The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 08-22-1994AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 22, 1994 . 7 p.m - Mayor: Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 8, 1994. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Consideration of a request to allow placement of a veterans memorial monument within a city park. 5. Consideration of granting an increase in the individual pension for volunteer firefighter relief association members. 6. Review of bids for the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet, Project 93-12C, and consideration of award. 7. Consideration of a request to accept wastewater trucked in from St. Michael Heights Sixth Addition development in St. Michael. 8. Review of proposals for underground fuel tank removal and disposal from the Gille site, and consideration of award of contract. 9. Consideration of authorizing study to determine location of future industrial area freeway interchange. 10. Consideration of authorizing staff to seek quotes on the cost to demolish old warning house at West Bridge Park. 11. Consideration of re -sealing the exterior siding of the Monticello Fir; Station. 12. Consideration of bills for the month of August. ,� � ,N c 13. Adjournment. ,,� MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 8, 1894 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson Members Absent: None 2. AAUroval of minutes of the regular meetine held Julv 25. 1994. Shirley Anderson requested that the following statement be added to item #5 on page 2 regarding the variance request made by the SuperAmerica Group: Shirley Anderson stated that the Council should either deny the request or change the ordinance to allow higher signs. Warren Smith noted that he would like the following statement added to 117 regarding tobacco sales: Young also noted that the Hi -Way Liquors establishment did comply with the law and did not sell tobacco products to minors. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that he received a fax from the City Attorney stating proposed findings relating to the SuperAmerica pylon sign height variance request, which should be added to the minutes. O'Neill then read the proposed findings. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held July 25, 1994, with the corrections as noted, including the addition of the findings relating to the SuperAmerica Group as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Citizens comments/aetitions, reouego, and compigLga. A. Glen Posusta requested clarification on the type of curb required in conjunction with development of Amax Storage buildings. Bret Weiss, City Engineer, explained to Posusta why the B6-12 curb is necessary and noted that if Posusta would like to discuss the necessity of certain design standards, an agenda item should be prepared for Council review at an upcoming meeting. After discussion, Clint Herbst agreed that this should be discussed as a future agenda item. Shirley Anderson requested that Posusta write a letter to the City outlining questions and concerns regarding City site development standards. Page 1 l��) Council Minutes - 8/8/94 Rick Busch, a Gillard Avenue resident, presented a petition from Gillard Avenue homeowners against reconstruction of the road and the storm sewer project. He stated they didn't think the road needed replacement at this time and asked that Council review it to see if it's necessary and that residents pay such a large portion of the project. Warren Smith noted that he checked on the condition of Gillard Avenue and was surprised at how bad the surface of the road was. Busch went on to state that there should have been more participation by the Township on this project, as there are only 12 houses on Gillard that are located inside the city limits. He thought there should have been a traffic count to see how much traffic from the city actually uses Gillard. Brad Fyle noted that the Township was notified and declined to participate fully in financing the project. Bret Weiss. City Engineer, noted that the road is about 17 years old and will need replacement relatively soon. He also noted that the proposed roadway assessment is actually less than usual because road surface removal and subgrade expenses were shifted to the storm sewer assessment expense. Busch questioned the amount of the assessment. After discussion, Brad Fyle stated that if the amount comes in quite a bit higher than anticipated, they may want to review it. Corey Hellman, also a resident on Gillard Avenue, stated that the cost of the project should he shared by dividing the total bill evenly among those included in the project. He also agreed with Busch that the road doesn't need replacement at this time. Assistant Administrator O Neill offered to meet and discuss the project in more detail with petitioners. Dick Cordes, a Gillard Avenue resident, added that he concurred with the others. He also stated that they don't benefit from the storm sewer and that amount should be charged to the residents who do benefit from it. Brad Fyle explained that there is some benefit, as water runs down from the hill. He noted that everyone has to pay their portion to help make it equal for all. Consideration of annointment to fill vacant Council position. Brad Fyle reported that Council received a letter of interest from Brim Stumpf, a current Planning Commission member, regarding the vacant Page 2 Council Minutes - 8/8/94 Council seat. In addition, Fyle noted that he spoke with Dan Blonigen, who is also interested in the appointment. Shirley Anderson stated that she preferred to either leave the seat empty or appoint someone who isn't going to run for election this year. An appointment at this time could provide a big advantage to someone who is planning to run for election this year. She noted that when she spoke with Blonigen, he informed her that he did not plan to run for election. It was her assumption that Brian Stumpf probably would. Warren Smith agreed. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Shirley Anderson to appoint Dan Blonigen to fill the vacant Council seat until end of 1994.with4 �4ecdan-this-year, Motion carried unanimously. The City Administrator will notify Blonigen of his appointment beginning with the next Council meeting. Public Hearing --Consideration of adonting a resolution relating to the modification by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Proiect No. 1, the modification of the olans for Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-16. and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17 and adoption of its plan (Fav -Mar). Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing. 011ie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, pointed out that the legislature has changed the way the City can recover its cost. The LGA/ HACA loss to the City over the 11 -year district is estimated at $58,000, of which the City will be able to recover $40,000. Brad Fyle asked if we had recovered 100% in the past. Koropchak noted that we had. There being no comment from the public, Mayor Fyle closed the public hearing. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt a resolution relating to the modification by the HRA of the Redevelopment Plan relating to Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the TIF Plans relating to TIF Districts Nos. 1.1 through 1- 16, and the establishment of TIF District No. 1-17, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the approval and adoption of the TIF Plans relating thereto. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 94.28. Page 3 �� Council Minutes - 88/94 6. Consideration of aooroval of the nreliminary and final slat of the Monticello Commerce Center 2nd Addition. ADnlicant. Monticello Industrial Park. Inc. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat at their August 2 meeting. He reviewed the 3 -acre plat and noted that it is a single lot east of the Barger subdivision and includes easements on the perimeter. The sanitary sewer will require separate connection from either the east or west, which the developer will install under City supervision at his cost. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to approve the preliminary and final plats as of the Monticello Commerce Center 2nd Addition as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of aooroval of the final plat of the Libertv Park commercial subdivision. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Warren Smith to approve the final plat of the Liberty Park commercial subdivision as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Consideration of anolication for carnival license. Aovlicant. Monticello Mall Merchants Association. Brad Fyle noted that this request has come before Council in the past, and the Mall Merchants Association is again asking that the fee be waived. Shirley Anderson asked if the City is protected by the carnival's insurance policy. Administrator Rick Wolfsteller responded that we don't have a surety bond, only liability insurance. In the past, the Council has always waived the surety bond requirement, the purpose of which is to protect the City if damage is done to public property. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve the issuance of a 5 -day carnival license to the Monticello Mall Merchants Association and waive the daily fees by recognizing the Association as a non-profit organization. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Cgnsillerotion to authorize the reougst, bv_Public Repourge Gratin, Inc,, to h additionnl time for cornpl tion of the CDBG analication. Brad Fyle asked if this request is for additional work to process billing. 011ie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, reviewed the $250,000 Page 4 ` 1 Council Minutes - 8/8/94 loan for the H -Window expansion project and noted that it took Public Resource Group, Inc., additional time to complete the added CDBG application process. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Warren Smith to authorize PRG to bill additional time, not to exceed $750, for the CDBG application contingent upon the award of the $250,000 CDBG to the City of Monticello. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Discuss strategies for removing abandoned vehicles from private DroDertv. Consideration of authorizing legal action to remove abandoned vehicles from Holker property. Shirley Anderson asked where the property in question is located. Building Official Gary Anderson reported that a violation is occurring at the Holker property in the area behind the Kens 66 station. Paul Weingarden, City Attorney, explained to Council the problems in handling these types of issues. First, the County does prosecute for criminal matters; however, he felt he would probably be more aggressive than the County, and most cities do have their attorneys handle ordinance violations. Secondly, when the criminal process is used, problems are created for the Courts. Those violators who don't pay the citation can request a jury trial. They usually end up with a petty misdemeanor, which is only a $50 fine; and if they don't pay it, there's nothing you can do. Then the process starts over again. Weingarden went on to explain that the best way to handle these ordinance violations is to get a Court order to remove and sell the vehicle (civil process); however, this can become a little expensive. He recommended that Council authorize him to prosecute or obtain a Court order allowing the City to remove the vehicles. Clint Herbst asked if the prosecution costs can be assessed to the tax rolls. Weingarden explained that some expense might be eligible. For instance, abandoned vehicles could possibly be assessed for the cost of storage, removal, etc., but this would have to done on a case-by-case basis. Clint Herbst asked for an estimate of the processing time for each option. Weingarden replied that it would take approximately 6-8 months to complete the criminal process and 3.6 months for the civil process. Assistant Administrator O'Neill asked Weingarden which is more effective, the criminal process or the civil process. Weingarden stated he felt the civil process is more effective. r— Page 5 Council Minutes - 8/8/94 After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to authorize the City Attorney to take legal action to remove the vehicles from the Holker property using the civil process. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Consideration of an ordinance amendment concernine allowable uses within the public boulevard. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that it has been assumed that our ordinance specifies that mailboxes in new subdivisions be of the cluster concept. Changes to ou-r ordinance were made regarding clustering newspaper boxes due to the former Postmasters efforts to have cluster mailboxes installed in new subdivisions; however, it recently came to stats attention that the ordinance does not specifically indicate that mailboxes have to be constructed in a cluster but referred only to newspaper boxes. Although this has not presented a problem in the past, because the new Monticello Postmaster has indicated that the Postal Service will no longer be providing the boxes for new subdivisions as was done under the former Postmaster, it is recommended that Council adopt an ordinance amendment requiring that mailboxes in new subdivisions be of the duster concept to correspond with the existing requirement that advertising tubes be clustered. Clint Herbst suggested that everyone should pay their share of the box. Wolfsteller noted that it is proposed that developers pay for the boxes, but this was not included in past development agreements because the Post Office provided the boxes. The ordinance amendment is needed to ensure that future subdivisions include cluster mailboxes. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt the ordinance amendment as proposed requiring new subdivisions to utilize cluster mailboxes only. Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 254. 12. Consideration of finishina restroom in the deoutv registrar remodel oroiec4. Clint Herbst asked if the quotes presented include bathroom fixtures. Building Official Gary Anderson responded that fixtures are included in the quoted price. Herbst stated that he felt the restroom should be roughed -in only, as a prospective tenant could finish it in the future. Brad Fyle disagreed. He noted it will be easier to rent the space if a restroom exists. Herbst agreed but noted it could be firsished at the time the space is leased. Page 6 Council Minutes - 8/8/94 Roger Mack, Street/Park Superintendent, reported that if the restroom is not finished at this time, it will cost $500 to install a door leading to the existing restroom in the Help Center versus the $982.17 to finish the proposed restroom at this time. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve the request to complete the restroom in the motor vehicle office at a cost not to exceed $982.17. Voting in favor: Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Clint Herbst. Herbst felt that the restroom should be finished in the future since there is a restroom in the Help Center that is available to the motor vehicle staff. At this time, Gary Anderson, Building Official, updated the Council on the progress of the remodeling and the schedule for completion. He noted staffs appreciation that the contractors were able to begin the remodeling on such short notice. 13. Consideration of antwintine iudees for the 1994 arlmary and eeneral elections. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Clint Herbst to appoint the following individuals as judges for the 1994 elections: Yvonne Smith Lucille Clausen Joanne Link Rita Soltau Jeanette Host Robert Rohland Betty Lund Robert C. Nelson Florence Mayer Shirley Maus Leona Kline Gloria Gasser Opal Stokes Bette Gro8snickle Rosemary Dahl Motion carried unanimously. 14. Other matters,. A. City Attorney Paul Weingarden distributed to Council members a memo regarding the newly enacted law prohibiting gifts to public officials and explained how this new law applies to Council and City staff. B. Mayor Fyle noted there were updates included in the packet regarding the Hornig project, in Country Club Manor, the job description change for the ftill•timo deputy registrar position, and Page 7 �l Council Minutes - 8/8/94 proposed building permit fee adjustments, and asked if there was any discussion regarding these items. Shirley Anderson suggested that the building permit fees be discussed as an agenda item at a future Council meeting. Fyle agreed and noted that when all the survey information is available, the building permit fee item will be discussed as an agenda item. C. Clint Herbst asked where the Eastwood Knoll project stands, as he had been contacted by a realtor who wondered if he would receive a commission if he helps to push the sale of this property. Administrator Wolfsteller noted that it is assumed that if a realtor sells a parcel they will receive a commission, but it probably won't be ready by this fall. Prices still need to be established. Shirley Anderson stated that if a realtor sells the property, the City needs to make sure the purchase price is adequate to get its money back plus pay the realtor's fee. She agreed to let realtors try and sell the property. Brad Fyle and Clint Herbst also agreed but only after the plans are finished and bid factors are in. Wolfsteller suggested that the City somehow make the property available to all realtors to try and sell, and asked if the Council is interested in pre -sales. Bret Weiss, City Engineer, reported that he recently spoke with Tony Emmerich. Weiss noted that Emmerich is still interested in swapping the Eastwood Knoll land for industrial land and that he will be getting some numbers together for Council. Wolfsteller asked Council if they want OSM to finish preparing the plans and specifications. Brad Fyle noted he would like to see the project started in the spring of 1995. Wolfsteller stated he will bring the item back to Council at a later date. C. City Engineer Bret Weiss reported that there has been a change in the Gillard Avenue/Meadow Oak storm sewer project plan to trade assessment costs for crossing the Bauer's property. Using the assessment rates that have been discussed, the Bauers would obtain $31,000 for the City's right to cross their property; however, the Bauers now would like the City to purchase 9 acres at $4,500 per acre and will pay the assessment in the future when the property is developed rather than trade City access to their property for an assessment abatement as previously discussed. He noted that the City Administrator has contacted appraiser's to look at the proposal, but it could be a stumbling block for the project, including some extra Page 8 1 Council Minutes - 8/8/94 costs. More information will be provided at the neat Council meeting. Weiss added that $4,500 per acre seems out of line and that it should be $3,000 per acre at the most. Brad Fyle asked if Bauers were losing more land due to this project than would otherwise have been lost to wetlands. Weiss responded that they would not have lost more land. They now realize they have a 3 -acre wetland and are concerned about liability. Consequently, they now want to sell the whole thing rather than receive assessment credits. D. Gary Anderson, Building Official, reported on the progress of the Gille property project. He noted the building has been demolished, soil excavation has been done in the back, which has been noted to be within PCA limits, and bids are due back August 18 for tank removal. The County has been notified of our findings, and they may eonsider selling the property in the future. