Loading...
City Council Minutes 03-28-1983MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL March 28, 1983 - 7:30 P. M. Members Present: Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell. Members Absent: Mayor Arve Grimsmo. 2. Approval of the Minutes. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on March 14, 1983 as presented. 3. Citizens Comments. Attorney, Jim Metcalf, representing Doctor and Mrs. Brion who are in the process of purchasing the Riverview Medical Clinic from Dr. Bentzin noted to the Council members that he has come across a legal description problem associated with the River- view Clinic. Somewhere in the past, the Monticello Development Corporation when it was acquiring land for the City parking lots, the Development Corporation transferred the northeasterly 32 feet by 100 feet parcel of Lot 12 to the City of Monticello for the parking lot. The 32 by 100 foot piece of Lot 12 is presently situated on the property where the present Riverview Clinic is located and Mr. Metcalf thinks the parcel of land was supposed to be on Lot 13 (Behind Johnson's Department Store warehouse). Mr. Metcalf noted that the parcel that has been recorded to be transferred to the City as part of Lot 12 could not be correct since the Medical Clinic sits on a portion of this parcel today. Mr. Metcalf requested that if the City after verifying this does not have any rights to this portion of Lot 12, he requested that the City Administrator and the Mayor be allowed to execute a quit claim deed releasing its interest in this parcel. A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to authorize the City Administrator and the Mayor to verify with the City Attorney Mr. Metcalf's concerns relating to the parcel in Lot 12 and to execute a quit claim deed if it is determined that the City does not have any interest in this parcel. - 1 - MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL March 28, 1983 - 7:30 P. M. Members Present: Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell. Members Absent: Mayor Arve Grimsmo. 2. Approval of the Minutes. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on March 14, 1983 as presented. 3. Citizens Comments. Attorney, Jim Metcalf, representing Doctor and Mrs. Brion who are in the process of purchasing the Riverview Medical Clinic from Dr. Bentzin noted to the Council members that he has come across a legal description problem associated with the River- view Clinic. Somewhere in the past, the Monticello Development Corporation when it was acquiring land for the City parking lots, the Development Corporation transferred the northeasterly 32 feet by 100 feet parcel of Lot 12 to the City of Monticello for the parking lot. The 32 by 100 foot piece of Lot 12 is presently situated on the property where the present Riverview Clinic is located and Mr. Metcalf thinks the parcel of land was supposed to be on Lot 13 (Behind Johnson's Department Store warehouse). Mr. Metcalf noted that the parcel that has been recorded to be transferred to the City as part of Lot 12 could not be correct since the Medical Clinic sits on a portion of this parcel today. Mr. Metcalf requested that if the City after verifying this does not have any rights to this portion of Lot 12, he requested that the City Administrator and the Mayor be allowed to execute a quit claim deed releasing its interest in this parcel. A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to authorize the City Administrator and the Mayor to verify with the City Attorney Mr. Metcalf's concerns relating to the parcel in Lot 12 and to execute a quit claim deed if it is determined that the City does not have any interest in this parcel. - 1 - Council Minutes - 3/28/83 4. Consideration of Change Order 90 on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project. John Simola, Public Works Director, noted that the laboratory centrifuge previously specified and ordered through field modification #57in October of 1981 has been discontinued and the contractor can no longer get this particular lab equip- ment. As a result, a new centrifuge would cost $517 more resulting in a change order. Concerns were expressed by Council member Blonigen in that he felt the contractor should be responsible for the difference in price since it was his obligation to supply the original centrifuge and it should not be the City's problem if it is no longer available. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell to approve change order #90 with the Paul A. Laurence Company for a new centrifuge for the Wastewater Treatment Plant lab for an additional amount of $517.00. Voting in favor were Fair, Maxwell and Maus. Opposed was Blonigen. 