City Council Agenda Packet 02-26-1996AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 28, 1988 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Brad Fyle
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held February 12, 1996.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
A. Consideration of an offer to buy a home and 365 ft of riverfront
property west of Bridge Park.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
5. Consent agenda.
P
A. Consideration of confirming annual Board of Review date for 1996.
B. Consideration of authorizing Junk Amnesty Day.
C. Consideration of approving annual CSAH maintenance agreement
with Wright County.
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of vacation of a portion of Meadow Lane, and
consideration of vacating utility easements located along the southern
boundary of Lot 8, Block 1, Meadow Oak 4th Addition. Applicant, Cook
Construction.
7. Consideration of appeal of Eastwood Knoll Architectural Review Board
decision pertaining to architectural significance of proposed 6/12 roof pitch.
Location is Lot 2, Block 1, Eastwood Knoll. Applicant, John Bichler.
8. Consideration of adopting an employee drug and alcohol testing policy for
drivers of commercial motor vehicles.
9. Consideration of approving plans and specifications for replacement of first
stage digester cover and mixer at the wastewater treatment plant and
authorization to advertise for bids.
10. Consideration of setting a public information meeting on biosolids facility
application.
Agenda
Monticello City Council
February 26, 1996
Page 2
11. Consideration of authorizing City staff to work with Riverfest Organizing
Committee on fireworks display.
12. Consideration of replacing the contract building inspector service with a new
supervisory position in the department and a part-time secretarial position.
13. Consideration of bills for the month of February.
14. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 12, 1898 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY TOM
PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD
JANUARY 18 AND THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 22, 1996, AS
WRITTEN. Motion carried unanimously.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller noted that he had received three
applications for gambling license renewal from the Monticello Lions Club. It
was the consensus of Council to add this item to the consent agenda.
4. f :i ze a co m taipp i iona� req , s = and complaints.
None.
5. Consent nfrendn.
A. ('onsidoration of llynivinggdatutozy linhilit�y insurance limitq for VAY
insurance pa n rp renewal . Recommendation: Deny waiving of
the monetary limits on tort liability established by state statutes.
Co aiderntion nfgrantiny p PPngnnnl 3. beer heenge to tho Mon i llo
Snub lI AgRocintinn. Recommendation: Grant a seasonal 3.2 beer
license to the Monticello Softball Association contingent upon receipt
of the necessary insurance documents and appropriate fees.
C. Considers ion to review Grenter Mont;ce io Fnterprign Fund IGMF.FI
lAnn No. 012 (Standard Iran) for comb innce of the dMF.F Guido Ines.
Recommendation: Approve the decision by the EDA to approve
GMEF Loan No. 012 for Standard Iron.
Page 1 (3
Council Minutes - 2/12196
Consideration of nuhhe works Q=ra or/Merhanir AppaintmPnt.
Recommendation: Appoint Tim Guimont to the position of
Operator/Mechanic pending completion of the required physical
examination.
E. Co sideration of a resohiflnn accepting patition nnd a + horinno
preparation of feasibility study for improv m nts to a 400-R Pxtengdnn
of Dundas Road. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution accepting
petition and authorizing preparation of a feasibility study for
improvements to a 400 -ft extension of Dundas Road contingent upon
the developer providing funds sufficient to cover the feasibility study
expense. SEE RESOLUTION 96.6.
Consideration of approve mh ing licengp. renewalg for thp
Monticello Lions rhih. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution
approving gambling license renewals for the Monticello Lions Club for
Hawks Sports Bar & Grill, J.P.'s Annex, and Joyner Lanes. SEE
RESOLUTION 9&7.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY
ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED.
Motion carried unanimously.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Council previously approved a
conditional use permit to allow expansion of the wastewater treatment plant
in a PZM zone; however, due to the purchase of additional land which would
allow a redesign of the plant, the City was required to reprocess the
conditional use request. He noted that the purchase of the adjacent property
would result in the facility being recessed into the hill, which would reduce
the visual impact of the facility as seen from CSAH 76, and would increase
the setback distance from the river, thus resulting in an improved site plan.
O'Neill noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and
approved the conditional use permit with the suggestion that a berm be
added along Hart Boulevard.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT W11 ICH WOULD ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT IN A P72A ZONE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS, EXCLUDING THE TREE CLEARCUT iNG PROVISION:
Page 2 (2�
Council Minutes - 2/12/98
Items required by code.
A. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained,
and required setbacks and cited requirements are met.
B. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping as
provided in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of the zoning
ordinance.
C. The provisions of Chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
D. The facility must have direct access to a county or city state aid
highway.
Installation of odor control measures necessary to maintain or reduce
the current problem.
City buffer yard requirements must be met on the Hoglund side of the
property. The top side of the bank shall meet the buffer yard for an
institutional/multi-family boundary; the lower valley side to buffer
institutional/single family use.
Motion is based on the finding that the facility is consistent with the
character of the area, and the screening and landscaping is designed to
preserve to the extent possible the value of adjoining property; the proposal
is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city; the expansion will nut
have an appreciable negative effect on the property to the west (Bondhus);
screening and buffer yard techniques will be employed to limit the impact on
the property to the cast; odor control efforts have been designed into the
plans. In addition, the redesigned site plan will result in less of an impact on
the view of the facility from the road right-of-way. Motion carried
unanimously.
Assistant Administrator O'Ncill reported that Pipeline Supply, dba Kant.
Sing Partnership, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow open and
outside storage and a stall aisle design conditional use permit in an I.1 zone.
Pipeline Supply provides pipe to retailers for resale and provides pipe
directly to contractors. The site is located at the intersection of Fallon
Avenue and Dundas Road.
Page 3
Council Minutes - 2✓12196
O'Neill went on to note that the plan meets all seti:ack and parking
requirements. According to the site plan, the storage area will be surrounded
by a 6-R opaque cyclone fence, with slats installed in a basket -weave fashion
to assure full opacity. Planning Commission recommended approval of the
outside storage conditional use permit.
In regard to the stall aisle design conditional use, the developer requested
that a relatively large staging area designated as a product pick-up location
be covered with a heavy granular material rather than bituminous; however,
the ordinance requires that any area commonly used by the public must be
paved. It is the developers contention that a bituminous surface will not
stand up to the weight and turning movements of trucks and that the
number of trucks using the area will only be approximately 10 per day.
O'Neill noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
conditional use permit; however, after further review of the site, staff now
had reservations about using crushed granite in the product pick-up area, as
it may set a precedent for future industrial sites. It was staffs opinion that a
bituminous surface would stand up to truck traffic.
Council discussed the proposed site plan in regard to the loading dock located
on the front of the building facing Fallon Avenue. Council expressed
concerns that semi -trucks would enter the site from Dundas Road and block
traffic on Fallon Avenue in order to back up to the loading dock. Staff noted
that the developer has been instructed that trucks will not be allowed to
block traffic or park on Fallon Avenue.
Planning Commission Chair Dick Frio stated that the Planning Commission
discussed the front loading dock area at length, and it was the Commission's
understanding that most of the semis would be using the outside storage
area. He noted that the Planning Commission approved the conditional use
permit based on the agreement with the developer that semis would not be
allowed to block traffic or park on Fallon Avenue. The Public Works Director
added thnt signage could be installed on Fallon indicating that no parking,
stopping, or backing is allowed.
IIFC4ION A: AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BROW STUMPF
AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT ALLOWING OUTSIDE STORAGE., WITH THE CYCLONE SCREENING
FENCE UTILIZING SLATS IN A MANNER THAT ACHIEVES 90% OPACITY.
Motion is based on the finding that the proposed plan is in conformance with
outside storage conditions as required by ordinance.
I)F..I� c10N L: A MOTION WAS MADE BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE A
STALL AISLE. AND DRIVEWAY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PROPOSED BY
THE DEVELOPER. Motion died for lack of a second.
Page 4 9
Council Minutes - 2112/96
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY
ANDERSON TO APPROVE A STALL AISLE AND DRIVEWAY CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED BY ORDINANCE AND SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE PICK-UP STAGING AREA SHALL BE HARD SURFACED.
2. THE PUBLIC TRIPS SHALL BE LIMITED TO CONTRACTOR PICK-
UP ONLY.
3. THE STORAGE AREA SURFACE SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO A
RUT -FREE CONDITION OR THE AREA WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
BE PAVED.
4. THE FENCE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE STORAGE AREA
SHOULD BE SET BACK FAR ENOUGH TO AVOID PARKING ON
THE BOULEVARD WHILE THE FENCE GATE IS BEING OPENED.
6. STAFF IS DIRECTED TO WORK WITH THE BUILDER ON
CREATING A BETTER DESIGN OF THE NORTHWEST DOCK AREA
IN ORDER TO PREVENT SEMIS FROM USING FALLON AVENUE
TO BACK INTO THE DOCK AREA
Motion carried unanimously.
Co sideration of revie 'ng senior 667.pm annual activities report - P=
Lnidnit.
A summary of the 1996 senior center activities and statistics was submitted
by Senior Citizen Center Coordinator Pam Loidolt.
It was the consensus of Council to accept the report as presented.
Review of year-end liquor store t3nnnrinl repgjU.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that total sales for the liquor
store were up approximately 6.7% over 1994, with the resulting gross profit
showing an increase of 7% compared to 1994. The operating income
increased $19,426 over last year to an all-time high of $179,046. Wolfsteller
noted that the operating income at 10.8% of total sales was in line with
expectations.
After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to accept the 1996 year-end
liquor store financial reports.
Page 5 9
Council Minutes - 2/12/96
10. Consideration of neceD ing modifiCationg to t1hp. comprehengive Dian and
supWr ipg initiation of the public hearing process.
Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that modifications to the
comprehensive plan document had been completed by Planner Steve
Grittman, and Council was asked to support initiation of the public hearing
process for potential adoption of the plan in March.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN
STUMPF TO TABLE ACCEPTANCE OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UNTIL A SPECIAL MEETING SET FOR 6:30 P.M.,
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1996. Motion carried unanimously.
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reviewed the yearend EDA
financial statements, activity report, and 1996 proposed budget, which were
approved by the EDA on January 23.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO ACCEPT THE EDA BALANCE SHEET;
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND
BALANCE; 1996 CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS; AND THE ANNUAL ACTIVITY
REPORT AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that SRF Consulting Group
prepared a study on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Transportation
to defino the best location for a future Mississippi River crossing, which
would be constructed in 16-20 years. Council was asked to consider adopting
a resolution supporting their proferred river crossing location.
O'Neill summarized the study, noting that the three options deserving
further consideration are:
Option A: Location is near St. Cloud.
Option C: Location is near Clearwater.
Option D1: Location is Enfield/Becker, which would place the bridge
"miles northwest of Monticello.
Page 6 0
Council Minutes - 2/12/96
O'Neill noted that it was the view of the Planning Commission that the
Council should formally support the Enfield/Becker option because it would
result in the greatest level of improvement to congestion expected at
Highway 25. Option A would reduce traffic at the Clearwater bridge
(Highway 24); however, the level of congestion on Highway 24 is not as
severe as is expected on Highway 25. Therefore, the Planning Commission
recommended that Council support Option D1 because it would optimize
operation of the state highway system by resulting in the greatest positive
impact on the bridge that would be experiencing the highest level of
congestion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN
STUMPF TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FURTHER EXPLORATION
OF OPTION Dl (ENFIELDBECKER LOCATION) FOR THE FUTURE MISSISSIPPI
RPVER CROSSING. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 96-8.
13. Cnngid ra inn of nppainting n Vnuncil member to the MCP Board of
Victors.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the Monticello Community
Partners (MCP) nominating committee has reviewed and developed an
organizational structure for the Board of Directors, which includes a City
Council member. The MCP will be organizing private initiative efforts
associated with redevelopment of the downtown/riverfront area.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN
STUMPF TO APPOINT CLINT HERBST TO THE MCP BOARD OF r.MECWRS.
Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business, the mooting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 7 (D
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
3A. Confaideration of sin offer to huy a home and SM ft of riverfmni
pwpejU west of Bridge Park- (J.0.)
A RFFFRFNCR AND BACKGROUND:
On Thursday, February 22,1 was informed by real estate agent Richard
Carlson that the owners of the riverfront home west of West Bridge Park are
making an offer to the City for the City to buy their home and property at a
price of $143,000. This amount is based on an appraisal completed by the
HRA minus $20,000. The $20,000 amount is the estimated cost to repair
damage due to a recent fire in the structure. As you may have heard, the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority was offered the chance to buy the
property and made an offer to buy it at the appraised value within six
months. The HRA was willing to place a deposit of $2,600 to hold the
property for this time period It was the view of the HRA that they would
rather buy the property at a later date once it's determined through
upcoming planning efforts that this property is a necessary part of any
redevelopment effort for the area. Both the Planning Commission and the
Parks Commission recommended to the HRA that they purchase the site
immediately due to the belief that under any conceivable plan to improve
utilization of the riverfront, this property would be a key component. They
also believed it was important to buy the property at this time due to the fact
that the garage had recently been destroyed and there was a willing seller.
Waiting to buy the property later could add a huge amount to the cost to
acquire the land. Additional costa that would be incurred could include
condemnation costs and the cost to relocate unhappy sellers (up to $50,000),
fire repair costs (min. $20,000), and the added cost associated with removing
a rebuilt garage ($20,000).
In summary, it was the view of the Planning Commission and Parks
Commission that the presence of a willing seller offering the property at the
appraised value represented a unique opportunity. Subsequent to the HRA
making its offer, there was a fire in the dwelling, and a formal response was
never received from the seller. We have been informed that they were
willing to enter into an option to buy agreement with the HRA if the deposit
was increased from $2,500 to $6,000.
Now that there has been a fire in the dwelling, the value of the structure
should be reduced from the original appraised amount of $163,000. The
insurance appraiser established the damage amount of $20,000. City stall' is
somewhat concerned that the cost to restore the home is actually more than
$20,000, and the fact that the City is looking at buying the property and
ultimately demolishing it may have encouraged the insurance company to
minimize what it thinks the damage has really been to the building. Prior to
entering into a purchase agreement, the City may want to send its own
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
representative into the building to determine what it would cost to actually
bring the facility up to its condition at the time of appraisal. As you know,
one of the justifications for buying the structure is the ability to resell it or
rent it in the event that the redevelopment plan does not call for
redevelopment of the site. Obviously, in order to be able to rent the building
or sell it, the interior will need to be restored. We want to make certain that
any reduction in price from the appraised value caused by the fire damage is
sufficient so that the funds saved through the reduced sale can be invested
back into the building to bring it up to its original value.
PLANNING COMMISSIONIPARBB COMMISSION
As noted above, the Parks Commission and Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend that the HRA purchase the site. Due to the fact
that the owners have to make a quick decision regarding moving to a new
home and due to the fact that the HRA has not indicated a strong interest in
purchasing the site, the owners have submitted the offer to the City Council.
Following is more detail regarding Parks Commission and Planning
Commission reasoning for requesting that the HRA purchase the site. It is
assumed that both the Parks Commission and Planning Commission would
want the City Council to purchase the site for the same reasons, which are as
follows.
1. The Monticello area continues to grow and expand; and with this
expansion comes an increase in demand for park space, especially park
space along the river.
2. Purchase of the property is consistent with the preliminary
comprehensive plan, which identifies improved use of river&ont
property as a goal.
3. The present owner is considering rebuilding the existing garage;
therefore, it makes sense to buy the property before mora investments
aro made on the site.
4. Adjacent properties are in a delapidated condition and would be prime
candidates for future acquisition in conjunction with continued
redevelopment efforts.
6. Purchasing today with a willing seller and prior to completion of a new
garage and fire -related repairs could save from $70,000 to $120,000.
6. The property is a prime candidate for acquisition because it is needed
under any plan for riverfront redevelopment.
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
7. In the case of the HRA, sufficient TIF funds were available. In the
case of the City, sufficient reserves in the general fund are available.
R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to enter into a purchase agreement with the Carlson family at
a purchase price of $143,000.
Under this alternative, the City Council is satisfied that the appraisal
done on the property originally was accurate and that the $20,000
deduction for the fire damage truly reflects the cost to bring the home
back to its appraised value.
At this point, City staff is not convinced that the $20,000 reduction in
the appraised value can realistically bring the building back to its
original state. If the Council were to select this option, it is
recommended that stall be authorized to send our own representative
into the building to determine if repairs could be completed for
$20,000.
2. Motion to approve purchase of the Carlson home at the appraised
value of $163,000 minus a fire damage amount to be determined
jointly by a City representative and a representative from the
insurance agency.
Under this alternative, the City representative would meet with the
insurance adjuster to determine what actual damage has occurred on
site. The City representative's goal would be to make sure that the
deduction in price properly reflects the cost to bring the structure to its
condition at the time of the appraisal.
3. Motion to deny approval of purchase of the home at this time and table
consideration until completion of the redevelopment plan, or deny
purchase of the property all together.
City Council could take the view expressed by the HRA, which is to
delay acquisition of potential redevelopment properties until
completion of the redevelopment plan. At such time that the plan is
complete, then action could be taken to purchase necessary properties
for redevelopment. Unfortunately, under this alternative, the City
would nun the risk of a now owner moving in, fixing up the home to
dream home conditions, building a now garage, etc. Tho cost in the
fluture to relocate the now homeowner could add up to $100,000 to the
cost.
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
Motion to authorize purchase of the home at a price established by
Council or by a second appraisal.
Perhaps Council is interested in buying the property; however, it is not
convinced that the original appraiacd value of $163,000 is accurate. If
this is the case, then Council may wish to authorize a second appraisal
to be completed or may simply wish to offer a lower purchase price. I
believe one of the underlying reasons why the HRA has been reluctant
to purchase the property is that it feels that the original appraisal may
have overstated the value of the property. Please note, however, that
the HRA did base its original motion to buy the property within six
months on the original appraisal and that the HRA did appear to
support purchasing the property at the appraised value if the
redevelopment planning effort pointed to this site as a necessary
component of any redevelopment plan.
C. STAFF RFGOMMF.NDATION;
From time to time and throughout the years, there has been a recurring
theme or desire among many in the community to enhance the city by
making better use of the river setting. There was strong evidence of this
desire at the visionary workshop conducted by Theresa Washburn a few
weeks ago. The ability to purchase 300 R of riverfront property from a
willing seller located directly adjacent to a city park is a rare and unique
event that may not come along again for some time. If the City is truly
interested in taking greater advantage of the river as an amenity for the
citizens of the area, then it should seriously consider purchasing this real
estate. In terms of the purchase price proposed ($143,000), City staff believes
that due to the fire, the original appraisal conducted by the HRA is no longer
valid and needs to be updated. Therefore, the purchase price needs to be
established based on an amount that truly reflects the coat to repair the fire
damage. Therefore, staff recommends alternative 02.
Map of area proposed for purchase; Planning Commission agenda and
minutes of 10/3/95.