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty Office Manager Page 9 Council Agenda - 8/22/94 Considerption of a request to allow placement of a veterans memorial monument within a city Dark. (R.W. ) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: I was recently approached by IMr. Lloyd Lund on behalf of the American Legion Club, who indicated that a local area Girl Scout was trying to get the Legion and VFW Clubs interested in sponsoring a veterans memorial monument somewhere within the community. The individual Girl Scout, Joanne Yeager, will he in attendance at the Council meeting to further explain the request. Her interest in establishing this monument has to do with obtaining a special badge for Girl Scouts. The information I have available at this time indicates that the proposed memorial would be approximately a 4-R high granite monument, a picture of which is enclosed with the agenda. It is my understanding that the Legion Club and VFW Club have indicated a willingness to fund the memorial project, and the Council is asked to consider allowing one of our parks to be used as the site for this memorial. If the Council feels it is a worthwhile project for one of our parks, the Council could choose to pick a park for its location, or you may want to refer the matter to the Parks Commission for their recommendation on a specific park and/or location. With the City continually adding and developing new parks throughout the community, the Council may also want to look at this as an opportunity to possibly establish a new park within one of our newer subdivisions as a location for this memorial and possibly even name the park "veterans memorial park," etc. By doing so, the City may open up more of a possibility of receiving funding from veterans organizations for improvements in this park in the future. On the other hand, it may he premature to name any individual park as a veterans memorial park without substantial support being committed by veterans organizations for improvements. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. After hearing the request, the Council could indicate support for allowing a veterans menorial to be located within one of the city parks and refer the request to the Parke Commission for a recommendation on location. 2. Council could approve the request and indicate which park it would be allowed in, subject to Public Works/Parks Superintendents approval. 3. Council could oppose the memorial being located within any city park. Council Agenda - 8/22194 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION From the initial information available, it does not appear that the proposed memorial would be a problem within a city park as long as it was placed in an area that did not obstruct recreational activities, etc. As to the location, this is really a Council decision, but the idea of considering a new park to be designated as a "veterans memorial park" may be premature without further input from the veterans organizations. While the naming of a park may encourage more donations for improvements, it may be likewise premature to name a park for the veterans without some sort of commitment for additional improvements. If the Council did approve the request for Ellison or Bridge Park, I'm sure the Parks Commission and/or public works department personnel could find and recommend an appropriate location. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Sketch of proposed veterans memorial monument. CA Council Agenda - 8/22194 Consideration of arantina an increase in the individual pension for volunteer firefighter relief association members. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Members of the volunteer fire department will be attending the meeting to request that the City Council consider an increase in their retirement benefit from the present $1,225 per year of service to $1,300 per year. This benefit is payable in a lump sum after 20 years of service on the fire department. The relief association's last increase was granted in June of 1992 to the present $24,500/$1,225 per year amount. In 1990, the benefit was increased to $23,500/$1,175 per year; in 1989, the increase was to $21,500/$1,075 per year; in 1988, the increase was to $19,500/$975 per year; in 1987, to $17,500/$875 per year; and in 1986, $16,000/$800 per year was the benefit granted. A number of years ago, the Council had set a policy that indicated it would not consider any increase in benefits unless the fund was either self- sufficient whereby the assets of the association were greater than its accrued liability, or any increase would not result in a contribution from the city taxpayers. As an additional note, state statutes do not allow the association to increase its own benefits without City Council approval unless their assets are greater than their liabilities. During the last number of years when the increase in pensions occurred, the City Council had not expected to use any tax dollars to support the pension liability but assumed, based on the financial schedules provided, that the increase in benefits would not require tax levy support but would be supported by state aid and interest earnings from investments. In 1990, the pension was allowed to increase to $1,175 per year of service based on a certain amount of expected state aid. Changes in how state aid revenue was calculated resulted in the fire department receiving less aid than had been originally expected, which resulted in the City contributing $691 in taxpayers funds to support the previously -approved pension amount. This was the first time in many years that the City has ever had to contribute toward the relief association pension, and the change in the formula was originally unforeseen by the City staff or fire department. In 1992, the financial report indicated that the relief association could have received a pension of $1,250 per year; but the Council only chose to increase the pension by $60 to $1,225 to provide additional cushion should the interest earnings or state aid not he received as expected. Council Agenda - 8/22/94 The financial schedule that computes the benefits has now been completed for the year 1995 and has been calculated at an increase in the pension benefit to $1,300 per year/$25,000 for 20 years of service. The financial schedule as proposed again supports an increase of $75 to the $1,300 amount without requiring a tax levy. The association's primary income consists of interest earnings on their investments, along with state aid funds. In reviewing the financial schedules, an adjustment was made to the interest earning's estimate for 1994 to more accurately reflect the interest earnings that have occurred for the first seven months of the year. Annual - wise, I only used the projected 2.7% investment earnings, which should provide a little room for errors since the fire reliefs investments are somewhat tied to mutual funds and the stock market in general. Normally, interest earnings are allowed to be projected at 51% or more; and by utilizing only an estimate of 2.7%, we should not he overstating the assets at the end of the year. As I have noted in the past, when the association requests an increase in their benefits, the Council should be aware that the majority of the relief association's income is based on state aid, which the City does not have control ever. This was the case in 1991 when, unexpectedly, the State changed the formula resulting in about a $6,000 income loss to the association. While we do not expect this to happen again, we do not have any control over the relief association continuing to receive state aid. If for some reason the State decided to again cut state aid or eliminate it entirely, any shortfall in revenue would require the City to support the pension benefit. levels that you may have approved in the past. Likewise, the increase requested to the $1,300 could also require some municipal support if there is a large fluctuation in interest income or state aid reductions. I only point this out to let you know that there are no guarantees that municipal support through tax levies would not ever be required. Once the Council approves a pension amount, they are obligated to support the necessary revenue needed to continue that level of pension. The only way to be entirely sure of no municipal support is to only allow the association to increase benefits when their assets exceed their liabilities. While the association does have a substantial amount of assets estimated at close to $300,000, their liability at $1,300 per year of service exceeds $381,000; therefore, they need Council approval to increase their benefits. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Grant an increase to $1,300 per year/$26,000. 1I\ Council Agenda - 8/22194 This increase, according to the relief association schedule, would not require a City contribution and should be able to be funded through anticipated state aids and other interest earnings on investments. 2. Grant an increase above the current $1,225 per year amount but less than the $1,300 requested. 3. Do not grant an increase in benefits and only allow an increase to occur when the association has more assets than liabilities. At this point, it is projected it would take a number of years before an increase could occur on their own without Council approval until such time as their assets exceeded their liabilities. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Again, it appears that the relief association financial computations do allow for the fire department to support an increase in their annual pension to the $1,300 per year amount without requiring a City contribution. Anything over this amount would more than likely require City support through taxes. Based on this information, I have no objection to the increase being granted as long as the City Council realizes that there are no guarantees that state aid or investment earnings will continue at the present level. If state aids are cut or the relief association's investments turn sour, the City Council would have to make up the lost revenue by a tax levy. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Computation of benefits for each member at the $1,300 per year level of service. SCHEDULE 1 -II FOR LUMP SUM PENSION PLANS STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1995 Monticello of Wright F'vefighters Relief Association of C�Sr SCHEDULE I CompumWn of benefit of relid association special fund (at $1300 Per 7m of service) for All member basad on thew Years of service as Active fire department members. 1 Natote 1. D. Krenz 2. T. Farnum 3. M. Flicker 4. J. Moriall 5. S. Douglas 6, W. LaBrao 7, res. Wal:— ' G. Dahlheimer 9. J. Wain 10- M. Joh neon Tod of Dafertad Pensions, If Any Total Unpaid Imsallnumm, If Any Tod of Euly Vested Pensions, If Any A. Ammed IJAb1Vty Tering Nast Year 1995 (nod. whams 7) B. Acmued LJablllty through this vat 1994 (md. col®a 5) C. Subnct Line B Qom Lala A (mrzasl car) 2 3 4 5 1994 Years Active Aeaued To End of Tab Year F.D. 26 33,800 Age Entry Dau Yen Active Aaaued 27,300 Service Liability 06-70 25 32,500 03-73 22 28,600 05-75 20 26,000 05-75 20 26,000 03-76 19 23,972 05-77 18 22,074 ...-„ 19 22,074 02-78 17 20,280 12-78 15 16,952 09-80 14 15,392 6 7 1995 To Fad of Next Year Years Active Aeaued Service Liabliiry 26 33,800 23 29.900 21 27,300 21 27,300 20 26,000 19 23,972 19 23,972 18 22.074 l 16 18,564 15 16,952 �I I Fractional yaks d service mm be nlalasod m oetrat ho yew. Do oat am liWbllty bs mlumm 5 or 7 fist soy parva abo will tecel emirs pmsbn duft dib yem. For hattallmtat tialaty, emer amaum which wGI be pay abM after end of skis year In bah aoluma 5 sad cahum 7. \ If Interns b m be paid on unpaid pembm, add hetelm fist t year bo mloa 7. A OW of these schedules most be p amted w the Chy Caandl before Aum1 ach yea. SCHEDULE I-11 FOR LUMP SUM PENSION PLANS STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1995 Firefighters Relief Association of Monticello Couzff9 of Wright SCHEDULE I Computation of benefit of relief association special flmd (u S_1300 per year of service) for all members based on thew yeas of service as active fire depar went members. 1 Name 11. M. Theisen 12. T. Leifert 13. B. Fyle 14 K. Stumpf 15. G. Host i 16. T. Bremer 17. M. Simpson L. Larson 19. N. Kranz 20. S. Samuelson Tod of Deferred Pensions. If Any Tod Unpaid lomllmmts. If Aoy Tool of FAdy Veined Pemiom. If Any A. A=w d L1xbW 2ar000 New Yaw 1995 (total. aaitta 7) B. Accrued Liability dsrou9b this Year 1994 (Cod. Cobnen 5) C. Ste mut Lin B fh m Liao A (normal Cost) 2 3 F.D. Age Entry Dwe 05-82 11-83 06-84 06-85 10-85 12-85 01-87 01-87 05-87 11-87 4 S 1994 To End of This Yen Yeas Active Accrued service Liability 13 13,910 11 11.154 11 11,154 10 9,880 9 8,658 9 8,658 8 7,468 8 7,488 8 7,488 7 6,396 6 7 1995 To End of Neu Year Yean Active Accrued Service Liability 14 15,392 12 12.506 12 12,506 11 11,154 10 9,880 10 9,880 9 8,658 9 8,658 9 8,658 8 7,468 Fnetiosal yelos of service mm be mWind m nmreat trill yea. Do not eats IlabRhy In whmna 5 or 7 for soy pesos who wM etacdva etotim pwd a dmittR ibis year. For tenon— liability, cur amoom rhicb will be pay" aft sad d thh yen In both whit® 3 ad oW= 7. If intense is to be paid on wVaM pensionsadd itaezas 11w I year to ad— 7. A Copy of these sdushsle mm be praemed o1 as City Catme0 befbrs Auguat 1 sad year. 5 SC EMULE I-11 FOR LUMP SUM PENSION PLANS STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1995 F'uefightets Relief AaSOtiation of Monticello Comfy of Wright SCHEDULE 1 Computation of benefit of relief a_swc== special fund (at $-L30--0 PQ year of service) for aU membri based on Hier years of service as active fire deparmneat member. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1994 1995 To End of This Year To End of Neu Year FD. Name E01Ty Dam Yem Amro d yed Yeus Active Ac=ed Service Liability Service Liability 21. B. Stumpf 07-88 5 5,330 7 6,396 22. B. Cyr 01-90 5 4,342 6 5,330 .23. 7. Michaelis 01-90 5 4,342 6 5,330 ,24. G. Sonsteby 06-93 2 1,612 3 2,470 25, R. Lymer 06-93 2 1,612 3 2,470 126. J. Kranz 06-93 2 1,612 3 2,470 .27. T. Johnson 06-93 2 1,612 3 2,470 1 29. 30. Tool of Deferred Pemioos, If Any Total Uapdd Imtallmemo, If Any Tool of Early vested Pemiam, if Airy A. Accrued LW&ky Tbrough Neta Yaw 1995 381.550 (Dotal. colt® 7) B. Accrued Usbilhy dds Year 1994 346,580 (tool. aolmsta 5) C. Subarea Lim B flvm 34,970 Liao A (00nZal Cost) Fractional yeses of service toot be calwlatad m accent Adl yah. Do cot em liability is ataxans 5 or 7 fbt my person who wM teedve tmhe probe dsafo{ Ifb 7w. For Los>tan— liability, amen -0 which will be payable skew eau of this yea is bad& colo® 5 and Colum 7. U tmaet Is m be paid on anpaid pemiaw, add immmt fbr I yea to mleasa 7. 5 A copy of there schedules amts be prarsted to the Chy Council btetksete AUM 1 each yes. Schedule II Section 1 C kuladon #minfazon Mwdcod cowibwm .amination of ProjecW Na Assets is of Decemba 31, 1994 Assets at December 31, 1993 IS 288.662 Projected Income to December 31, 1,994 a. Nrmnewta Stam Aid S 29,382 b. Municipal fire) Co — = ' c. Donations* f d. Invesenmt Income = 7.750 e. Realized Gains (lona) i f. Unrealized Ga, aa (losses) g' � * 25 37,132 Projected Assets plus Income December 31, 1994 Cr— I . Bw 21 3$ 325.794 Projected Disbursement; daVU h cad of yea h. Pensions S 26,00 I. Ckher Bemfits S 1.500 1' VO $ e00 4 S 29 , 300 Tool Projected Assets at end of ym Mw 3 aim eo 4) 5S 297.494 ->;plain here. Section 2 Detomi+mrlaat cfAvleczrd Surpl++r !)#!ctrl as of December 31. 1994 Projected Assaf (ow n 6 S 297,494 Accrued Liability Ne• B. fort. 1) 7S 346,580 ss (4 9 , 086 ) Surplus (ddich) (fnlaa Its 7 aim as 6) • Go to Section 3 It Staptnr • Go m Seaton 4 V Dgldt Section 3 Decaminxioe eJelante(paf C00*101- (V Irl Normal Cost (Line C. Schedule 1) 9S Calculated Admin to adve Expense 10 S Lena: k. Minnesota State Aid 3 1. s % d Ilse s S 10% of line 8 S l l S —dal Subtractions Municipal Contr%utlon Ne• 9, On Ie els M 1211 If f 1.00 or Vesta. catlfy to mmldpslhy bdbfo August 1. 1994. If negadve number, no conaftwon is dna i Section 4 Total from line C. Schedule I 41noftauton of Deficit YM IDCMTW 1988 l9� 1990 Tmh DetcnnW=on of Mwddpat Cantsiburion AfDeficit) 13 S 34,970 Amortization of Prior Delict (rod emm Cala® I X 10%) 14S 5,089 Amortization of wr de8dt (if any) 13 S 2. Sao Calmlamd Administraiva FiVeme 16S 1,025 Less: a Mlnaesom Stam Aid S 29.382 0. 5% of Iim S S14,874 Total Subs 17 S aa, 256 Munidpal COeC1l loon (Um 13 pts tis 14. IJ. 16 min= Iib 17) 18S +592 surplus of 0 or negmhe. More Lt no mudcOd cmwibluion) You must aedfy to mmldpaGq before AMM 1, L9K evea U no ON&M tlos Is doe. Calculation of A—je tpedd find Inearne pa —nber A B C D Asoma amUnd m Mr OnV W Asoos Y® 23,896 15,164 16,419 8,210 10,570 4,228 50.885 27.602 Amortization of Prior Delict (rod emm Cala® I X 10%) 14S 5,089 Amortization of wr de8dt (if any) 13 S 2. Sao Calmlamd Administraiva FiVeme 16S 1,025 Less: a Mlnaesom Stam Aid S 29.382 0. 5% of Iim S S14,874 Total Subs 17 S aa, 256 Munidpal COeC1l loon (Um 13 pts tis 14. IJ. 16 min= Iib 17) 18S +592 surplus of 0 or negmhe. More Lt no mudcOd cmwibluion) You must aedfy to mmldpaGq before AMM 1, L9K evea U no ON&M tlos Is doe. Calculation of A—je tpedd find Inearne pa —nber A B C D 8 bs M-impd I" d AOdw Aid s:pb bGMMbM Map Lw)mmr 193 29,382 --- --- 28 1,049 27—gp 192 29,086 --- --- 26 1,1113 Y— &V 191 29,138 691 --- 26 1,147 TOW Coh® B df+idd by 3 $1,105 MMMM palm Ba& mdsr mann 2,000 Council Agenda - 8/22/94 Review of bide for the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet. Prosect 93- 12C. &12C, and consideration of award. (J.S.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City received bids for the Meadow Oak trunk storm sewer outlet on Friday, August 12. The bids were broken into three sections --first, the street construction; second, the base bid for the small diameter pipe; and then the alternate bid for the large diameter pipe. We received five bids, the lowest of which was received from Landwehr Construction. Their bid for the street construction was $96,060, which is approximately $9,775 above the estimate. The low bid for the small diameter pipe was$262,056. This was $79,866 over the estimate. The low bid for the alternate, the large 60 diameter pipe, was $522,254. This was actually $11,074 less than the estimate. The above bids put the City in somewhat of a dilemma in that the road replacement and the small diameter pipe construction costs are significantly more (almost $90,000) than we estimated, and this is excluding the engineering and other indirect costs. Somehow, our basic project costs got way out of wack. Our original estimates could he off, as the design does vary slightly (pipe depth) from our original proposal, but it is also likely that the large diameter pipe alternate bid clouded the proposals given for our base project. At any rate, the base project appears to be economically unfeasible at this time. In addition, the only way the large alternate project would move ahead would be for us to keep our participation in it similar to what we originally proposed for our budget for the base project. This would require a contribution from MN/DOT and Wright County in the neighborhood of $320,000 to $350,000 toward construction cost, or $410,000 to $450,000 total project cost when you include engineering and other indirect costs. It is my understanding that Bret has discussed the cost with MN/DOT, and 1 have discussed the cost with Wyman Nelson, the Wright County Attorney, who indicated he would be discussing the prices with Pat Sawatzke, County Commissioner. We do not expect to have input from them prior to the completion of the agenda item. We will, however, have some input available by Monday evening's meeting so the Council can make a decision. We have been moving ahead with negotiations with Mr. and Mrs. Bauer for drainage rights W increase the water flowing through their wetland and inlet and egress easement rights also. It appears that they would like us to purchase the necessary land rather than give us easement rights, as it Council Agenda - 8/22/94 would provide less of a liability for them in the future. We are obtaining an appraisal on that portion of the Bauer property to be used for drainage area. We have a letter of understanding with Mr. and Mrs. Gene Bauer. A copy of the letter is enclosed for your review. In addition, Jeff O'Neill has provided some summary information from discussions with property owners concerned about the street and storm sewer assessments along Gillard from a meeting which took place earlier this week. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to award the project based upon the small diameter pipe fulfilling the needs of the City of Monticello to Landwehr Construction for a low bid price, including the street work, of $358,116. This alternative does not appear to be economically feasible, as it is significantly above our projected budget for the project. 