1 5. Consideration of a Petition to Re -assess Certain Properties. At the December 12th, 1982 meeting, a petition was presented by a number of property owners who were affected by the assessments of the 1978 and 1979 projects. At that meeting, the entire matter was tabled to allow the City staff to assemble additional information that could be utilized in making a decision as to whether the property could be re- assessed for a longer period of time. Since that time, the City staff has met with representatives from Springsted, Inc., the City's bonding consultant, to look at various alternatives regarding the possibility of extending the length of assessment term. Although the petition originally asked for re -assessment to 15 or 20 years on the 78, 79, 80 and 81 projects, only the 1978 project was originally assessed over 5 years with the rest of the projects already being assessed over 10 years. Because of this, Springsted, Inc. along with the City Staff prepared some information regarding the possible re- assessment of the 78 project from a 5 to a 10 year term. - 2 - 1 I Council Minutes - 3/28/83 The basic proposal arrived at through the bonding consultants and the City Staff would be to take the original principal amount of the 78 project assessment and set it up on a 10 year assessment roll dating from the original date with the same interest rate of 6=2%. It was recommended that then the property owner be required to pay the amounts that would have been due the first 4 years under the new 10 year assessment roll calculations and then the City could extend the remain- ing balance over the next 6 years. It was also noted that it was the City Staff's recommendation that it be essential that all delinquencies based upon the new 10 year assessment be paid in full before the City consider adjusting the length of the remaining assessments. Simply changing the assessment roll, but allowing them to remain delinquent provides absolutely no advantage to the City with respect to our cash flow and our own debt retirement. At this time, the information was only being given to the Council for their review and that this item would be dis- cussed at the next Council meeting with the affected property owners in attendance on April 11, 1983. 6. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Bonds for the Purpose of Making Public Improvements to Meadow Oak Subdivision. Mr. Jerry Schannon of Springsted, Inc. reviewed with the Council his recommendations for the issuance of $1,150,000 general obligation improvement bonds to finance the improve- ments to Meadow Oak Subdivision. The amount of the bond issue includes contingencies, indirect costs, construction costs, capitalized interest, etc. Mr. Schannon presented alternatives for a 10 year bond issue and a 12 year bond issue and recommended that the City consider selling the bonds over a 12 year period of time to allow for some expected delays in assessment payments due to some of the costs being assessed over property that may not be developed over the next few years. On March 14, 1983 Council meeting, the City awarded a con- tract for the improvements known as 82-2 Improvement Pro- ject for Meadow Oak Subdivision in the amount of approxi- mately $731,000.00. In addition, the City has agreed to do additional work in the Meadow Oak Subdivision originally estimated at approximately $76,000.00 which has now in- creased to approximately $108,500.00 due to negotiations with the contractor.. The anticipated bond sale should have sufficient funds to cover this change order and other change orders if they occur. As part of the original improvements - 3 - Council Minutes - 3/28/83 to the Meadow Oak Subdivision, the developers of the project had originally estimated to complete approximately 28% of the improvements to Meadow Oak themselves financed internally but it has been noted that the developers plan to schedule their improvements depending on sales of their property which could result in their share of the project cost being less than 28% initially. After reviewing the recommendations of the bonding consultant, a motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair and unanimous- ly carried to adopt a resolution authorizing the sale of bonds for $1,150,000 to be used to finance the 1982-2 Improvement Project to the Meadow Oak Subdivision per the recommended 12 year iortization schedule. (See Resolution 1983-#7f) . 7. Consideration of Appointments to an Ad Hoc Committee to Negoitate the Transfer of the Remainder of Block 17, Original Plat, from the School to the City. Several months ago, the City Administrator was instructed to contact the school district concerning the possible transfer of the remainder of the land in Block 17 adjacent to the public library from the school district to the City of Monticello. This parcel of land was originally acquired by the school district from the Bondhus family and restrictive covenants placed on the land indicate that the property can be used only for park and playground purposes by the school. It was noted that the school at the present time is not maintain- ing or upgrading the property since Oakwood School is no longer across the street and the City Administrator noted that in conversations with the School Superintendent, a recommendation was made that a joint committee be established to negotiate the transfer from the school to the City. Tentative plans for the property if the City should