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
PROPOSED FOR PURCHASE
o
♦ir ti \,
14)
oL
' r •', . '•i, ail. I,'♦
�.�`. '' 'I' � tt��— �.�',� i • •'�2. / ~ � .'gyp I
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/3/95
Planning Commission and Parks Commission are requested to consider
making a recommendation to the HRA and City Council regarding the
potential purchase of river -front real estate located directly west of Bridge
Park. A few days ago, Rich Carlson, acting in his capacity as a realtor,
informed me that the owners of the property are interested in moving and
that they are willing to provide the City with the first option to buy the
property. The property consists of a house built near the turn of the century,
along with the remains of a garage that was severely damaged in a wind
storm a few months ago. A key attribute of this property is the length of
river f %nage that cornea with it. The property is located directly adjacent to
an existing park and extends along the river to the west a distance of over
300 R. Purchase of this property would be a key component of an overall
long-term plan for redevelopment of the Front Street area, which has been
talked about and contemplated from time to time.
Other factors supporting strong consideration of purchasing this property are
as follows:
The Monticello area continues to grow and expand, and with this
expansion comes an increase in demand for park space, especially park
space along the river. As you know, the River Feat Celebrations are
becoming more and more popular, and the availability of usable park
land now the downtown for the celebration is stretched to the limit.
Acquisition of additional park land along the river would help the City
expand the river -front park resource with the growth and demand due
to growth in population.
Purchase of this property is consistent with preliminary
comprehensive plan policy and goal setting. As you know,
redevelopment of the downtown and improving utilization of the river
front has been discussed and has received wide support among
individuals participating in the comprehensive plan process.
The present owner is considering rebuilding the existing garage. It
makes sense to buy the property before more investments are made in
the site.
Planning Commission Agenda -10/3/96
4. Two properties immediately south and across Front Street are in sad
shape and would be prime candidates for future acquisition. These
properties could be combined to make useable park area.
b. The purchase price requested is not known; however, it is likely that
the coat. if purchased today, will be much lower than any future cost
because in the future, it is possible that relocation expenses would also
need to be paid.
6. This property is a prime candidate for acquisition because it is needed
under any plan for river -front redevelopment.
7. Sufficient pooled TIF funds are available to purchase the site.
& ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend that the HRA and City Council support the
purchase of the residential site west of Bridge Park. This motion is
based on reasons for purchasing the property as noted above and
assumes that the price is reasonable.
2. Motion to deny purchase of the property west of Bridge Park.
This alternative should be selected if the Planning and Parks
Commissions are not truly interested in recommending that the City
be involved in the redevelopment process. Philosophically, individuals
could be opposed to spending city dollars in this fashion.
C_ STAFF F, .O NDATION:
If the Parks and Planning Commissions are truly interested in
redevelopment of the Front/River Street area and are interested in making
better and more public use of river -front property, then it should be
recommended that the City purchase the residential site as proposed.
City map showing property location.
3#CO4
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/95
ronnid ration of airing a recommendation to thp. Housing a
Redevelm=ent Authoritynd City rnun_ril to purrhaAA a res
west of Bridge Park
Commissioner Carlson abstained from discussion and voting.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that Planning Commission
and the Parks Commission are requested to consider making a
recommendation to the HRA and City Council regarding the potential
purchase of river -front real estate located directly west of Bridge Park. A few
days ago, Richard Carlson, acting in his capacity as a Realtor, informed me
that the owners of the property are interested in moving and that they are
willing to provide the City with the first option to buy the property. The
Property consists of a house built near the turn of the century, along with the
remains of a garage that was severely damaged in a wind storm a few
months ago. A key attribute of this property is the length of river frontage
that comes with it. The property is located directly adjacent to an existing
park and extends along the river to the west a distance of over 300 feet.
Purchase of this property would be a key component of an overall long-term
plan for redevelopment of the Front Street area, which has been talked about
and contemplated from time to time. Also, ONeill listed the other factors
supporting the consideration of purchasing this property. 1) The Monticello
area continues to grow and expand, and with this expansion comes an
increase in demand for park space, especially park space along the river, 2)
Purchase of this property is consistent with preliminary comprehensive plan
policy and goal setting; 3) The present owner is considering rebuilding the
existing garage and it makes sense to buy the property before more
investments are made; 4) Two properties immediately south and across Front
Street are in sad shape and would be prime candidates for future acquisition;
5) If purchased today the cost would probably be lower than in the future; 6)
This property is a prime candidate for acquisition because it is needed under
any plan for river -front redevelopment.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Bruce Theelin, Chairman Parks Commission, stated that he thought that
river frontage is going to be harder and harder to come by and the City would
be amiss to let it go.
Larry Nolan, Parks Commission, this has been discussed in the park plea
and the direction the city should be going. This plans certainly includes the
river and this is an opportunity we should be investing in.
Fran Fair, Parks Commission, stated that the Parks Commission appreciates
being asked for their input. This is the fret stop in a dream to redevelop the
riverfiont and its reassuring to we things start. 309b
Planning Commission Minutes -10/03/95
Earl Smith, Parks Commission, stated that in his opinion this was a rare
opportunity to pick up property and this was a chance to make a statement
for generations to come.
The Planning Commissioners discussed if not knowing the selling price
should be relevant.
O'Neill stated that it will be the responsibility of the HRA to negotiate a
price. It is the Planning Commissioner's position to recommend the action.
The Planning Commissioners also discussed the perfect opportunity of
having a willing seller at the same time as the redevelopment of the river
property is being set as a priority.
COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO SUPPORT THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE HRA AND CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT
THE PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL SITE WEST OF BRIDGE PARK
THIS MOTION IS BASED ON REASONS FOR PURCHASING THE
PROPERTY AS:
1. THE MONTICELLO AREA CONTINUES TO GROW AND EXPAND,
AND WITH THIS EXPANSION COMES AN INCREASE IN
DEMAND FOR PARK SPACE, ESPECIALLY PARK SPACE ALONG
THE RIVER;
2. PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH
PRELIMINARY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AND GOAL
SETTING;
3. THE PRESENT OWNER IS CONSIDERING REBUILDING THE
EXISTING GARAGE AND IT MAKES SENSE TO BUY THE
PROPERTY BEFORE MORE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE;
4. TWO PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY SOUTH AND ACROSS FRONT
STREET ARE IN SAD SHAPE AND WOULD BE PRIME
CANDIDATES FOR FUTURE ACQUISITION;
5. IF PURCHASED TODAY THE COST WOULD PROBABLY BE
LOWER THAN IN THE FUTURE;
S. THIS PROPERTY IS A PRIME CANDIDATE FOR ACQUISITION
BECAUSE IT IS NEEDED UNDER ANY PLAN FOR RIVE -FRONT
REDEVELOPMENT.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3AE
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
BA. Consideration of confirming Annual Board of Review date for 1996.
(R.W.)
A F. .RFNCF. AND BACKGROUND:
The County Assessor, Mr. Doug Gruber, has tentatively set Wednesday, May 8,
1996, at 7 p.m. as the date and time for the Annual Board of Review Meeting.
The purpose of the Board of Review is to allow property owners within the city
the opportunity to ask questions relative to their property valuations that have
been established by the City Assessor for taxes payable in 1997.
Our City Assessors, Jerry and Peg Kramber, along with Mr. Gruber, will be at
the meeting to field questions from citizens on their valuations. If the Council
has a problem with Wednesday, May 8, the County Assessor would like to know
so that a new date can be arranged in advance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS;
Confirm the Board of Review date as May 8, 1996, at 7 p.m.
If the above date is not acceptable, provide an alternative date for the
County Assessor to consider.
None.
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
SB. Consideration of nntho zing i .nk mneaty Day. (J.S. )
A RFFFRRNVF AND BACKGROUND;
For the past eight years, on the first Saturday in May, the City of Monticello
has held a "Spring Cleanup Day", whereby residents can bring out bulky
household goods such as furniture, carpet, and appliances and have them
disposed of at no charge. Many of the products received at Junk Amnesty
Day are recycled. During last year's Cleanup Day (1995), we recycled over
70,000 pounds of appliances, scrap metals, batteries, motor oil, tires, TV's,
etc. For 1995, we served 370 households, or about 16.6%, of the community,
using 10 paid hourly employees and 7 volunteers.
As part of the program in 1994, we decided to ask the general public who
brought materials to the Cleanup Day how they felt about the Cleanup Day
and other environmentally correct programs the City sponsors. 95% of the
residents felt that the $6,000 spent each year on this project was a good use
of their tax dollars. 60% of the people questioned felt that we did not need an
additional Cleanup Day in the fall, and 69% of the residents felt that the
City's garbage, recycling, cleanup, and waste reduction services were above
average.
This year we would like the City Council again to consider setting Saturday,
May 4, 1996, as the 9th Annual Junk Amnesty Day/Spring Cleanup in
Monticello.
11. ALTFRNATIVF ACTIONS;
1. The first alternative would be to declare Saturday, May 4, 1996, as the
9th Annual Junk Amnesty Day in Monticello and direct staff to
prepare the activities based upon those provided last year.
2. The second alternative would be to discontinue our Junk Amnesty Day
program.
C. STAFF F..O MF.NDATION:
It is a recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council
authorize the 9th Annual Junk Amnesty Day as outlined in alternative 01.
n. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of 1995 Junk Amnesty Day activities summary.
(1994 Total a $6.265.24)
0993 Total o $5.914.84)
(1982 Total o $5,988.40)
�wnwuwwerr• rntA
CITY OF MONTICELLO
JUNK AMNESTY DAY
SUMMARY - 1995
Date Held:
May 8. 1995
Publb Hours:
B a.m. - 3 P.M.
Paid Vftkm
10
Volunteers:
7
Gly EquWnwd Used:
1 large and 1 small rubber -tire loader
1 pickup buck 6 2 vans
40 traffic cones
Households Served:
970 (16.6% of city households)
Reryders:
D & K Refuse and Recycling (SL Cloud)
Appliance Recycling Center of America (Minneapolis)
Lake Region Co -Op, (Buffalo)
LAHR TV (Maple Lake)
Dbpow Contractors:
Demoon Disposal (household goods)
Veit (demolition material)
Sdduender Construction Co. (1 largo loader 6 operator)
Iter= Reoydsd:
A. 290 household appliances (99,100 lbs)
B. 17,"0 lbs of seep metal
C. 894 Iba of asap aluminum paid for by D A K Recycling
D. 1,680 lbs of vehicle lead batteries (48 units)
E. 3,710 Iba or 830 gallons of used motor oil
F. 8,120 Ibe or 306 fres
G. 1,890 ft or 27 TV's, VCR's 6 miss, electronics for parts or rebuilding
TOTAL LO.8Hjba OG55AZ10ff5 (items A thm 0)
Household Goods
A. 360 cubic yards of furniture A carpet
Dhposed at.
B. 119 mabesaes and box springs
C. 45 cubic yards of demolition (used building materials)
Cost
Labor. City Employees
$1,459.35
ARCA
1,822.00
Lake Region Co-op
719.50
Demoon Disposal
3.5(4.48
Monticello Times
120.00
General Rental
33.90
Affordable Serrftabon
_55 45
5.79.1.46
Leas Revenue:
Raw"
736.00
Wright County Reimbursement
1265.48
1094 Toth Oostr
11116. M90
(1994 Total a $6.265.24)
0993 Total o $5.914.84)
(1982 Total o $5,988.40)
�wnwuwwerr• rntA
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
5C. Conwid .ration of gp ro nQ nnun] CRAH m inte since agreement with
Wright County. (J.S.)
Each year the City public works department performs snow and ice removal and
springtime sweep -up on certain County State Aid Highways within the city. In
an agreement with Wright County, the County reimburses the City each year for
those services based upon the actual County cost of maintaining its own
highway system the previous years. Payments to the City are based upon a per -
mile cost for each type of maintenance performed.
Those County State Aid Highways currently maintained by the City are
primarily County Road 75 from Willow Street to East County Road 39, which
includes the four -lane portion, and West County Road 39 from Kampa Circle
near the public works building to County Road 75. Based upon the 1994
average annual cost, our 1995 reimbursement is $6,609.83.
This maintenance agreement allows us to maintain a higher level of service to
the community in keeping our main arteries open. Our snowplowing operations
are usually originated at midnight, while the County usually starts two to four
hours later. We often have to travel the County State Aid Highways to get to
our own areas of snow plowing; consequently, we have taken over winter
maintenance for County Road 75. One exception in this area which is double
covered is the area between the High School and East County Road 39. The
area in front of Bondhus always ices over in the winter -time; consequently, both
the City and the County have joint responsibility for sanding this area.
B. ALTEMNATIVP ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the maintenance agreement
with Wright County as proposed.
2. The second alternative would be not to continue to maintain those
portions of the state highways as outlined in the maintenance agreement.
1 believe this would result in a lower level of service to the community and
would not be in our best interest.
(:. STAFF F.COMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council
approve the maintenance agreement as outlined in alternative 01.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Maintenance Agreement for 1996.
J TV
N o"?,
vo WRIGHT COUNTY
WAYNE FINGAtN, P.E.
i
? DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
A.
��2:� �
M Wright County Public Works Building
VIRGIL G. HAWKINS, P.E.
6 O(0 1901 Highway 25 North
A.aaant Hi[hmy Ens c—
682.–,3682.–,397•
dY Buffalo. Minnesota 55313
78BO Jct. T.N. 25 and C.& 138
RICHARD E. stwnQVETTe
Right of Way Agent
Telephone (612)682-7383
ssa�ass
Facsimile (612) 682.7313
January 3.1996 cow
Rick wolfstcller, Administrator ~�
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: 19% Maintenance--
44Agreement
Dear Mr.
It is once again time to renew our annual municipal agreement for the maintenance
activities on the road(s) listed on the enclosed agreement.
You may remember that the costs used in computing the reimbursement for the
maintenance agreements is the highest average annual cost per mile for either the rural or
municipal roadway segments in the previous year. This is consistent with state aid
procedures. In most cases maintenance activities are more costly in municipal areas
therefore these are the routine maintenance costs that are used in computing the cost per
mile for reimbursement. To give you an idea of the cost for each maintenance activity we
have shown the 1994 average cost per mile for each activity in the 19% maintenance
agreement.
I have enclosed two copies of the 19% agreement for your review and approval by
the City Council. Please return both copies of the executed agreement. After approval by
the County Board, one of the copies will he returned to you for your files.
A check reimbursing your city for the maintenance activities covered under our 1995
agreement, has been sent to you under separate cover.
If you have any questions concerning this or if you note any discrepancies please
don't hesitate to contact our office.
Happy New Yearl
Sir cerci
Wayne Fingalson
County ighway Engi r
Enc.: (2) 1996 Mun. Maintenance. Agts.
Fpual Qpport"ay, J Affirmative Action F.mplo;or SC
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 1996
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Monticello hereinafter referred to as
the 'City' and the County of Wright hereinafter referred to as the 'County'.
WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes, permits the County to designate certain roads and streets within
the City as County State Aid Highways, and
WHEREAS, the City has concurred in the designation of the County State Aid Highway within its limits as
identified in County Board's resolutions of August 28, October 8, November 5, December 3, December 27, 1957 and
January i, 1958, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed to the best interest of all patties that the duties and responsibilities of both the City and
the County as to maintenance on said County State Aid Highways to be clearly defused,
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED with regard to said County State Aid Highway maintenance:
That the City will be responsible for routine maintenance on the following highways.
MAINT.
PLAN ROAD SEGMEN MILES COST/MI-0 TOTALCOST•
C. CSAH 75 Willow St. to E. Jct. CSAH 39 3.74 1,124.70 $4,206.38
(Includes four late portion.)
D. CSAH 39 From City public Works Bldg. to 0.32 281.18 89.98
W. Jct. of CSAH 75
B. CSAH 75 Four lane portion 3.10 660.99 2,049.07
B. CSAH 39 From CSAH 75 to Kampa Cir. Q,49 660.99 264.40
ESTIMATED TOTAL o 7.56 56,609.83
That routine maintenance shall consist of the following: (Maim. Plan)
C. (CSAR 75) - Snow and ice removal.
D. (CSAR 39) - 25% of the snow and ice removal.
B. One-time spring sweeping only.
*Based on 1994 average antral costs.
That when the City deems it desirable to remove snow by hauling, it shall do so as its own expense. The City
shall also be responsible for all snow and ice removal on sidewalks and other boulevard related maintenance outside the
curb or street area.
That the County will be responsible for all other maintenance.
That the City shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the County and all of is &gems and employees of any forth
against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action of whatever nature or character arising out of or by
reason of the execution or performance of the work provided for herein to be performed by the City. It is further agreed
that any and all full-time employees of the City and all other enVloyees of the City engaged in the perfomsnce of any
work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall be considered employees of the City
only and not of the County: and that any and all claims that may or might arise under Worlam's Compensation Act of
the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third panics
as a consequence of any act or omission on the pan of said City employees while so engaged on any of the work or
services provided to be rendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the City.
(Sheet I of 2) se's
That the County shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the City and all of its agents and employees of any form
against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of anions of whatever nature or character, whether at law or
equity, arising out of or by reason of the execution, omission or performance of the work provided for herein to be
performed by the County including, but not limited to, claims made arising out of man,reawnce obligations of County,
ngineerimtg, design, taking or inverse condemnation proceedings. It is fttrtltet agreed that any and all full-time employees
of the County and all other employees of the County engaged in the performance of any work or services required or
provided for herein to be performed by the County shall be considered employees of the County only and not of the City;
and that any and all claims that may or might arise ander the Workmen's Compema[ion Act of the State of Minnesota
on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third panics as a consequence of any
act or omission on the pan of said County employees while so engaged on any of the cork or services provided to be
tendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the County.
That in December of 1996_, the City shall receive payment from the County for their work. This amount shall
be based on the 1995 average annual cost per mile for routine maintenance on Municipal County State Aid Highways.
The average annual cost per mile will reflect only those costs associated with the areas of routine maintenance for which
the City is responsible.
ADOPTED:
'19—
ATTEST: 19_
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by
the City Council of said City on . !9_
City Clerk
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED:
COUNTY OF WRIGHT Name of City
Chairman of the Board Due
ATTEST:
Courcy Coordinator Date
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Tel C.O�
Council Agenda - 2126/96
A RFFFRFNrP AND RAC GROUND:
Kevin Cook of Cook Construction requests that the City vacate a portion of
Meadow Lane which will enable him to create a larger lot for home
development on Block 1, Lot 8, Meadow Oak 4th Addition. This will enable
him to shift the home location to the south without the need for variances.
As you can see on the attached map, Block 1, Lot 8, is on the comer of the
intersection of Meadow Lane and Red Oak Lane. As you recall, previous
plans for extending Meadow Lane to Briar Oakes development were dropped.
Instead, it was determined that a simple pedestrian path would be extended
to connect the two subdivisions in place of the roadway. Due to the fact that
there will never be a roadway extended to the west of this location, it seemed
to make sense to allow vacation of a portion of the 60 -ft right-of-way when
only 30-40 ft of right-of-way is needed for pathway purposes. Providing this
property to Cook allows him to create a larger lot and thus increase property
and home value.
In addition to granting vacation of the roadway, Council is asked to vacate
the existing 12 -ft utility easements on the souther boundary of the lot.