2. The second alternative would be to award the alternate bid, the large diameter pipe and street construction, to the low bidder, Landwehr Construction, for $618,314. This alternative would only be feasible if it included construction cost contributions from the State and County near $320,000 to $350,000 to bring our base project cost within our estimated range, or $410,000 to $450,000 toward the entire project cost. 3. The third alternative assumes no significant contribution from Wright County and MN/DOT occurs. We would, therefore, reject the bids, re- analyze our base project with the small diameter pipe, and look at as many cost-saving features as possible, and re -bid the project in February of 1995. There would be no alternate, just our base small pipe project at a minimum depth. C, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since staff does not have any cost sharing proposals at this time from Wright County or MN/DOT, it would be difficult to make a recommendation. Once those proposals are in or are known to not he forthcoming, we can make a decision. We do not in reality have the option of tabling the bids for any significant length of time, as the construction season is extremely short, Council Agenda - 8/22/94 and the project could not be completed this year if delayed 2-4 weeks. Consequently, we would end up with Gillard Avenue in an unfinished condition even if the pipework could be completed. After the City Administrator and I spoke with Mr. and Mrs. Gene Bauer, we don't feel that the temporary storage of water from the Meadow Oak pond on the Bauer property is an option. If we did purchase the wetland area, it is doubtful whether we could keep the amount of water from Meadow Oak confined within that area with no outlet, and the Bauers do not wish to see the entire east half of their property flooded; and without obtaining temporary easement rights to a major portion of the land to the east of the Bauers and sealing up the north branch of ditch 33, this does not appear to be a practical short-term solution. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of bid tab; Copy of August 15, 1994, letter from OSM to the City; Copy of letter of understanding between Mr. and Mrs. Gene Bauer and the City for purchase of their land; Copy of summary from Jeff O'Neill on the meeting with property nwners along Gillard Avenue who were concerned about street replacement and storm sewer assessment. Re: Bid Results Meadow Oaks Storm Sewer Outlet City of Monticello Project No. 93-12C OSM Project No. 5489.00 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On Friday, August 12, 1994, we received five responsible bids for the above -referenced project. Each bid included the following three sections: Street Construction - This includes all the items associated with the street removal and reconstruction of Gillard Avenue. Base Bid - The base bid included all items associated with the City's proposed storm sewer project, utilizing a 30 -inch reinforced concrete pipe. Alternate Bid - The alternate bid is a mirror image of the base bid with the exception of being slightly deeper and utilizing a 60 -inch pipe instead of the 30 -inch RCP. This alternate would provide additional capacity for County Ditch 33. As can he seen from the attached bid results, the bids received are higher than the engineer's estimate for the project for both the street construction and base bid. The alternate bid is actually $10,000 below the engineer's estimate. I contacted two of the bidders to inquire if the bidding climate was to blame for the high base bids. Those contractors stated that they needed some work to rill out the year and that they felt their prices were low. After examining the bids, I am not as confident that they are correct in their initial assessment. It appears that the contractors may have been anticipating which alternate the City Council would select and have adjusted their prices accordingly. 1 can't be sure of this assessment due to the fact that all rive bidders bid the project in a similar fashion, however, it is difficult to explain why the engineer's estimate for the base bid is off by $80.000, but the alternate bid is right on the engineer's estimate. I would be willing to recommend awarding the alternate bid based on the numbers received if we had some realistic numbers to utilize for the City's share of that project. Because we did not receive good bids for the base bid project. 1 believe we have the following options. n:Wo�Scmwcoua�mf�..tnc FaW1 r`Pn�ay r mp`'rr � / OAMSX=t� 300 Park Plaice Cmter August 15, 1994 5775 Wayzata a ulevard Muvuaputrs, MN 55416-1228 612.505.5775 1-800-753.5775 PAX 595-5774 Engineers Honorable Mayor and City Council Archlle is City of Monticello S� eym P.O. Box 1147 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Re: Bid Results Meadow Oaks Storm Sewer Outlet City of Monticello Project No. 93-12C OSM Project No. 5489.00 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On Friday, August 12, 1994, we received five responsible bids for the above -referenced project. Each bid included the following three sections: Street Construction - This includes all the items associated with the street removal and reconstruction of Gillard Avenue. Base Bid - The base bid included all items associated with the City's proposed storm sewer project, utilizing a 30 -inch reinforced concrete pipe. Alternate Bid - The alternate bid is a mirror image of the base bid with the exception of being slightly deeper and utilizing a 60 -inch pipe instead of the 30 -inch RCP. This alternate would provide additional capacity for County Ditch 33. As can he seen from the attached bid results, the bids received are higher than the engineer's estimate for the project for both the street construction and base bid. The alternate bid is actually $10,000 below the engineer's estimate. I contacted two of the bidders to inquire if the bidding climate was to blame for the high base bids. Those contractors stated that they needed some work to rill out the year and that they felt their prices were low. After examining the bids, I am not as confident that they are correct in their initial assessment. It appears that the contractors may have been anticipating which alternate the City Council would select and have adjusted their prices accordingly. 1 can't be sure of this assessment due to the fact that all rive bidders bid the project in a similar fashion, however, it is difficult to explain why the engineer's estimate for the base bid is off by $80.000, but the alternate bid is right on the engineer's estimate. I would be willing to recommend awarding the alternate bid based on the numbers received if we had some realistic numbers to utilize for the City's share of that project. Because we did not receive good bids for the base bid project. 1 believe we have the following options. n:Wo�Scmwcoua�mf�..tnc FaW1 r`Pn�ay r mp`'rr � / Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Monticello, MN August 15, 1994 Page 2 1) Contact Mn/DOT and Wright County and offer them the same package that included a contribution from them of approximately 5320,000 to $350,000 of the construction cost or $410,000 to $450,000 project cost. 2) Continue to work toward acquiring the Bauer property for a potential holding pond and creation of a larger wetland area. If this is completed, we can allow some of the water from the Meadow Oak Pond to be stored on the Bauer property to somewhat alleviate problems on the south side of the freeway for the short term. 3) Examine the Charlie Walters and Mike Beck properties to see if they can be filled to accommodate the pond volumes that will be utilized once the pipe is in place. 4) Rebid the project in February, 1995 with no alternate. It is my feeling that Wright County and Mn/DOT are not ready to complete a project at this time nor commit to the potential project costs as identified in Item 1. Therefore, if we follow steps 2 through 4, we can address our concerns for the short term and long term, and I feel by bidding only the base bid, that we will receive prices more in line with what we originally anticipated. Therefore, if Wright County and Mn/DOT are not willing to contribute at this time, we should reject the bids and follow steps 2 through 4 as referenced above. Please give me a call at 595-5705 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Sincerely, ORR-SCHEIEN-MAYERON &�ASAS.O�C—IATEIS, NC. Bret a Weiss, P.E. City Engineer nm m�v.m�cmm.�cnu�ms.Hre I `�' > _v BID TABULATION FOR MEADOW OAKS TRUNK STORM SEWER OUTLET AND NORTHEAST GILLARD AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION CITY PROJECT NO. 93-12C FOR THE CITY OF MONTICEL L0 WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA BIDS OPENED: 10:00 A.M. ORR-SCHELEN-IAYERON August 12, 1994 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. CONTRACTOR BID STREET BASE ALTERNATE SECURITY CONSTRUCTION RIA BID LANDWEHRCONSTRUCTION X 699,060.00 SM.05600 $522,254.00 S. J. LOUIS CONSTRUCTION X $97,050.90 $311,078.00 1582,588.00 LATOUR CONSTRUCTION, INC. X $107,851.76 $332,987.20 $595,199.80 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION X $111,866.25 $352,492.00 $648,244.50 O. L CONTRACTORS X S114,131.90 $354,990.00 $873.045.90 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $88,20500 $182,19000 $533.328.00 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 19 A TRUE AND CORRECT TABULATION OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ON: DATE: Aupw1 12, 1� 1 BY: � Brat A. Wolsk C11Y Er4*m OSM Project No. 6469.00 'Donates C4wwod FlWo MONTICELL( 250 Eaer Broadway 1'. O. N,x 1147 Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Moro: (612) iia -5739 fax: (612) 295-4404 Mr. and Mrs. Gene Bauer 6677 95th St. NE Monticello, MN 56362 August 17, 1994 Ito: Letter of Understanding for purchase of wetland and adjoining property Dear Mr, nnrl Mrs. Battpr- As per your discussions today, August 17, with myself and Rick Wolfst.eller, City AdminisLrator, I present the following conceptual plan for the purchase of portions of your property for continued use as a wetland and drainage way. I. It is the intention of the City 10 purchase it minimum of 4 acres of existing wetland as delinented by Kerry Saxton of the Wright County Sail Conservation Office and to slightly reconfigure the existing wetland, if possible, to have the least effect on the re nnining property. In addition, the City would purchase up to 6 additional acres of u(Ijoining land if the increased use of Lite wetland renders that land non-usahle. 2. Mr. tend Mrs. Bauer and lite City will agree un the final configuration of the wetland and tiny adjoining land to be purchased. 3. The Ilnuers and the City staff have agreed to have an appraisal of the wetland and adjoining land considered for purchase by Mr. Hod Dragsten and that Lhe City will pay fair market value for any land it purchases. The City will pay for the appraisal by Mr. Hud Dragsten. If either party feels that the appraisal price does not represent fair market value, additional appraisals may Ile considered. 4. The purchase price of the land will also include a permnuent casement to Gillard for access to Clip property old placement of It st,orin sewer drainage pipe need tell easement from 1.94 to Lite wetland. The easements will he 20 11 width and placed at. a location approved by Mr. and Mrs. ISnuer. to Mr. and Mrs. Gene Bauer August 17, 1994 Page 2 G. The City will purchase enough land to contain the storm water discharged from the existing freeway drainage and the Meadow Oak storm sewer system so that the water will be contained within the pond during all normally occurring rainfall events. The Bauers will provide a temporary easement for construction on the northeastern portion of their property under a separate document for a cost to be agreed upon. The City will hold the Bauers harmless for any actions that occur due to the City or its contractor on that property during the life of the temporary easement. The temporary easement will expire at the conclusion of the contractor's warranty for the project. Immediately after vacating the property, the City will restore the property to as near original condition as possible. With the Bauers' aid, the City will locate and cap the drain tiles leading to ditch 33 at the conclusion of the project. It is our understanding that the above represents the framework for the purchase of your property. If you believe this to be a true and correct representation of your understanding of our weeting today, please sign and roturn one of the copies enclosed. Thank you. Respectfully, CITY OF MONTICELLO John Simoln Public Works Director JS/kd cc: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Bret Weiss, City Engineer File Gene Bauer Lois Bauer b6l MONTICELLO 250 East Bwadt av P. O. N,x 1 147 Monticcllo, MN 55361-9145 MEMO Phone: (612) 245-2711 Metro: (612) 333.5739 Far: (612) 295-4404 TO: Bret Weiss, City Engineer; Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator; John Simola, Public Works Director; Mayor and Council members; Gillard Avenue Residents FROM: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator DATE: August 18, 1994 RE: Summary of neighborhood meeting held August 15, 1994 A meeting was held on August lei, 1994, at 5 p.m., for the purpose of reviewing impacts of the proposed Meadow Oak storm sewer projecton properties located on Gillard Avenue. Assistant Administrator O'Neill and City Engineer, Bret Weiss, were in attendance. Individuals representing eight properties were in attendance. The attendance sheet is attached. Following is a summary of the meeting. If you have any comments regarding the summary, please call. The major neighborhood concerns and staff responses were as follows: Concern: It does not appear that Gillard roadway needs replacement. Road replacement is needed only because of the storm sewer project needs. Therefore, the cost of the road replacement should be incorporated into the storm sewer funding program. Staff Resaunse: It was explained that the roadway will need to he replaced relatively soon regardless of the storm sewer project. 'rhe neighborhood will, therefore, gain benefit from a new road that will Inst for years to come. A major portion of Lite roadway cost. (surface removal and suhgrade prep) is included in the storm sewer assessment figures. Shifting this removal and suhgrade prep expense to the storm sewer assessment offsets the added expense to the residents associated with replacement of Clio road prior to complete deterioration. Memo Gillard Avenue Neighborhood Meeting August 18, 1994 Page 2 Concern: The township residents on Gillard should pay for half of the cost of the roadway replacement. Staff Response: The City cannot assess the township properties for their share of the improvement expense. The Township did agree to pay an amount equal to the cost of a standard maintenance project for this type of street in the township. The township residents' share of the roadway expense will be paid by the City. Concern: Speeds are too high on Gillard. What can be done? Staff Response: O'Neill noted that the public works department has been in contact with the Township regarding this issue. He noted that he would check with John Simola on the status of this issue. He noted that reducing the speed may first require a review by the State of Minnesota. 4. Concern: Have other options for routing the storm sewer been explored? Is routing the system through the future Krautbauer development feasible? Staff Resoonse: Bret Weiss noted that the City Council reviewed other options for routing the storm sewer. This option was selected based on cost and because the City has easement rights (Gillard Avenue) to construct the project as proposed. The other alternatives were not feasible because they would have required condemnation or payments for easement rights. Weiss noted that the Krautbauer alternative was reviewed 10 years ago and discounted due G) the high cost. Weiss went on to note that there may he time to review this alternative again because the project may not proceed this fall due to the fact that the bids came in high on the base project. O'Neill and informed the group that the feasibility of the Krauflmucr alternative wov'id be explored if the present project is not ordered. Council Agenda - 8/22/94 7. Consideration of a request to accent wastewater trucked in from St. Michael Heights Sixth Addition development in St. Michael. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Ralph Munsterteiger of Crow -94 Properties, Inc., is interested in building homes in the St. Michael Heights Sixth Addition area of St. Michael and is facing a similar problem that Mr. Tony Emmerich was encountering in his Creek Ridge development in St. Michael. The Minnesota PCA will not allow any additional sewage to enter the City of St. Michael's wastewater treatment facility, as it is currently at capacity. While the City of St. Michael is in the process of rebuilding their wastewater treatment plant, the expanded facility will not be available until some time later on in 1995. In February of 1994, the City agreed to enter into an agreement with Mr. Emmerich allowing him to transport up to 12,000 gallons per day of sewage from the Creek Ridge housing development in St. Michael to our wastewater treatment plant. The agreement calls for payment of treatment charges of three times the rate of charges we currently have for city residents and also included other restrictions and a requirement for liability insurance. Mr. Munsterteiger of Crow -94 Properties would like to use our treatment plant for up to 3,000 gallons per day for homes he is building in St. Michael until January 1, 1996, or until such time as the wastewater treatment plant is upgraded. In reviewing the request with the Public Works Director, it does appear that the City would have adequate capacity at our wastewater treatment plant to handle this additional load. If the waste is hauled frequently and not allowed to become septic or rotten, so to speak, we should have no additional odor problems at the wastewater treatment plant because of the additional loading. While we did enter into an agreement with Tony Emmerich, we were familiar with Mr. Emmerich's background and financial capabilities, which may have had some bearing on our approval of their request. Although 1 know Mr. Munsterteiger from years back as a real estate agent in Monticello, I am not familiar with his development expertise or financial background in St. Michael or operating as Crow -94 Properties, Inc. Mr. Munsterteiger did not indicate any problem with supplying the liability insurance requested and would be willing to abide by all of the restrictions and conditions similar to the agreement in place for Emmerich Construction. Council Agenda - 8/22/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTI4ONS: 1. The first alternative would be to agree to enter into an agreement with Crow -94 Properties for treatment of up to 3,000 gallons per day from the St. Michael Heights Sixth Addition until the City of St. Michael completes its wastewater treatment plant expansion or until such time as the waste proves to be a problem at the City of Monticello's wastewater treatment plant. 2. The second alternative would be to turn down the request. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Over the time period requested, it does appear that the City would have sufficient capacity to handle the additional 3,000 gallons per day of wastewater. The agreement proposed at three times the current City rate should be sufficient to handle any additional monitoring or normal cost associated with accepting this wastewater. While we are not personally knowledgeable as to Crow -94 Properties' financial capabilities, Mr. Munsterteiger is willing to provide the name insurance coverages that Mr. Emmerich has agreed to provide. As a result, it is recommended that alternative N1 be approved. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed agreement. AGREEMENT This agreement, made and entered into this _ day of August, 1994, by and between the City of Monticello, a municipal corporation ("City'), and Ralph Munsterteiger, individually, and Crow -94 Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Developer"). WHEREAS, City owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant and has sufficient capacity to accept additional gallons of raw domestic wastewater from sites outside of the corporate limits of city; and WHEREAS, Developer has requested that City accept raw domestic wastewater from the St. Michael Heights Sixth Addition subdivision in the city of St. Michael in an amount not to exceed 3,000 gallons per day, and WHEREAS, City is willing to accept the raw domestic wastewater from the St. Michael Heights Sixth Addition subdivision as described above under the following terms and conditions: City agrees to accept said raw domestic wastewater and provide a reliable point of disposal so long as the waste remains domestic, is non-toxic, and does not, in the sole discretion of the wastewater treatment plant chief operator, hamper or impede service or operations to city residents. The amount of raw domestic wastewater that City shall accept from the St. Michael Heights Sixth Addition subdivision shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per day. The rate of discharge shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) gallons per minute. Developer and/or their authorized agent shall be required to take a one (1) quart representative sample from each load transported to the wastewater treatment plant. The samples shall be marked with the date, time, and load and placed in the refrigerator at the plant for analysis. The developer and/or their authorized agent shall maintain a log of wastewater transport and disposal at the City's wastewater treatment plant. Samples will be tested if, in the sole discretion of the wastewater treatment plant chief operator, a problem with the operation of the plant and/or a danger to public health and safety aro discovered which could be related to the raw domestic wastewater from the St. Michael Heights Sixth Addition subdivision. Any testing required to determine the toxicity or strength of the samples shall be paid by Developer within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice. HEIGHTS.AGR: 7/28/94 page 1 �'1 4. The raw domestic wastewater shall be delivered to the City's wastewater treatment plant between the hours of 7 a.m. through 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Trucks hauling raw domestic wastewater shall not exceed 9 tons upon Hart Boulevard or the entry point to the wastewater treatment plant during spring road restrictions. 5. Developer agrees to pay City at an agreed reasonable rate of $6.62 per 1,000 gallons or portion thereof (rate subject to increase January 1, 1995, should city residential sewer rate increase). City shall invoice Developer monthly. All invoices shall be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt. Developer shall be responsible for any additional costs incurred by City attributable to the St. Michael Heights Sixth Addition subdivision raw domestic wastewater including, but not limited to, special treatment or disposal outside of normal working hours. 6. So long as this Agreement is in effect, Developer shall provide City with evidence of insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000, naming City as an additional insured, against loss or damage to City's wastewater treatment plant arising out of the activities of Developer hereunder. All agents, employees, or representatives of Developer involved in the vehicular transfer of the raw domestic wastewater shall maintain automobile insurance against property damage or personal injury in an amount not less than $1,000,000. City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days written notice upon the occurrence of any of the following events: a. Developer fails to pay any amounts due under the terms of this Agreement within thirty (30) days of receipt; b. Developer fails to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement in any material respect. C. If City determines, in its sole discretion, that the City wastewater treatment plant lacks capacity to accept raw domestic wastewater from any source outside of city. d. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement upon 24 hours oral or written notice if, in the opinion of the chief operator, the raw domestic wastewater from the St. Michael Heights Sixth Addition subdivision presents an imminent threat to the operation of the plant or the health and/or safety of the citizens of the city. HEIGHTS.AGR: 7/28/94 page 2 I �7 Unless earlier terminated as provided above, this Agreement shall terminate on January 1, 1996. The Agreement can be extended in six (6) month increments by mutual agreement between the parties in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF MONTICELLO RALPH MUNSTERTEIGER By: Its: Ralph Munsterteiger CRAW -94 PROPERTIES, INC. By: HEIGHTS.AGR: 7/28/84 Its: Page 3 07 Council Agenda - 8/22194 e. Review of or000sals for undemmund fuel tank removal and disposal from the Gille site, and consideration of award of contract. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The demolition of the Gille site went quite well with only 15 cu yds of contaminated soil being found at the rear of the site. This material is currently stored under cover on the property. The amount spent on the property to date, including the demolition, stockpiling of 15 cu yds of contaminated soil, and the well sealing, amounts to $18,677.04. We received two proposals for tank removal on Thursday, August 18. Based upon those two proposals and an estimated liquid in the tanks of 1,500 gal., 50 cu yds of contaminated soil stockpiled and covered and replaced, and 150 cu yds of material to fill the excavations for the tanks, the estimated cost using the lowest contractor would be $10,425 from Schluender Construction of Monticello. Based upon those quantities, the next bid is $3,945 higher from Veit. After completion of the tank removal and covering and stockpiling of the contaminated soil, we can complete our report for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to determine final corrective action, if any is needed, other than final disposal of the contaminated soil. We would also apply for applicable petro fund reimbursement, which would he minimal. B. ALTERNATIVE: ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to award the removal of the fuel tanks to Schluender Construction Company based upon our estimated quantities and their low prices at an estimated cost of $10,425. 2. The second alternative would be t.o reject the proposals and not continue with the project at this time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends award to Schluender Construction based upon unit prices at an estimated cost of $10,425 as outlined in alternative /i 1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of tank removal proposal sununary; Copy of project cost summary. a PROPOSAL COST SUMMARY GILLE FUEL TANK REMOVAL Tank removal Small (2) Large (2) Replace granular fill (tank area) (150 yds) (TOTALS TANKSUM: 08/19/94 $1,210 a $2,420.00 $1,400 e $1,430 eal $2,860.00 $1,900 el $11.55 $1,732.50 $5.50 $14.370.00 $2,800.00 $3,800.00 $825.00 $10.425.00 (k; Veit Schluender Unit PricelI Total Unit Price l Total (Contact PCA Permit, etc. Lump bid $1,500.00 Lump bid $250.00 (Excavate, stockpile (50 yds) $6.60 $330.00 $4.50 $225.00 (Fill contaminated soil excay. (50 yds) $11.55 $577.50 $5.50 $275.00 (Pump & dispose of liquid (1,500 pal.) $3.30/pal, $4,950.00 $1.50/pal. $2,250.00 Tank removal Small (2) Large (2) Replace granular fill (tank area) (150 yds) (TOTALS TANKSUM: 08/19/94 $1,210 a $2,420.00 $1,400 e $1,430 eal $2,860.00 $1,900 el $11.55 $1,732.50 $5.50 $14.370.00 $2,800.00 $3,800.00 $825.00 $10.425.00 (k; PROJECT COST SUMMARY AS OF 8/18/94 GILLE AUTO PROPERTY CHAItGES I. PAST COSTS A. Mowing $1,851.16 B. Environmental Cleanup $6,851.80 C. Braun Intertec Engineering Fees $660.00 D. Cleanup charges (Ruff Auto) $1,500.00 E. Misc. penalty & interest & sales tax $726.10 SECTION TOTAL $11,589.06 II. RECENT ADDITIONAL COSTS A. Demolition and stockpile contaminated soil (Veit) $6,260.50 B. Well abandonment (Mennen) $379.00 C. Technical assistance (Agassiz Environmental) $336.00 1), Advertisements $122.48 E. Legal fees (Paul Weingarden) $187.50 SECTION TOTAL $7,087.98 SU 13TOTA L $18,677.04 111. UNDER CONSIDERATION A. Fuel tank removal & contaminated soil excavation $10,425.00 f (Schluender proposal) GRAND TOTAL $29,102.04 (excluding PCA report & contaminated soil disposal) Council Agenda - 8/22/94 9. Consideration of authorizing studv to determine location of future industrial area freewav interchange. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND City Council is asked to consider authorizing an expenditure of $3,000 for the purpose of funding an effort to identify the proper location of a freeway interchange west of Highway 25. The study would be completed by SRF (Strgar-Roscoe-Faushe, Inc.) in conjunction with the Wright County Traffic Study that is currently under way. According to Dave Montebello, Wright County Engineer, SRF has a significant amount of experience in freeway interchange planning and development. As you recall, some months ago when the Klein/Emmerich rezoning issue was addressed, one of the major action items stemming from discussion was to determine the proper location of a future industrial area and associated freeway interchange. The thought was that the City needed to identify an industrial area separated and isolated from industrial uses that would be available for development in 15-20 years. Attached you will find a letter that I sent to Dave Montebello, which outlines the City's needs with regard to identifying a future location for a future freeway access on Highway 25. In response to this letter, Montebello indicated that the study completed by SRF would complete the goal of defining the proper area for a future freeway location. As you recall, OSM recently completed a traffic study of the entire city of Monticello. The OSM study was general in nature and did not focus on establishing the precise location and design of a future freeway interchange. The SRF study will take the next step by locating the best location for the interchange and by determining the land area that will he impacted by the freeway interchange development. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve authorization to spend $3,000 on freeway interchange study to be completed by SRF in conjunction with Wright County Transportation Planning Study. This alternative should be selected if Council remains interested in developing an isolated industrial area at some location west of Highway 25. The cost to complete the study by SRF is reasonable and should provide very important information that the City will need to have in order to plan for future industrial areas. 12 Council Agenda - 8/22/94 2. Motion to deny authorization to spend $3,000 on freeway interchange study to be completed by SRF in conjunction with Wright County Transportation Planning Study. Council may wish to select this alternative if there is a view that development of a future interchange to the west of Highway 25 will not be necessary or feasible in the future. There are many obstacles to development of a freeway interchange, including funding and design problems that could perhaps eliminate the potential of any future interchange in Monticello. If it is the view of Council that it is probably not likely that a freeway interchange will ever be built, then it would not make sense to conduct the study. Also, this is an unbudgeted item. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that the City Council authorize the study as noted under alternative N1. It is the view of City staff that we have a wonderful opportunity here to coordinate City planning efforts with County planning efforts. SRF ie a reputahle firm that has planned and completed a numher of freeway interchanges in the metro area. They are very familiar with the design and funding problems associated with freeway interchange development. It is our view that the input provided by this study could represent a very important investment in the City's future. The IDC infrastructure committee has reviewed the proposal and also recommends that Council authorize the study. 011ie Koropchak will report on whether or not the full body of the IDC recommended completion of the study at their meeting on August 18. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the letter of August 3, 1994, to Dave Montebello. 250 East Broadway P. O. N,% 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Metro: (612) 333-5739 Fax: (612) 295.4404 Mr. Dave Montebello Wright County Highway Dept. Route 1, Box 97B Buffalo, MN 65313 Re: Future interchange west of Highway 26 Dear Dave: August 3, 1994 Thank you for your continued efforts toward coordinating the County highway planning study with Monticello s planning efforts. As you recall, 1 recently asked you to define in more detailed terms the nature of the small area study under option 6b. You can forget this request. Instead, I would like to use this opportunity to outline our needs with regard to identifying a location for a future freeway access west of Highway 26. A few nwnths ago, as port of a comprehensive plan amendment associated with development of the Emmerich/Klein property, it became apparent to the City Council that there is a need to establish a long-range plan for development of an industrial area at a location near the freeway and west of Highway 25. It was also concluded that n proper location for a freeway interchange serving the future industrial area needs to he established relatively soon so that the City working with the Township can preserve land area necessary for the freeway interchange and associated land uses. In summary, the freeway access study contemplated under fib would be most advantageous to the City if the planner would review possibilities for development of a freeway access at a location somewhere between Ilighway 25 and a point approximately 2 miles west of the current city limits. The major goal of the study would be to determine the hest location for a freeway access point with the thought in mind that the major purpose of the freeway access is to support industrial land uses. Mr. Dave Montebello August 3, 1994 Paget Please give me a call if you would like a clarification on what the City would see as the major goal of the freeway access small area study. Let me know if the major goal noted above cannot be achieved within the budget limitations. Finally, Steve Grittman, City Planner, will be authorized to work with your highway planner on the study. If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, CITY OF MON IICELLO �eitTt)'Neiu Assistant Administrator JO/kd cc: John Simola, Public Works Director Rick Wolfateller, City Administrator Bret Weiss, City Engineer Steve Grittman, City Planner File Council Agenda - 8122/94 to. Consideration of authorizing staff to seek quotes on the cost to demolish old warming house at West Bridge Park. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND At the most recent meeting of the Parks Commission, the Commission selected projects to fund from the funds provided by the City Council for budget year 1994. As a result of the discussion, it has been recommended that a portion of the 1994 funds be used to demolish the old warming house at West Bridge Park and install a basketball court. It has been estimated that the cost to remove the structure will be about $3,500. The cost for the basketball court is $2,500. The Parks Commission also recommended spending the $5,000 remaining on two additional courts, one at Cardinal Hills Park and one at 4th Street Park. The Parks Commission believes that the warming house should be removed because the new warming house has made the old warming house obsolete. It is also an eyesore and the space is needed for other uses. Any cost or energies spent to maintain the structure appear to be a waste. On the other hand, there is some pressure for use of the facility. The old warming house was reserved four times this summer during crunch times. It is possible that it would have been reserved on more occasions had staff made it available for reservations throughout the entire summer. Staff did not allow it to be reserved due to the possibility that it might be torn down. Perhaps if the warming house is not removed, the City should charge for reserving its use as we do with the new warming house. Its primary use now is for serving concessions during Riverfest. Demand alone may not be the primary factor in determining whether or not to demolish the structure. According to Roger Mack, there simply is not enough room in the park to allow reserved use of three structures at one time; therefore, we are better off demolishing the old warming house and using the space more effectively. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to authorize staff to obtain quotes on the cost to remove the warming house and authorize demolition at a cost not to exceed $3,500. Under this option, staff would obtain quotes. If the low quote is less than $3,500, then the low bidder would be awarded the project and 14 Council Agenda - 8122/94 the demolition would occur without further action by Council. If quotes come in higher than $3,600, then staff would bring the item back to Council for further review. 2. Motion to deny authorization to demolish old warming house. If Council feels that the old warming house continues to be of value and worth ongoing maintenance, etc., then this option should be �r selected. Perhaps under this alternative it would make sense to remove the furnace, windows, and doors, thus making it an open air shelter more akin to the picnic shelter. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff opinion on this subject is mixed. Both John and Roger believe that the building remains usable as an open air/low maintenance shelter. Roger Mack and the Parka Commission prefer demolition with the space put to I annther use. Other at—q did not have an opinion either way. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. it %��1 w/ cart uu Itio1,�� n-Oc.• A�2 Council Agenda - 8/22194 t i . Consideration of re -sealing the exterior siding of the Monticello Fire Station. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In the Sikkens woodfinishing products procedure sheet, it suggests under system maintenance that a maintenance coat of Cetol BL 31, which is the finish coat product we have on the siding, should be applied every 2-3 years on the sun -exposed sides south and west and every 3-4 years on the north and east exposures of the building. Three years ago this summer in 1991, we had the exterior re -coated. The building has come through those three years in good shape, with the exception of some areas that need some special attention as follows: 1. The entire building exterior siding should be re -caulked 2. The east, south, and west building walls should be coated with two coats of Cetol BL 31 finish. 3. The north side of the building should be re -coated with one coat of Cetol BL 31. 4. The existing sign should be coated with one coat of BL 21 and two coats of BL 31 finish. 5. Prior to any work being done, the entire exterior siding should be cleaned from dust, dirt, airborne contaminates with a solution of Tri -Sodium Phosphate and water. This mixture should be applied to the surface for 16-20 minutes. The solution should be power -washed to clean any residue from the existing siding surface. If the above procedures are followed and completed, we should be on our normal 3.4 year annual maintenance coat, with other areas subject to more sun and/or the underground sprinkler system where touchup should be done in certain areas every year. We have received only one bid as of this writing, and we will not submit that bid with your agenda supplement but will submit it prior to the start of the Council meeting on Monday evening. We are awaiting quotes from two other contractors in the St. Cloud area so that we have two bids to show you at the meeting. Council Agenda - 8/22!94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve one of the two bids to be submitted for the re -sealing of the existing exterior siding of the Monticello Fire Station. 2. Deny consideration of one of the bids for the sealing of the exterior siding of the Monticello Fire Station. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIC►N: When all bids are received, City staff will have a formal recommendation t give to you at the Council meeting Monday night. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Sikkens system scheduled maintenance brochure. 17 1 " • • • 1 I,r,hrrl rl(,Lrctl.,trill n.unrllr••lt M", ® O ® Fel Lmm�r 0-1 11.111 1) 111, 1 Coat 4 It,% I (oat ( 111A HL) I � IIIlrll lr•, r•It r1111111.I11r11 .11X1 r1x M',Imr,•, rtl Crtol HI 31 ,11x•4',1,,at da, 1. Thr ,I,,II,s' m of l:l • I nit llnd (elol RL S 1 h„InM,I.Il Sn I.M ret IIlVnlvrrl II It I.lx,llll,l to �Imma v.dr h Ihat At rM In ems Jlrl am r Irr,r In d,yrrMn,F on Ili le -1 .1 ,• 11ovn, to the I , ,.n Hnhlru 111 )) A ,naurfrl,ar,rr cam OI CMO ill. 31 Q—.kJ tr on (he "In .and ,It r,tr,tur rt of Its, holne appLMl rvrry 7 (5rar1 on in, 1.11 -1x)4•(1 nrlorr alMdrcat.