Loading...
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