acquire it would be to develop the property into a park area possibly with some matching State grant funds. As a result, it was the consensus of the Council to appoint Council Member,Fran Fair,and City Administrator, Tom Eidem, to work with Shelly Johnson, School Superintendent, and one other school board member to negotiate the possible transfer of the land from the school district to the City. It was noted by Council Member, Ken Maus, that when the school acquired the land, restrictions were placed upon it whereby the school could not transfer the property or use it for any other purpose other than playground or park and felt that the City would not want to pay much for the property to acquire. Council Minutes - 3/28/83 In addition, Council Member,Dan Blonigen, was basically against City ownership of the property if it would cost the City any money to acquire the property from the school. 8. Consideration of Changing the Date of the Second Meetinq in May. The second meeting in May is currently scheduled for Monday, May 23rd, which is also the night that has been selected by the Business & Industry Committee to hold its annual fund raising banquet. It was the consensus of the Council that the Council meeting scheduled for May 23rd would be changed to a different date if a meeting was necessary but at the present time no date had been scheduled. 9. Consideration of Change Order #1 on the 82-2 Improvement Project and Additional Expense Items Relating to Railroad Crossings As part of the improvement project to Meadow Oak Subdivision, Mr. Jim Boyle requested that a number of the hydrants along the water main from Oakwood Industrial Park to County Road 118 be eliminated from the project so that the land could continue to be used for farming purposes. The change order has been pre- pared eliminating 10 hydrants along with related valves and piping for a deduct of $24,752.50 from the original contract price. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell and unanimously carried to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of a deduct of $24,752.50 on the 1982-2 Improvement Project with Richard Knutson, Inc. John Simola, Public Works Director, informed the Council that as part of the construction project, the City will be open cutting the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to provide sewer and water services to Meadow Oak Subdivision. At the time the bids were advertised for the improvements, the City did not know the exact cost from Burlington Northern to be allowed to open cut the railroad and as a result,these items were eliminated from the bidding process and would be paid by the City. The City has now been informed that the cost for these improvements would be $4,450.00 as a deposit to be made to Burlington Northern Railroad for restoration of the railroad tracks. 10. Approval of the Bills._ A motion was made by Blonigen,1 seconded by Fair and unani- mously carried to approve the bills for the month of March as presented and also to include the approval for $4,450.00 required by Burlington Northern Railroad as a deposit for open cutting their railroad tracks. - 5 - Council Minutes - 3/28/83 11. Consideration of Resolution to EPA on Wastewater Treatment Plant Grant Amendment Request by Engineer. Consulting Engineer, John Badalich, requested that the City Council consider adopting a resolution seeking a public hearing on the engineer's request for additional engineering fees re- lated to the Step II portion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Grant. The consulting engineer had previously under Step II prepared plans and specifications for the Wastewater Treatment Plant construction project and as a result, incurred additional costs relating to the engineering portion. The proper procedure at that time was for the engineer to request a grant amendment to allow for funding of the additional engineering fees but due to time constraints, the engineer proceeddd with the plans and specs prior to getting a grant amendment. Currently, the Region V Office of the EPA in Chicago, has indicated that they would not consider amending the engineering fees as part of a grant amendment, but the City Engineer feels that the EPA regulations do allow for deviations and requested a resolution from the City asking the EPA to hold a hearing to hear the engineer's side of his request. The resolution would basically say that the City did not deliberately violate any EPA regu- lations or laws and would recommend that the EPA consider the amendment deviation for the additional engineering fees associated with the preparing of plans and ecs under Step II. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blon n and unanimously carried to authorize the City Administrator review the pro- posed resolution with the City Attorney, Gary Pringle,for content and if acceptable, to authorize the Mayor to sign the resolution supporting the engineer's request for additional engineering fees. (See Resolution 1983 - #70A). Meeting Adjourned. Rick Wolfsteller Assistant Administrator - 6 -