-of the —Ven1me .,( fol. ,-Intl attsaixI eslant llet)o4V'r:xt low lhetlranmglplepamtlanlxotedulrt 1 " • • • 1 I,r,hrrl rl(,Lrctl.,trill n.unrllr••lt M", 1I411Ml Mlrlll sl4•t,m ludlna III...... lxrllMll rr ,,w LnI1MIUI •,r.,mt,ux1,111Itr lrrgl ✓SVSIlm lnlrnarr! belt wll lr m,rtll llr.glvrlrlxx, min II„• ,•rrl all r n.glvl w111, ,,I N.—I nine ntq 1x, IW Ills is. In.,lrw Il :%—lasih,n rl,rr nv MrmrlrL•,I In tr.11 [ytlr•,n n1,IIr,Irr,,,Ir, 1 Mwwn of :y,nh'log mire ® II It,11w•lytrnnllrnrr•Irrkxl mrin .rlrn 5 ,,d ® Incl ul RrtlR,ol BI S3 as vlsu,dlV Ixvrtsan' � IIIlrll lr•, r•It r1111111.I11r11 .11X1 r1x M',Imr,•, rtl 0 ferx M' A4411r• 11411 th, rl rlln.11lly .uxl .ql ,11x•4',1,,at da, 1. Thr ,I,,II,s' m of l:l • I nit llnd On avMaer this ,.vll LC:, }*ms or IongM th h„InM,I.Il Sn I.M ret IIlVnlvrrl II It I.lx,llll,l to Call ,,II VMk't rq lir lr,.nd v.dr h Ihat At rM In ems Jlrl am r Irr,r In d,yrrMn,F on Ili le -1 .1 ,• 11ovn, to the I , ,.n Hnhlru 111 )) a nn ILan 171Ihh.1111 SS rlrnx•ntt fh•hnr apph, atlMr alum.,:mile I,anlr 1..11 Ioll.w Ihr 11-111ng,lx rl4 ahnn prp,r7min Sldings—Smooth/Rough (All Types) 1. ,hl.ull nnhnxq lx ulL•11w his d..,R h,m nxntl n,r st,nrl,rry, • r, r, lulrrl In rnat lhr hal Y list, rd Ill., if .uul r,ll:rt n,t 1, onr rO,ll nl f rnnl 01 ) I Ins Ih, hand. rill tvtlrm In RL111Irr1 M )) Is-,, Ihr 4wdlwos tyrh•,II DoorsEntrances — Garage �I,IIr'I, Ihr• lo,v.• am. is rnl,llml-1 p,r 1Vlu lr,,uvl,wrxl hll,•1 Ixxr5 tlrxlLl lr• I,r,hrrl rl(,Lrctl.,trill n.unrllr••lt M", 1I411Ml Mlrlll sl4•t,m ludlna III...... lxrllMll rr ,,w LnI1MIUI •,r.,mt,ux1,111Itr lrrgl h,Ilrtgtr ,I l;,u.y;r dprt .,11(11 wrr ll,ry belt wll lr m,rtll llr.glvrlrlxx, min II„• ,•rrl all r n.glvl w111, ,,I N.—I nine ntq 1x, IW Ills is. In.,lrw Il :%—lasih,n rl,rr nv MrmrlrL•,I In tr.11 -.-I .ve,ome,l lrl,v,vn lln•ll,llxgt r r I16, I -W, wqh a 1:1x.1 rlx,gnV nml,.ur II It,11w•lytrnnllrnrr•Irrkxl mrin .rlrn 5 ,,d Fences — Carden Furniture IMI Ona t..nnlr n1 -1 Ih 0 will lir• dd n, � IIIlrll lr•, r•It r1111111.I11r11 .11X1 r1x M',Imr,•, rtl 0 ferx M' A4411r• 11411 th, rl rlln.11lly .uxl .ql ,11x•4',1,,at da, 1. Thr ,I,,II,s' m of l:l • I nit llnd Ix4l,llt lkrir`In 111, 811x111 as l r•.. 1III Ioa1 t'd h„InM,I.Il Sn I.M ret IIlVnlvrrl II It I.lx,llll,l to Call ,,II VMk't rq lir lr,.nd v.dr h Ihat At rM In ems Jlrl am r Irr,r In • Carsten F.-Ita Aswm all wlrt olIhr nlr• gl, ml air Ir11wA ,.mrvl In avnnl nun hnnnmlrnv a air loaletI [III marl ts,&%with a 11111 ill n.11r Int. lir wt rrl gpr.l rryWhly Ixq,vr,•Ihlnr or ,x rV1rc hint, Wooden Windows � Wlrulrnvs ahvay5 InrSrrrl a rntxm area M 1111,11( il.— I, they mutt conl^ i -in high ,Msmrr on a raKlnnt basil The n,puwr Is due to an rh.lnmlly dglM rnr,•s Ir+Iwrr:n mvde and oultule av This open cautrs cturLlrnta I ton In and 11 xi the w.n(Io,,, e%pe nilly d non thermal or improrrrty -Ill l thermals arc used for I—t,,stills-,al,ln, nlr.l ,k, r,nI, with an alryllc hasrfl Illlrl and Lull .,II 4tlrt sit the wmdrnvs whrlr fx,ttihlr II waM.',st es -,l it lO coat the InlM 1p "0.", of rr .,I dM to pl In int malts urr Dan pelt tNougl, I" wooden 1onsponent, of Ihr w k,wt ■ PLEASE ASK YOUR DEALER FOR THE SIKKENS LOG HOME APPLICATION GUIDE. � ,n g'•rr^r,d Cr1.1 nl iI ,uul Icuhhnl HI )) Ru'1.1 111 S i thlrgst Ir` dOrr wrlh ,, umg hau Ml IIYIOn Iv,A„slrl I,r 115h IIIc IIrtllhll III Ifr %V%Imo mutt :IAvayt W applwO In this I,atluon, hpw•ww It It at Iand Ihn •x1 n�„�'ern . p1.lV a1,p111.11 lfm 15 o11A allOWrd�flM is"O d with Cmm 111 5I -,I nor (,1,1 01 J 1 In III,(as If Rum,nl 0l )) Rnhlrn) Hl is IN— nrL.lul lt,,.a lx• tln,n , gsIg"'I ShmmLl sets ,rnurrrnmlrr Inmlman,.Irg,xnx,gsn,o, alylln almn plr,rtr 1 nrnal 1 Ihr I>,v p.11nr Irl l, nxm deli tmrm at Antro Rohl” I'll ii may also is, app11M wQh .a I011r, General Notes Malnit•rlar,re JAI,ly M ,Mau, wall Only rh, ,,t ll,ly aZIp t anon of Ihr prnlrcl and 1M, .t of Crtd nl b I 1.Ihl g- Rublx,l RI Si lo, Ihr -10,N,,,wtlrr. 11 g.xlrhnr A vr.n, xwlry Ircu, n1 HI(• "o"p. tli-III l Colin ChMM Llrxr.urt,glxv rt•.I,y, 1prvrnl.Il lvr .0 II It,11w•lytrnnllrnrr•Irrkxl mrin .rlrn 5 ,,d IaArl1 IMI Ona t..nnlr n1 -1 Ih 0 will lir• dd n, Iherr RI A"s,Is. xxr nl Ihr C,IIq ? 1 CM Ihr ryollrt drlr Ming .n urr I,lr nt t,'ttrm RI S 1 and R111Arq III )) Ruldx,l RI ii tyt utM Ili Iranthuent n, snlxl,ohxl Ihn III less,s tlmply a m,ntr, of Oranu,g Ili volar! Mluxr O,,n tlr Artu M l nip rs .x hrvn, hom dust, d1d and au, n, Lrnn.umn.vn5 with a "Ilion of 7 o/ In Sorllmn I+hnyuime Stesav (I Sri m,e n' -f M 1"'.1141.1.11 m it ❑urr n,•,y, hlrn hrv•fxy; An.a,.lr`y, I,ud m )1 iphu is ill ,v.11r, Alkm Thr n,n lllrr I. to nn (,1(1 111 11 ,urs Halgxrl 111 11 Rlltll xq 141 `1% Ili wrl,xr hr 11, )0 nil I IY not .Akn, Thr xl a flint bete yr BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/27/94 13:26:58 Disbursement Journal I WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL GENERAL CHECKING 37057 07/27/94 HOGLUND COACH LINES 483 HEARTLAND EXPRESS C 5,144.13 37058 07/27/94 MN STATE TREASURER 282 STATE BLD PERMIT SU 1,784.06 37059 07/27/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 221.00 37060 07/27/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATERCRAFT 8 SNOW REG 399.00 37061 07/27/94 MN BUILDING OFFICIAL 729 REG FEES/GARY ANDERSON 15.00 37062 07/27/94 U.S. POSTMASTER 210 SEWER WATER BILLINGS 128.58 37062 07/27/94 U.S. POSTMASTER 210 SEWER WATER BILLINGS 128.58 257.16 *Ct 37063 07/27/94 KOROPCHAK/OLIVE 97 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 79.80 37064 07/27/94 BOSE/TOM 336 RE IMB/STEEL TOED BOOTS 89.00 37065 07/27/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 148 UTILITIES 23.56 1 37065 07/27/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 148 UTILITIES 29.34 i 37065 07/27/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 148 UTILITIES 1.00 53.90 •Cf 37066 07/27/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 119.00 37067 07/27/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATERCRAFT/SNOW/ATV R 427.00 37068 07/21/94 A.M. MAUS a SON 548 BLD INSPECT VECH MTC 260.22 37069 07/27/94 AFFORDABLE SANITATIO 802 LATRINE RENTAL/PARKS 58.58 37070 07/27/94 AMERICAN PLANNING AS 666 BOOKS/PLANNING S 2ONIN 90.00 37071 07/27/94 ANDERSON 4 ASSOCIATE 10 BLD INSPECTION SUPPLIE 83.87 37072 07/27/94 BUSINESS EDUCATION S .90116 REG FEE/JEFF ONEILL 129.00 37073 07/27/94 COAST TO COAST 35 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 151.33 37073 07/27/94 COAST TO COAST 35 CLEANING SUPPLIES/LIBR 20.31 37073 07/27/94 COAST TO COAST 35 HINGES/SENIOR CIT BLD 11.44 37073 07/27/94 COAST TO COAST 3S EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/STRT 0.91 37073 07/27/94 COAST TO COAST 35 MISC SUPPLIES/PW INSPEC 3.82 37073 07/27/94 COAST TO COAST 35 KRAMER RENTAL REPAIRS 141.24 37073 07/27/94 COAST TO COAST 35 SMALL TOOLS/PARKS 28.74 37073 07/27/94 COAST TO COAST 35 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 112.00 37073 07/27/94 COAST TO COAST 35 MTC SUPPLIES/MATER 8.39 37073 07/27/84 COAST TO COAST 35 MISC SUPPLIES/SEWER 10.76 37073 07/2.7/94 COAST TO COAST 35 MISC SUPPLIES/MATER 98.07 37073 07/27/94 COAST TO COAST 35 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP 8 OAR 17.58 604.57 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/27/94 13:26:58 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37074 07/27/94 COMPUTER PARTS & SER 37075 07/27/94 CONTINENTAL SAFETY E 37076 07/27/94 D L ANDERSON & ASSOC 37077 07/27/94 FLEXIBLE TOOL COMPAN 37079 07/2.7/94 GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION, 37079 07/27/94 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC 37080 07/27/94 JONES/WILLARD 0 37090 07/27/94 JONES/WILLARD 0 37081 07/27/94 K MART STORE 37082 07/27/94 KRAEMER/WANDA 37083 07/27/94 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU 37084 07/27/94 MN CITY MANAGEMENT A 37085 07/27/94 MN PLANNING ASSOCIAT 37086 07/27/04 MN RURAL WATER ASSOC 37087 07/27/94 MN U.C. FUND 37080 07/27/94 MOBIL 37088 07/27/94 MOBIL 37089 07/27/94 MONTICELLO CHAMPION 37090 07/27/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37090 07/27/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37090 07/27/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37090 07/27/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37000 07/27/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37080 07/27/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37091 07/27/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 97091 07/27/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37091 07/27/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37091 07/27/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37001 07/27/94 MONTICELLO TIMES Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 500 COMPUTER TERMINAL/C H 811.43 2S6 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/SEW 90.88 824 STAIN/FIRE HALL BLD 174.64 59 SEWER EQUIPMENT REP 1,735.26 785 WWTP DIGESTER COVER 7,061.00 85 GAS/FIRE DEPT 40.12 826 INFO CENTER SALARY 146.63 626 INFO CENTER SALARY 43.13CR 103.50 *cj 460 PENS/FIRE DEPT 20.91 356 MILEAGE%ELECTION MTG 20.00 106 COPIER MACHINE/P WO 3,356.88 230 MEMBERSHIP DUES/J ONEI 60.00 360 MEMBERSHIP DUES/J ONEI 52.50 128 MEMBERSHIP DUES/MATER 150.00 130 UC BENEFITS/J SCANLON 149.00 131 BLO INSPEC VEHICLE MTC 76.76 131 STREET VEHICLE MTC 13.03 89.79 •t 925 FIRE DEPT SUPPLIES 12.99 138 ADD MCH,FILE CAB,SCAL 533.39 138 OFFICE SUP/ANIMAL CONT 16.17 136 OFFICE SUP/LIBRARY 8.05 138 NOTARY STAMP/M HELLMAN 25.47 136 OFFICE SUP/PW INSPECT 34.04 136 OFFICE SUP/CITY HALL 425.23 1,042.85 t, 140 LEFAL PUBLICATIONS 1,107.54 140 BLO PERMIT INFO 49.00 140 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 293.76 140 DEP REG AD/HELP WANTE 118.10 140 GILLE HOUSE ABANOONME 122.49 1,749.48 • BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/27/94 13:28:58 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 37092 07/27/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 144 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STRE 189.88 37092 07/27/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/ST 120.58 37092 07/27/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 144 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GAR 41.00 351 .46 37093 07/27/94 OL SON & SONS ELECTRI 160 REPAIRS/ MONTI PRINTING 40.00 37093 07/27/94 OL SON & SONS ELECTRI 180 STREET LIGHTING REPAIR 82.47 37093 07/27/94 OL SON & SONS ELECTRI 160 FIRE DEPT BLD MTC 72.04 37093 07/27/94 OL SON & SONS ELECTRI 160 BLD REPAIR SUP/WATER 21.14 37093 07/27/94 OL SON & SONS ELECTRI 160 FIXTURE/ PARKS DEPT 44.48 37093 07/27/94 OL SON & SONS ELECTRI 160 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 9.18 37093 07/27/94 OL SON & SONS ELECTRI 160 KRAMER PROPERTY REPAIR 17.04 37093 07/27/94 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 160 MISC SUP PLIES/STREETS 7.03 293.38 37094 07/27/94 P 8 TRUCKING .90357 TREE REMOVAL/M OAKS 150.00 37085 07/27/84 PLASTIC BAGMART 820 BAGS/BLD INSPECTIONS 13.50 37096 07/27/94 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU 26 MISC PROF SERV/NAWCO 596.25 37096 07/27/94 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU 26 MISC PROF SERV/HRA 315.00 37096 07/27/94 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU 26 MISC PROF SERV/FAY MA 157.50 37096 07/27/94 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU 26 MISC PROF SERV/SHINGOB 22.50 1,091.25 37097 07/27/94 RENNER & SONS INC./E 181 WELL ABANDONMENT/GILL 379.00 37098 07/27/94 S EIERSTAD, ESQ/RICHA .90356 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 2,36 3.59 37099 07/27/94 SHARE CORPORATION 281 HAND SANITIZER/MATER 13 1.02 37100 07/27/94 SIOUX VALLEY ENVIRON 527 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/WA 315,45 37101 07/27/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 288 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 119.53 37102 07/27/94 STATE OF MINNESOTA 461 BOOKSHELF & DIV/WATER 28.76 37102 07/27/94 STATE OF MINNESOTA 461 DESK/WATER DEPT 21.30 37102 07/27/94 STATE OF MINNESOTA 481 FILE CABINET/FIRE DEPT 10.65 37102 07/27/84 STATE OF MINNESOTA 461 DESKS/DEPUTY REGISTRAR 42.60 37102 07/27/84 STATE OF MINNESOTA 461 GLOVES/WATER DEPT 2.00 105.31 37103 07/27/94 THE DICKSON COMPANY 823 SOUND METER/AWAIR PRO 2 10.00 37104 07/27/94 UNOCAL 213 GAS/FIRE DEPT 02.77 37105 07/27/94 WATER PRODUCTS COMP A 218 WATER METERS/MATER 4,0 80.85 *Ct *CI *C 0 ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/27/94 13:26:58 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37106 07/27/94 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPT 0 GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Cl. 275 W C MAPS FOR RESALE 44.55 TOTAL 36,273.18 ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM ( 08/01/94 14:22:32 1 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37107 08/02/94 AMERICAN PLANNING A$ 37108 08/02/94 ANDERSON/DONNA 37109 08/02/94 ANIMAL CARE EQUIPMEN 37110 08/02/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 37110 08/02/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 37110 08/02/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST It 37111 08/02/94 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT 37112 08/02/94 COMMUNICATION AUDITO 37113 08/02/94 COMPRESS AIR & EQUIP 37114 08/02/94 FLICKER'S T.V. & APP 37115 09/02/94 HERMES/JERRY 37116 08/02/94 HOLMES & GRAVEN 37116 06/02/04 HOLMES & CRAVEN 37117 08/02/94 J M OIL COMPANY 37116 08/02/94 KOROPCHAK /OLIVE 37119 08/02/94 LUKACH/JOHN 37119 08/02/94 LUKACH/JOHN 37118 08/02/94 LUKACH/JOHN 37119 08/02/94 LUKACH/JOHN 37120 08/02/94 MCDOWALL COMPANY 37121 08/02/94 MN COPY SYSTEMS INC 37122 08/02/84 MN STATE FIRE CHIEFS 37123 08/02/94 MONTICELL 0 ANIMAL CO 37124 08/07/84 MONTICELL O SENIOR CI 37125 08/02/94 O.E.I. BUSINESS FORM 37126 08/02/84 PHOTO I 37126 08/02/94 PHOTO I 37126 08/02/84 PHOTO I Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CI 666 MEMBERSHIP DUES/JEFF 146.00 90356 REIMB/KRAMER REPAIRS 22.68 722 ANIMAL SUPPLIES 32.45 794 TELEPHONE CHARGES 96.77 794 TELEPHONE CHARGES 19.10 794 TELEPHONE CHARGES 117.48 233.35 822 CMIF PYMT 1,100.21 38 PAGER REPAIRS/FIRE DE 127.09 356 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS /FIRE 6.15 60 CALCULATORS/STREET DEP 23.41 81 LIBRARY CONTRACT P YMT 227.50 88 FAY MAR FABRICATOR /LE 242.13 00 POLYCAST LEGAL FEES 806.75 1,048.88 95 OIL/FIRE DEPT 24.17 97 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 1 17 .04 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 68.74 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 22.91 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 22.91 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 22.92 137.48 111 AIR CONDITIONER RE P/L 375.61 756 COPY MCH MTC AGRMT /FIR 22.58 493 MEMBERSHIP DUES/FIRE D 40.00 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00 130 AUG MONTHLY CONTRAC 2,833.33 158 COPY MCH PAPER/C HALL 124.76 743 FILM/PW INSPECTIONS 9.07 743 FILM/PW DLD EXPANSION 9.07 743 FILM/6TORM SEWER PRJ 0.07 SCI •C1 •CI 0 E'RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/01/94 14:22:32 .;ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37126 08/02/94 PHOTO I 37127 08/02/94 PLUMBERY-PURCELL'S P 37128 08/02/94 STAR TRIBUNE 37129 08/02/94 THEISEN/MATT 37130 08/02/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 37131 08/02/94 WRIGHI-HENNEPIN COOP GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement •Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Cl 743 FILM/MONTI FORD S SEWE 11.10 35.31 •Cf 251 SHOP & GARAGE SUPPLIES 9.89 197 NEWSPAPER SUB/C HALL 21.45 457 STEEL TOES SHOES REIMS 49.00 219 SCERG GRANT REIMB 2.760.51 512 UTILITIES 9.00 TOTAL 10.627.85 ESRC FZNANCIAL SYSTEM t 08/09/94 14:A S:47 Disbursement Journal �.WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOON7 CL GENERAL CHECKING' 37t45 08/08/94 WA.TER.PRODUCTS COMPA 218 CORRECT VENDOR 4,080.8SCR 3J 105 Ob 08/94 WATERPRq SUPPLIES CO 670 CORRECT VENDOR 4,000.85 0.00 OCHE 37'132 08/08'/94 GRIOOR CONSTRUCTION,, 37133 08/09/94 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 3:7133 48/08%94 LEAGOE OF MN CITIES 37133 08/68/94 LEAGUE, OF MN CITIES 37134 08-/08/94 NORTHWEST MINNESOTA 37135 08/08/94 CONDON-SK£ LLY ANTIQU 37138 08/08/94 WRIGHT COUNTY COURT 37'137 09/08/94 0 & K REFUSE RECYCLI 311x3'$ 08/08/94 MN, DEPART OF NATURAL 1713 9 08/08/94 NO DEPART OF NATURAL 37140 08/10/94 AMERICAN PLANNING AS 3714'1 06/10/94 6 & D PLUMBING' & HEA 37142 08/10/94 BARTON SAND & GRAVEL 94 14 3 08/10/84 BERGSTROM''S LAWN & G 371'44 08/10/94 BRIDGEWATE R TELEPHON 37144 08/10/94 BRIDGEWATE R TELEPHON' 37144 40/10/04 BRIDGEWATE:R TELEPHON 37144 08/10/94 BRIDGEWATE:R TELEPHON 3714,4 08/10/94 BRIDOEWATE:,R TELEPHON 37144 08/.10/94 BRIOGEWATE:R TELEPHON 3:7144 08/10/94 BRIOGEWATER TELEPHON 37144 06:/1.4/94 FIRI00EWATER TELEPHON 97144 '00/1'0/94 BRIDGEWATE'rR,TELE'PHON 17144 08/10./94 DRSDGEWATEwR TELEPHON 37145 00/1-0194 CHNTURY LAOS d?146 00/10/04 COPY'DUPL C ATING PROD 37147 0800/94 CULLIGAN 788 CONST .0 OST/WWTP DI 33;413..80 243 INS PREMIUM/WORKER 1'8,828,00 243 INS PREMIUM/FIRE DE 6,798.;00 243 INS PREMIUM/WATER D 3,,545.00 26,971.00 'ACHE. 156 REG FEE/GARY ANDERSON 1.0:06 389 1829-F-Z.RE TRUCK INH PR 86.76 690 AEIMB/NSF CHECK 80,. 50 611 RECYCLING CONTRACT 2,453;:411 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 102.00, 11'8 MATER/SNOWATV i2EG 616.00 688 BOOK/PLAN & ZON 35.00 60.0 NEW WATER HEATER/SEN 430.00 305 IMPROVEMENTS/LIBRARY 745.38 441 SLAOE/PAM DEPT t4.38 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 63.50 24 THLEPH'ONE CHARGES 61.44 24 TELE PH ONE CHARGES 122.05 2.4 TELEPHONE 64ARGES 30.63 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 201..29 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 46.88 24. TELEPHONE CHARGES 20.75. 24 TELtfi Ht7NE CHARGES 100.36 24 TELEPHONE CHARGED 41.10 24 TELEPHONE CHARGE, 799:63 1,524.09 rCHE 276 CLEANE R/SHOP & GARAGE 240.1'1 41 COPY MCN MTC/LIBRARY 50.40 753 KRAMER WATER SOFTNC'R C 23.11 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/09/94 14:45:47 #.ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37148 08/10/94 FEEORITE CONTROLS, I 37148 08/10/94 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I 37149 08/10/94 HENRY & ASSOCIATES 37150 08/10/94 HOGLUND COACH LINES 37151 08/10/94 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKIN 37152 08/10/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC 37152 08/10/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC 37153 08/10/94 MINNEGASCO 37153 06/10/94 MINNEGASCO 37153 08/10/94 MINNEGASCO 37153 08/10/94 MINNEGASCO 37153 06/10/94 MINNEGASCO '( 7154 00/10/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE "'-J7154 08/10/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37154 00/10/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37154 08/10/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37154 06/10/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37154 00/10/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37154 08/10/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37154 08/10/04 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37154 00/10/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37154 08/10/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37155 08/10/94 O'NEILL/JEFF 37155 08/10/94 O'NEILL/JEFF 37156 00/10/94 PAGE LINK 37156 08/10/94 PAGE LINK 37150 00/10/94 PAGE LINK 31150 00/10/94 PAGE LINK 37156 08/10/94 PAGE LINK 3715G 00/10/94 PAGE LINK 37156 00/10/94 PAGE LINK '17150 08/10/94 PAGE LINK 1b 37157 06/10/94 QUALITY LAWN MAINTEN Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA 56 MISC PROF SERV/WATER 48.00 56 CHEMICALS/NATER OEP 2,180.66 2.828.66 545 METERS FOR RESALE/WAT 627.26 483 HEARTLAND BUS CHARG 5,285.26 697 ANIMAL CONTROL PROF SE 79.88 107 PARK SUPPLIES 7.83 107 IMPROVEMENTS/LIBRARY 351.88 359.71 772 UTILITIES 5.83 772 UTILITIES 4.85 772 UTILITIES 19.07 772 UTILITIES 23.98 772 UTILITIES 33.61 87.34 148 UTILITIES 3,182.77 148 UTILITIES 214.21 148 1JTILITIES 4,478.86 148 UTILITIES 99.19 148 UTILITIES 636.78 148 UTILITIES 14.14 148 UTILITIES 451.06 149 UTILITIES 235.01 148 UTILITIES 602.96 140 UTILITIES 994.30 10,869.34 101 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMO 145.00 161 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMFS 27.25 172.25 703 PAGER CHARGED 42.80 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.110 703 PAGER CHARGES 24.50 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGE;: 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 154.90 319 MOWING CHARGES 1,432.75 •CHE *CHE 4CHE =CHE *CHE *CHC BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 06/09/94 14 : 45:4 7 y`WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37158 08/10/ 94 RIVERSIDE OIL 37159 08/10/94 SENTRY SYSTEMS 37160 08/10/94 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO. 37161 08/10/94 TRUEMAN-WELTERS, INC 37162 08/10/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37162 08/10/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37162 08/10/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37162 08/10/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 97162 08/10/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37162 06/10/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37163 08/10/94 UNOCAL 37164 08/10/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 37164 08/10/94 VASKO RUBBISH Rl3MOVA s 37165 08/10/94 VIKING COCA COLA GENERAL CHECKING c Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA 496 GAS/STREET DEPT 1,674.00 188 ALARM MTC AGRMT/FIRE 126.00 498 SUPPLIES/PARKS DEPT 122.43 207 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARKS 14.68 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 22.00 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 34. 