These easements would then be re-established on what would be the now lot
line in Cho area of the former roadway.
Originally, Kevin Cook came to the Planning Commission with a request for
a variance to the 204 corer lot side yard setback requirement, which would
have allowed placement of the home on the lot as requested without the
necessity of a street vacation. The Planning Commission denied the original
variance request based on the finding that a hardship was not demonstrated
and that there was no reason why the code couldn't be followed, and that it
simply made more sense to vacate the unnecessary roadway, give it to Cook,
and let him develop his home where he wanted to within the boundaries of
the ordinance.
B. ALTRRNATIVE ACTION$;
Motion to approve the request to vacate a portion of Meadow Lane and
to approve the request to vacate 12 -ft storm water and utility
easements along the southern boundary of Lot 1, Block S. Motion is
based on Cho condition that a now 12 -ft utility easement be established
along the vacated portion of Meadow Lane.
Council Agenda - 2/28/96
Motion to deny the request to vacate a portion of Meadow Lane and
deny the request to vacate 12 -ft storm water and utility easements
along the southern boundary of Lot 1, Block 8.
C. STAFF RPrOAMNnATION;
It is the view of City staff that the land left over after the vacation is
certainly sufficient for pathway and utility purposes. Sincethere is no
reason why the City would need this land, it would seem to make sense that
vacating it to an adjoining property in order to increase its value would be a
benefit to the City; therefore, staff recommends approval of the vacation
request.
Map showing proposed areas to be vacated.
CA o
n
r
m
z o
m 0 .Ices
1 m
O J
Lv. N06.26' 00" W 629.71
�u.uu vz�.ye
'0OUTLOT 8N� vv L-v J <t
1 506.26' 00• 424.49
r — — — 159.54 _ — — r 86.22 r 65.00 r 65.00 r 65.00 1
1 I D � II II II I
Y
� IW O w- TI .WI I I IW WI I _I
T IN I OI IN NI IP P) IN NI
Io ofco
mft
Io OI
� I b.IL A= I I I I I I I ;\
CS T' C4 _ T9 _ Mow 85.00 65.00 65.00 65.00
�-`N E N 0 A K LANE
C29 IN ro N06 26 00 W 411.22
W. A fu tls. uu
0
� \4
9 °t",,, •
.`J
.ti
r
At# r
7 a
«
aj •••3 O
+�.- • M.•= - Nae. °" ` tA « 7
�•/p n a
vont y s
° � gO' t•
- 4*It t
fe
Council Agenda - 2/26/98
City Council is asked to consider an appeal of a decision by the Architectural
Review Board to deny approval of building plans for a home with a roof pitch
that is less than 8/12. According to the restrictive covenants, all homes in
Eastwood Knoll must have a roof pitch of 8/12 or greater unless it is shown
that there is "architectural significance" associated with a shallower pitch.
Requiring the steeper pitch is one technique that the covenants employ to
assure higher home values in the subdivision. Flexibility to allow a
shallower pitch was written into the covenants to enable a flatter pitch if it is
necessary to accommodate an architecturally significant design feature of the
home. In this case, the home proposed by John Bichler is a "ranch style"
home that the owner says will look better with a 6/12 pitch. The
Architectural Review Board did not agree with the owner and denied the
approval of the plans due to their finding that the architectural requirements
of a ranch style home as proposed did not demand a 6/12 pitch. According to
the view of the Review Board, the home would look just as nice or better with
a roof pitch that meets the requirements of the restrictive covenants;
therefore, approving the shallower pitch for this home would set a negative
precedent.
The Architectural Review Board received input from Steve Grittman on this
matter before rendering its decision. Grittman noted that a decision on roof
pitch for a ranch style home is a matter of taste and cost. There are
numerous examples around of ranch style homes built with an 8/12 or even
steeper pitch. It was his view that requiring a steeper pitch would not
detract from the home; therefore, a shallower pitch is not critical to the
architectural integrity of the ranch style home. Conversely, Bichices
designer disagrees and believes the larger roof presence created by an 8/12
pitch detracts from the appearance.
The home proposed meets or exceeds all other aspects of the covenants.
Attached you will rind various correspondence on the matter along with a
copy of the covenants. Please note that the covenants that apply are the
original covenants and not the revised covenants as amended by the City
Council. The revised covenants were not recorded because all property
owners have not signed the amended covenants. Bichler is withholding his
signature pending the outcome of his appeal. This is somewhat of a moot
point because there is no difference between the old and now covenants as
applied to roof pitch.
Council Agenda - 2126/96
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to grant appeal of the Architectural Review Board decision
and waive the 8/12 roof pitch requirement based on the finding that P.
6112 roof pitch is critical to maintaining the architectural integrity of
the ranch style home proposed.
Under this alternative, the City Council agrees with the home builder.
This alternative would allow the home builder to proceed and would
result in obtaining a signature on the amended covenants. It would
also result in a precedent that might limit the ability to control roof
pitch in the future.
2. Motion to deny appeal of the Architectural Review Board. This
motion could be based on the finding that the 6/12 roof pitch is not
critical to maintaining the architectural integrity of the ranch style
hone proposed and to allow the 6/12 pitch would violate the intent of
the covenants.
Under this alternative, the homeowner would be required to increase
the pitch of the roof to 8/12. It is not known if Bichler would pursue
court action on this matter.
3. Motion to deny appeal of the Architectural Review Board and offer to
buy back the lot at the original purchase price.
Under this alternative, Bichler would have the option of selling the
property back to the City, which would allow him to look elsewhere to
build. The realtor has indicated that he would contribute to solving
the problem by not collecting his commission on a future re -sale of the
property. Please note that Bichler has not indicated whether or not he
supports this alternative.
Sales are going fnirly well, with almost one-third of the lots (9) being
sold or spoken for. It should be relatively easy to re -sell the lot.
V, STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative Q. It is our view that maintaining an 8/12
roof pitch in the development is critical to maintaining the quality and feel of
the neighborhood. Allowing a shallower pitch for the home proposed will set
a precedent that might work against the development goals and would be
Council Agenda - 2126/96
inconsistent with what the other 8 property owners expect for their
development. Perhaps buying the property back is the best solution. If the
property owner does not agree with this option, the staff recommends
alternative #2.
Original restrictive covenants; Various correspondence.
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FILE COPT
EASTWOOD KNOLL SUBDIVISION
Land Use and Building 1y. Each lot shall be used exclusively for
residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered, placed, or
permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single family
dwelling, together with appurtenant garage, fence, swimming pool, or
accessory structure.
Architectural Control. No building shall be placed, erected, or altered on
any lot until the construction plans and specifications and the plans
showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials, and location/setback of
the structure have been approved in writing by the Architectural Control
Committee (ACC) as to the quality of workmanship and materials, harmony
of external design with existing structures, and as to the location with
respect to topographic and finish grade elevation. All building plans and
designs and exterior colors shall be reviewed by the ACC for the purpose of
ensuring that the principal street frontage exposure of building(s) are
constructed of materials such as stucco, cedar, redwood, or other acceptable
low -maintenance materials, and brick accents, or a combination thereof.
Each single family dwelling constructed on any lot within the developer's
property shall, together with improvements appurtenant thereto, have
sufficient architectural characteristics and interior square footage to create
the image of a market value, as determined by the ACC, of not less than
One Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($160,000.00).
Exception for Lot 1, Block 1; Lots 1, 2, 12, 13, Block 2; and Lots 1, 2, 3,
Block 3: The ACC will determine their value at no less than $130,000 as
adjusted for 1895 home values.
Other items to pertain to all properties are:
20% of the front elevation shall be done in brick or atone.
All yards shall be sodded or seeded to the rear corners of the house
ft-om the curb (allowances may be made for using native ground
cover).
• RoA shall be a minimum of 8/12 pitch unless a flatter pitch is
` ^�G necessary to accommodate an architecturally -significant design
UCS(, feature of the home.
(t T • Homo foundation footprint minimums, excluding garages and porches,
shall be:
WCR
EASTWOOD.COV: WOW Page 1 10
For Lot 1, Block 1; Lots 1, 2, 12, 13, Block 2; and Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 3:
Rambler---------------- 1260 with a 3 -car garage
/ 2 -Story--------------- 960 with a 3 -car garage
Multi-level-------------- 1600 with a 3 -car garage
' Home foundation footprint minimums for all other lots shall be as
follows:
Rambler--------------- 1400 with a 3 -car garage
2 -Story--- ---- - ----- 1100 with a 3 -car garage
Multi-level------------- 1660 with a 3 -car garage
"NOTE: Three -car garages may not be mandatory if the ACC decides
the home has the architectural integrity to carry the valuation
without it.
• Driveways shall be concrete, asphalt, or equivalent hard surface.
4. Temporary Struc4ures. No structure of a temporary character or nature,
trailer, tent, or shack may be used on any lot at any time as a residence,
either temporarily or permanently. All structures shall be completed and
finished on the exterior within nine months after commencement of the
excavation or construction thereof and before the structure shall be used as
e residence. No dwelling shall be constructed of concrete blocks or blocks of
a similar type on any lot unless the outer exterior walls above grade are of
a decorative variety which meets ACC approval.
6. Nuisances. No accumulation of junk, garbage, or debris maybe maintained
on any lot. No trailer house, travel trailer, buses, trucks, camper trucks, or
junk cars are allowed to be stored on promises unless properly garaged. No
livestock shall be kept on the premises except for two dogs and two cats,
No breeding or boarding kennels will be permitted. Dogs and cats will not
be allowed to run free. Dogs must be properly kenneled and must not be
allowed to bark uncontrollably. Kennels must be of chain link fencing and
set on concrete slabs. A site barrier fence blocking the view from the street
and screening from neighboring properties may be required by the ACC. All
kennels must be approved by the ACC.
6. Architectural Contra) Committeo. The architectural control committee shall
consist of the City of Monticello Building Official and/or a designated
representative of the developer. The Building Official and/or the developer's
designated representative shall review all building structure plans and
specifications for adherence to the covenants and restrictions that relate to
minimum building standard3 along with the harmony of the exterior design
and location in relation to surrounding structures.
WCR
EASTWOOD.COV: 6/9/96 page 2 076
7. Tree Preservation. The building plan shall include all survey information
required by the City. The survey shall also show the location, variety, and
approximate size of mature trees located within 35 feet of all construction
and grading activity. The ACC shall review grading and site development
plans for adherence to the objective of saving as many mature trees as
possible. The ACC has the authority to require that reasonable efforts be
made to preserve trees. Such efforts include construction of retaining walls
and the like. The ACC may require a minimum of two 2 -inch diameter
trees planted in the front yard if the yard is barren. Landscape plan must
be submitted for reviewal.
IM The covenants, conditions, and restrictions of this declaration shall
run with and bind the land comprising the developer property and shall be
enforceable by the declarants, the owners, and the respective legal
representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns for a term of ten years from
the date this declaration is recorded, after which time said Covenants,
conditions, and restrictions shall be automatically renewed for successive
periods of ten years. The provisions hereof shall be deemed independent
and several, and the invalidity or partial invalidity or unenforceability of
any one provision or portion thereof as may be determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction shall not abed the validity or enforceability of any of
the other provisions hereof. This declaration may only be amended by a
written instrument signed by the developer and all owners of the developer
property.
EASTWOOD.COV: &W
WOR
Page 3 1 W
I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands this ✓
day of May, 1995.
DEVELOPER
CITY OF ICELLO
By:
y
By
City strator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of May,
1995, by Brad Fyle, the Mayor, and Rick Wolfsteller, the City Administrator, of
the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said
municipality.
Notary
MARLENE A Wa""
MARLENE4HELLMAN
rAll!NOTARY
V
AlE .mm.I .
VNOTARY PURM • FOIA
I
14 00f LDDD
*boonmO*.jm.rat.l0w I;l
a<<,,. ur1
Crtt
57'�9/7b
9ftm[CC Or rr� wvrratCQRgr�,
nr, cr,r rA
r F '.
; F�i r �.r r•N� o
: r pro
v
t., //•/7
MARCIAIAN "O.CORECORDER
ft
tQIA.SU c!•ai 931 �
WOR
EASTWOOD.COV:
519/88
Page 4
1 D
John & Sheila Qichler
15159 Curtis Avenue NW
Monticello, MN 55362
Architectural Control Committee
Monticello City Hall
Monticello, MN 55362
Attn: Gary Anderson, Clint Herbst and Jeff O'Neill
Gentlemen:
RE: Building Permit for new home in Eastwood Knoll
We would like you to please reconsider our application for the traditional
ranch rambler home we would like to build In the new Eastwood Knoll
subdivision.
We have spent the last five to seven years looking for our "dream" home. The
plan we selected was not something we took lightly. When we finally chose this
design, we knew it would be the home we had always dreamed of. We
particularly were excited with the well -crafted angles and bump -outs, as well as
the brick accent on approximately 50 percent of the front. The interior of the
home will have vaulted ceilings and be constructed by a well-respected builder,
Paul Becker. Quality workmanship Is a must as a criteria In building our home.
We were excited to learn that Monticello was opening a development that
would contain high quality homes. We had been looking for some time for that
"perfect" lot and area. Eastwood Knoll was the perfect selection.
We sold the home we are currently living In In December, and can rent back
untU AprI130th. It was our Intention to move Into our new home by April
15th. Imagine our complete surprise to learn that our "dream" plan had not
been approved because of the pitch of the roof. Changing the pitch of the roof
would significantly change the architecture of the home.
Our Intention was to put an acceptable home Into Eastwood Knoll. We planned
to do more than that. We have more than 20 percent brick In the front with all
other outside construction being maintenance free steel siding, have a 3 -car
garage, and have a square footage of 2,090 completely finished (which is 60
percent more than the minimal requirement). Our finished home value will be
about $200,000, which exceeds the minimum by $70,000.
J
/r
On the basis of the information we have given you, we believe that our
proposed quality home would be an asset to any neighborhood.
Thank you.
John and Sheila Bichler
IF
MON TICELL0
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 2954404
Mr. John Bichler
15159 Curtis Avenue NW
Monticello, MN 65382
Dear Mr. Bichler:
February 13, 1996
This is written to inform you that the Architectural Review Control Committee has
reviewed the written material that you recently provided and has reviewed the building
plans submitted previously and found that We plans cannot be approved because the roof
pitch proposed does not meet the minimum 8/12 pitch as required under the restrictive
covenants. It was the view of die Architectural Committee that the 6/12 pitch was not
necessary to accommodate an architecturally -significant design feature of die 1101110;
therefore, an exception to Uto 8/12 rule could not be made.
If you should have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
JO/kd
cc: Clint Herbst, Council Member
Cary Anderson, Building Official
Filo V
Of reef ftl a Works, 608 0djQwa Rd, Montle" MN 66M68 • Phew. (61a)606J170 • Fm: (616)II6'13170, ut. 1 16
�i
Sam----
"EXCU
a E" �I
Vaatib PaM a0alt 4 bao oellw. ]Y,
=- ViM U1.111GM
Mr. Gary Anderson
Mr. Clint Herbst
Architectural Control Committee
Eastwood Knoll Subdivision
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: John Bichler
Dear Mr. Anderson and Mr. Herbst:
1 am writing this letter on behalf of Mr. John Bichler. It is my understanding that the
Eastwood Knoll Subdivision Architectural Control Committee denied approval of Mr.
Bichler's house construction plans, based solely on the fact that the ranch -style rambler
design has a 6/12 roof pitch. This letter is intended to be a formal request to the
Architectural Control Committee to reconsider its decision.
The restrictive covenants specifically state that:
"Roofs shall be a minimum of 8/12 pitch unless a flatter pitch Is necessary
to accommodate an architecturally -significant design feature or the home.'
Although the roof pitch is flatter than the minimum 8/12 pitch generally required, the 6/12
pitch is necessary to accommodate an architecturally -significant design feature of the home
and is therefore specifically allowed under the terms of the covenants.
We discussed this house design with Mr. Keith Herr of KLH Drafting and Design in Elk
River, Minnesota. It is Mr. Heres opinion that the 8/12 roof pitch is not compatible to this
house design because of the consequent imbalance of roof area to wall area. The extra roof
height of an 8/12 pitch will make the house look top heavy and out of balance, thereby
diminishing its curb appeal. Mr. Herr has prepared drawings which visually demonstrate the
imbalance created by the 8/12 roof pitch. The builder, Mr. Paul Becker and certainly, Mr.
Bichler, agree with Mr. Herr's conclusions.
V
II --1/
MIEIER, KENNEDY & QUINN
MY
Cwu 7
ATTORNETE AT LAW
SUIT[ 2200. MONTH CENTRAL IIIc TOWER
wllllArc r[I[w
E45 MINNESOTA STREET
ilaaol call
SAINT PAUL. MI NNSSOTA 85101.2100Irorry
•. oT.
TtLEnNOrl lalal aaa•I all
Ilea l.I •a
•Acavr,u wl •I aaaeua
•mno. Rarwto..�R.
Iwt TiREDI
February 2, 1996
Mr. Gary Anderson
Mr. Clint Herbst
Architectural Control Committee
Eastwood Knoll Subdivision
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: John Bichler
Dear Mr. Anderson and Mr. Herbst:
1 am writing this letter on behalf of Mr. John Bichler. It is my understanding that the
Eastwood Knoll Subdivision Architectural Control Committee denied approval of Mr.
Bichler's house construction plans, based solely on the fact that the ranch -style rambler
design has a 6/12 roof pitch. This letter is intended to be a formal request to the
Architectural Control Committee to reconsider its decision.
The restrictive covenants specifically state that:
"Roofs shall be a minimum of 8/12 pitch unless a flatter pitch Is necessary
to accommodate an architecturally -significant design feature or the home.'
Although the roof pitch is flatter than the minimum 8/12 pitch generally required, the 6/12
pitch is necessary to accommodate an architecturally -significant design feature of the home
and is therefore specifically allowed under the terms of the covenants.
We discussed this house design with Mr. Keith Herr of KLH Drafting and Design in Elk
River, Minnesota. It is Mr. Heres opinion that the 8/12 roof pitch is not compatible to this
house design because of the consequent imbalance of roof area to wall area. The extra roof
height of an 8/12 pitch will make the house look top heavy and out of balance, thereby
diminishing its curb appeal. Mr. Herr has prepared drawings which visually demonstrate the
imbalance created by the 8/12 roof pitch. The builder, Mr. Paul Becker and certainly, Mr.
Bichler, agree with Mr. Herr's conclusions.
V
MEIER. KENNEDY 8t: QUINN M •
February 2, 1996
Page 2
The purpose of the restrictive covenants is to assure that only attractive and high quality
homes are built in Eastwood Knoll Subdivision. Requiring a 8/12 roof pitch in this instance
in no way promotes this purpose. The covenants were drafted in such a way to avoid the
type of situation as presented here, by authorizing a flatter roof pitch to accommodate an
architecturally -significant design feature. It should be noted that the request for the 6/12
pitch is not made out of cost concerns, but because the 8/12 roof pitch detracts from the
appearance and overall value of the home.
