Loading...
City Council Minutes 06-13-1983MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MON'TICELLO CITY COUNCIL June 13, 1983 - 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Jack Maxwell and Ken Maus. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes. A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on May 24th, 1983, as presented. 4. Consideration of a Request for Reimbursement by Mr. Ed Reilly. Mr. Ed Reilly, who resides at 612 East River Street, was again present at the Council Meeting to request reimbursement from the City for cost incurred in trying to locate his sewer ser- vice stub at his home. The City Water and Sewer Department personnel marked a location along the boulevard by his home where they thought the sewer stub should be located and Mr. Reilly's contractor, Schluender Plumbing, excavated this location but could not find the sewer pipe. The City then rechecked the sewer and water maps and found an error and restaked at a new location within 211 to 3 feet of the actual sewer line pipe. Although the second staking was within a few feet of the actual location, Schluender Plumbing still was unable to find the service and began digging a trench near the house in an effort to find the sewer pipe to deter- mine its actual location. Mr. Reilly again requested that the City reimburse him for all costs associated with digging the first hole which was an error and which also damaged two elm trees which will probably die in the near future. He requested that the City remove the existing trees and pay for the restoration of the first hole and also pay for the restoration of the third excavation near the house that would not have been necessary had the second staking been accurate in his opinion. Since the last meeting, which Mr. Reilly attended, the City Staff has been checking with other communities and found that most communities provide as much help as possible in locating the service for the property owner, but do not take responsi- bility should there be an error in the maps or staking - 1 - Council Minutes - 6/13/83 on the property. It was the opinion of the City Staff that the City should not be held liable should an error occur. Questions were also raised by the City personnel regarding how the contractor began digging to locate the line. It was noted by the Public Works Director that normally a digger will start excavating across the line when trying to locate a service stub to compensate for any margin of error rather than digging parallel to the line as Mr. Reilly's contractor did. By digging parallel, if the line would be a few feet in one direction or another, it would be very difficult to find, which is not the accepted practice. After considerable discussion by the Council on the claim presented by Mr. Reilly, it was suggested that although the City did not intend to assume complete liability for its help in trying to locate the services, it appeared that the first marking by City personnel was completely in error and it was the c oncensus of the Council that possibly some type of reimbursement should be made to cover the excavation and restoration costs for the first hole dug and also for the removal of the trees that were damaged during the digging. As a result, a motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus to approve a reimbursement to Mr. Ed Reilly for a portion of his excavating and restoration costs as follows: 1. Reimbursement in the amount of $300 to cover the excavating time and restoration for the first hole. 2. City crews will remove the two damaged elm trees by cutting them down and removing the brush and stumps. 3. The City will provide two replacement trees for Mr. Reilly to replant on the boulevard. Voting in favor were Grimsmo, Maus, Fair, and Maxwell. Opposed was Blonigen. Currently, City Ordinances indicate that it is the homeowners responsibility for any repairs to both the sewer and water service stubs from the street mains to the property line. A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to direct the City Administrator to place on a future agenda a possible ordinance amendment for review and discussion that would make the City liable for all repairs and maintenance of the sewer lines from the street mains to the property line instead of the owner's responsibility. - 2 - Council Minutes - 6/13/83 5. Consideration and Review of Revised Proposal to Provide Lighting on the Mississippi River Bridge. At the previous Council Meeting, a representative from MN/DOT indicated that if the City would not participate in the cost of new lighting on Hwy 25 bridge, the project by the State would bescrapped. Since that meeting, the Public Works Director researched the lighting on the bridge further and obtained an estimate for the repair of the existing system. In researching the matter, the Public Works Direc- tor found that since 1929, the City of Monticello has had an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transporta- tion to maintain the bridge lights as necessary and to pay all power and maintenance cost. Mr. Milton Olson of Olson Electric and the Public Works Director examined the old lighting system on the bridge and felt that improvements could be made to the lighting system at a relatively low cost to get the system into operation without replacing the entire system as the State had proposed. It was estimated that the cost to completely repair the system would be less than $2,000 but the Council Members were still concerned over spending this type of funds to just repair the lighting on a bridge that may be replaced in the next 4 to 5 years. Public Works Director, John Simola, noted that for approxi- mately $336.00, Olson Electric felt they could do all the necessary repairs and get the system in operation. Although out of the existing seven lights, possibly only 4 or 5 would be working but after a more thorough review, a complete estimate could be presented to fix the remainder of the lights. As a result, a motion was made by Maus, seconded by Maxwell and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to expend $336 to have Olson Electric charge up the system and do minor repairs to see how many of the lights could be gotten to work for this amount of money. A firm estimate for the complete repair will be presented in the future. 