10 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 22.00 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 22.00 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 67.85 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 67. 64 235. 79 213 GAS/FIRE DEPT 20.56 $24 GARBAGE CONTRACT 12,657. 50 524 SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON 606. 95 13.264. 45 779 POP/PARKS/CONCESSION; 301. 70 TOTAL 104 , 380. 64 *CHE- *CHF. Q BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/15/94 09:58:01 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL - :.I!V1,'. OisbursooWat Journal DESCRIPTICN AMOUNT CL 31166 08/15/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 40.00 37167 08/15/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 NATER/SHOW/ATV REG 335.00 37166 08/15/94 R. P. UTILITIES 871 CONST COSTS/C HIL 111,780.26 37169 08/15/94 A.E. MICHAELS 338 PAINT/PARKS DEPT 122.15 37169 09/1S/94 A.E. MICHAELS 339 BLD REPAIR SUP/PARKS 125.93 37 69 08/15/94 A.E. MICHAELS 338 CORRECT CODING 66.19CR 181.90 •C1 37170 08/15/94 ABA PUBLICATION ORDE .90359 PLAN R ION BOOK 93.90 37171 08/15/94 ARA CORY REFRESHMENT 408 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 114.00 37172 08/15/94 BEN FRANKLIN 20 MISC SUPPLIES/FILM 19.19 37173 06/15/94 BRAUN INTERTEC ENV10 638 C HILLS ENG FEFS 3.637.00 37174 08/15/94 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS. 25 STREET BITUMINOUS 231.72 /37175 09/15/94 BUSINESS RECORDS COR 27 UTILITY UPDATE PROG 1,470.00 37176 08/15/94 DOUBLE 0 ELECTRIC 805 SOFTBALL FIELD REPAIR 631.19 37176 08/)5/94 DOUBLE 0 ELECTRIC 806 WATER HEATER HOOKUP/SE 49.96 37176 08/15/94 DOUBLE D ELECTRIC 805 MTC BLD REPAIRS 212.70 992.85 *C 37177 08/15/94 DYNA SYSTEMS 50 SHOP B GAR SUPPLIES $2.01 37175 09/15/94 GOPHER STATE ONE CAL 69 WATER DEPT/PROF SERV 268.00 37179 08/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 78 CREOIT/RETURN 8.24CR 0179 09/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 79 SHOP 5 GAR SUPPLIES 8.24 17179 08/15/9► HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 78 CREDIT/RETURN 5.22CR 37179 08/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 78 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP i GAR 8.55 )7179 08/1F/94 HARRY'$ AUTO SUPPLY 78 WATER DEPT SUPPLIES 2.25 b.62 sC 11180 08/15/94 HERMES/JERRY 81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50 17161 09/15/9► JONES/WILLIAM 0 826 INFO CENTER SALARY 221.00 17191 08/18/94 JONES/WILLIAM 0 876 INFO CENTER 'SALARY 86.00CR 168.00 •C 37182 09/I5/94 KRAMBER 9 ASSOCIATES 689 ASSESSING SALARY 1,245.02 C37193 08/16/94 L "N" R SERVICES - L 1o3 LOCKS/NEW DEP REG OFF 573.89 RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/1 5/94 09:S'Si01 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 371 184 08/15/94 M i P TRANSPORT. INC 371 85 08/15/94 MAUS FOODS 371 85 OB/ 15/94 MAUS FOODS 3 71 85 09/15/94 MAUS FOODS 371 66 08/15/94 MIDWEST VISION DISTR 31 1 81 08/ 15/94 MN GOV FINANCE OFICE 371 88 06/15/94 MONTICEL LO ANIMAL CO j 7 1 69 09115/94 14ONTICEL LO PAPER i S 311 90 08/15/94 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN 371 90 OS/15/94 MOON MOTOR SALES. IN 371 90 09/15/91s MOON MOTOR SALES. IN 77191 09/+6/94 mUNTTECN, TNT-. 37192 08/15/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37197 09/15/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 371 97 09/15/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37192 08/15/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 371 92 06/15/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37192 08/15/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37197 00/15/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 3719? 08/15/94 NATIONAL BASHING PAR 37 193 00/15/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37 193 09/1S/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37191 09/15/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37191 08/15/94 NORTMWEST ASSOC CONS 37195 00/15/94 OLSON, USSET.AGAN ! 37195 09/IS/94 OLSON, USSET.AGAN 1 37195 00/15/94 OLSON. USSET.AGAN i 37195 06/15/94 OLSON, USSET.AGAN A 37196 08/15/94 ORR - BCH ELE14-04AVE40N C1 3719E 09/15/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYFRON 37199 00/15/94 ORR SCNELEN-MAYERON 37199 09/16/94 ORR- SCHELEN-MAYERON 37106 00/15/94 0144-SCHELEN-MAYFRON Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 26S LIMESTONE/PARK BALL 1,193.66 10S CITY HALL SUPPLIES 110 .77 108 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 37.80 108 ANIMAL CONTROL SUPPLIE 33.40 181 .97 *C1 279 GLASSES/PARKS DEPT 19.38 172 REG FEE/C SHUMAN 150.00 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00 724 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 130.05 142 TREE FUND/CHAIN SAW 708.23 142 EQUIP REPAIRS/TREE FUN 44.81 142 PARK SUPPLIES 9.53 762.37 •C 7q9 RFBUILD METFP/WATER 0 593.56 144 CORRECT CODING 12.74CP 144 CORRECT CODING 12.74 144 t lktET DEPT SUPPLIES 11.29 144 PARK DEPT SUPPLIES 3.11 144 SHOP B SAN SUPPLIES 69.25 144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/ST 154.37 144 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP A GAR 5.55 144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/SHOP 7.61 262.00 *cl 146 UTIL ITIES 71.99 146 UTILITIES 29.77 148 UTILITIES 573.82 625.59 $50 MISC PLAN 9 ZON SERVI 809.75 292 PROF SERVICES/LEGAL F 701.26 292 PROF SERVICES/ECON DEV 56.25 702 PROF SERV/EASTWOOD KNO 17.50 292 OVERPAYMENT FRM JUNE 209.25CR $66.75 •{ 102 MISC PROF SERV/WATER 96.90 162 ENGINEERING FtEs. 12.509.95 162 EN6 FEES/WWTP EXPAN 4.694.26 102 PROF SERV/WWTP EXPANS 753.75 192 ENG FEES/SHINQObEE PRJ 44.44 0 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/15/94 09:58:01 1 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37196 08/15/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 37198 08/15/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 37197 08/15/94 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 37197 08/15/94 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 37198 08/15/94 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 31199 08/15/94 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROv 37200 08/15/94 SCHARBER A SONS, INC 37200 08/15/94 SCHARBER 9 SONS, INC 37201 08/15/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 37201 08/15/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 37201 08/15/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 37201 08/15/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 37202 08/15/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 37202 08/15/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 37202 08/15/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 37202 08/15/94 ST, CLOUD RESTAURANT 37702 09/15/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 37203 09/15/94 TAYLOR LAND SURVEYOR 37204 09/15/94 UNITED LABORATORIES 37205 09/15/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUOITO 37205 09/15/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 37206 09/15/94 WYBRITE INC. 37207 09/15/94 Y.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 162 ENG FEES/POLYCAST PRJ 316.69 162 ENG FEES/C HILLS I 19,251.55 37.949.42 173 FIRE DEPT CLEANING CON 50.00 73 C HALL CLEANING CONTR 400.00 450.00 175 WWTP CONTRACT PAYM 31,640.50 26 PROF SERVICES/NAWCO 875.00 229 VEH REPAIR DARTS/PARK 221.05 229 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/STR 55.72 276.77 193 PARK IMPROVEMENTS 458.94 193 PW INSPECTION SUPPLIES 51.90 193 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 7.54 193 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/PA 160.10 eee.ae 299 FIRE EXTINQUI6HER MTC 31.00 289 FIRE EXTINGUISHER MTC 45.50 299 FIRE EXTINGUISHER MTC 66.25 289 FIRE EXTINGUISHER MTC 64.00 289 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 29.39 239.14 203 SURVEYING FEES 100.00 634 GREASE/SHOP 6 GAR 332.37 219 SHERIFF'S CONTRACT 23,322.13 219 ADO'L LANDFILL CMOS 7.935.95 31,259.29 755 COMPUTER/CITY HALL 2.350.99 224 CONTRACT PYMT 826.00 TOTAL 2=4.563.77 Mf sr. Mti s:• OC st BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM ,n7/28/94 13:32:26 Disbursement Journal ARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL! LIQUOR FUND 17634 07/29/84 GRUYS, BORDEN CARLSO 800020 AUDIT FEES 2,500.00 17635 07/29/94 MN DEPARTMENT OF REV 800006 SALES TAX FOR JUNE 12,848.00 17636 07/29/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 980.47 17636 07/29/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 806022 WINE PURCHASE 1.201.96 2,162.43 •CHE 1763 7 07/29/94 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I 800019 BEER PURCHASE 9,888.60 17,83 8 07/29/94 DAVMOR HAMCO 800085 MISC LIQUOR SUPPLIES 65.23 17639 07/29/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 953.80 17640 07/29/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 953.63 17840 07/29/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2,767.61 3.741.24 *CHE 1784 1 07/29/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 WINE PURCHASE 694.05 ` 1764 1 07/28/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2.484.90 3,158.95 *CHE 17642 07/29/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 118.58 1764 3 07/28/94 GOENNER/WANDA 600173 MILEAGE REIMS 33.60 17644 07/29/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,686.76 17644 07/29/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 1,885.41 3,572.19 •CHE 0645 07/29/94 QUALITY WINE a SPIRI 800040 MISC ITMES FOR RESALE 88.93 17645 07/28/94 QUALITY WINE a SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 9.538.60 3.,603.53 *CHI 17646 07/29/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,281.19 17647 07/29/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 MISC ITEMS FOR RESALE 882.64 1764 7 07/29/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 80003 7 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,009.98 17647 07/29/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 80003 7 WINE PURCHASE 128.50 1,799.12 •CHE LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 4$,544.46 ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/03/94 11:15:13 Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C LIQUOR FUND 17648 08/03/94 BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA 800001 POP PURCHASE 489.64 17649 08/03/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 800002 TELEPHONE CHARGES 112.82 17650 08/03/94 CITY OF MONTICELLO 800003 SEWER WATER BILL 293.02 17851 08/03/94 COAST TO COAST 800004 MISC SUPPLIES 19.11 17652 08/03/94 CONSOLIDATED COMM DI 800163 ADVERTISING 39.25 17653 08/03/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 BEER PURCHASE 19,259.45 17653 08/03/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 397.60 17653 08/03/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 JUICE FOR RESALE 42.00 19,699.05 ►C 17654 08/03/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 JUICE FOR RESALE 11.75 17654 08/03/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 BEER PURCHASE 856.85 17654 08/03/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 47.55 916.15 *C 17655 08/03/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 600011 BEER PURCIIASE 2,447.40 17655 08/03/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 26.09 17655 08/03/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO.. 800011 NON ALCO11OLIC BEER 15.20 2,488.89 *C 17656 08/03/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 1,020.10 17657 09/03/84 FLESCHIS PAPER SERVI 800116 BAGS/SUPPLIES 105.19 17658 00/03/94 G & K SERVICE 800129 MTC OF BLD/RUG MATS 36.86 17659 08/03/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2,053.24 17659 08/03/84 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 MIXES FOR RESALE 357.01 3,310.85 ►C 17660 00/03/94 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1 800019 BEER PURCHASE 9,093.30 17661 08/03/94 HOME JUICE 600136 JUICE FOR RESALE 49.35 17602 09/03/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2.869.73 17663 08/03/94 JUDE CANDY & TOBACCO 800021 CIGS & CIGARS FOR RES 248.09 17664 08/03/94 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 800055 INSURANCE PREMIUM 2,633.00 17605 09/03/94 MINNEGASCO 800100 UTILITIES 15.63 17666 00/03/94 MN FEAR SUPPLY 800130 KOOLERS FOR RESALE 232.28 BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/03/94 11:15:13 Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C LIQUOR FUND 17667 08/03/94 NEWTON MANUFACTURING 800149 MISC SUPPLIES 102.65 17668 08/03/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 800035 UTILITIES 1.308.46 17669 08/03/94 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 800036 MTC OF BLD/REPAIRS 341.88 17670 08/03/94 PAUSTIS A SONS 800103 WINE PURCHASE 161.40 17671 08/03/94 PURCELL'S PLUMBERV 800092 NEW VALVE 21.29 17672 08/03/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,773.07 17673 08/03/94 RON'S ICE COMPANY 800041 ICE PURCHASE 1,124.30 17674 08/03/94 SCHLUENDER CONSTRUCT 800174 MISC PROF SERVICES 300.00 17675 08/03/94 ST. CLOUD FIRE EQUIP 800072 FIRE EXTINQUISHER SUP 8.00 17676 08/03/94 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 BEER PURCHASE 23,417.80 17676 08/03/94 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 177.05 23,594.85 xC 17677 08/03/86 TOTAL REGISTER SYSTE 900112 RIBBONS, ETC/SUPPLIES 51.00 17678 08/03/84 VIKING COCA-COLA BOT 800051 POP PURCHASE 572.55 17679 08/03/94 WRIGHT WAV SHOPPER 800106 ADVERTISING 423.00 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 73,454.56 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 09/09/94 14:46:49 Disbursement Journal pH DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA AIRRANT DATE VENDOR LIQUOR FUND 17680 08/10/94 ADS R US INC 800175 ADVERTISING 79.95 14681 08/10/94 BRIDGEWATER T.ELEPHON 800002 TELEPHONE CHARGES' 291.77 17682 08/10/94 HENRY & ASSOCIATES 800155 METER REPAIRS 174.32 17683 08/10/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 'BEER PURCHASE 189.88 17683 08/10/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR. PURCHASE 310..69 17683 08/10/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 454.22 954.79 •CHE 17684 08/10/94 LIEFERT TRUCKING 800025 .FREIGHT CHARGES 609.79 17685 08/10/94 MN DEPARTMENT OF REV 800006 SALES TAX/JULY 199 14,250.00 17688 08/10/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 800032 ADVERTISING 134.60 17687 08/10/94 NEWTON MANUFACTURING 800149 ADVERTISING 302.33 17688 08/10/94 QUALITY LAWN MA'INTEN 800070 MOWING CHARGES 14.0.00 I 7689 08/10/94 QUALITY WINE & SPI,RI 800040 WINE PURCHASE 300.00 17680 08/10/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,484,44 1,784.44 *CHE 17690 08/10/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 14.,45 17690 08/10/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 MISC ITEMS FOR RESALE 113.85 17690 08/10/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 000045 JUICE FOR RESALE 16.76 145.05 *CHEF 1,7691 08/10/94 TRI STAR 000142 CIG LIGHTERS FOR RESAL 63.00 17692 08/10/94 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CO 800170 WATER METER REPAIRS 664,33 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 18.004,37 10( COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEM August 17, 1994 Settine workshoo for 1995 areliminary budeet review. (R.W.) It's that time of the year again, and Pm working on preparing a preliminary 1995 budget proposal which will indicate our preliminary proposed tax levy requirements for next year. The City is required to notify the County Auditor of our proposed tax levy by September 15, 1994. Between the end of November and mid-December, the City Council will hold its actual public hearing on adopting a tax levy for next year, which cannot be more than the preliminary levy established prior to September 15. It is my intention to have the City Council adopt a preliminary levy at our September 12 Council meeting; but prior to this September 12 meeting, I am assuming the City Council would like to meet in a workshop session with the City staff to review a proposed budget and establish a maximum tax levy you would be willing to consider later on. Again, in 1995, there are no tax levy limitations, which would allow the City to levy any amount it feels is necessary. While I do not yet have a good indication on where our tax levy requirements are at this point, the workshop should provide the Council with a good insight as to what our future needs might be and will outline the areas that may require us to consider an increase in our tax levy for next year. A workshop setting should give us a good opportunity to review some of our capital improvement needs that we will need to be addressing in the coming years, including infrastructure replacement, wastewater treatment plant expansions, storm sewer improvements, and other funding necessities. Along with normal inflationary pressures, it may be difficult to keep the tax levy at its present level. After we adopt our preliminary levy on September 12, we would still have a couple of months to prepare a more detailed budget proposal. The only thing to remember at this point is that we cannot levy more than the amount we adopt on September 12, but we can always go lower. Therefore, it is normally beat to propose a preliminary tax levy that may be higher than necessary but allows flexibility in reducing the levy later at the final hearing in December- A workshop session either the last week of August or the first few days after Labor Day would allow the staff to complete a proposed preliminary budget for Council to consider at the September 12 meeting without spending a lot of time at the meeting discussing budget philosophies. COUNCIL UPDATE August 17, 1894 Follow -un to Glen Posusta auestions reeardine Amax Mini-Storaet. (J.O.) The attached is a follow-up letter to the City Council regarding questions submitted at the previous meeting by Glen Posusta. It does not appear that Council needs to take any formal action on this matter, therefore, this information is presented as an update only. Posusta has been sent a copy of the letter accordingly. �fy7 �f � i�J i l Z- G �pC 0. !L ��S- �" fi ` � �,,�,o� 5l CP��-` L Re: Amax Mini -Storage OSM Project No. 4960.13 Dear Mr. O'Neill: I am writing this letter to respond to Mr. Posusta's request for information at the August 8. 1994 City of Monticello Council Meeting. After the meeting, Mr. Posusta expressed to you two questions regarding his project with which he had concerns. Those questions and my answers are as follows: 1. What Is the difference between B6 curb and 6612 curb and gutter' The principal difference between the two is that one is simply straight curb and the other has stormwater carrying capahilitiec through the nddition of a gutter section. The gutter section also adds some stability to the curb so that the curb does not tip over. As you are aware, our policy is to utilize 9612 curb and gutter in areas that are proposed to carry stormwater because it can be constructed at a flatter slope than bituminous pavement. Mr. Posusta's site plan did not address specific surfacing types or requirements due to the fact that his pavement was to be delayed for two years. As he mentioned at the meeting, however, there was a detail that outlined B612 concrete curb and gutter. The only location where we have utilized B6 curb is where the pavement is sloped away from the curb and in many instances, concrete contractors would prefer to pour the concrete curb and gutter because it can be comoleted by a machine and many times is not significantly more expensive than B6 curb. 2. Why are the curb cuts not allowed Into the Dundas Road ditch when they are allowed In other areas" The location of Mr. Posusta's property has not been studied for overall stormwater drainage management and, therefore, as is our policy, the discharge from his site in the developed condition cannot exceed the discharge from his site from undeveloped conditions. Therefore, his project was designed by his engineer to meet that criteria, which did not include curb cuts into the Dundas Road ditch. The other areas that Mr. Posusta references in the city that can discharge into the Dundas Road ditch. are in the area known as the Han Boulevard Stormwater District This district has been studied for stonnwater and has a plan for dealing with the overall stormwater system. Those properties are in compliance by utilizing the ditch system. N: VAM NW 040NC \MM41 ZUJO ePul Opp—Lm- CISAOrr August 12, 1994 300 Park Place Centra 57,75 Way=a Boulnard Mmneapola, MN 55416-1228 Mr. Jeff O'Neill 612.595.5775 1-600-753-5775 City of Monticello FAX 595-5774 P.O. Box 1147 neem Amhuem 250 East Broadway Ptanmm Surveyors Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Re: Amax Mini -Storage OSM Project No. 4960.13 Dear Mr. O'Neill: I am writing this letter to respond to Mr. Posusta's request for information at the August 8. 