Approving the house plan as now submitted does not in any way violate the restrictive
covenants. In fact, it is my understanding that the committee has authorized construction
of homes with less than twenty percent of the front elevation being completed with brick or
stone, to accommodate architecturally significant design features.
In like manner, we request that the 6/12 roof pitch be allowed to accommodate the unique
architectural feature of this ranch -style rambler design.
Your reconsideration of this matter is greatly appreciated. Please call me no later than
Wednesday, February 7, 1996, to discuss this matter.
Very truly yours,
MEIER, KENNEDY & QUINNNCHARTERED
Charles M. Bichler
CMB:sak
cc: John and Sheila Bichler
717
Council Agenda - 2126196
.alcolh
. (R.W.)
In 1991, Congress expressed concern with the abuse of alcohol and drugs in
the transportation industry and adopted the Omnibus Transportation
Employee Testing Act. This federal legislation required transportation
workers performing safety sensitive driving functions to submit to pre-
employment, post -accident, random, reasonable suspicion, return -to -duty,
and follow-up alcohol and drug testing. The final regulations were published
in February of 1994, and the scope of the original rule was expanded to cover
all drivers with commercial drivers licenses, including many municipal
public works employees.
Any employer with more than 50 drivers with commercial drivers licenses
had to implement a policy and conduct random and various drug and alcohol
tests by January 1, 1995. For those employers with less than 60 drivers, the
effective date of the testing requirements was January 1, 1996. As a result,
the City of Monticello must now comply with the federal rules and
regulations and conduct the test as outlined in the federal law for any
employee who normally drives a vehicle with a gross weight of more than
26,000 pounds.
In order to comply with the now regulations, most municipalities are joining
other organizations to help each community comply with the law by setting
up guidelines under which random testing is administered, including
notifying the City which individuals will need to be tested. The City of
Monticello has chosen to join forces with the Association of Minnesota
Counties/Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust Medtox Drug and Alcohol
Testing Program. This organization has supplied the preliminary training
for each organization's contact person and provided additional information
for training supervisors on ways to recognize possible drug or alcohol
problems with employees that may require testing. An outside laboratory
performs the actual drug and alcohol test (Medtox), and the City has
established Riverplace Physicians as the local clinic for obtaining any urine
samples and/or breath alcohol samples. This information is then forwarded
to Medtox for running the samples, and the results are then forwarded to the
City Administrator to be kept on file.
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
In order to comply with the new federal regulations, the City should also
adopt a drug and alcohol testing policy that outlines the circumstances under
which testing will occur, procedure for testing, rights of the employees, and
ramifications of refusing to take a test or failure to pass a test. A copy of the
policy is enclosed for Council review, and it has been fashioned after
recommended samples from other communities and through the Minnesota
Counties Insurance Trust Association Guidelines.
Since the federal rules went into effect January 1 for our city, we have
already required our new public works employee to submit to a drug test for
pre-employment. This is in anticipation of the Council adopting the actual
policy. In addition, we expect to be notified soon of which employees will be
subject to the initial random testing for drug and alcohol that is required.
Annually, 25% of all eligible drivers must submit to an annual alcohol test
and 50% of the employees will be required to take a drug test. With the City
currently only having 9 eligible drivers, a large number of our employees will
be annually tested for either alcohol or drugs.
Adopt the employee drug and alcohol testing policy for commercial
motor vehicle drivers as outlined.
Do not adopt the policy.
By not adopting a policy, the City would still be required to meet
federal guidelines by providing drug and alcohol testing for drivers,
but we could be subject to possible challenges if a policy is not
available for the employees so they understand the procedures and
ramifications if they refuse or fail a test.
r STAFF F VO MFNDATION:
It is recommended that the policy be adopted as provided. The procedures
have all been put into place to comply with the now federal regulations, and
the policy is the last step in meeting this now mandate.
n SUPPORTING DATA;
Copy of the policy.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING POLICY
FOR DRIVERS OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES
FEBRUARY 26, 1896
Use of drugs and abuse of alcohol is a nation-wide problem. Persons of every age,
race, sex, and ethnic group are affected. The use of drugs and abuse of alcohol
poses risks to the health and safety of the abuser as well as to others. The City of
Monticello believes that a working environment free of drug use and alcohol abuse
is healthier, safer, more productive, and a condition desired by most employees and
their families.
The City of Monticello recognizes the need to confront the problems and risks
associated with alcohol abuse and drug use in the workplace. Education serves an
important role in the prevention of drug use and alcohol abuse. There is also a
need to identify work performance problems related to drug use and alcohol abuse
so that an employee may have the opportunity to seek treatment and be retained
for continued employment based on satisfactory job performance.
This policy follows federal mandates and establishes clear standards concerning
drugs and alcohol which drivers of commercial motor vehicles must meet. It also
establishes a testing procedure to ensure that those standards are met. This drug
and alcohol testing policy is intended to conform to Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) regulations set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts: 382 "Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing";
391 "Qualifications of Drivers"; 394 "Notification and Reporting Accidents"; and 40
"Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Program."
A. DEFINITIONS
Co lirmntinn teat. For alcohol testing means a second test, following a
screening test with a result of 0.02 or greater. For drug testing means
a second test, independent of the screening test, that uses a method of
analysis approved under FHWA guidelines as being reliable and
accurate for providing specific data as to the drugs or their metabolites
detected in an initial screening test.
ro m rci 1 motor vehicle. Means any vehicle that:
has a gross combination weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds,
inclusive of a towed unit with a gross vehicle weight rating more
than 10,000 pounds; or
has a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds; or
DRUCTEST.POL: 2/20196 Page 1 1A
is designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the
driver; or
is of any size and is used in the transportation of materials
found to be hazardous for the purposes of the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act and which requires the motor
vehicle to be placarded under Hazardous Materials Regulation.
3. 11mg• Any substance (other than alcohol) that is a controlled
substance as defined CFR Parts 391 and 40.
4. Drug and n1cphni testiny- dn,g or alcohol teming and drijur or alcohol
lea. Analysis of a body component sample approved under FHWA
guidelines, including breath and urine, for the purpose of measuring
the presence or absence of drugs, alcohol, or their metabolites in the
sample tested.
5. EBT (evidential breath testing device). An EBT approved by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for
evidential testing of breath and placed on NHTSA's'Conforming
Products List of Evidential Breath Measurement. -
6. Empinyep, A person, independent contractor, or person working for an
independent contractor who performs services for the City of
Monticello for compensation, in whatever form, who are required to
operate a CMV in the performance of their duties.
7. Employet. The City of Monticello acting through a department head
or any designee of the department head.
8. ImDnnnent. due to drug or acohol use. A positive test result is
regarded as impairment under this policy.
9. Initial screening test, A drug or alcohol test which uses a method of
analysis approved by the FHWA as being capable of providing data as
to general classes of drugs, alcohol, or their metabolites.
10. Medical Review Officer (MRO1. A licensed physician responsible for
receiving laboratory results generated by the employer's drug testing
program and who has knowledge of substance abuse disorders and has
appropriate medical training to interpret and evaluate an individual's
positive test result together with employee's medical history and any
other relevant biomedical information.
11. Positive tent result.A finding of the presence of alcohol, drugs, or their
metabolites in the sample tested in levels at or above the threshold
DRUGTEST.POL, 212WH Pap 2 fie
detection levels set by the FHWA. The presence of alcohol, drugs, or
their metabolites at or above the following levels, as may be amended
by FHWA standards, shall be considered to be a positive teat result:
Alcohol (EBT)
Amphetamines
Cocaine Metabolite
Opiates
Codeine, Morphine
6 Monoacetyl Morphine
PCP (Phencyclidine)
THC Metabolite
(Delta -9 -tetrahydrocanna-
binol -9 -carboxylic acid)
0.02 grams per 210 liters of breath
500 nanograms per milliliter
150 nanograms per milliliter
300 nanograms per milliliter
3 nanograms per milliliter
25 nanograms per milliliter
15 nanograms per milliliter
12. Reasonable suspicion: A basis for forming a belief based on specific
facts and rational inferences drawn from those facts. See Subsection
for determination factors.
13. Safety rpnsitive f +nction(s1. Means any on -duty time, includes all time
from time employee begins work to time he/she is relieved from work
and all responsibility for performing work to include: inspecting,
servicing or conditioning any motor vehicle; time loading or unloading
a vehicle, supervising or assisting in the loading or unloading.
14. Valid medical reason. When meeting one of the following conditions:
Based on a written prescription or an oral prescription reduced
to writing which names the employee as the person whose use it
is intended; or
The drug was prescribed, administered, and dispensed in the
course of professional practice by or under the direction and
supervision of a physician; and
The drug was used in accord with the terms of the prescription,
and the physician has advised the employee that the substance
does not adversely affect the employee's ability to safely operate
a CMV. Use of any over-the-counter medication, in accord with
the terms of the product's instructions for use, shall also .
constitute a valid medical reason. Except, an over -the counter
cough syrup without alcohol only shall constitute a valid
medical reason.
Employee has an ongoing obligation to notify their immediate
supervisor when taking prescription drugs which may affect their
ability to perform a safety sensitive position.
DRUOTEST.POL: MGM Pno 3 8 co
B. DEPARTMENTAL WORK RULES
An employee, covered by this policy, may be subject to discipline, including
the possibility of termination, for violation of the following work rules:
1. No employee shall perform safety sensitive functions within four hours
after using alcohol.
2. Except pursuant to a valid medical reason as described in A.14, no
employee shall be impaired due to drug or alcohol usage or under the
influence of any drug or alcohol while the employee is working on the
employer's premises or operating the employers vehicle, machinery, or
equipment.
3. No employee shall use, possess, manufacture, sell, or transfer drugs or
drug paraphernalia while the employee is working on the employer's
premises or operating the employer's vehicle, machinery, or
equipment, except pursuant to a valid medical reason.
4. An employee shall notify his/her immediate supervisor when taking
prescription or non-prescription medications that may lead to
impairment, defined in Section A.8 of this document. In the event
there is a question regarding the effects of the type and/or prescribed
dosage of said medication, clearance from a qualified physician may be
required.
b. An employee's use, possession, We, or transfer of alcohol during
working hours or while the employee is on the employer's premises or
operating the employer's vehicle, machinery, or equipment is
prohibited, with the following exceptions:
such use or possession is pursuant to a valid medical
prescription; or
possession of alcohol while being transported in an employee's
personal vehicle, with a clear lack of intent to use in violation of
the policy. No open bottle/can is a clear indication of lack of
intent; or
possession, sale, or transfer of alcohol is part of the employee's
job duties.
An employee involved in a vehicular accident while driving a CMV
shall not use alcohol within eight hours following the accident as
defined in Subsection DA.
DRUOTEST.POL: V20M page 4 9 \
No employee, while on duty, shall engage, attempt to engage, or
conspire to engage in conduct which would violate any law or
ordinance concerning drugs or alcohol.
All employees must notify their immediate supervisor of any criminal
drug statute conviction or traffic alcohol-related driving offense within
thirty (30) days after such conviction or citation.
An employee has no right or expectation of privacy with regard to City
vehicles, City property, and City equipment (lockers, desks, etc.).
C. PERSONS SUBJECT TO TESTING
Under FHWA's regulations, the following employees are subject to testing
under applicable sections of this policy. any person who operates a
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) as defined by FHWA. The employer will
request or require an employee to undergo drug or alcohol testing only under
the circumstances described in this policy.
However, no employee will be tested for drugs or alcohol under this policy
without the employee's consent, with the following provisions:
Hight to refus . Employees have the right to refuse to undergo drug
and/or alcohol testing. If any employee refuses to undergo drug or
alcohol testing requested or required by the employer, no such test
shall be given. A refusal to test will be considered a positive test (for
alcohol this shall be considered as a result of 0.04 or greater) and the
employee will be removed from driving or other safety sensitive
functions.
Consequences of refusal. If any employee refuses to undergo drug or
alcohol testing requested or required by the employer, this shall lead
to administrative/disciplinary action deemed appropriate by the
employer, based upon grounds of insubordination and consideration of
refusal being regarded as a positive test.
D. CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DRUG OR ALCOHOL TESTING
Pre-empinyment, All individuals whom the employer intends to hire
or use on a permanent or temporary basis as commercial motor vehicle
drivers must be tested for drugs.
Random. The employer must conduct unannounced testing based on a
random selection of employees.
DRUGTEST.POL: 2/20/08 Pago a 3 r
3. Remonahle suspicion. The employer may request or require an
employee to undergo drug and/or alcohol testing if the employer or any
supervisor of the employee trained in the detection of probable drug or
alcohol use directly observes an employee whose conduct or
appearance is indicative of use of alcohol or controlled substance.
4. Post accident. Following an accident involving a CMV where there is
loss of life or employee receives a citation under state or local law for a
moving violation arising from the accident, the employee shall undergo
drug and alcohol testing.
b. Return to duty. Where an employee has had a test result of 0.04 or
greater for alcohol, or had a positive drug test result, or been found to
have violated Department Work Rules defined in Subsections B.1
through B.6, then the employee shall not return to work until after
undergoing return -to -duty tests indicating an alcohol concentration of
less than 0.02 and a verified negative result for controlled substances.
6. Follow -un -un. Following a determination by a substance abuse
professional that an employee is in need of assistance in resolving
problems with alcohol abuse and/or controlled substances use, an
employee shall be subject to unannounced follow-up alcohol and/or
controlled substances testing as directed by the substance abuse
professional. Follow-up testing shall not exceed 60 months from the
date of employee's return to duty.
An employee shall be compensated for all time spent providing a breath
sample or urine specimen, including travel time to and from collection site, in
order to comply with random, reasonable suspicion, post accident, or follow-
up testing.
DETERMINATION OF IMPAIRMENT OR BEING UNDER THE
INFLUENCE DUE TO USAGE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS
As indicated in Section D.3 above, before an employer can request or require
an employee to undergo drug and/or alcohol testing, the employer must have
a reasonable suspicion that the employee is impaired due to drug or alcohol
usage or is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In general, R reasonablo
suspicion of impairment or being under the influence exists when the
employee displays characteristics of intoxication through words or actions
and may be coupled with observable incompetent or inefficient job
performance. The definition of impaired job performance is set forth in
Section AS of this policy.
DRUCTEST.POL: 9/20/08 Page W
Relevant observations of the employee's words and conduct that alone or in
combination may indicate intoxication include, but are not limited to, the
following:
slurred speech
h.
mood swings
disorientation
i.
inattentiveness
odor of alcohol on breath
j.
excitement
unsteady gait or balance
k.
irritability
glassy eyes
1.
aggressiveness
drowsiness
M.
intoxicated behavior
euphoria
without odor of alcohol
n.
impaired job performance
All personnel involved in the determination of reasonable suspicion must
immediately document any and all information received, observations, and
actions taken. All such reports must be forwarded to the Office of the City
Administrator.
Further, supervisors of employees covered by this policy shall, as mandated
by FHWA, annually attend training on the determination of reasonable
suspicion factors, a minimum of one hour on alcohol misuse and one hour on
controlled substances use, to cover the physical, behavioral, speech, and
performance indicators of probable alcohol misuse and use of controlled
substances.
PROCEDURE FOR TESTING
Notificntinn form. Before requesting an employee to undergo drug or
alcohol testing, the employer shall provide the employee with a form
on which the employee will:
acknowledge that the employee has seen a copy of the
employer's drug and alcohol testing policy;
indicate any over-the-counter or prescription medications that
the employee is currently taking or has recently (within the last
month) taken or any other information relevant to the reliability
of, or explanation for, a positive test result; and
indicate consent to undergo the drug and/or alcohol testing.
Medien_l facility eonRent form. The employee must also indicate
consent to undergo the drug and alcohol testing on any consent forms
provided by the medical facility taking the sample or breath alcohol
technician (BAT).
DRUaTEST.POL 2P24M Popo 7 rG
3. TecyAam 1 ( run). The test sample shall be obtained in a private
setting, and the procedures for taking the sample shall ensure privacy
to employees to the extent practicable, consistent with the prevention
of tampering with the sample, and shall conform with applicable
FHWA rules. All test samples shall be obtained by or under the direct
supervision of a health care professional.
4. Indication of samara. Each sample shall be sealed into a suitable
container free of any contamination that could affect test results,
immediately labeled with a specimen identification number, initialed
by the employee, and dated by the person witnessing the sample.
b. r ain of ciiqtod . The employer shall maintain a written record of the
chain of custody of the sample, ensure proper handling thereof, and
comply with the rules adopted by the FHWA pertaining to chain of
custody.
6. Laborato . All drug testing shall use the services of a testing
laboratory certified by the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services
Administration (SADIHSA), formerly NIDA, of the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS). However, no test shall be
conducted by a testing laboratory owned and operated by the City of
Monticello.
7. Methods of nnalysis. The testing laboratory shall use methods of
analysis and procedures to ensure reliable drug and alcohol testing
results, including standards for initial screening tests and
confirmatory tests. For positive alcohol test result using an EBT, a
confirmation test shall be conducted no sooner than lb minutes after
the initial test. In all other cases, the method of analysis shall use
immuno -chemical technology or chromatography for initial screening
tests; and the confirmation must be by gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry. Except where gas chromatography/mass spectrometry is
not the scientifically -accepted method of choice, the test must be
confirmed by a method using some form of chromatography.
Retention nod etorags. Retention and storage procedures shall comply
with the rules adopted by the FHWA. All samples, except breath
samples, from an initial screening test that produced a positive test
result shall be retained and properly stored for at least six (6) months.
MRO's employee on =. On a confirmed positive drug test. MRO
shall make a reasonable attempt to contact employee to confirm
circumstances and verify claims of prescribed medication. If MRO is
unable to contact employee, the MRO shall contact the employer
representative who will direct the employee to contact the MRO.
DRUGTEST.POL: 2r2OtN Page R ht
10. MRO repo . The MRO shall prepare a written report indicating the
drugs or their metabolites tested for, the types of tests conducted, and
whether the test produced negative or positive test results. The MRO
shall disclose the results to the employer within three (3) working days
after obtaining the final test result.
11. The employer shall, within three (3) working days after receipt of test
result report fi om MRO, notify the employee of the results of random,
reasonable suspicion, and post -accident tests for controlled substances
if the test results are verified positive. The employer shall also inform
the employee which controlled substances were verified positive.
G. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES
1. The right to request and receive from the employer a copy of the test
result report.
2. Within seventy-two (72) hours after notice from the MRO of a positive
drug test result, the right to request, in writing to the MRO, a
confirmatory retest of the original sample at the employee's expense at
the original testing laboratory or another DHHS-certified testing
laboratory. In the event of a negative test result on requested retest,
the costs will then be borne by the employer.
3. If employee has not contacted the MRO within the seventy-two (72)
hours as specified in G.2, the employee may present to the MRO
information documenting that a serious illness, injury, or other
circumstances unavoidably prevented employee from timely contacting
the MRO. If the MRO concludes there is a legitimate explanation for
failure to contact the MRO within 72 hours, the MRO may direct the
retest in as detailed in G.2.
4. The right not to be discharged, disciplined, discriminated, or requested
or required to undergo rehabilitation on the basis of a positive test
result from an initial screening test that has not been verified by a
confirmatory test.
