t42NNESOTA
36006 12/03/93 TRUEMAN-WELTERS. INC
36007 t2/03/93 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
36001 12/03/93 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
38007 12/03/93 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
36009 12/03/93 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY
36009 12/03/93 WEIN/JERRY
36010 12/03/93 wRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP
36011 12/03/93 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
461 WATER DEPT SUPPLIES 1.00
481 WATER DEPT CLOTHING SU 75.00
461 PARKS DEPT SUPPLIES 15.00
91.00 *C
207 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/$NOW 9.32
524 GARBAGE CONTRACT PY 7.180.62
524 SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON 459.08
524 LEAF PICKUP CHARGES t.200.00
8.639.70 *C
409 BULBS/STREET LIGHTS 61.34
385 TRAVEL EXPENSE 177.68
512 UTILITIES 7.35
654 FIRST AID SUPPLIES/SHO 36.31 M
TOTAL 1.024.715.00
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
12/06/93 tO:24:51
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
36012 12/06/93 WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD
36012 12/06/93 WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD
36013 12/06/93 WRIGHT COUNTY AUOITO
36014 12/06/93 MA?.QUETTZ 8ANK MONTI
36015 12/06/93 MARQUETTE 8ANK MONTI
36015 12/06/93 MARQUETTE SANK MONTI
360.18 12/00/93 MARQUETTE 6ANK mONTI
36017 12/10/93 A.M. MAUS 8t SON
36018 12/10/93 ANDERSON/SHIRLEY
36019 12/10/93 BUSINESS RECORDS COR
36020 12/10/93 OENN/FRANKLIN
36021 12/10/93 FEEORITE CONTROLS. I
36021 12/10/93 FEEORITE CONTROLS. I
36022 12/10/93 FLICKER'S T.V. $ ADP
36023 12/10/93 GOOLER/GLORIA
36023 12/tO/93 GOOLER/GLORIA
36024 12/10/93 MARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
36024 12/10/93 MARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
36024 12/10/93 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
38024 12/10/93 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
36024 12/10/93 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
36024 12/10/93 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
36024 12/10/93 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
36025 12/10/93 HERMES/JERRY
36026 12/10/03 KEN ANDERSON TRUCXIN
36027 12/10/93 KP.AMSER Q ASSOCIATES
36028 12/10/93 MAUS FOODS
3G028 12/10/93 MAUS FOOOS
36020 12/10/73 MAUS FOODS
Olsoursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
254 RECOROING FEES/CEDAR. S 19.50
254 RECOROING 2 EASEMENTS 39.00
58.50
219 RECORDING CEDAR ST EXT 21.50
221 3 C.O.'S 800.000.00
221 WIRE/ C D 401.767.70
221 WIRE CHARGES' 15.00
401.782.70
221 2 C/O'S 300.000.00
549 REPAIR 6LO INSP VAN 219.38
13 OAA SALARY 15.00
27 W•2 FORMS 74.SS
295 OAA SALARY 105.00
58 MISC PROF SERV/WATER 72.00
56 CHEMICALS/WATER DEPT 562.31
634.31
60 SUPPLIES/WM HOUSE PAR 123.42
294 OAA SALARY 245.00
294 MILEAGE EXPENSE/OAA MT 40.04
285.04
78 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/STR 22.29
78 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/SNO 70.31
78 SUPPLIES/SHOP b GAR 30.30
78 MISC SUOPLIES/STREETS 58.30
78 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/SEW 50.92
78 CORRECT COOING 56.92CR
78 MISC SUPPLIES/FIRE OEP 31.61
212.81
81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50
607 PROF SERVICES/ANIMAL C 42.50
688 DEC ASSESSING CONTR 1.792.08
108 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 13.22
108 LIBRARY CLEANING SUP 30.07
109 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 67.19
4`
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEm
12/06/93 10:24:51
WARRANT OATS VEv�rR
GcNERAL CHFCXING
30028 12/10/93 MAUS FOODS
36028 12/10/93 MAUS FOODS
36029 12/10/93 MAUS/KENNETH
30030 12/10/93 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
360'31 12/10/93 MOON MOTOR SALES. IN
36032 12/10/93 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
36032 12/10/93 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
36032 12/10/93 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
36032 12/10/03 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
36033 12/10/93 O'NEILL/JEFF
36033 12/10/93 O'NEILL/JEFF
36033 12/10/93 O'NEtLL/JEFF
�. 36034 1'2/10/93 ORR-$CHELEN-MAVERON
36034 12110/93'ORR-SCHELEN-MAVEP.ON
36034 12/10/03 ORR-SCHELEN-MAVERON
30034 12/10/93 ORA-SCHELEN-MAYERON
36034 12/10/93 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
38039 12/10/03 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
30035 12/10/93 PREUSSE'S,CLEANING S
36036 12/10/93 RIVERSIDE OIL
36037 12/10/03 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC
30037 12/10/93 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC
30038 12/10/93 SALKOWSKI/THOMAS
36038 12/10/03 SALKOWSKI/THOMAS
36039 12/10/03 SAWAT2KE/PATRICK
30040 12/10/93 SCHARZER & SUNS. INC
38040 12/10/93 SCHARBER A SONS. INC