1994 City of Monticello Council Meeting. After the meeting, Mr. Posusta expressed to you two questions regarding his project with which he had concerns. Those questions and my answers are as follows: 1. What Is the difference between B6 curb and 6612 curb and gutter' The principal difference between the two is that one is simply straight curb and the other has stormwater carrying capahilitiec through the nddition of a gutter section. The gutter section also adds some stability to the curb so that the curb does not tip over. As you are aware, our policy is to utilize 9612 curb and gutter in areas that are proposed to carry stormwater because it can be constructed at a flatter slope than bituminous pavement. Mr. Posusta's site plan did not address specific surfacing types or requirements due to the fact that his pavement was to be delayed for two years. As he mentioned at the meeting, however, there was a detail that outlined B612 concrete curb and gutter. The only location where we have utilized B6 curb is where the pavement is sloped away from the curb and in many instances, concrete contractors would prefer to pour the concrete curb and gutter because it can be comoleted by a machine and many times is not significantly more expensive than B6 curb. 2. Why are the curb cuts not allowed Into the Dundas Road ditch when they are allowed In other areas" The location of Mr. Posusta's property has not been studied for overall stormwater drainage management and, therefore, as is our policy, the discharge from his site in the developed condition cannot exceed the discharge from his site from undeveloped conditions. Therefore, his project was designed by his engineer to meet that criteria, which did not include curb cuts into the Dundas Road ditch. The other areas that Mr. Posusta references in the city that can discharge into the Dundas Road ditch. are in the area known as the Han Boulevard Stormwater District This district has been studied for stonnwater and has a plan for dealing with the overall stormwater system. Those properties are in compliance by utilizing the ditch system. N: VAM NW 040NC \MM41 ZUJO ePul Opp—Lm- Mr. Jeff O'Neill City of Monticello, MN August 12, 1994 Page 2 In a somewhat unrelated matter, Mr. Posusta would Lice to have occupancy on his second building, however, he is not interested in completing the necessary surface improvements for his second building to get the water to the ponding area and to (ill in the curb cuts along the Dundas Road It is my recommendation that these activities be completed prior to allowing Mr. Posusm to obtain occupancy for his second building. If you need any further justification for this request, I would be happy to discuss it in greater detail. Please give me a call at 595-570.5 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Sincerely, ORR-SCFIELEN-MA,YERON & ASSOCIAINC. "�-4 �v4.. Bret A. Weiss, P.E. City Engineer Gary Anderson, City of Monticello John Simola, City of Monticello MCMI.\MI\pIO01®\MY�aI iA Council Minutes - 8!8!93 4. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow commercial storaee contained entirely within a building in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Aoulicant. Glen Posusta. Assistant Administrator ONeill informed Council that Glen Posusta requests that the City grant a conditional use permit which would allow development of a commercial storage facility in a B-3 Zone. The property is located on the south side of Dundas at the intersection of Dundas and Cedar Street. O Neill reported that Posusta has acquired additional property to the east of the original site which has allowed him to shift the facility site to the east, which has allowed the future extension of Cedar Street to be aligned at a position approximately 250 ft east of Highway 25. This is the best alignment possible. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve the conditional use permit allowing commercial storage based on the finding that commercial storage is allowed as a conditional use in the B-3 zone. The mini -storage facility at this location is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Approval of the conditional use permit is contingent on the following: 1. The development must meet city standards with regard to paving, curbing, and landscaping and signage. Due to the fact that the road serving the site is an unimproved dirt road, installation of site paving and curbing may be delayed two years or when Dundas (toad is paved, whichever occurs sooner. A performance bond in the amount equal to the cost of the curbing and paving is required to guarantee completion of the drive and parking areas. 2. A grading and drainage pian must be prepared by the developer and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 3. The developer/owner must provide the City with a roadway easement as proposed on the approved site plan at a cost not to exceed the market value as negotiated by Rick Wolfsteiler, Ken Maus, and Brad Fyle. In addition, the developer/owner must demonstrate that he has clear title to the property conveyed to the City for roadway purposes. 4. No outside storage or parking of vehicles is allowed under the conditional use permit. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT Month of July, 1994 PERI6TS s USES The Some Montt) Last Year 'This Year PERMITS ISSUED Mono JULY Last Yost TO Data To Date RESIDENTIAL N mr w 23 23 101 122 VabAbon $657.500 CID t7.tt6.400.0D {2.965,000.00 $3,942.100.00 Fees $4,77041 $7.949.70 522.465.73 $29.114.20 Surclerges $327.00 $55595 $1,473.40 $1,804.54 COMMERCIAL Number 2 5 23 20 Vaww $44.10000 $134.300.00 $451.10000 $623.000.00 Fear $45090 $1,215.45 54,08496 $6.517.09 Surcharges $2205 $67.15 &224.30 $320.00 INDUSTRIAL Number 1 3 11 vaW ODn $472.20000 $291.563.00 $1.631.600.00 Feas 63.20463 112,230.15 $11.311,94 Surcharges &236/0 $145.78 9815.55 PLUMBING NumOar 10 9 38 56 Fees $25800 9340.00 51,491.00 $1.477.00 Surctatpee $SOD $4.00 STOOD $29.00 OTHERS Nwbw 4 3 Valuation 558.900.00 $000 Foal 5759,02 $30.00 Sunhat" IM20 $1.% T01AL0 PERMITS 38 36 169 212 TOTAL VALUATION __$t,113.Q0M 8,25075000 13764,$V,oD $6.099.7008 TOTAL FEES $8.651.94 f9.5O4 18 $30,83088 --PZA4kg TOTAL SURCHARGE$ 559015 $627 00 $1.991.88 S3 069 5% CURRENT MOWN FEES NSW 10 DATE PERMIT NATURE $Numbgi Perna %rclar[u Yaiueib__ -PA Thh Yam LAST Yaa1 El"Famlly 9 1A.T94Ai $301.15 f902.30000� 44 31 0idas 0 0 MIIII-Familp I x Cbmmacal 1 1 InOus}rWi i $3,204.63 5235.50 $472.20000 2 t FIDS. Garages 1 $44.00 $2.20 $4.400.00 9 4 Swo 0 0 ALTERAIiDhYREPAIR 0svatrlgs Is 5498.90 522.15 548.30000 57 50 Co-mctoi 2 $450.90 &22.05 644,10000 119 22 IirirW W 9 2 PLUMBING ASTypes 10 $25600 $5.00 5000 86 38 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES S*4-1tp Pods 0 0 L*ka 3 $45.00 111.50 64.50000 15 14 TLMPORARYPERMtT 0 0 Ot:MOLI j,ION _ __ TOTALS 38,_. �.g91.94.,..r458Q tS 73•r 209 i89 A40N11181.0.Wd1 4& MONTICELLO Officeof the Ct, Admmmo.t 250 East Broadwav Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Phone: (612) 295.2711 MEMO Metro: (612) 333-5739 TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administratlpr�ll�' DATE: September 2, 1994 �v / RE: 1995 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy Workshop -- Tuesday, September 6, 5 p.m. Attached you will find summary worksheets outlining the proposed 1995 municipal budget. The worksheets are summarized at this point for Council review with the exception of the general fund, which has more detailed breakdowns by departments. Along with the general summaries by funds, attached you will find a worksheet outlining the capital outlay expenditures that the staff is proposing for 1995, some of which vary depending on which alternative may be selected or maximum tax levy proposed. While the attached format is intended to give you an overview of the general expenditures and revenues by major categories, funds, and departments, additional detail is available on a line item basis in the computer-generated worksheets which are available at city hall if anyone would like a copy. For the workshop discussion, I have prepared three alternatives that have various tax levy proposals resulting in levy increases of 1.6% to 8.5% in terms of dollars collected, with actual increases in the range of -1.8% to + 4.9%. In each of the alternatives, the difference is primarily shown in the capital outlay revolving fund, which has a varying tax levy requirement of between $323,200 to $506,585, depending on which option is selected. The capital outlay fund is the easiest fund to alter depending on the levy selected by the Council, and this is the fund that is usually used for large capital purchases or improvements. Naturally, the Council could select any maximum tax levy it desired, and I would accordingly adjust the capital outlay fund to match the levy proposed. Memo Budget Workshop September 2, 1994 Page 2 The first alternative tax levy of $2,694,607 should cover our expected expenditures for 1995 and provide tax dollars of $323,000 for major expenditures such as the balance of the new fire truck, various park improvements at Meadow Oak for $89,000, the balance of our ISTEA trail system project of $45,000, and still provide some reserve set aside for the expected WWTP expansion and additional funds for future interceptor sewer extensions. Alternative #1 proposes only a $42,000 increase with an actual decrease to the taxpayers of 1.8% expected. When analyzing the required improvements that the City will be facing in the next few years, it may not be prudent to only adopt alternative #1 but to look at additional tax levies that could be set aside through other alternatives such as #2 and #3 that would still keep the increases to a reasonable level similar to inflation. As I noted elsewhere, there are certainly two ways of dealing with these future expenditures, with one being to try and save some money each year toward these eventual expenditures, and the other being to wait until the projects are needed and then levy accordingly to cover those expenditures. The trouble with the second method is that it may not always be easy to keep the increases at a manageable level if you do not have corresponding reductions in other debt when these new projects come along. Ideally, it is hoped that major bond issue tax levies can be structured to maintain a fairly constant level of debt that is needed to be repaid annually to avoid the ups and downs in the tax levy. A couple of items the Council may want to address briefly concern the general fund budget for the summer recreation program (community education) and the past funding from the Industrial Development Committee for a portion of our Economic Development Director's salary and benefits. The 1995 budget for the summer recreation program has been included at an amount of $18,2.50, which is approximately a 3°% increase over 1994's budget. Community Ed Director, Duane Gates, has requested consideration of increasing this amount more than 3°% due to the fact that it has not been increased the past few years from the $17,500 level. While it is not a large dollar amount as far as our budget is concerned, 1 thought maybe the Council would want to discuss the whole philosophy of participating in the summer recreation program through community ed and at what funding level you would like to see the budget include for next year. In regard to the IDC contribution, I have attempted to simplify the budget process this year by only showing a contribution from the IDC rather than the past practice of the IDC reimbursing us for a portion of 011ie's salary and then we budget funds to give to the IDC for economic development purposes. For example, in 1994 we gave the IDC $6,650, and they in tum reimbursed us approximately $14,000 for a portion of 011ie's salary and benefits. I'm not really sure where this process started, but the IDC is also requesting consideration of reducing their reimbursement to a more manageable level in that they do not appear to have sufficient funds to do any other advertising or promotional Memo Budget Workshop September 2, 1994 Page 3 activities if they are required to contribute a large reimbursement of the Economic Development Director's salary. Based on their request, I did eliminate the City's contribution to the IDC and have included only $2,000 as a reimbursement revenue item from the IDC. While the purpose of this workshop is to review the budget options and tax levy options for 1995, the Council will have to adopt a maximum levy that you are willing to live with by September 15, 1994. If a decision is not made at our workshop session on Tuesday, the Council can adopt a maximum tax levy at the regular Council meeting September 12. The maximum tax levy is the amount the County will use in its notices to the general public, but a final budget and tax levy cannot be adopted until we have a public hearing later on this fall between late November and mid-December. The important thing to remember is that whatever amount you set as the preliminary levy cannot be exceeded later on but can always be lowered at the time you adopt the final levy in December. Also by September 15, the Council will have to set the date for the public hearing for the general discussion on our budget and a continuation date if needed to complete the budget process. These dates must fall between November 29 and December 20 but cannot fall on any dates that are used by the County or the School District in their budget reviews. Therefore, the County has selected December 13 and December 20, and the School District has taken Monday, December 5, and Monday, December 12, which are dates we cannot use. Our regular Council meeting in December would be on December 12, so we will have to select a did'erent date and time anytime from 5 p.m. on, Monday through Friday. For the past few years, we have selected a date at 5 p.m. for a special meeting to discuss the budget only. Council may want to consider doing the same this year since we are not allowed to use our regularly scheduled meeting in December for this budget adoption process. We are also unable to adopt our final tax levy at the initial public hearing meeting but will have to wait to adopt the final levy at a subsequent meeting as long as it's held after our public hearing date. Since we normally only have one Council meeting in December on the 12th, we may want to select a date somewhere between November 29 and December 9, which would allow us to adopt the final levy after the public hearing at our regular meeting on December 12 if we don't have to continue the original hearing for some reason. If we don't select a date at the workshop session, we can do so at our regular meeting September 12. Fund General Library Transportation Shade Tree OAA HRA Debt Service Capital Imp. Revolving TOTAL ALTERNATIVE #1 TAX LEVY SUMMARY 1995 BUDGET ALL FUNDS Net Certified Levy Increase - $42,080 (1.6% increase) Payable 1989 Tax Net Payable— Adjusted Payable Levy Before 1995 Adjusted Levy 16.187 HACA Ad j . Levy After Payable 1994 Payable 1995 Deductinq HACA $1,726,851 Tax $1,853,305 $1,660,606 Payable 29,510 30,735 30,735 16.313 15,024 16,816 15t054 17.527 18,004 25,960 23,271 17.216 (1.85 decrease) 26,401 29,450 26,390 15,255 17,850 15,995 600,863 706,400 632,956 220,619 323,200 289,600 $2,652,527 $3,003,716 $2,694,607+ Net Certified Levy Increase - $42,080 (1.6% increase) Payable 1989 Tax Capacity Rate 14.283 Payable 1990 Tax Capacity Rate 16.187 Payable 1991 Tax Capacity Rate 15.511 Payable 1992 Tax Capacity Rate 16.492 Payable 1993 Tax Capacity Rate 16.313 Eat. Payable 1994 Tax Capacity Rate. 17.527 Eat. Payable 1995 Tax Capacity Rate. 17.216 (1.85 decrease) Tax Capacity Value 188/Payable 1989 $ 15,405,139 '99 /Payable 1990 15,873,242 '90 /Payable 1991 16,161,043 '91/Payable 1992 15,513,574 '92 /Payable 1993 15,490,500 '93/Payable 1994 15,154,786 '94 /Payable 1995 15,651,553 (est.) Tax Capacity Rate Tax Levy 14.283 32,198,008 16.187 2,568,106 15.511 2,506,132 16.492 2,558,554 16.308 2,526,216 17.527 2,652,527 17.216 2,694,607 + Actual levy collected from taxpayers --balance received from state in HACA aid payments (=309,109 is est. State Aid for 1995). •+ Did not deduct RACA from library levy, but deducted library portion of HACA from general fund levy. 0 ALTERNATIVE $2 TAX LEVY SUMMARY 1995 BUDGET ALL FUNDS Net Certified Levy Increase - $132,630 (5Y increase) Payable 1989 Adjusted Levy Before 1995 Adjusted Payable 1990 Levy HACA Adj. Levy After Fund Payable 1994 Payable 1995 Deductinq HACA General $1,726,851 $1,853,305 $1,666,294 Library 29,510 30,735 30,735 Transportation 15,024 16,816 15,116 Shade Tree 18,004 25,960 23,333 OAA 26,401 29,450 26,483 HRA 15,255 17,850 16,057 Debt Service 600,863 706,400 635,119 Capital Imp. Revolving 220,619 413,750 372,020 TOTAL $2,652,527 $3,094,266 $2,785,157► Net Certified Levy Increase - $132,630 (5Y increase) Payable 1989 Tax Capacity Rate 14.283 Payable 1990 Tax Capacity Rate 16.187 Payable 1991 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 15.511 Payable 1992 Tax Capacity Rate 16.492 Payable 1993 Tax Capacity Rate 16.313 Est. Payable 1994 Tax Capacity Rate. 17.527 Est. Payable 1995 Tax Capacity Rate. 17.795 (1.51 increase) Tax Capacity Value 188/Payable 1989 $ 15,405,139 189/Payable 1990 15,873,242 '90/Payable 1991 16,161,043 '91/Payable 1992 15,513,574 '92/Payable 1993 15,490,500 '93/Payable 1994 15,134,143 '94/Payable 1995 15,651,553 (est.) Tax Capacity Rate Tax Levy 14.283 $2,198,008 16.187 2,568,106 15.511 2,506,132 16.492 2,558,554 16.308 2,526,216 17.527 2,652,527 17.795 2,785,157 • Actual levy collected from taxpayers --balance received from state in HACA aid payments ($309,109 is est. State Aid for 1995). •• Did not deduct HACA from library levy, but deducted library portion of HACA from general fund levy. ALTERNATIVE 03 TAX LEVY SUMMARY 1995 BUDGET ALL FUNDS Net Certified Levy Increase - $225,465 (8. 51 increase) Payable 1989 Adjusted Levy Before 1995 Adjusted Payable 1990 Levy HACA Ad j . Levy After Fund Payable 1994 Payable 1995 Deducting 14 -ACA General $1,726,851 $1,853,305 $1,671,796 Library 29,510 30,735 30,735 Transportation 15,024 16,8 16 15,178 Shade Tree 18,004 25,960 23,425 OAA 26,401 29,450 26,575 HRA 15,255 17,850 16,088 Debt Service 600,863 706,400 637,222 Capital Imp. Revolving 220,619 506,585 456,973 TOTAL $2,652,527 $3,187,101 $2,877,992 - Net Certified Levy Increase - $225,465 (8. 51 increase) Payable 1989 Tax Capacity Rate 14.283 Payable 1990 Tax Capacity Rate 16.187 Payable 1991 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 15.511 Payable 1992 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 16.492 Payable 1993 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 16.313 Est. Payable 1994 Tax Capacity Rate. 17.527 Est. Payable 1995 Tax Capacity Rate. 18.388 (4.93 increase) Tax Capacity Value '88/Payable 1989 $ 15,405,139 '89/Payable 1990 15,873,242 '90/Payable 1991 16,161,043 '91/Payable 1992 15, 513, 574 '92/Payable 1993 15,490,500 '93/Payable 1994 15,134, 143 '94/Payable 1995 15,651,553 (est.) Tax Capacity Rate Tax Lew 14.283 $2,198,008 16.187 2,568,106 15.511 2,506,132 16.492 2,558,554 16.308 2,526,216 17.527 2,652,527 18.388 2,877,992 • Actual levy collected from taxpayers --balance received from state in HACA aid payments ( $309,109 is eat. State Aid for 1995) . •• Did not deduct HACA from library levy, but deducted library portion of HACA from general fund levy. 1995 SUMIARY OF LEVY INCREASESIDECREASES PROPOSED BY FUNDS General fund levy is down $66,245. Some of the increases or decreases by department are as follows: 1. Council - Up $3,995 to allow for increase in Mayor/Council salary. 