5. The right of an employee who has been suspended without pay to be
reinstated with back pay if the outcome of the confirmatory test or
requested confirmatory retest is negative.
6. The right not to be discharged, disciplined, discriminated, or required
to be rehabilitated on the basis of medical history information revealed
to the employer concerning the reliability of, or explanation for, a
positive test result unless the employee was under an affirmative duty
to provide the information before, upon, or after hire.
nxuOTEST.rot: 2M% Page 9 U_
The right of access to information in the subject's personnel file
relating to positive test result reports and other information acquired
in the drug and alcohol testing process, and conclusions drawn and
actions taken based on the reports or acquired information.
The right of an employee who has made a timely request for a
confirmatory retest to suffer no adverse personnel action if the
confirmatory retest does not confirm the result of the original
confirmatory test, using drug or alcohol threshold detection levels as
established for a confirmatory retest by FHWA regulations.
H. ACTION AFTER TEST
The employer will not discharge, discipline, discriminate, or request or
require rehabilitation of an employee solely on the basis of a positive test
result from an initial screening test that has not been verified by a
confirmatory test. Where there has been a positive test result in a
confirmatory test and in any confirmatory retest, the employer will do the
following unless the employee has furnished a valid medical reason for the
positive test result:
For alcohol test result indicating an alcohol content of 0.02 or greater
but less than 0.04, the employee shall be removed from duty for 24
hours following administration of the test. For a first or second
offense, the employee would be permitted to use accumulated vacation,
accumulated compensatory time, or nonpay for the hours of work
missed. For a third offense, the employee shall be suspended without
pay for one day and referred to the employee assistance provider.
For an alcohol test result indicating an alcohol content of 0.04 or
greater or a positive drug test, the employee will be:
Removed from safety sensitive function; and
Referred for an evaluation by a substance abuse professional. If
that evaluation determines that the employee has a chemical
dependency or abuse problem, the employer will give the
employee an opportunity to partidpato in, at the employee's own
expense or pursuant to coverage under tho employee benefit
plan, either a drug or alcohol counseling or rehabilitation
program, whichever is more appropriate as determined by the
employer after consultation with substance abuse professional.
Tho employee shall sign a release ponnitting the employer to
monitor participation and compliance with counseling or a
rehabilitation program.
DRUOTEST.POt: 2MOM Page 10 TT
If the employee:
1) refuses to participate in the counseling or rehabilitation
program; or
2) fails to successfully complete the program, as evidenced
by withdrawal from the program before its completion; or
3) is unable to perform the safety sensitive functions of the
job in question because of a positive test result on any
subsequent return to duty of follow-up testing after
completion of the program; or
4) presents a direct threat to property or the safety of others,
or is otherwise considered unable to perform in good faith,
the employer may discharge or recommend that the employee be
discharged from employment.
C. For a positive test conducted under this policy, the employee
shall be suspended without pay for three (3) days; for a second
positive test, the employee shall be suspended without pay for
ten (10) days; and for a third positive test, the employee shall be
discharged from employment.
d. Employee shall not be allowed to return to safety sensitive
position until:
1) Employee has been evaluated by a substance abuse
professional;
2) Completed any recommended treatment;
3) Taken a return -to -duty test with a negative drug test
result or an alcohol test result indicating an alcohol
content of less than 0.02; and
4) Subject to required follow-up testing.
3. Other :neond ve+. Nothing of this policy limits the right of the
employer to discipline or discharge an employee on grounds other than
a positive test result in a confirmatory test.
DRUaTM.POL: V20M FUS 11 $ K
DATA PRIVACY
The purpose of collecting a body component sample of breath or urine is to
test that sample for the presence of drugs or alcohol. A sample provided for
drug or alcohol testing will not be tested for any other purpose. The name,
initials, and employee number of the person providing the sample are
requested so that the sample can be identified accurately but confidently.
Information about medications and other information relevant to the
reliability of, or explanation for, a positive test result is requested to ensure
that the test is reliable and to determine whether there is a valid medical
reason for any drug or alcohol in the sample.
All data collected, including that in the notification form and the test report,
is intended for use in determining the suitability of the employee for
employment. The employee may refuse to supply the requested data;
however, refusal to supply the requested data may affect the employee's
employment status. The employer will not disclose the test result reports
and other information acquired in the drug or alcohol testing process to
another employer or to a third party, individual, governmental agency, or
private organization without the written consent of the employee tested,
unless required by law or court order.
APPEALS PROCEDURES
Appeals from disciplinary actions taken pursuant to the drug and
alcohol testing policy shall be as set forth in the City of Monticello's
Personnel Rules.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council on February 28, 1898.
DRUGTEEMPOL: W2M PAP 12 1 L
CITY OF MONTICELL0
EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING CONSENT FORM
Date:
Employee Name:
Social Security Number. Birth Date:
I acknowledge that I have received a copy of the City of Monticello's Drug and
Alcohol Testing Policy and consent to undergo the drug and/or alcohol testing
required.
Employee Signature Date
DRUMM.WPD: $/lase f M
Council Agenda - 2126/96
lcatior
Waste
. O.S.)
We had originally assumed that the first stage digester cover would hold
together long enough so that it could be replaced with the upgrade of the
entire wastewater treatment plant. We had planned to get inside the first
stage digester, clean it, and make a thorough inspection of the cover. We
have not, however, had enough land to allow us to apply all of our sludge and
make the necessary transfers to clean the tank. Recent external inspections
over the past several months, however, have shown the cover to be in
extremely poor condition. It is questionable now whether or not the cover
will actually last until we can fast track a new cover and get it replaced, as
many small leaks have occurred and had to be sealed with caulking, as well
as the entire surface of the cover is becoming spongy to walk on.
HDR has suggested that we change the fixed cover on the first stage digester
to a floating cover identical to the one on the second stage digester. Since
floating covers are not easily adapted to mechanical mixers, it is necessary to
provide an external mixer on the side of the tank. This is the same type of
mixer that will be necessary for the second stage digester, as HDA feels the
two digesters should be operated together. The cost of the two mixers were
not in our original budget figures. Consequently, a portion of the 16%
contingency funds will be used to cover the cost of the two mixers. The
estimated cost for rehabbing the existing anaerobic digesters, excluding
contingencies, will go from $230,000 to $404,000, an increase of $174,000.
Adding in the 16% contingencies changes the projected construction cost from
$266,000 to $466,000. The estimated cost of the replacement of the first
stage digester with one mixer without contingencies is estimated at
approximately $230,000.
HDR is proposing a bid date of March 22, 1896, with roview of the bids and
award at the regularly -scheduled meeting of March 26, 1996. We assume n
substantial completion for October of this year, to have the cover and mixer
online and operational. To limit the time that the first stage digester is
down, it would not be taken out of service until all tho materials are on site.
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
The first alternative would be to approve the plane and specifications
and authorize advertisement for bids returnable March 22, 1996.
The second alternative is not to advertise for bids for the replacement
of the first stage digester cover at flus time.
C_ STAFF CO F.NDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director, HDR, and PSG that
the City move forward as soon as possible with replacing the first stage
digester cover. The consequences of taking the digester off line for a
significant period of time would hamper our ability to produce a sludge
suitable for land application.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Table 8-11 from September 21, 1995, and from January 26,1996;
Copy of plan drawings for the digester cover replacement.
Ta _ &11
Opinion of Probable Costs
Anaerobic Digestion
Class B Biosolids
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Monticello, MN
(Revised 1125196)
*46 Technical Memorandum No. 8 Crty of MOntioe110
y:wtprgW81240011pwandigt.x3 1/26196
Equipment
Salvage
Unit
Life
Replacement Cost
Value
Item Unit Cluantliv
Nice
Total
veers
10 yr
20vr
2020
Rehab Existing Anaerobic Digesters
Floating Gas Corer LS 1
$150,000
$150,000
20
5150,000
$0
Mixer (10 HP/ealdigesler) LS 2•
$78,000
$156,000
10
$156,000
$156,000
s0
Heat Jacket/Secondary Digester LS 1 •
$15,000
$15,000
10
$15,000
$15,000
$0
Hot Water Heating Equrpl LS 1
$5,000
$5,000
10
$5,000
$5,000
$0
Miscel. Gas Componenls LS 1
$35,000
$35,000
20
$35,000
$0
Boilers LS 2
$10,000
$20J=
20
$20,000
$0
Transfer Pumps LS 2
$5,000
$10,000
10
$10,000
$10,000
$0
Electrical/Instrumentation % 7
$13,000
$13,000
20
$131000
$0
Subtotal
$400,1100
$186,000
$391,000
s0
Contingencies @ 15%
$61,000
Pm/oetod Conahuedon Cos$
"6.%o00
Estimated Annual Power Consumption (kwh/yr)
210,000
Estimated Annual Power Cost ($0.031/kwh)
$6,500
Estimated Annual Demand Cost (22.5 kw @ $4.69/mo)
51,300
Estimated Annual Energy Consumption (MMBTLM r)
3,200
Estimated Annual Energy Cost (methane)
$0
Total Annual Costs
$7,800
Present Worth of Annual Costs
$89.000
Present worth (20 yr, 6U)
$779,000
$104,000
$121,000
$0
Eaulvalent An ural Cost
$87.800
• Note: 11 two 5HP mixers are prwidod/digesler
and two heat
jackets are provided for the
secondary digester malem,
the estmaled "act Coruducdon Costs are $636,000
*46 Technical Memorandum No. 8 Crty of MOntioe110
y:wtprgW81240011pwandigt.x3 1/26196
1
to
Tochnicot Memorandum No. 8
y:at pro)W81240011pwandig.da
City of Monticello
0/21195
Table
'
Opinion of Prob.619 Coate
Anaerobic Digestion
Class B Blosolids
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Monticello, MN
Equipment -
salvage -
Unit
US
Replacement Cost
Veale
Item Unit
auantliv Price Total
Years
10 yr 20w
2020
Existing Anaerobic Digesters
Floating Chas Cover LS
1 $140,000 $140,000
20
$140,000
so
Lias Scrubber LS
1 $25,000 $2b,000
20
$25.000
50
Mlscel. leas Components LS
1 $35,000 $35,000
20
$35,000
to
Boilers LS
2 $10,000 $20,000
20
$20,000
$0
Transfer Pumps LS
2 $5,000 $10`000
10
$10_000 $10,000
$0
Subtotal
$290,000
$10,000 $230,000
So
Contingences ® 15%
$35,000
Projected ConstrMlon Cost
5285,000
Estimated Annual Power Consumption (kwhlyr) 80,000
Estimated Annual Power Cost ($0.031/kwh)
$2,000
Estimated Annual Demand Cost (7.5 kw ® $4.00Jnw) $400
Estimated Annual Energy Consumption (MMBTIUyr) 3,200
Estimated Annual Energy Cost (methanol
$0
Total Annual Costs
$2,400
Present Worth of Annual Costs
$28,000
Present Worth (20 yr. B%)
JISM000
$8.000 571,000
So
Eaulvalent Annual Cost
$32.200
1
to
Tochnicot Memorandum No. 8
y:at pro)W81240011pwandig.da
City of Monticello
0/21195
Drawings
For
- Wastewater Treatment
Plant 'Expansion
_ City of Monticello,
MOMICELLO
Bid Package
Primary Digester Cover Replacement and
Mixing Improvements n. .�
February 1996
PROJECT LOCATION YAP
DRAWING LIST
P-1 - Primary Digester Cover Replacement
end yxing Improvements - Site Pian
P-2 - Digester Mixer Installation
Mester
Section
HDR Engineering, Inc.
P-3 - DlDester Mixer Installation
Sections and Details
PROJECT LOCATION YAP
� r— ;yo -.e cn.•.er I I
1 I\
1 3.9dC3 1) I
I SlOA"L[ TSN.
1 r�x"[m I (f11 1 I
� I
I
AMERM Q,'® �.yEa•7P[ C'EES'Ea 1 SU17C[ 5'CL3 •. I I
f I,
'I 1
J �1
PREL MNMY..a 41
-
Wastantw Trash 1Ws0 h�Oro�amsit�
iPlo"Em=
I _
,LIP
0 niEE
city mm a" pton
'1
10
Olr r1Mo1 MYsrO _ �• a .0 o r P-1 A
9�
1
lm UR ot+
Lara Tan u aw aal _
-\ I
NEMI DIGESTER MIXER INSTALLATION PLAN
ao
m ao
Q aa¢Datl aal •� `
n n ram
4] aaaau rL] 1 -
;l IO �A b � a]I IP ala.
1
FI-11
aures aao o Ln•r
T �
lKan rn] aJ,aQ. Oa 1
, yrJ CV Iw .alaa'p ro •.4.1 •mva ra,a
Paas .' +• b
e a>irulaa>n] ausY. m++:: aLrw r
Yp-an ea n• A aT . as la�mm'uuto vl
i.ma q • ]m IP 46T O.+IIEL P,f
] r �V¢m�ra� am•mwmn mr
c<v, w.i use v�iL w :a cw�•o.�a Lm
9 at Gi n V Iv �: RI •\R r ,43'JIC IC. aZtC
1 YW/M �Oa�Op IOQI O �lMll .0M IV a20t
{ �41p1]1VL •.1 .•lY 9u.lII 9W.4 D•�
q'a J4 aMa �.J.[ ,0 RCCaL a9r Jln q ium
a x ••.c aP• raP au + •v JAL au .9a'a>c
I av'p'aa w�•w�: r �• v.� .m>m Iw m s w. a m
• mrLl a a LRCa s tir plan
ro ma aL . arsa,o •r. Lp •r[ taraua a'aa w a
- p.lya
:SCS
n .. s+ 1 w c,r,a amara mn+wa
� TrRL • 4K CaML+al r] .0 I•, aP Y. aW
4r1 1,coat ,a+ •c+a r mP r u
mu m Laa marx Iw mv�.{•ra.
1 4D taaCU['t q � t-aiV aJ mtllr ara]r
aL ,au.r �><{u avL uu aaLv
.o aan Loon ✓ m a•c
0 oar .., ar•a
1 uam twnoe Lv.. • my +ca n.
s• tq�or••a a au w, ca
• 9caaic a an r �.•av mm.
•C:T v„^w Pi 4 KUalia{ eT.. P
ca.to rn ravaa oa{w .orn .o wL Lw
� at",L r.rt a+ar I.•L a w atm .n{.
1 tl+q+l'aL uo orr�uwmm,
mnf rcrc+9 aL I.uu• raan rGL•nl
• w nlL•aO{ w q • aocr-a ra 9wm cw
Lwc{ Iw 4•L.;a r. ac ants
p Iw OIt tlgL • m a q Nu[q y Mllat a9y
LLTaana .1.41..1 Cnn UM dant P a Maa Van
a•{v am a .•acv +.or> r w] arr • r.ls as
cul
a atYacT
eanL
q ar
r..w cs .o.. Lao. •a.cm nco
L +two• _
• K'a• + •Olt aa.0 ar tl� � a � al m O
tg an. -cu {2L
a aaaaL .oc. can.a an
R9 •OGT ti • q'a.Ll as Rr'Ll 9 O\ OL?
M1•r•Ln .7 Uat]L rCCal •. 1 aTa OTLL Itl lwQl.
• 4V •aRa a r faa Pa] apo Rca a9 CaS
. nl av n ww uou L•,4 . aJv wn 4 a.lao
• 1�I � o w or�n]
�ye wo tisu�a v�o les
a9 .a,n.a •w .m +... ,m
�� .rn,u o .aay I�o•J w { aaaq m a
as
n arorvr :�JL.41 •Rua 4 Im.o ti m
11 LCJ area L rl{ OD a LY IA
10.]
aa. CYa[
{ � �nL m+r•
l L' aatar mrra•
C r•.ILr•A
1tCa•NIMN . C. VV].'•,Y'L •aa.V
••C•,r aNt'a .•ra a.r Z
• t1Qn aa{ rIW] t••.] :•'. L.t %.V'0 a,•arR L•af.
acuu.
r.•oo w qLs•
w taz. n
L t!A aq tlR T..,7 5�ur
f iKV9
•LP CYaL la Iw' r:.'CnYI OG•PR .+ L•�L LrT!
nn an nn
�Q
mmL b tpaoa:•c
, owiawo LULJ C ^v '�.
;-rtaa �P+cn•
oLan a •m a Ya
mcL •mxlz .c, � rn �+ a.L_ a ao .rcl
ot.gr .m{r
auv o m+� :iui Tn Lr w Ni � �
� i.+PCK 9m rr r 1 caa n
aaaw LY< WO S
a �/<1LILR
. altW ar aaaR
:i •m Lnx+ r.,• res ,..., ,�-+
� •wow ura
L maws as
L�rc. avor n�.• xva.cr Tnr• a •m �
X1.0 •, •�Y ipJ >;.4�a� Q+�� t a)U(D
a .9�•a
w ar aaen
. C:1R a nG.a; Wil• w Uw arrV
a � t0,ar+ Lq* aaq' rl � w.l.:r rrtl] ,a uLr 1
r mc.m a.a• Lav ... L].1•.sa
Lilnr an r -+ +r LwR—. a o a . P • +. o
ew.wn�
[IBI maa+'w'ft . <':ba •n T CR
• Im RR{• 19 W r] C1� .a CWT • amp•G
. ri�amn�r• �s..� .1alt..R a rtn t+,
.9r w
1 a•.9 I L+sa�n •� n '•+
+]•.r t� o �'x'I of ,w rar Ta.c+•.9
1 w � :4+ o u a�ro�o,�: nii o L•P.0 .
.r •o•,. r .. a. r a •'a.' '.v. a agry
' w,..c iR�.• r...• crl ....<u., J• art.
L CrJ'J•
L� G1YY e9 '•rl a•C•J
•,W. C CYa•.a
. Faa atl�PW TJ � r .� J 4a'G+I :all
•{p o
PFELDANMY
iv Wutowater Tasattt+att tHooeta Ws MtWtfon
.. coy O1PAM = b!1 Pon a110 Sect Of_.P•2 A
9E
a]
r
r..c Sr..pjQN
I� 1
G �Il i•
m./e mr v a
Cuti —
gaE vENEra,►noN DEruL
LO, StJ RT MW ELVATION
u�" krrti rYa . m �.afa
nn o..r�aa
WAL I ADW
V. ds _
w n. n �n.�r.I•-r
w n. fie °osm n urt.�.r b -
raaa �• �_ _
{;Q f
amml ^. ,n Jr .w n ., mws cwa nm
mmww�rrm
.e�'Om�u•4•n. ,n ,Yi
R BR 1
��a mu.n l�•�
In LEGE
mrl N
CT •O..n1 CY+RO
WL nLN @f.Rm '
O.I.o.O
�P O 9LN m� 1•�G�
13 rJm.