Oisoursement Journal
0ESCRIPTION AMOUNT
106 SHOP & GARAGE SUPPLIES 8.98
108 CLEANING SUR/ANIMAL CO 30.14
150.20
109 OAA SALARY 90.00
165 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1.100,00
142 SHADE TREE SUPPLIES 49.20
144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/SN 224.19
144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/SEWE 7.72
144 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STREET 3.22
144 SHOP A GARAGE SUPPLIES 12.41
247.54
151 MILEAV EAP/HEARTLANO 31.80
tail TELEPHO14E REIMS 25.52
161 MrLEAGE EXP/PLAN A 20 124.08
187.40
162 MISC ENGINEERING FE 7.095.50
162 ENG FEES/MONTI FORD 2.583.64
162 ENG FEES/C HILLS III 410.35
1G2 ING FEES/SHINGOSEE PR 295.88
162 MISC PROF SERV/NAWCO P 96.75
10.482.12
173 CLEANING CONTRACT/F HA 50.00
173 CITY HALL CLEANING CO 400.00
450.00
488 GAS/STREET'OEPT 952.60
227 VEHICLE MTC/STREET OEP 34.32
227 VEH MTC/SLO INSP VAN 255.04
280.36
297 OAA SALARY 290.00
297 MILEAGE EXP/OAA 22.10
272.10
602 OAA SALARY 105.00
229 VEH REPAIR. PARTS/PARK 111.10
220 MISC SUPPLIES/SNOW 8 I 41.95
193.05
�r.
.C
0L
SRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
12/06/93 10:24:51
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
36041 12/10/93 SIMONSON LUMBER COM..P
36041 12/10/03 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP
36041 12/10/93 SIMONSON LUMSER COMP
36041 1?/10/93. SIMONSON LUMBER COMP
36041 1?/10/93 SIMONSON LUMSER COMC,
36041 12/10/33 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP
36042 12/10/93 MPIGHT COUNTY AUOTTO
3604? t?/10/93 WRIGHT COUNTY AIDITO
Oisf)ursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
193 SUPPLIES/HART 8LVO STO 21.83
193 CORRECT COOING 21 .83CR
193 MTC OF FIRE HALL ESLO 85.30
193 MISC SUPPLIEVSTREETS 50.14
193 SLO REPAIR SUP/STREET 259.86
193 BLO RE?AIR SUP/PAA:(S 70.01
46ES.21
219 DEC SHE4IFF'S CONT 21.793.00
219 MAIL INGS/1994 TAX NOT 182.42
21.975.42
36043 12/10/93 Y.M.C.A. OF MIN:4EAP0 224 DEC COM+TRACT PAYMENT 625.00
GENERAL CHECKING TOTAL 1.543.183.84
m
.r
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
12/01/93
07:49:50
Disbursement Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR.
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
C
LIQUOR FUND
17241
11/29/93
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
900022
WINE PURCHASE
2.405.90
17241
11/29/93
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
LIQUOR PURCHASE
3.608.15
17241
11/29/93
JOHNSON PROS WHOLESA
800022
CORRECT COOING
372.80CR
5.641.25
+
17242
11/29/93 'U
S WEST COMMUNICATI
800093
ADVERTISING
24.00
17243
11/29/93
GTE DIRECTORIES SERV
800128
ADVERTISING
32.00
17244
11/29/93
DAVMOR HAMCO
800085
RECEIPT PAPER/SUPPLIES
44.68
17245
11/29/03
MONTICELLO TIMES
800032
ADVERTISING
372.80
17246
11/29/93
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I
800019
BEER PURCHASE
5.846.00
17247
11/29/83
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
LIQUOR PURCHASE
121.55
17247
11/29/93
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
WINE PURCHASE
723.88_
845.43
'
17248
11/29./93
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1.918.80
y
17248
11/28/03
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
WINE PURCHASE
431.24
2.350.10
+
17249
11/29/83
GRIGGS, COOPER & COM
800018
MISC MIXES FOR RESALE 518.01
17249
11/29/93
GRIGGS. COOPER & COM
800018
WINE PURCHASE
204.00
17249
11/20/83
GRIGGS. COOPER & COM
800018
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1.547.26
2.209.93
•
17250
11/29/83
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
600022
WINE PURCHASE
1,374.71
17250
11/29/93
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
LIQUOR CREDIT
3.94CR
1,370.77
+
17251
11/29/93�PHILLIPS
& SONS CO/E
800037
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1.448.01
1725t
11/20/93
PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E
800037
WINE PURCHASE
071.20
2.419.21
17252
11/20/93
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
MISC MIXES FOR
RESALE 80.17
17252
11/29/93
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800060
LIQUOR PURCHASE
2.010.73
2.070.00
17253
1t/29/93
PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E
900037
LIQUOR PURCHASE
3.090.00
17253
11/20/93
PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E
900037
WINE PURCHASE
02.17
3.162.23
'
17254
11/20/03
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
WINE PURCHASE
1.750.52
17255
11/29/93
GRIGGS. COOPER & COM
800018
MISC MIXES FOR
RESALE 22.22
17255
11/20/93
GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE
1.880.67
1,702.69
'
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
I
12/03/03 12:54:48
Oi8bur3ement
Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
LIQUOR FUND
17256
12/03/93
BERNICK"S PEPSI COLA
800001
POP PURCHASE
190.00
17257
13/03/03
COAST TO COAST.