2. Assessing - Down $1,355 mainly due to no longer allocating portion of Building Inspector's salary to this department. 3. Plannine & Zoning - Up $37,370 primarily to cover 75% of salary and benefits for new Development Services Technician (Wanda's position) and allowance of $15,000 for comprehensive plan review. 4. Der)uty Registrar - Up $15,215 mainly due to additional salary and benefits for part -tame help and extra costs associated with being located in separate building. 5. Police Contract - Up $13,750 due to hourly rate increase from $30.50 to $32. 6. Fire Department - Up $9,000, includes $7,000 for refinishing/ maintenance of siding on building. 7. PW Administration - Up $18,305 mainly due to addition of part-time secretary position and related office equipment purchases. 8. Refuse - Down $34,980 because of lower tipping fees at compost facility. 9. Parks Department - Down $18,095 due to lower capital outlay purchases. 10. Building Inspection - Up $52,105 due to allocation of 25% of Development Services Technician position, salary/benefits and funding for additional full -limo Building Inspector position, and related frosts such as benefits/mileage. 11. Street Department - Down $67,000 mainly because of reduction in capital outlay. '94 budget for Capital Outlay was: $116,000 '95 budget proposed for Capital Outlay: $ 61,000 I In addition to the changes noted by various departments above, the 1995 general fund budget also has additional non -tax revenue funds of $40,000 for state highway aid and approximately $36,000 additional building permit revenue. With the proposed expenditures only increasing by $23,000, the additional revenue allows the actual tax levy for the general fund to be reduced by over $66,000. The second area of notable change from the 1994 budget is in our debt service funds where the levy proposed is up $32,000 to cover next year's debt payments. So that you can get an idea of our debt payments and tax levy requirements in future years, I have enclosed a sum*npry of our outstanding debt and a schedule of future year tax levies we will be collecting. As you will note, most of the remaining funds have proposed tax levies very similar to the 1994 budget with the only exception being the "capital outlay" fund, which will vary depending on the amount of tax levy increase the Council is comfortable with. The following is a summary of the expenditures proposed in the capital outlay fund under each of the three alternatives proposed. OPTION #1: Balance of fire truck purchase (estimated City share at $150,000 with previous year allocations of $70,000) $80,000 Park improvements (Meadow Oplc): a. 2 irrigated ballfields $53,000 b. irrigated soccer field 15,000 C. storage building 9,000 d. 2 basketball courts 10,000 e. 1 sand volleyball court 2,000 Balance of ISTEA trail system project (City share) $45,000 Reserve for interceptor sewer (3rd year) $60,000 Reserve for future WWTP expansion (2nd year) $100,000 TOTAL OPTION 01 $374,000 OPTION #2: Same options as #1 $374,000 Reserve for future city hall expansion 90.550 TOTAL OPTION #2 $464,550 OPTION #3: Same options as #1 and #2 $464,550 Additional reserve amount for WWTP expansion 92,835 TOTAL OPTION #3 $557,385 The expenditures proposed under the three alternatives above were done to primarily match capital outlay fund revenue for each alternative to possible expenditures the Council may want to consider, depending on how much of a tax levy increase you are willing to consider. Under each of the tax levy proposals, the primary adjustment was always made to the capital outlay revolving fund using most of the tax levy increases to be set aside for future projects we know will be coming down the road. While the capital outlay fund has built up substantial reserves during the past years, the Council is reminded that most of these funds have already been earmarked for various future improvements such as: New dog pound $ 75,000 Portion of new fire truck purchase $ 70,000 Future interceptor sewer extension $160,000 ISTEA trail project $ 95,000 The three alternative tax levy proposals were really prepared to give the Council some idea of budgets you may want to consider for next year, with the first alternative being able to meet our current expected expenditures and to provide for some funds to be set aside for items like the future wastewater treatment plant expansion and the continual reserve for the interceptor sewer trunk line. The second and third alternatives are basically the same, meeting our basic overall needs plus providing additional reserve funds for items such as future city hall expansion and additional funds set aside for WWTP expansion. In reviewing the tax levy summary, you should note that under alternative #1, the actual dollar amount of our levy increase would be $42,080, which is a 1.6% increase in the dollars collected. While it appears to he an increase, because our tax capacity values have increased, it would result in an actual decrease of 1.8% in the amount of taxes individuals would he paying. Likewise, under alternative #2, the actual dollars collected would increase by $132,630, or a 5% increase, while in reality the individual's taxes would only increase 1.5%, not 5`70. The same is true for alternative #3 with the dollars increasing 8.5% when, in reality, the increase would be 4.9%. The Council should take under consideration in deliberating a potential tax levy amount what the future needs of the city will be to keep up with the growing demand and our eventual replacement of infrastructure throughout the community. As the city continues to grow, the City will be faced with being involved with various improvements such as the recently -discussed Meadow Oak storm sewer project, future water and sewer line extensions to new developments, and the eventual replacement of some of our streets and infrastructure. As an example, the main street project in 1977 saw curb and gutter, along with bituminous paving, being installed in the core city, which will soon be 20 years old. Normally, the expected life can be anywhere from 20-30 years, and eventually we will be facing major replacements of streets. I'm sure the question at that time will be whether the City will be participating in the cost of the replacement, or will we attempt to assess 100% to the property owners. While it may be unrealistic to expect to save sufficient funds to cover all the City share of these various improvement projects, the Council is reminded that every year we get closer to the possibility that the power plant may no longer be part of our tax base. That's not to say that the City should get too carried away in over -taxing today for future projects, but it may be prudent to systematically continue a process of levying certain dollars for reserve funds to cover some of these eventual projects we know well be facing. For example, it may be easier to simply set aside $75,000 to $100,000 per year for the eventual city hall expansion that will be needed so that the funds are available in 3-5 years rather than requiring a referendum bond issue. The same could be true for many projects, but it does come down to a philosophical question as to whether we want to take the approach that we will increase taxes when projects are needed by issuing bonds, or whether it would be better to have increases in taxes but at smaller steps by saving annually additional funds. Other items the Council may want to discuss that do not necessarily affect our tax levy for next year include: Phase II of the public works building expansion - $400,000. The current liquor budget again earmarks $100,000 as a transfer to the EDA for the revolving loan program. Even with the potential transfer, the liquor fund is estimated to have a surplus of approximately $427,000 at the end of 1994, which would primarily cover the phase II expansion. 2. Meadow Oak pond outlet project - $350,000. (Not covered in 1995 budget and also assumed that this project would be financed by bond sale.) 3. Future WWTP expansion in 3-5 yrs - estimated cost $6 to $8 million. Also assumed that most of this cost would have to be covered by a bond sale even if we start setting aside some money annually through additional tax levy. 4. Possible acquisition of agricultural land for sludge disposal - $200,000 to $300,000. 5. Future city share of infrastructure improvements for 10ein/Emmerich plat - $160,000 to $250,000. 1995 BUDGET SUMMARY • includes $367,750 Depreciation --contributed assets •• includes $165,930 Depreciation --contributed assets I 1994 1995 FUND REVENUE EXPENDITURES REVENUE EXPENDITURES General $2,402,985 $2,402,985 $2,426,075 $2,426,075 Library 31,335 31,335 31,865 31,865 Transportation 70,647 70,547 67,479 67,229 Shade Tree 26,160 26,160 32,960 32,960 UDAG 10,845 85,000 11,695 -0- OAA 29,800 29,800 29,800 29,800 HRA 352,210 272,035 414,700 321,771 EDA 218,710 2,110 118,770 201,440 SCERG 8,345 -0- 63,100 33,300 CMIF -O- -0- 13,320 13,320 Debt Service 1,261,020 1,423,350 1,266,115 1,419,712 Liquor 1,487,125 1,479,495 1,540,900 1,483,625 Water 174,280 332,905•• 182,350 411,000•• Sewer 464,785 812,985• 505,900 862,575• Capital Imp. 278,190 282,195 377,600 377,600 Water Access 15,550 28,000 24,400 -0- Sewer Access 14,675 35,000 33,550 -0- TOTAL $6,844,162 $7,311,402 57,140,579 17,712,272 • includes $367,750 Depreciation --contributed assets •• includes $165,930 Depreciation --contributed assets I GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 1995 BUDGET REVENUE 1994 1995 Taxes Current Ad Valorem $1,934,765 $1,853,305 Penalty/Interest 1,000 1,000 Tax Increments --Kmart 103,000 99,600 $2,038,765 $1,953,905 Licenses and Permits - Business Liquor 17,000 $ 20,950 Beer 1,550 1,445 Set Ups 300 325 $ 18,850 $ 22,720 Licenses and Permits - Non -Business Building Permits 44,500 $ 80,000 Variances/Conditional Uses 1,500 1,800 Dog Licenses 150 150 Others 2,200 3,600 $ 48,350 $ 85,550 Inter -Governmental Fire Department Aid 30,875 S 31,125 Police Department Aid 19,500 20,000 State Highway Aid -0- 40,000 $ 50,375 $ 91,125 Chargee for Services General Government 11000 $ 1,150 Public Safety (Township Contract) 59,770 60,020 Streets - C.S.A.H. Mtnc. 3,650 5,050 Deputy Registrar 88,000 93,750 Other 100 3,200 Subdivision Fees 500 9,000 Special Processing Fee (Garbage) 5,000 8,500 Recycling Incentive 6,000 7,500 Inspection Fees 2,500 3,000 Garbage Cart Rental 3,200 3,700 S 169,720 S 194,870 Fines Animal Impoundment 20,000 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Miscellaneous Revenue Interest on Investments $ 37,425 S 50,555 Sale of Property 300 350 Contributions/Donations/ Park Dedications/Refunds 2,500 2,500 other 1,700 2,500 $ 41,925 S 55,905 Refunds and Reimbursements IDC Reimbursement 15,000 2,000 $ 15,000 S 2,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $2,402,995 $2,426,075 GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 1995 BUDGET EXPENDITURES Proposed 1994 1995 Mayor and Council $ 18,400 $ 22,345 Administration 231,970 232,120 Finance 92,900 97,960 Insurance 58,250 66,825 Audit 12,500 13,500 Legal 23,275 23,775 Planning & Zoning 53,010 81,290 Inspections --Bldg. Official 44,655 96,550 Assessing 13,880 12,525 Deputy Registrar 70,470 85,685 City Hall 48,385 50,260 Computer 23,325 29,840 Elections 13,595 -0- TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ 704,615 $ 812,675 Law Enforcement $ 279,875 $ 293,635 Fire 123,395 132,400 Civil Defense 7,930 9,405 Animal Control 38,225 38,075 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY $ 449,425 $ 473,515 Inspection $ 35,500 39,800 Admin. 6 Engineering 82,490 102,795 Streets & Alleys 297,920 230,850 Snow 6 Ice 28,885 17,735 Street Lighting 6 Parking Lots 54,950 64,490 Shop 6 Garage 42,900 35,500 Refuse Collection 304,050 269,070 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS $ 846,695 $ 760,240 Senior Citizens Center $ 36,500 36,500 YMCA/Community Ed. 25,000 25,750 Information Center/Museum 2,095 1,795 TOTAL HEALTH i WELFARE $ 63,595 $ 64,045 Parke 6 Roc./Cemetery $ 186,650 t 170,055 TOTAL PARRS 6 RECREATION $ 186,650 $ 170,055 Community Development $ 146,505 $ 135,045 TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $ 146,505 $ 135,045 Mi sc.--Severence Benefits t 5,500 $ 10,500 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $ 5,500 $ 10,500 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $2,402,985 $2,426,075 SUMMARY DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 1995 BUDGET FORECAST REVENUE CURRENT AD VALOREM INTEREST SPECIAL ASMI --COUNTY TRANSFER IN --TAX INCREMENT 1994 1995 671,992 706,400 66,725 80,165 195,778 150,900 326,525 328,650 TOTAL REVENUE :1,261„020 f1,266.115 rrrrsrsarrraar+•a++r++rrtaaaatra+rrrrr+rtrrrrrtaaaraarartarr EXPENDITURES PRINCIPAL 880,000 925,000 INTEREST 508,734 456,851 PAYING AGENT FEES 9,191 8,661 INTEREST EXP. 25,425 29,200 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 31,423.350 !1.419,712 CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS 1995 BUDGET FUND / DEPARTMENT ITEM AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE Admin.: (1/2) Copier replacement $ 5,000 General Fund Small copier at counter 2,700 General Fund Typewriter 1,280 General Fund Computer file rack 150 General Fund $ 9,130 Finance: Check signer & stand $ 1,800 General Fund Planning b Zoning: Comprehensive plan review $ 15,000 General Fund Data Processing: Personal computer - PW secretary $ 2,500 General Fund - City hall secretary 2,500 General Fund Laser printer 3,500 General Fund Uninterruptible power supply 700 General Fund (2) Data racks 175 General Fund Blg. inspection software 3,500 General Fund $ 12,875 City Hall: Brick sealing 6 repair $ 10,000 General Fund Interior wood sealant 81000 General Fund (50) Council Chamber chairs 3,250 General Fund $ 21,250 Deputy Registrar: Office chair $ 275 General Fund Microwave 125 General Fund Refrigerator (used) 250 General Fund Ticket t system 350 General Fund $ 1,000 Fire Department: Building refinishing -- siding t 71000 General Fund Unallocated 10,000 General Fund Balance of new fire truck (570,000 allocated from prev. yrs.) 80,000 Capital Outlay $ 97,000 Building Inspection: Literature rack for handouts 3 225 General Fund Mobile radio 575 General Fund Car phone 125 General Fund f r5 CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS 1995 BUDGET FUND/ - DEPARTMENT ITEM AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE Pub. Works Admin.: Document feeder --copier $ 1,220 General Fund Typewriter 1,280 General Fund Cabinets 800 General Fund $ 3,300 Streets: Small loader & trailer $ 21,500 General Fund Paint striper 4,000 General Fund Used pickup 8,000 General Fund Sealcoating 27,500 General Fund $ 61,000 Water Department: Senus Meter Master i 6,100 Water Fund Control panel wiring 3,550 Water Fund 125 KW generator 41,600 Water Fund $ 51,250 Sewer Collection: Gas detector $ 2,500 Sewer Fund Reserve for interceptor sewer ext.(3rd year) 60,000 Capital Outlay $ 62,500 WWTP: Tri- or quad- gas meter $ 3,000 Sewer Fund WWTP expansion $5-8 million Bonds Future City share of intrastructure imp. Klein/Emmerich plat) Sewer lateral $ 10,000 Capital Outlay Trunk water 33,800 or School Blvd ext. Bonds (117 to Fallon) 54,000 Fallon Ave. rebuilding 66,000 $163,800 Storm Sewer: Meadow Oak pond outlet $375,000 Bonds Pub. Works Building: Phase II expansion $400,000 Liquor Fund Pub. Works Inspections: Scale $ 11500 General Fund Shop 6 Garage: Electric arc 6 air cutter (plasma cutter) $ 2,500 Genoral Fund 2 CAPITAL OUTLAY ISMS 1995 BUDGET FUND/ DEPARTMENT ITEM AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE Parks: Picnic tables 6 repairs $ 4,000 General Fund Front -mounted diesel mower 15,000 General Fund Trees 10,000 General Fund (1/2) of fertilizer spreader 11500 General Fund $ 30,500 Parks -- Meadow Oak Park Imp: (2) Irrigated ballfields $ 53,000 Capital Outlay (1) Irrigated soccer field 15,000 Capital Outlay (1) Storage building 9,000 Capital Outlay (2) Basketball courts 10,000 Capital Outlay (1) Sand volleyball court 2,000 Capital Outlay $ 89,000• *Assumes all completed by outside contractors --could possible be reduced by up to 508 if completed by City personnel if time allowed. Parks: Balance of pathway project (ISTEA) $ 45,000 Capital Outlay Tree Department: (1/2) of stump grinder $ 7,500 Tree Fund Alternative #2 includes dollars for: City hall expansion reserve $90,550 Capital Outlay Fund Alternative p13 includes dollare for: City hall expansion reserve $90,550 Capital Outlay Fund Addl revenue for WWTP expansion $92,835 Capital Outlay Fund 3 Based on Alternate # I SUMMARY OF PROJECTED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND FUND BALANCES (CASH 6 INVESTMENTS) REVSUM95. WK 1: 09/01/94 PROJECTED 1995 1995 PROJECTED BALANCE PROJECTED PROJECTED BALANCE FUND 19111194 REVENUE EXPENDITURES 12/31/95 General $1,613,500 $2.426,075 $2,426,075 $1,613,500 Library $4,400 $31,865 $31,865 $4,400 Tree $117,250 $32,960 $32,960 $117,250 OAA $6.345 $29.800 $29,800 $6.345 Water $108.700 $182,350 $245.070 $45,980 Water Access $146.500 $24,400 $0 $170.900 Sewer $61,000 $505,900 $494.825 $72,075 Sewer Access $24,800 $33,550 $0 S58,350 Transportation $7,400 $67,479 $67,229 $7,650 Liquor $427,350 $1,540,900 $1,883,625 $84,625 Capital Outlay Revotving $379,000 $377,600 $377,600 $379.000 HRA $410,400 $414,700 $321,771 $503,329 UDAG $36,000 $11,695 $0 $47,695 EDA $87,100 $118,770 $201,440 $4,430 SCERG $33,300 $63.100 $33,300 $63,100 CMIF 9M Sin 32n 513320 SUBTOTALS $3.463.545 $5,874,464 $6,158,880 $3,179,129 Debt Service General Obligation Bonds $527,519 $577,504 $586,280 $518,743 SpedalAssessment Bonds $1.864,653 $357,971 $513.970 $1,708,654 Tax Increment Bonds 5350159 5330.640 5319.462 5361.336 SUBTOTALS $2,742,330 $1,266,115 $1,419,712 $2,588,733 TOTALS $6,205,875 $7,140,579 $7,578,592 $5,767,882 REVSUM95. WK 1: 09/01/94 rJ CITY OF MONTICE LLO COMBINED STATEMENT OF INDEBTF.DNNSS (PROJECTED) 12-31.95 INDEBI : 08/29/94 Projected Funds On Hand For Principal Interest Principal Interest Debt Aulh. and Outstanding Paid in Paid In Due In Due in Outstanding Retirement Bonded Indebtedness Iggued Retired 12131[94 104 1991 1M5 1995 =11[95 12131199 General Obligation Bonds $3,900,000 $1,940,000 51,960,000 $275,000 $127,662 $285,000 $114,597 $1.675,000 $527,519 Special Assessment Bonds $15,446,000 $11,748,000 $3,700,000 $415,100 $245,493 $445,000 $220,738 $3,255,000 $1,864,653 General Obligation Tax $32,000 $32,000 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Increment Note General Obligation Tax 5234 = Si555.0DD &LIMM M 81.90.E 5135.579 $195 S121-516 61.995.OW $350.[58 Increment Bonds $21,725,000 $14,375,000 $7.350,000 $880,000 $508,734 $925,000 $456.851 $6,425,000 $2,742,330 INDEBI : 08/29/94 CITY OF MONTICELLO TAX LEVIES TO RETIRE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS Oeownbw3l, 1883 B O N D D E BT. W K 4:08/31 /94 J Gmbm1 Gen" Gerwat Gmbrai GwwW I Genmai Gmbrat Gernerel Gerlaal i Gen" Go"ro Gar" Ooigalbn Ot>tpaeon Otohp b- I n Oa4Won OOlryaoon Odpenon ��n Odpamn � �Wa1bn Otaeetbn ppyp�tpn Spar Improromem Wetm Snsum water Syamm WMr SMem ImpWamem Imvovemem mpweman PztunWV ReWn&V ram dl urvroremom Inpvremom tmmoepta BOM Saba Bornd serve Bona Saw Bond Saba I Band Same Baq 6m1et Bort Saba Bond Srbe Bona Swbs GRAND Lew Cer . 8oM 011977 Dow P119*B POW III Ile I" 19�P IMP 1P"p 1i9f!<. � 1881A 19�i1A I"QA 1994A TOTALS 1993 1994 $14,115 534.323 $124.053 $149.246 $129.899 $26.064 $20,362 $1.875 $1,029 $172.883 $673.849 1994 1995 $13.969 533,109 5124,672 $149,655 $125.531 $24,851 $50.000 525.040 52.971 $10,232 $146,370 5706,400 1995 1996 $8,505 S37,091 5124.882 $126.344 $23,626 $50,000 524,113 S3,907 $11,117 5114,660 $126.942 $651,187 19% 1997 $8,580 535.414 $124,672 $126.743 522.400 $52,095 $23,160 $11,845 $131,155 $536,064 1997 1998 $8,655 538,955 $124.032 5126,717 $26,411 $83,183 $22.181 $12,414 $138.544 5581,092 1998 1999 536.822 $128,200 $126.255 $24,813 584,087 $26.425 $7,576 $134.792 5568.970 1989 2000 $34,651 $126,310 $130,597 $79,315 525.054 $8,140 $130,916 5534,983 2000 2001 $37,689 $129,203 $128,864 $23,668 $8,593 $132.036 $460.053 2001 2002 $126,712 $6,902 $127,490 $263.104 2002 2003 $129,384 $127,998 $257,382 2003 2004 I 50 2004 2005 $O 2005 2006 I $0 SD TOTAL &53 924 Uaa o5g E1.608.624 SZW= 11.777.646 114R.1B5 LMa= Pq 84A jQ-4 All 51 040 R73 S5 Y_{a 064 B O N D D E BT. W K 4:08/31 /94 J