] n 0
u
...rr
.•Im
m •r
� YICYli Y IOD• OR CY? P
16'1 .IFT W �"T n.rem
ELECTRICAL COMOL SCNEMATIc
\�IN:) n ,Tin
ram e+sY. woo .on -m
moral 0 n .n,.- OE j'
1 Sid
tl LLJ.1
_ PREL MNMY
a a au a�ou•
wa}.was. n.aclwa Doster roar ti tala*m
cp4 aE MN BaoU" and Dewe
ftyOr#POW003-MO - , -- -
• .O brarm._. ' - -'I' 7 �. ...- - - -- i..- -7 n.n .moo I ..�, - •.mn m•wcw P•9 A 9F
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
A RF.FERF.N P AND BA .KGRO TND;
We are in the process of assembling the final data to be used for application
to the PCA to operate a biosolids facility on the Bohanon farm. The testing of
the two residential wells on the farm shows no elevated levels of nitrates or
bacteria in those wells. We are also working with the PCA to complete the
monitoring well data as they requested. We originally assumed that we
could make the application with only half of the wells required for
management of the site; however, it now appears that we will have to
complete one more of the ground monitoring wells prior to permit application
and the remaining wells prior to use of the facility. In addition, we are
working out a new lease with the farmer who rents the property and looking
into the possibility of hiring a manager to oversee the operations on the farm.
We expect to have all of this information complete and ready for application
on or about the 16th of March.
Even though we have had many meetings on this subject and it has received
attention in M Monticello Ties on several occasions, staff believes it
would be beneficial to share the information obtained with the general
public, especially those neighbors near the site, prior to application to the
PCA. If there is any new information or questions or concerns, they could be
addressed prior to the application. If the concerns of the residents and
neighbors aro met, and we meet all the requirements of the PCA, the agency
may not hold a public hearing and the public informational meeting would
serve the same purpose.
It is suggested that the public informational meeting be held the week of the
18th of March. It is not necessary to hold a special Council meeting, but it
may be advisable that one or both of the Council members on the Sludge Site
Selection Committee be present.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The first alternative would be to approve an informational meeting for
Monday evening, March 18, 1996, at 7 p.m. at city hall. We would
then publish a notice in Thn Mnnticelin Tim a and send notice to tho
neighbors around the Bohanon farm.
Council Agenda - 2/28/98
The second alternative would be to hold the informs 'onal meeting just
prior to or during a regular Council meeting. -3I ISO,- (2 to ?-
The third alternative would be not to hold the public informational
meeting but request the agency hold a public hearing after permit
application is made.
C. W FF F..O NDATION;
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council authorize the
informational meeting to be held on March 18, 1996, as outlined in
alternative #I.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
No further information at this time.
Council Agenda - 2126196
Mayor Fyle, along with other members of the City Council, have requested
that City staff research the cost associated with conducting a fireworks
display in conjunction with Riverfest celebrations. Wanda did some research
on this matter and came up with cost estimates utilizing Banner Fireworks
Display out of Zimmerman, MN. This company has conducted fireworks
displays for the City of Becker, $5,000; Big Lake, $6,500; and Elk River,
$8,000. The president of the company, Pete Cermak, has worked in
Monticello before and is familiar with Ellison Park. Cermak said that this is
a safe place to shoot fireworks, which will keep insurance costs down.
Cermak went on to recommend a $500,000 insurance policy, which costs
about $700. Cermak went on to note that if fireworks are launched by a fire
department, insurance costs go way up. This is because the City becomes the
primary insurance carrier, not the secondary. The insurance costs could be
over $2,000. Cermak noted that the recommended time limit is 20 minutes.
Presumably the cost will range somewhere between $5,000 and $8,000 for
that 20 -minute display.
Motion to authorize City staff to contract with Banner Fireworks
Display of Zimmerman for conducting fireworks at the Riverfest
celebration with a cost not to exceed $8,000.
Under this alternative, City staff would see what we could do to get
the best 'bang for the buck.' Perhaps Council would be more
comfortable in setting a not to -exceed number at a lower dollar
amount.
If this alternative is selected, staff would move forward by contacting
the Riverfest committee to inform them of Council's desire to
participate in this matter, and presumably precise scheduling of the
event would be established by the committee.
According to Cermak, it does not appear that there are any safety
issues that would prohibit a fireworks display being conducted at
Ellison Park. Perhaps there are other locations within the City that
might be better. These details can be worked out with Cermak and the
Riverfest committee and fire department.
Council Agenda - 2/26!96
Motion to deny entering a contract for fireworks at the Riverfest
celebration.
C_ STAFF .O F.NDATION:
Adding fireworks to the Riverfest celebration would certainly enhance the
event. Funds have been budgeted from the liquor fund to cover this expense.
IT SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
20
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
wN\' • : I,II: r 1 1
Council is asked to consider replacing the contract service provider with a
full-time position and one half-time secretary position. The cost to complete
this reorganization can be funded entirely by building inspection fees and
will not result in a large increase in the projected cost to operate the
department This is because the cost to hire a new employee is of! set
to a large extent by the elimination of contract service fees. According to
Paul Waldron and Associates, the level of building activity in Monticello is
sufficient to warrant the two building inspectors and additional secreterial
help. Waldron has a good working knowledge of staffing needs because he
t,\provides contract services to many communities, some of which are nearly
J �identical to Monticello in terms of size and growth rates.
Vnder the proposed plan, the duties of the new position (Chief Building
Official) would be similar to -the resent positionflield by Gary Anderson.
Added to the positio cul su rvisory_res _nsibilitie n sitepl�
view responsibilities. Alw so, renew Chief Building Official position would
be responsible (or`implementing computerization of recordkeeping. The
position demands strong communication skills, both oral and written, due to
the amount of public contact the position requires. The point value of the
position would establish the position at Grade 11, which has a pay range of
31, 1 to 9,789.
The present position (building Inspector) would retain many of the
responsibilities, including responsibilities for maintaining the civil defense
program. The focus of this position would be on plan review and inspection.
This position would be responsible for performing skilled inspection work
pertaining to building construction and zoning, enforcing building and '\
zoning codes, and implementing the emergency preparedness plans / Poing
values for this position would not change. y'
Staff believes that there is justification for considering hiring additional
clerical assistance in the building department. In the fall of 1994, Council
authorized the creation of the Development Services Technician (DST)
position, which was a shared clerical position between the building
department, planning, and economic development department. The time
spent in each department was originally planned to be 50% building and 50%
planning/economic development; however, alter a year -and -a -half of
monitoring the position, at least 76% of the DST's time has boon spent in the
21
Council Agenda - 2/26/96
building department, leaving little time for planning or project -related
activities and no time for assistance in the area of economic development. In
addition, other clerical staff has been assisting the DST with typing permits,
filing, and scheduling inspections almost daily. Building projections do not
indicate that this will change. It will likely increase due to the continued
interest in commercial and industrial development in Monticello, along with
the amount of residential growth the community has experienced. In
addition, the school expansion and downtown development are just two large
projects that will affect City staff.
In reviewing the organization of the current clerical staff, along with the
additional policies and procedures dealing with the growth of the city, it
appears the most efficient way to handle the growth is by adding a parttime
building department secretary. It is becoming increasingly difficult for
clerical staff' from other departments to keep up with procedures and
information in the building department while maintaining their own
department work load.
Attached as supporting data is information regarding potential duties of a
building department secretary, future projects, and projects that need to be
addressed.
It is the view of the City Administrator, Assistant Administrator, and Office
Manager that reorganization of the building department as described above
is necessary to manage the continued growth of the community and the
implementation and maintenance of procedures and policies within the
department.
The 1996 budget includes funds sufficient to replace the contract service with
a full-time Chief Building Official and a part-time clerical position.
BALTFRNATfVF ACTIONS:
Approve the reorganization of the building department by replacing
tho existing contract service with a Chief Building Inspector and
authorize staff to post the notice of the vacancy of the now position.
Under this alternative, Gary Anderson has the option of applying for
the new position if he so desires.
Do not approve reorganization of the building department and
continue as is with the current Building Official position and
contracted inspection services.
22
Council Agenda - 2/28/96
Direct staff to work on development of an alternative plan as desired
by Council.
C. STAFF F .O F.NDATION:
It is the view of City staff that the time is right to consider expanding the
building inspection department. The level of activity as reflected by the
rising permit applications and increases in revenue justifies the added cost of
hiring additional help in the department.
Staff recommends alternative U1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Chief Building Official job description; Needs/work load summary.
23
Chief Building l)mciol
City of Montit-4,1114)
'I'lllu ul t'luaa t;hi,11111ildiugOfficial
hilhlr.11vu 11111, I',udinh
IWHI'llOil' I'll ON (IF W01111
I lw►arul �llt►ll of llulien Performs administrative and skilled inspection work in
c,I1111MMoYt11g tobulnliona iwrlaining to building construction, including inntwaitm
,mtl ouf ,4vollwill ,f building; and toning codes and ordinances and land use
►rg ,1411 un1y, ikml 1wrtbrms tvlated duties as required.
►►►wt►►alta►I�ittiCcJ \\o.At, under the general direction of the Assistant City
\ltupul�►1 ctt,,u•
.a�ti> \►,t�'at h�.utia��i Kxvrttses g mm! and technical saperviairr, rver ti,r
t11't'�CIV lte.�.�r•it•a'
P),: 0_. u:1 R . Ula;• 1!,1L •t,64du iU du Ls p mn brneu: 5y -W prsa:.nnN ,n itla
'm1} iumo vllaoivm pu imon m pusmin --wLun a flaara
Jim , to : �)udumg, •liumutng, and meciuutai mrie inthrment.
'il,•W ua, u.-u6ml; ni.ui •tiview. -letnue b-Aumm ; Lp.-Enon, inn -�fntvrt
x: .Ia`tl..tbtluti�
vaiiaii.Vll- lt: =")unit, iumuw-J !!utnr.�entmnz7tm. tt1I1P>"I:F+ inn
:miw,_w, iltClll it -he -nll1C 1m. 'in c"' ❑TdnIIIIC2.
ti\x 4; OI1� I,t,:U131v .•,:C. -,'tltll�: IS�1111:1i:^_. :IIII •iY`7�i7: ':[tn-lq ,I :1V :SAIiTIY.:i Il
.• 11.[.1,ft'e� •_••1�¢tt! „%%M:r•% tn:2 —, --r,=l -r.=i: =n T,t...c;Z
.t . , . tt +a , l_! c. t . 5•..1t:r v:►il _um !-rritianx U.M im _aL ty
e;,tt• `t h. ••+. t1!e, ft�R;, •�tJn•�;Tj �•• L?:.PICT:.2CU •[I'iL."""LLPFf. G? 'R-7.:sT..^a
, [:• ,V�. ,�.� ..tit
�i �•�,.,. 1'z ,:•:+: ��r:t�l�r� ���-�-ts��ttxccr�'. CC�J*�� "a�r.�u.r: Oran
�.: •.e .,. ,<;ec� _:!e:_: -.!t:] __ ,•!'�l�F._S_..^':7:.h t",�'L:'t=LTu^t1;. r-ra.]rP,_i
'e:, •. 'J .r:,,,': „ ,1,.i • ►»�. �1:jn. ,�. [&..r 1LC I4'r-:7^--'+ ^iQ".u.�tt:ort'.i
C "lira -E!%fi .N�Jr.':l
c ,`, tl _x•11"�t�;
le �_..x�, ctU. 4• .;t2r1':. .�D �-p:�9.^_��„•..D:7 _1_..;i)•_'7�.t�cZi:t
,..---.:w - -- •-E•i-rn:'.3. L:'.."I.1 • ::�'S-.C�'!L'C"1 :_r'1S'28.:^.:_, . C, -,r' .! ..: 11)
.a ..c a, d. ctae:c7.�LU �l�.n'•_..,., .Lt] .__. "•f: •. rr^ � 7,t •,� ,1,:�.a�.-.r" -:) .t;li:�l.-.P .r:Ql
Chief Building Official
City of Monticello
Title of Class: Chief Building Official
Effective Date: Pending
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
n r l State of D uti s: Performs administrative and skilled inspection work in
administering regulations pertaining to building construction, including inspection
and enforcement of building and zoning codes and ordinances and land use
regulations, and performs related duties as required.
Supervision Received: Works under the general direction of the Assistant City
Administrator.
Suoervigion Pxer 'sed: Exercises general and technical supervision over the
Building Inspector.
TYPICAL DUTIES PERFORMED
The listed examples may not include all duties performed by all positions in this
class. Doti may vary somewhat from position to position within a class.
Administers the City's building, plumbing, and mechnical code enforcement
program, including plan review, permit issuance, inspection, and related
responsibilities.
Administers the City's public nuisance enforcement program, supervises and
coordinntes the enforcement of the public nuisance ordinance.
Explains building code, zoning ordinance, and specifications of city contracts to
contractors. property owners, and general public upon request.
Inspects structures for compliance with zoning ordinance and fire safety
regulations, and inspects damaged or deteriorated structures for compliance
with building code.
Inspects the work of contractors and subcontractors, updates contractors when
licensing requirements change.
Reviews development plans for consistency with site development standards,
including grading and drainage, and other city ordinance requirements.
Prepares and monitors building inspection budget; prepares local, state, and federal
reports monthly.
Purchases parts, equipment, and supplies costing up to $1,500 with Assistant
Administrator's approval; obtain Council approval for purchases over $1,500.
Reviews code reports and building and site plans for conformance to building and
zoning codes; forwards report to Assistant Administrator.
(continued on next page) 17-
Chief Building Official
City of Monticello
Performs on-site inspections for building construction work and land use permits
to ensure code compliance.
Investigates complaints regarding material and workmanship quality and
violation of the zoning ordinance.
Issues citations when necessary to enforce compliance with building codes and
zoning ordinance; may testify in court concerning results of inspection.
Verifies work permits with city certifications of persons engaged in building work.
Prepares records and reports of investigations and violations of building codes,
city contracts, specifications, and zoning ordinance, and work permits.
May supervise maintenance of all necessary records for day -today activity and
permit files.
Attends professional development seminars and continuing education for license
maintenance and to keep up on technical advances and code amendments.
Makes recommendations jointly with other City personnel regarding policy
development and ordinance amendments.
Coordinates plan review and inspection activities with the City Engineer with
respect to the construction or alteration of storm water drainage systems on
private property.
Coordinates development and preparation of policies and processes associated with
the building permit application and inspection process.
Supervises implementation and development of city-wide addressing system.
Assists with conversion and maintenance of manual building inspection
recordkeeping system to a computerized system.
Manages and evaluates the job performance of the Building Inspector. Assists
Assistant Administrator in managing and evaluating other community
development employees as requested.
Assists in the selection of community development department employees.
Monitors compliance with zoning ordinance and investigates violations.
Attends Planning Commission and City Council meetings as requested, prepares
agenda items pertaining to variance requests as needed, and prepares other
information as requested by Assistant Administrator.
Oversees civil defense activities.
KNOWLEDGE. SKILLS. AND ABILITIES
Considerable knowledge of local, state, and federal building codes pertaining to
building materials and workmanship.
Considerable knowledge of zoning laws, ordinance requirements, and procedures
pertaining to the application/approval process.
Considerable knowledge of building materials and workmanship.
Considerable ability to inspect, advise, and monitor construction for purposes of
code and regulation compliance.
(continued on next page) ''&b
Chief Budding Oficial
City of Monticello
Considerable ability to evaluate site plan design, including grading and drainage.
Considerable ability to interpret blueprints and plans involving architectural,
structural, mechanical, plumbing, and engineering designs.
Working ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing.
Working ability to work in unfinished structures and in unsafe or uncomfortable
surroundings.
Working ability to prepare the building inspection budget and written reports.
Working ability to keep current on code amendments and technical advances in
construction.
Working ability to apply or utilize computer technology in the building inspection
process.
QUALIFICATIONS
High school education; three years experience in a building construction trade, or
one year of experience in same and two-year building inspection technology degree;
must maintain a Class II Building Inspector Certification by the State of
vlinnesota; must have three years supervisory municipal inspection experience.
�'Qpl.ieV TMr,e,�F.
IZCM00
V. Office Organization
A. Report to Office Manager because building department clerical duties
are shared by other office staff under the Office Manager. Office
Manager is familiar with most building dept clerical procedures.
B. Hours of Work: 7:45 to 1 p.m.
C. DST and Office Manager will train.
VI. Building Dept. - Large Projects Ongoing and to Occur in Near Future
A. Downtown development
B. Commercial development
C. Mississippi Shores - 49 units being inspected
D. School expansion - many inspections
E. Residential growth continues
F. Addressing procesa/maintenance
G. Computerized building dept/permits/reports
H. Apartment licensing
VII. Planning Dept. - Large Projects in Near Future - DST Duties
A. Downtown development
B. Shade tree program
C. Ordinance updates
D. CIS
Vlll. Projects that Currently Need to be Addressed - Clerical Duties
A. Zoning enforcement - clerical duties - tracking paperwork
B. Addressing system - paperwork & notification
C. Building dept records retention as directed by Office Manager
D. Assessing file conversion to side -tab
E. Community development files organization as directed by Office
Manager
F. CommoreiaVindustriaVsubdivision development process (handouts &
office procedures)
UGSECR.US: V2.W
Page 9 116
CLERICAL STAFF NEED8/JUBPIFICATION
Need for PT building department secretary
A. If add? inspector/official is hired more clerical is needed
B. DST uses other clerical staff almost daily for typing, filing, etc.
C. Planning dept needs add? .DST time (orig. plan was 60/60, but is at
least 76% building, 25% planning)
II. Possible duties of PT building department secretary:
L Type permits.
Z. Schedule inspections.
3. Permit & correspondence filing.
1. Updating handout information.
5. Process CRV's.
S. Zoning enforcement letters.
7. Public nuisance letters (blight).
3. Assessing file conversion.
B. Help with records retention regarding basement building dept. files
(organizing, filing, destruction).