6. Consideration of a Salary Request for Albert Meyer in the Position of Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent. At the previous Council Meeting, Mr. Albert Meyer was pro- moted to the position of Wastewater Treatment Plant Superin- tendent to fill the position of Mr. Jim Miller who recently resigned. Mr. Meyer and the City Administrator have since met to set a salary for the new position which has been recommended at $22,000 annually by the City Administrator. - 3 - Council Minutes - 6/13/83 Mr. Meyer came before the Council to request that the salary be set at the same salary the former superintendent was re- ceiving, $22,860.00 annually. A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair and unani- mously carried to set the Wastewater Treatment Plant Super- intendent's salary at the City Administrator's recommended base of $22,000 annually and noted that the position and the salary would be again reviewed at annual salary negotiation time within six months for a possible increase if Mr. Meyer is doing a suitable job. 7. Consideration of an Appeal for the Granting of a Variance - Mr. Hal Wehmann. Mr. Hal Wehmann, who has built four condominiums/apartment units on Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Block 1, Holker's Hillside Terrace, requested a variance to develop the balance of the property in that block with three additional four unit condominiums and one duplex unit. Mr. Wehmann has indicated plans to acquire a small triangular portion of the property located within the block from Mr. Roy Lauring in an effort to square off the property into one ownership. Previously, when Mr. Wehmann built the first four units on Lots 3 through 6, he had been granted variances from the minimum lot size requirements for each of the four buildings amounting to approximately 611% for each building. The pro- posal as submitted for the three 4 -unit condominiums and one duplex would require a total land area of 57,000 square feet and the proposed property including the triangular portion Mr. Wehmann plans to obtain totals only 54,750 square feet or approximately 4% short. When previous variances were granted for the first four apartment buildings, the Planning Commission indicated that before Mr. Wehmann developed the balance of the property, he would have to address how the situation of square footage shortages would be resolved on the remaining four lots of Block 1. Mr. Wehmann had previously indicated that his in- tentions were to only build a total of seven 4 -unit build- ings and should not have a problem in meeting the square footage requirements for the entire block. Setback variances were also requested for two of the pro- posed buildings to allow for a 20 foot setback on one build- ing instead of 30 and a setback of 10 on the duplex where 30 feet is normally required. Council Minutes - 6/13/83 Mr. Wehmann now feels that the entire block could be developed better if he could acquire the parcel of land from Mr. Lauring, but the additional cost of acquiring this parcel of land to square of the block plus the increased cost for the balance of the land has made it unfeasible to only build three more four unit buildings and as a result, Mr. Wehmann requested the variance to allow for an additional duplex building to be situated on the property. In reviewing the entire block development, the seven 4 -unit buildings and the one duplex would have a square footage requirement of 119,000 square feet according to the City ordinances whereas, the property only contains 109,072 square feet. This would result in a shortage of approximately 812% to meet City ordinances. The basic concensus of the Planning Commission was that the development was very aesthetically pleasing and well thought out but the committee members expressed concerns over the entire development not meeting the minimum square footage requirements as originally planned. As a result, they felt they had no choice but to deny the request and this is the reason the City Council was hearing the appeal by the develop- er. It was noted by the developer that if all of the 14 units he is proposing were built in one building, he would have no problem meeting the City ordinances but he preferred to stay with his existing design by building only 4 -units per building which he thought was much more pleasing to the neighborhood. Although the Council felt the Planning Commission decision to deny the request was legitimate and the Planning Commission did abide by the City ordinances, a motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve the variance request to allow for the additional three 4 -unit buildings and one duplex building per the plan submitted contingent upon the developer acquiring the triangular portion of the property from Mr. Lauring and also to approve the setback variance of 20 feet on one building and 10 feet on the duplex. It was noted by the Council that the develop- er has shown that his four unit buildings could be located on the property without causing any problems and that the project as a whole was much more appealing to the City rather than requiring the developer to meet the ordinance and place all of the units in one large structure. - 5 - Council Minutes -6/13/83 8. Consideration of an Appeal for the Granting of a variance -_ Applicant - Country Kitchen. This item was continued until the next meeting at the request of the applicant. 