800004
MISC SUPPLIES
6.81
17259
12/03/93
OAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT
900009
BEER PURCHASE
18.045.75
17258
12/03/83
OAHLHEIMER DISTRISUT
000009
NON ALCOHOLIC BEER
358.50
17258
12/03/93
DAHLHEIMER OISTRIBUT
800009
JUICE FOR RESALE
12.50
18.418.75
17259
12/03/93
DAY DISTRIBUTING C0M
800010
BEER PURCHASE
1.174.05
11250
12/03/03
DAY DISTRIBUTING COM
800010
NON ALCOHOLIC BEER
18.85
1.193.50
17280
12/03/83
DICK WHOLESALE CO..
800011
PION ALCOHOLIC' BEER
40.00
17260
12/03/93
DICK WHOLESALE CO..
800011
BEER PURCHASE
1.530.50
17280
12/03/93
DICK WHOLESALE CO..
800011
LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES
30.89
1.601.39
17261
12/03/03
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
MISC MIXES FOR RESALE
00.40
17201
12/03/03
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
WINE PURCHASE
157.74
248. IP
1
17262
12/03/83
FLAHERTY'S HAPPY TYM
800091
MIXES•FOR RESALE
171.00
17263
12/03/03
FLESCH'S PAPER SERVI
800116
BAGS/$UPPLIES
185.40
17264
12/03/93
0 § K SERVICE
800129
MTC Of Bl0/RUGS
49.20
17265
12/03/93
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1640010
LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES
22.10
17205
12/03/93
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I
800019
BEER PURCHASE
0.857.30
17265
12/03/03
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I
000010
NON ALCOHOLIC BEER
132.10
7.011.50
17280
12/03/03
HOME JUICE.
900136
JUICE FOR RESALE
101.80
17287
(2/03/93
IDEAL AOVERTISINO
800129
MISC SUPPLIES
175.15
17288
12/03/93
JUDE CANDY B TOBACCO
800021
CIG$ & CIGARS FOR
RES 195.22
17209
12/03/93
L "N" R SERVICES
000020
NEW LOCKS/MTC OF SLO
605.15
17210
12/03/93
MCDOWALL COMPANY
000065
FURNACE REPAIR
123.00
17271
12/03/93
MI14NEGASCO
000100
UTILITIES
100.75
17272
12/03/03
MN JAYCEES
800100
AOVERTI8ING
bI.9n)
17213
12/03/93
NORTHERN STATES POWE
000035
UTILITIES
744.19'
6RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
12!03193 12:54:48 Disbursement Journal
WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT t
LIQUOR FUND
17274
12/03/93
PAUSTI8 & SONS
800103
WINE PURCHASE
637.80
17275
12/03/93
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
LIQUOR PURCHASE
511.89
17275
12/03/93
QUALITY MINE & SPIRI
800040
WINE PURCHASE
123.70
635.58
17276
12/03/93
RON'S ICE COMPANY
800041
ICE PURCHASE
58.24
17277
12/03/93
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT
800045
MISC ITEMS FOR RESALE 90.60
17277
12/03/93
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT
800045
LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 58.75
149.55
17278
12/03/93
THORPE OISTP.ISUTING
800048
NON ALCOHOLIC BEER
473.75
17278
12/03/93
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
800048
BEER PURCHASE
20.638.60
21.112.35
17270
12/03/03
TWIN CITIES FLAG SOU
800049
NEW FLAB
136.41
17280
12/03/93
VIKING COCA-COLA SOT
800051
POP PURCHASE
391.15
LIQUOR FUND
TOTAL
54.573.93