10. Public contact.
11. If permits/reports are computerized, entry and maintenance of data.
III. Qualifications
A. Typing experience
B. Computer experience (WordPerfect and Lotus a plus)
C. Public contact experience
D. Building knowledge a plus but not required
E. Dictaphone experience
F. One year of secretarial experience
IV. Equipment/Furnituro Needed
A. Desk
B. Chair
C. Extra dictaphono equipment (7)
D. Computer and software could be shared with receptionist this year
E. Typewriter
F. Telephone
G. Calculator
RLOSUR118i V23W
Pup
174 -D
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
r 01/31/98 14:22:07 Disbursement Journal
WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GENERAL CHECKING
39633 01/29,/96 KENNEDY & GRAVEN 939 *FY* 130.0OCR
39833 01/29/96 KENNEDY & GRAVEN 939 *FY* 130.00
0.00 '
39945 01/29/96 SIGNS PLUS 880 *FY* 5,OOO.O0CR
39860 01/29/96 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO. 498 CHECK VOIDED 20.000R
39662 01/29/96 NORWEST BANK MINNESO 154 AGENT FEES/GO BOND 200.,00
39862 '31/29/96 NORWES.T BANK MINNESO 154 AGENT FEES/GO BOND 62.50
?62.50
39863 01/29'/96 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER 448 MEMBERSHIP DUES 20.00
39864 01/29/96 WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEY 632 PRINTS/SLUDGE DISPOSAL 39_.00
39865 01/29/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 110 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 500.00
39865 01/29/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 *FY* 106.000R
394.00
39088 01/29/96 BUFFALO CHRYSLER 990 VAN REPAIRS/BLD INSPEC 61.22
39867 01/29/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 512.00
39860 01/29/06 DEPART OF NATURAL RE 124 *FY* 1,111.29
39069 01/29/86 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICK .80423 WKSHOP LUNCH/DWNTWN D 203.68
39810 01/39/90 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICK .90423 WKSHOP LUNCH/DWNTWN DE 22.52
30871 01/29/90 WASHBURN/THERESA 986 CONSULTING FEES/DWNT 700.00
39872 01/29/9G U.9. POSTMAGTER 210 *FY* 107.46
D967 2 01/29/96 U.S. P05TMASTLR 210 *FV* 107.46
334.82
99073 01/29/06 NORTHWEST MINNESOTA 150 REG FEE/GARY ANOERt,ON 10.00
39974 01/d0/96 K MAkT OTORC 400 CLEANING Sl1P/FIRE DEPT 39.81
99075 01/29/90 PRLFE1tRED TITLE 1000 KRUSE LAND PURCIIA ?01.909.51
39076 01/29/96 :;IGN; PLU'I 050 *FY* 2.500.00
30077 01/20/90 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 110 WADER/SNOW/ATV REG 1,042,00
39070 01/20/96 11ARGAR089A 8 00N-3, I 94? *FY* 70,307.G0
ESRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/31/98 14:22: 01
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
IN
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GENERAL CHECKING
39879 01/29/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 NATER/SNOW/ATV REG 1,260.00
39860 01/29/96 DEMEULES FAMILY LIMI 952 TIF NO. 1-13 PYMT 10.544.71
GENERAL CHECKING TOTAL 376,414.85
0'
PRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/31/96 11:56:42
i"
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
39881 02/05/96 AGASSIZ ENVIRONMENTA
39882 02/05/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M
39882 02/05/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M
39892 02/05/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M
39882 02/05/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M
39882 02/05/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M
39882 02/05/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M
39882 02/05/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M
39082 02/05/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M
39883 02/05/96 AkAMAkK -
39884 02/05/96 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO
39684 02/05/96 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO
39805 02/05/96 BJORKLUND CO., INC..
39986 02/05/96 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST
39006 02/05/96 CELLULAR ?000 OF DT
39086 02/05/96 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST
30086 02/05/96 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST
90007 02/05/96 CENTRAL MINN 1NITIAT
39800 02/05/90 CLARK FOOD SERVICE.
30800 02/05/96 CLARK FOOD SERVICE.
J9009 02/05/96 DINO'S DELI
39089 09./05/90 DINO'S DELI
39090 02/05/90 FCO E%
39001 02/05/96 FLICKER'D T.Y. Fi APP
39092 0:'/05/90 HOR CNGIrgCFRING. INC
99033 02/05/9F, HE RMISNERRV
39094 0?/05/90 HOLIDAY CREDIT OVr-TC
99004 02/05/96 HOLIDAY CREDIT t4IC
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
761
*FY*
482.83
951
PAGER CHARGES
18.38
951
PAGER CHARGES
9.19
951
PAGER CHARGES
25.28
951
PAGER CHARGES
9.19
951
PAGER CHARGES
9.19
951
PAGER CHARGES
0.19
951
PAGER CHARGES
9.19
951
PAGER CHARGES
9.19
98.81
848
CITY HALL SUPPLIES
85.50
270
NEW BATTERY/MATER
TOW 796.35
270
WATER TOWER EQUIP
860.02
1,686.37
1001
SEAL WELL AT WWTP
REN 325.00
794
CAR PHONE CHARGES
25.48
794
CAR PHONE CHARGES
1.04
794
CAR PHONE CHARGES
9.40
794
CAR PHONE CHARGES
6.30
42.30
022 CMTF GRANT PVMT 1,100.21
897 CITY HALL SUPPLIED 68.14
097 FIRE DEPT SUPPLIED 53.45
121.59 +
.30219 LUNCH/CC-PC MTG 08.23
.90219 LUNCH/CC PC Mftl 69.22
130.4F�
394 P05'iAGi:/DCANNCR RETURN 25.40
C,0 FIRE DEPT PAGER BATTER 96.61
944 *FY* 136,704.00
01 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50
05 ►FY• 10.00
05 GAD/FIRE DEPY 10.05
"0. 05
BRC Flr1ANCIAL SYSTEM
61 /31/98 1 1,:,56:.42-
CWARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
39885 02/05/96 J & K SERVICES
398,96 02/05/9.6 J M OIL COMPANY
39896 02/08/96 J M OIL COMPANY
99897 02/05/96 K MART STORE
39999 02/05/96 KOVICH/PATRICA.
39899 02/0.x/86 LAKE $UPERTOR COLLEG .9
39900 02/45/96 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
39901 02/05/96 LEAGUE OF MN CI.T'IES
39901 02/05/96 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
3990'1 02/05/96 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
39901 02/05/96 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
38902 02/05/96 LKM'CLEANING
39902 02105/96 LKM CLEANING
38903 02/05/96 MARCO BUo'INFSS'PROOV
39904 02/06/96 ,METRO SALES INCORPOR
39905 02/06/98 MN RECREATION & PARK
30906'02/05/96 MN U.C. FUND
39809 02/05/98 MODIL
30000 02/09/96 MONTICELLO ANIMAL 'CO
39909 02/05/96 MONTICELLO SENIOR Cl
39910 02/03/00 ORR-SCH8LEN-MAVERON
39010 02/95/00 ORR-3CHELEN-MAYERON
39010 02/06/90 ORR-kKLEN-MAYEkON
99010 02/05/96 ORR•S'CHEILEN-MAYERON
50910 0'-3/05/90 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYHRON
79016 02/O6/66 ORR^£CHELEN-MAVERnN
30,)10 OP./05/06 17RR-CCHEI.EN•MAVCR0N
X0010 02/05/06 ORR-;•CHELEN•MAYERON
30010 02/99/36 01?R-SCNLI,EN-MAYERON
10010 02/06/OG 0w R•-OCHELEN-MAYERON
70910 02/09/0G ORR-Go'HC6CN,•MAYI;RON
x0010 0 ?/05/06 ORN-£CHLLEN-MAVERON
Disbursement Journsl
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1;002 HOSE,/VALVES/WATER DEP 100.00
95 *FY* 16.00
9S GAS/FIRE DEPT 23.65
39.65 •
460 PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLIES 16.35
287 *FY* 24.64
0422 REG FEE/TOM BOSE 70.00
98 1998 MN. DIRECTORY 01.64
243 *F Y* 500.60
243 *FY* j.149.O0CR
243 *FY* 1,354.00
243 *FV* 470.00
1,, 175. 00
980 CLEANING/OEP REG BLO 308.65
990 CLEANING/P WORKS BLD 266.25
5.7, 5..10 A
106 TYPEWRITER AGRMT/C 'HAL 85.00
849 MTCAGRMT/FA% MCH/C H 210.00
618 1986 MEMBERSHIP DUES i00..00
190 *FV* 321.19
131 *FYN 10:00
185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.0-3
139 MONTHLY CONTRACT PY 2,039.33
182 *I:VR 7.134.00
162 RFV* 570.90
162 *FV* 694.15
162 NVY* 11413.90
102 *FV* 441.00
162 *FY* 645.75
162 *FV* 603.21
162 *FY* 1,556.65
162 *FY* ?10.12CR
162 *FY* 1,276.33
102 *FY* 41;.13
167 *FV* 00.70
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/31/9'8 11:5.6:42
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
39910 02/05/96 ORR-SCHELEN-MAVERON
39910 02/05/96 OR;R-SCHELEN-MAYEPON
39911 02/05/96 PITNEY BOWES
39912 02/05/96 RELIABLE CORPORATION
39913 0,2/05/96 $AFETY-KLEEN CORP.
39914 02/05/96 SHIGO AND TREES, ASS
39915 02/05/96 S_HUMAN/CATHY
39916 02/05/96 SOUTHAM BUSINESS 'COM
39917 02/05/96 SURPLUS nPERATIONS
39819 02/05/96 U S LINK
39918 02105/96 U 6 LINK
30919 02/05/86 U S LINK
�, 399 t8 02/05/96 U S LINK
39,016 02/05/96 U 3 FINK
39918 02/09/96 U S LINK
99910 02/05/96 WRIGHT COUNTY AUOITO
39920 02./05/06 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP
39921 02/03/96 W50 & A300CIATE9. IN
39921 02/05/96 WSB 0 ASSOCIATES, IN
39921 02/05/96 WSO & ASSOCIATES. IN
90921 02/05/96 WSS Q AS60CE4TES. IN
39921 02/05/90 WSO & ASSOCIATC3. IN
110021 Q2/05/0,6 WS61 & ASSOCIATEL', IN
399?1 02/05/90 W8G & AS34CIAT115, IN
OF,NCRAL CHECKING
If
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
162
*FV*
'382.50
182
*FV*
4;104.31
14;085.85
168'
MAILING MCH MTC AGRMT
95..00
179
RIBBONS/COMPUTER/C
HA, 126.79
184
MTC AGRMT/SHOP .& GAR 72.69
189
FIRE ALARM MTC AGRMT
134.19
191
MILEAGE REIMB'/MTO
36.84
644
BIDS/WWTP SO.O/SBR
EOUI 99.90
987
FIRE DEPT SUPPLIES
7.30
950
TELEPHONE CHARGES
21.73
950
TELEPHONE CHARGES
44!.38
650
TELEPHONE CHARGES
2.80
950
TELEPHONE CH'ARG'ES
1.,79
950
TELEPHONE CHARGES
5.22
950
TELEPHONE CHARGES
31.99
109.01
219
SCERG GRANT PYMT
2,760.51
512
UTILITIES
0..00
993
+FY►
297:.50
989
*FV*
425.,00
093
*p0
302.50
809
*FY*
552.50
993
yFY*
1, 062.fi0
983
•FV•
42540
993
*FV*
127.50
9.272,50 e ,
TOTAL
100,020.90
BRC FINANCIAL SY£7E14
c/06/90 08.:37:4 1 Oi;bursemcnt Journal
WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL
GENERAL CHcCKING
39914 02/06/96 SHIGO AND TREES, ASS 109 CHECK VOIDED 134.19CR
39fla2 0?/06/06 U.S. POSTMASTLR 210 POSTAGE/P WORKS 64.00
38923 07/08/96 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 10 SUPPLIES/ PklORKS 166.45
?1824 02/08/96 CENTURY LAOS 278 SNOW PLOW MIX/SNOW & 469.67
59925 02/08/96 DARLEY & CO./W. S. 231 *FY* 508.65
39936 02/03/96 D YNA SYSTEMS SO *FY'# 30.00
30977 02/00/96 EFFECTIVE PROMOTION 50424 SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT ;01.55
30936 02/00/98 GOULD 6RUS. CHI;V-01.0 70 *FY* 69.93
0907-A 02/00/96 f:ARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 70 *FY* ?7.PGCk
B0920 02/00/90 HARRY'S AUYO SUPP!Y 70 4FY*
?0029 02/00/96 I AREY'ti AUTO SUPPLY 70 VEH REP PARTS/STREETS 74.25 Q
74.24 *C1
C02/00100 fIATCH^PETERSON SALES O4 BATTERY/FLAGS/GLVS/CT 100.10
9 Jd !')2/00/96 H• RMBS/JERRY 01 LIORA.:Y CLEANTNG CONT 227.90
LEfl32 02/00/96 INDUSTRIAL MAINT. OU 514 NUTS/DOLTS/SHUP & GAR 152.25
3903) (,2/08/90 INSTY-PRINTS 1004 PRINTS/PLAN & RON 40.10
00934 02/00/96 KUN ANOER5014 TRUCKIN 007 PROF :;ERV/ANIMAL CONTP 03. 0
)9033 02/00/00 ti RIS ENGINUU(M40, IN 1003 PARY-• S 0UP/SNht) 11 1,?214.15
JF1Illi 6 i12/00/0D L ARGON", ACE HAPDWAR 074 OU:PLIFS/STRECY DEPT 0.53
11%u 02/00/90 LARfJN' L ACG HAROWAR 014 GUPPL I6 ;/WA?Ck 01!o)4 10. Ui
210''O 02/00/90 1 ARIIQN'O ACC HARUWAF' 074 E)LG MT(/DEP RFC O1 FICE 00.95
)')=))G 0"x/00/90 I.AR'30N'i AOC HAROWAN 074 `1UPPI.IIS/P WO:Ift', 74.00
36 '19/00/00 L.AR,SON'S ACE HAi,DWAR 074 ^UNPI%ES/CHOP £, (,Al, f;b.C4
)'iJ0 01/00/96 L,A:,'1,IN", ACF, HAFUWAR 074 t;UPPLICO/t L'; i. .1;hY >.O.GO
!' C• 02/00/�l, ! AR;UN'u ACE NAGUWAR 074 ',tL�l Ml( `01`1/tf:UP C tiAF 15.27
;:)')JO U2/00/SG 1 A!•ION'f, APi: 014 ,l.?>,
G %00/(G L A ON nrL HA6GWAP 074 UT 713"iY MY 5U1411. IEC. J' .Oil
"y 0'/00/9G i A!. f, AAF1'. AN:. ':J() CLTMP ;11P/Fl.V IIA I ^U
'i:A:,'M' ,.VI-' 1U7 ';'IaPLII '/.', .7 :..',
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
?/06/93 08:37:41
WARRANT GATE VENDOR
GENCRAL CHECKING
39939 02/08/96 MN COPY SYSTEMS INC
39940 02/08/96 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
39941 02/08/06 MONTICELLO CHAMBER 0
39,942 02/08/96 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
79942 02/08/96 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
39942 02/00!06 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
-10942 p2/00/96 MONTICELLO OFFICE 'PR
-)0943
02/08/96 MONTICELLO TIMES
39943 02/09/96 MONTICELLO TIMES
39943 02/08/96 MONTICELLO TIMES
39943 02/08/96 MONTICELLO TIMES
39943 02/08/96 MONTICELLO TIME:
.39043 02/00/96 MONTICELLO TIMrS
)944 02/Oen/96 NATIONAL PIN8HING PAR
.1f:44 07/09/96 NATIaNAL BUSHING PAR
S9944 02/08/'9G NATIONAL GUSHING PAR
.1OS44 02/00/06 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
3J944 02/08/96 NATIONAL DU3HING PAR
X9949 02/00/OU NORTH STAR TURF, INC
0004 t. 0'</00/g6 NORTHE,RN POWER PROULl
:1OJ47 02/00/00 NORTHWEUT AS'_tOC CONI;
396,',7 U4/00/90 NORYHWF,T ASGOC CW;
17040
02/00/06 PETt'ROC-NtG MON-( FO1it)
'1 C OP/00/90 PETE;R^-tl' ; MONT FORD
�05hu^ 02./00/96 PETERS@N'1' MONT 10RU
9140 09/00/06 PHOTO 3
Y9'i0 0?/00/'36 Pt7Ltl3'--" t;L(.ANING 'l
;(iG��l Q2/QO/O6 PFt(IFIGCI(1NAl IIL4VIC1
''1•lil 02/0!1/')ti hRUFE';iii'.tJAI :ifikVYi;l
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL
756 COPY MCH MTC AGRMT/F 0 31.95
185 ANI'M'AL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00
133 CHAMBER DUES 950.00
136 DEP REG OFFICE SUP 108.12
136 COPY PAPEk/CITY HALL 63.17
1.3'6 CITY HALL OFFICE SUP 500.27
136 P WORKS OFFICE SLIP 705.00
1,076.'i9
140 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 2,407.44
140 SNOWPLOWING -HELP WANT 132.46
140 SNOWMOBILE/BLO PERM I 156.80
140 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 174.13
140 WWTP/BAYCH REACTOR AO 80.03
140 TIF REOEVOPMENT AO 167.16
3,098.81
144 YEH MTC/FIRE DEPT S.50
144 SUPPLIES/STREET DEPT 200.07
144 sFYV IG.00
144 VEH REP PART£/STREET.`+ 9.03
1.44 OUPPLIE'S/FIRE DEPT U9.QC
306.48
151 0VPP1.If.5/PARt(S 2.007.60
506 EO.UIP REP PAR70ANOW 457.72
390 *FYb 002.10
$50 O:FYp Tbo.00
105 YEH REP PARTE4STREE.1S 902.46
165 EOUTP REP PAN-rG/STR;;)<Y6 5.05
16h GUFPLIEG/GTNFETG 12.7'1
74:; PICiUREG/PLAN CG TON 1G.O7
177 rITY HALL CLEAN16 (')N 400.00
175 FEn CONTRACT PYMT/
175 •LVlk 10, ')5.00
49,11'01 .Gll�
RC1
*Cr
oc,
a,,
4�,
FRC FINANCIAL SVS7FM
1/(�n2/06/96 08:37:41
'AkRANT GATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
^9952 02/08/96 PUuLIC RESOURCE GROU
sR9'23 02/08/96 SCHAREIER & SONS, INC
;9954 02/08/96 SENTRY SYSTEMS
19955 02/08/96 TRUEMAN••WELTERS, INC
9?55 02/00/86 TRUEMAN-WELTERS. INC
999y5 02/08/96 TRUEMAN-WELTERS, INC
:9'1"io 03/08/96 U S HIGHWAY PROO1ICTS
39£57 02/00/96 UNITED LABOkATOR1E5
0')'358 03/08/90 VA39Q RUBBISH REMOVA
`c;50 02/08/06 VA[ -KO RUBBISH REMOVA
9059 02/08/90 V059 ELECTRIC SUPPLY
19giO 02/06/96 VO'3S CLECTRIC 'iUPPLV
30960 0'/00/06 WAT%t i,5NO SUPPLIF',, f-0
0961 02/00/06 WRIGH7 COUNTY AUPITO
30961 02/00/913 HRIGHY COUNTY AUDITO
09961'� U'/00/96 WRIGN'i NVWNrPIN SECO
02/00/06 WRI6111 HENNEPIN .;FCU
^90. 02/00/06 Y.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO
'fl-0(QA1- CHCCKINN'
I
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C
26
*FY* 112.50
220
EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/SNO 2.0.96
100
FIRE ALARM MTC AGRM/F 134.18
207
EQUIP REP PARTS/STREET 53.85
207
EQUIP REP PARTS/SNOW I 16.66
207
SUPPLIES/STREET DEPT 3.31
73.82
*C
880
*FY* 350.11
634
SUPPLIES/STREETS 192.74
624
GARBAGE CONTRACT/J 10,180.23
524
SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON 666.90
10,057.13
*C
409
LIGHT BULBS/CITY HALL 202.42
409
LIGHTS/STREETG ?35.34
517.76
�(
G10
WATL•R MkN RS/WAYcR 1.154.00
210
GMERIFF'f, CONTRACT :'5,234.17
219
ADO'L LANDGILL CHtifi 7.89.9.,00
32.930.07
at
01'i
ALARM MTC SY3/D[--0 RI:G 10.13
075
ALARM MIC GVC/PARK.' 15.00
3!). 10
10r
224
MONTHLY CONTRACT PVMT G25.00
TOTAL 111.013.00
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
�n2/08/96 14:00:-30
ARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
39964 02/07/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
39965 02/08/96 AMERICAN PLANNING AS
3-99,66 02/08/96 ANDERSON/GARY
39967 02/08/96 BUFFALO CLINIC
39960 02/08/96 COPY DUPLC•ATING PROD
39969 02/08/96 D & K REFUSE RECYCLI
39970 02/08/96 DAVIS WATER EQUIPMEN
39971 02/08/96 DOWNTOWN STANDARD
39972 02/08/96 DUERR'$ WATER CARE S
39973 02/09/96 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I
.,9974 02/08/96 FLEXIBLE TOOL COMPAN
39975 02/08/96 FOSTER-FRAN2EN-CARLS
9,0976 021/08/06 G & K SERVICES
19970 02/08/96 G & K SERVICES
39976 02/00/96 G & K SERVICES
39576 02/08/08 0 & k SERVICES
3978 02/00/96 G 4 K SERVICES
39916 02%08/86 G & K OCRVICEG
39076 02/08/96 G & K CERVICES
39976 02/00/98 G R K SERVICES
99976 02/08/06 G A K SERVICES
30977 02/00/96 GARTNER'G OFFICE PRO
39970 02/00/90 k0ROPCHAK/0LIVE
39070 02/00/06 L "N" R OEkVXf-$ - L
39900 02/00/90 MAUI FOODS
00000 02/00/96 MAUO FOODS
9'1900 09./00/96 MAU5 FOODO
39000 62/00/06 MAUS FOOD£ -
39300 02/00/90 MAO" 80003
c
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
118 WATER/SNOW/REG 450.00
666 REG FEE/SEMINAR/JEFF 0 20.00
11 MILEAGE EXP/SEMINAR 53.76
1006 PHYSICAL/BETH GREEN 89.00
41 COPY MCH MTC AGRMT/LIB 60.80
611 RECYCLING CHGS/JAN 3,352.80
280 MTC SUPPLIES/MATER DE 165.94
378 GAS/FIRE DEPT 10.68
49 WATER SOFTNER/P WORKS 896..00
56 PROF SERVICES/MATER 0 103.00
59 REPAIRS/SEWER COLLECTI 61.34
61 INS PREM/BOILER REN 2,469.00
051
UNIFORM RENTAL
46.33
851
UNIFORM RENTAL
54.37
851
UNIFORM RENTAL
33.55
051
UNIFORM RENTAL
33.55
651
UNIFORM RENTAL
146.01
061
UNIFORM RENTAL
149.00
051
RAGS/SHOP & GARAGE
55.06
85.1
RUGS/MTC OF SHOP & OA
102.75
051'
RUGS/MTC OF SHOP & GAR
20.04
633.46
371
REPAIRS/OEWER COLLECTS
10.16
97
MILEAGF, REIMS)
28.04
103
DOOR LOCK REPAIR/C HAL
25.00
100
CLEANING SUP/CITY HALL
10.10
100
FOOD/MTG/OOWNTOWPJ RED
102.00
100
OJIPPLILG/PARKO
161.15
100
1UPPLIEG/P WORK:.'
20.20
100
SUPPLILGI CITY HAIL
6.00
9041.02
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
02/08/96 14:00::.30
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
39981 02/08/96 MINNEGASCO
39961 02/08/86 MINNEGASCO
38981 02/09/96 MINNEGASCO
3998:1 02/08/96 MINNEGASCO
39981 02/08/96 MINNEGASCO
39.881 02/08/96 MINNEGASCO
39901 02/06/8`6 MINNEGASCO
3998.1 02/08/96 *NXNNEGASC6
39982 02/08/96 MN ANIMAL CONTROL A5
39983 02/08/96 MN RURAL WATER ASSOC
3998.3 02/08/96 MN RURAL WATER ASSOC
30984 02/08/96 'MOORES EXCAVATING
39905 02/08/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE
39985 02/08/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE
19905 02/08/96 NORTHERN -STATES P($WE
39985 02/08/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE
39885 02/08/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE
39005 02/00/06 NORTHERN STATES POWE
39985 02/00/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE
39985 02/08/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE
39985 02/08/98 NORTHERN STATES POWE
)0988 02/08/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE
30906 02/08/96 O'NEILL/JEFF
39907 0?/00/86 OLOON Q SONS ELECTRI
39997 02/06/86 OLSON A SONS ELECTRI
19907 02/68/99 OLSON a CONS ELECTRI
30901 02/08/00 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
39000 02/00/96 PAUL A WALDRON A A08
90500 02/0,0/96 R & 0 GALES. INr.
39990 V/08/96 OPEC, MATEkIAL$. INC.
29901 02/00/06 WATERPRO GUPPLIEO CO
GENERAL, CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
772
UTILITIES
410,.94
772
UTILITIES
213.82
772,
UTILITIES
142.9'5
772
UTILITIES
86.34
772
UTILITIES
94.39CR
772
UTILITIES
395.26
772
UTILITIES
2,449.48
772
UTILITIES
70.89
3,675.29
117
MEMBERSHIP DUES/ANIMAL 25.00
128
REG FEE/SEMINAR/JOHN S 75.00
128
REG EEE/SEM/MATT/JOHN 150.00
225.00
258
$NOW HAULING &
REMOVA 510,.00
148
UTILITIES
3,_116.,.98
148
UTILITIES
338.92
148
UTILITIES
51066.05
148
UTILITIES
83.89
146
UTILITIES
983..21
148
UTILITIES
14..28
148
UTILITIES
655.47
148
UTILITIES
367.66
140
UTILITIES
935.49
148
UTILITIES
708.51
11,757.46
181
*FY*
36.35
1GO
REPAIRS/STREET
LITES/ 113.75
100
REPAIR3/P9MPS/PARK5
50,,92
160
REPAIRS/LIFT STAT/SEW 16.0.03
160
REPAIRS/SEWFR
COLLECT 109.00
442.100
030 MI9C OLD INIPLCTION 3.331.50
1005 CLOTHES/8LD INSPECTOR 342.00
100 CHL OISPHNOER/SNOW 8 020.09
670 WATER METERS/MATER 2.014.00
TOTAL 3 1 , 040 . AO
x
D
n
5
E.k,: F INANCIAL SYSTEM
f-42/
4 2/13/96 00:.21:.48
4'WAkRANT DATE VENDOR
GCNERAL CHECKING
39735 02/13/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
39992A03/13/96 BREIrBACH CONSTRUCTI
3990? 39/13/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
1DO93 02/13/96 CITY OF ELK RIVER
30994 0'2/13/96 LULLIOAN
19985 02/13/96 ENNIS CABINETS/JIM
399s:6 02/13/96 FERRELLGAS
1'9997 07/13/c)6 GLEASON PRINTING. IN
J90.98 02/13/96 GRANYTE ELFC.TRONTCS
n9099 02/13/90 HOGLUNO COACH LINES
40000 02/13/9U KADLEC EXCAVATING
40n01 02/'13/96 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
40002 02/13/93 I.ESS GAUS3. INC.
40008 0'2/13/96 MACOUEEN EQUIPMENT I
i. 0004 02/13/06 NATIONAL M1,13INEGS FU
40005 02/19'/00 NUPTH STAR TURt, INC,
40006 V/13/06 NORTHURN STATI,'q' POWF,
40009 02/1D/06 t�'WLItL/,I EFF
Is000002/13/96 ONE CALL CONCI,PTC. 1
40000 07/19/06 PULtII%'. h:E1liURCE GRLLI
.,0,'!^ 01/15/00 RTVtiR3ID1? ',a'
40, 10 02'/1J/OG u7V{ R1�IUE oil
'3UV11 U?/ 15/()G !;IMPL41N/'. YNINIA
111,; TIAA-GuM
Yt' 7F "
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
118 *FY* 106.00
926 EASTWOOD KNOLL CONS 6,376.87
118 HATER/SNOW/ATV REG 1,109.00
7,405.87
784 ROAD SEALANT/STREET 5.954.10
753 WATER SOFTNER/RENTAL 23.11
54 NEW COUNTER';,/LIBRAR 2,884:00
911 WATER DEPT SUPPLIES 8.52
048 BLD INSPEC FORMS 118.00
913 $UPPLIF.S/P&CLR RF.P/FI 376.06
4'03 HEARTLAND EXPRE05 P 5,175.157 '
070 CONST COST/C HILL, 7,053.08'
£0 REG F'EE/R'ICK.W 75.00
1007 COMPUTER CUP/CITY HALL 87.00
104 ULADE.ri/GNOW 6 ICE Ptat).1H
409 MAGA'I,YNF RACK/FTRC tar? 09,.95
1L1 FERTIlI2ER/PARK.. DE 3,0.75,.72
14N UTIIITIEC 32.00
151 MILEAGE RFIME
0 0 'iOPHhR Ot11, :1TATG GAL.L3 00.00
2G PNOF LECVIOF`./14FA 1'�Y,50
4n,i PUMP H031 / ;1 Rt '.T'_�
496 GAP/OTRLE'T LIM 1 , 017 . 1''
1,00 FIRE HAII CLEANING
U�3 I'FI.I-PHON,_ 111Aklo1 360.'
OS,I itL:..', '1l ;.ARC,1. 1.fi
DNC V34ANC_IAL ,YSTEM
02/13/96 00:21:43
'lAkr,'ANI DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
40012 02/13/96 TOS. TELECOM
40012 02/13/96 TDS TELECOM
40017 02/13/96 TDS TELECOM
40012 62/13/96 TOS TELECOM
4091? 02/13/86 TDS TELECOM
40012 02/13/96 TDS TELECOM
40012 0?/1'9/96 TDS TELECOM
40013 07/13/96 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY
40014 02/13/96 WILLIAM ANDRE-5
40015 0?/13/96 WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD
40015 01/13/96 WRICt1T COUNTY RECORD
GENE,RAL CHECKING
P141`
N
Diabursemont Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
953
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
50'.00
953
TELFPHONE
CHARGES
59,.74
959
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
Y00.50
953
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
51.03
953
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
59.74
953
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
839.80
953
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
134.95
?.050.3-3
409
LIGHT BULBS/CITY HALL
1d.:1G
90425
OWNTN RFOEVELOP CHCS
10.00
254
RECORDING
FEES/TAPPER
39.00
254
RECORDING
FEES/C CANOP 19,50
58.5'0
TOTAL 37.851.09
'A1
0
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
1/31/96
08`:.50E30
Disbursement
Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
C
LIQUOR CHECKING
185,81
01,/30/96
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800180
LIQUOR PURCHASE
2.230.48
18582
01/30/96
NATIONAL CHILD SAFET
80003,3
ADVERTISING
76.00
18.583
01/30/96
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
FREIGHT CHARGES
15.75
10583
01/30/96
JOHNSON BOOS WHOLESA
860022
WINE PURCHASE
685.87
701.62
xC
18584
01/30/96
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
WINE PURCHASE
120.93
18585
01/30/96
GRIGGS. COOPER & COM
800018
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1.407..71
18586
01/30/06
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
LIQUORPURCHASE
1:882.31
18586
01/36/46
QUALITY WINE & SPTRI
800040
WINE PURHCASE
6981.36
2.580.6,7
'*c
18,567
01'/30/96
PAUSTIS & SONS
800103
WINE PURHCASE
261.89
10587
0'1/90/66
PAUSTIS & SONS
860103
FREIGHT CHARGES
6:00
267.89
YC
18b88
01/30/90
LEHMANN FARMS
000190
FOOD FOR RESALE
281;90
16988
61/3'0/06
LEHMANN FARMS
800190
MIX FOR RESALE
117.50
379.40
4:
18508
0-1/90/0.6
GRIGGS, C60 -PER Q COM
000016
LIQUOR PURCHACE
2.351.07
10500
01/30/80
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
000012
WINE PURCHASE
786.67
10591
01/30/06
PHILLIPS WINE k SPIR
000180
WINE PURCHASE
606.10
18591
01/30/96
PHILLIPS WINE & SP_IR
800180
LIQUOR PURCHASE
2.727.77
10591
01/30/86
PHILLIPS .WINE & SPIR
000180
FREIGHT CHARGES
47..05
3.406.72
sC
10592
0//30106
TOG TELECOM.-
000186
TFLEPHONE CHARGES
1.5.6.94
iGbO2
01/30/06
TBS TELECOM
000,196
ASVURTISING
61.20
21-3.74
#t
10593
01/30/90
JOHNi3-14 OROS WHOLF:JA
000022
FREIGHT CHARGLS
38.60
ioro 3
01/J0/06
JOHNOON ORO$ WHOLESA
000022
LIOUi')R PURCHASE
1•.1110.06
10'03
01/30/98
JOHN90N OROO WHOLEGA
800012
WINF.'' PURHCA9F,
!131. 03
1,741.39
Ai
154(44
01/90/90
FTROT NAT DANK OF MO
000014
C D PURCHASI'
100.000.00
10595
01/30/06
PAUSTIS E GONG
000103
FREIGHT CHA6GES
20.00
10 (10501/30/!36
PAU`JI9 F) GON1 3
000103
WINO PURCHASG
1,143.79
1,171.75
4�
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
1/31/98 08:50130 Disbursement Journal
ARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C
LTOUOR CHECKING
18596 01/30/96 JOHNSON BROSWHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 1,670.22
18596 01/30/96 JOHNSON BROS WHOLF.SA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 918.47
13558 01/30/96 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 FREIGHT CHARGES 72.50
2. 261.19 •C
18597 01/30/96 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,595.27
18598 0113.0/96 PHILLIPS' WINE & $PIR 800180 LIQUOR PURCHASE 818.30
1.6588 01/30/96_ PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 FREIGHT CHARGES 9.00
827.30 ►C
LIQUOR CHECKING TOTAL 122, 175.68
14
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/01/96
15:41:12
Disbursement
Journal
ARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
C
LIQUOR CHECKING
IOS99
02/02/96
BERN'ICK''S PEPSI COLA
800001
POP PURCHASE
224.40
18600
02/02/96
CITY OF MONTICELLO
800003
95 SEWER/MATER BILL
18.76
18601
02/02/96
DAY DISTRIBUTING COM
80004'0
BEER PURCHASE
561.20
18602
02/02/96
DICK WHOLESALE CO.,
800011
BEER PURCHASE
1.,993.20
18602
02/02/96
DICK WHOLESALE CO.,
800011
LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES
21.83
18602
02/02/96
DICK WHOLESALE CO.,
800611
PAPER BAGS/SUPPLIES
255.07
2,270.10
4G
18603
02/02/9$
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
WINE PURCHASE
981.29
18603
02/02/96
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
NON ALCOHOL -IC BEER
30.50
1,020.79
'rf
10604
02/02/96
ECONOMICS PRESS INC
800186
"BITS & PIECES" RENEWA
24.02
18605
02/02/96
FLAHERTY'S HAPPY' TYM
800091
MIR FOR RESALE
27.00
18606
02/02/96
G & K SERVICE
800128
RUG MATS/MTC OF BLD
101.60
10007
02/02/96
('iLASS'HUT/THE
800059
REP FRONT DOOR/OLD
MTC 42.00
10600
02/02/96
GRIGGS, COOPER & COM
800010
LI@IUOR PURCHASE
5,282.61
19809
02/02/96
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1
800019
BEER PURCHASE
10.581.40
10600
02/02/86
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I
800019
MUGS FOR REALE
91.00
10, 632•.40
+C
18610
02/02/96
HOME JUICE
80013G
JUICE FOR RESALE
33.00
19Ull
02/02/96
JOHNGON OROG WHOLCOA
000022
PREIGHT CHARGES
24.00
IO01
0?/02/96
JOHNSON AROS WHOLV9A
000022
WINE PURCHASE
744.91
768.91
0l
10(,12
02/02/06
NEW PRODUCTS SALES &
000152
MUGS FOR RESALE
516.00
1001)
02/112/96
PHii LIPS WINE & 1PIR
600100
PRF.II,HT CHARGED
?.7.'liU
10613
02/02/50
PHILLIPS WINE 6 SPIR
000100
LIQUOR PURCHACE
02:1.35
10613
02/02/9U
PHILLIPS WINL & !`PIR
000100
WYNL PURCHADG
1,O01.05
1.011.90
1OU14
02/02/90
RCW'D ICE COMPANY
000049
Ere f6R REGALE
1 13 .36
10615
U?/(0/')f,
f•ERVICE SALE, (ORPOk
000042
141CC SUPPLIES
25.49
10b1G
0?/0',VOG
';T. C1.O1JO *:37A1112ANT
000045
MIX FON RE -"Alf."
33.90
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
1 � 2/01/96 15:411:1,2 Disbursement Journal
`.ARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C
I
R
SC
*C
LIQUOR CHECKING
18617
02/02/96
THE WATSON CO., INC.
800202
CIGS/CIGARS FOR RESAL
180.69
18617
02/02/96
THE WATSON CO,., INC.
800202
LIQUOR STORE SUPPLLIES
66.42
247.11
18618
02/02/96
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
8000,48
NONALCOHOLIC BEER
164.05
18610
02/02/86
THORPE OISTkIBITING
800048
BEER PURCHASE
28,42.7.60
28,591.65
18619
02/02/96
TWIN CITIES FLAG SOU
800049
FLAG REPAIR
AS.00
18620
02/02/96
U 9 LINK
800195
TELEPHONE CHARGES
15.40
18621
07/02/96
VIKING COCA-COLA BOT
800051
POP PURCHASE
346.35
LIQUOR CHECKING
TOTAL
52,854.01
I
R
SC
*C
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
/08/96
14:01:37
Disbursement Journal
ARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
CLA
LIQUOR CHECKING
1862,2
02/08/913
CONSOLIDATED COMM DI
800163
ADVERTISING
47.50
18623
0208/96
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT
800009
BEER PURCHASE
16.440.80
18620
02/08/96
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT
800009
NON ALCOHOLIC BEER
158.60
16,599.40
*CH1
18624
02/08/96
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
MINE PURCHASE
293.-34
18625
02/08/96
GRIGGS., COOPER & COM
800018
LIQUOR PURCHASE
194.74
18626
02/08/96
LIEFERT TRUCKING
800025
FREIGHT CHARGES
242.52
186?7
02/08/96
MINNEGASCO
800160
UTILITIES
213.82
18028
02/08/96
MONTICELLO TIMES
800032
ADVERTISING
145.99
10629
02/08/96
NORTHERN STATES POWE
800035
UTILITIES
826.94
10630
02/08/96
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800190
LIQUOR PURCHASE
783.98
18630
02/08/90
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800100
FREIGHT CHARGES
20.25
10630
02/00/80
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800100
WINE PURCHASE
466.00
(
►18631
1,270.23
*CH,
02/09/96
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
000040
NINE CREDIT
13.24CR
10GD1
02/06/96
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1,550.00
1,543.86
*CH;
10632
02/00/90
VOSS FICCTRIC SUPPLY
0000?9
LIGHT BULBS
30.03
LIOVOR CHECKING
TOTAL
21,407.89
N