9. Consideration of the 1982 Audit Report. Mr. Kim LilAhauge, of Gruys Johnson and Associates, the City's auditing firm, was present at the Council Meeting to review with the Council the 1982 Audit Report that was recently completed. Mr. Lillehaugs noted a few items that were in the management letter to the Council as follows: 1. Extra care should be taken by the Liquor Store personnel when making deposits to minimize the errors that have occurred in the past on the deposits. 2. Recommended that the finance director take at least one week vacation per year and that someone assume his responsibilities rather than letting the work accumulate until he returns. 3. Recommended that in preparing annual budgets, the City Staff not officially adopt budgets for all our debt service funds but rather call them financial projections. The reason for this was that if they are called budgets, they must be included in the annual audit report showing actual comparisons of expenditures to budgeted amounts whereas, if they are labeled financial projections, this would cut down approximately 15 pages from the report for 1984. After further review of the audit, a motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus and unanimously carried to accept the audit report as presented from Gruys Johnson and Associates. 10. Consideration of the Annual Renewal of Intoxicating Liquor and Beer Licenses. A motion was made by Maus and seconded by Blonigen and unani- mously carried to approve the following licenses for renewal effective July 1, 1983 with no increase in the fees. - 6 - Council Minutes —6/13/83 1. Intoxicating Liquor License, on -sale (Fee $3,000.00) A) Monticello Liquor, Inc. B) Silver Fox Motel. C) Wayside Inn. D) Joyner's Lanes. 2. Intoxicating, On -sale - Sunday (Fee $100) A) Monticello Liquor, Inc. B) Silver Fox Motel. C) Wayside Inn. D) Joyner's Lanes. 3. Non -intoxicating Malt Liquor, On -sale (Fee $220.00) A) Monticello Rod and Gun Club. B) Pizza Factory. C) Monticello Country Club. D) Friend's Cafe. 4. Non -intoxicating Malt Liquor, Off -sale (Fee $33.00) A) Monticello Liquor, Inc. B) Ernie's Bait Shop. C) Wayne's Red Owl. D) Maus Foods. E) River Terrace Trailer Park Store. F) Tom Thumb Superette. G) Wayside Inn. H) Holiday Station. 5. Set-up License (Fee $220.00) A) Monticello Country Club. B) Monticello Rod and Gun Club. 6. Club Liquor License - (Fee $220.00) A) American Legion Club. B) VFW Club. 11. Consideration of Bids on Oakwood Drive Overlay. Bids for overlaying Oakwood Drive (Gould Brothers Chev. Road) were received on Friday, June 10, 1983 at 2:00 P.M. As part - 7 - Council Minutes - 6/13/83 of the bids, an alternate was requested for 600 feet of a fabric overlay on a section of the road that could be used as a test area. The following are the tabulations of the bids received. Omann Const. Buffalo Bitum. Aero Asphalt Base Bid $11,332.50 Alternate (600 feet of fabric overlay) $ 2,925.00 $11,182.00 $ 2,325.00 $12,142.00 $ 3,900.00 Public Works Director, John Simola, had recommended that the Council consider having two areas along Oakwood Drive to service test areas for this new fabric overlay, one near the entrance to the Commuter Parking Lot and another area after the parking lot to better determine how the fabric would work in stopping cracks from developing. Because the cost for the fabric overlay is quite high in comparison to the total project cost, a motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen and unanimously carried to accept the low bid from Buffalo Bituminous for the blacktop- ing in the amount of $11,182.00 and to also accept the bid in the amount of $2,325.00 for the 600 feet of fabric overlay only. 12. Consideration of a Proposal to Extend the Wastewater Treat - Trent Plant Grant Budget Period. The grant budget period for the Wastewater Treatment Plant project expires July 31, 1983 which means that any monies allowed for by the EPA/PCA relating to the plant cannot be used after that date. Because a contract claim and sub- sequent law suits have been filed against the City by the contractor which have not yet been settled, it was the recommendation of the City Engineer and the Public Works Director,that the City request that the grant budget period be extended for another 12 months to July 31, 1984. In addition to the law suit, the City is attempting to final out the project and are having some problems with liens against the project from suppliers of electrical equipment who have not yet been paid by one of the subcontractors. If the City withholds monies from the general contractor, Paul A. Laurence Company, for these liens beyond July 31st, 1983, the City would have to make full payment themselves if the grant budget period is not extended by the EPA/PCA. As a result, a motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to approve a request for a Step III grant amendment that would extend the grant budget period for an additional to July 31st, 1984. Council Minutes - 6/13/83 13. Eye Safety Program. As part of an ongoing safety program for the City of Monticello employees, it was recommended by the Public Warks Director that the simplest, most economical and most effective form of eye safety would be to require mandatory wearing of industrial strength safety glasses and frames in all areas where hazards to the eye are known or thought to exist. The cost of implementing such a program for approximately 20 employees in the Public Works Department would be about $232 initially. To provide eye glasses that would meet the rigid safety standards would cost $8.90 for non-prescription glasses including side shields and $16.90 for prescription glasses including side shields. The Public Works Director recommended that the City provide these safety glasses for the employees with actual prescriptions being provided by the employee, if necessary. After discussing the merits of the program, a motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair to approve the purchase of safety eye glasses for city employees at a cost of $8.90 for non- prescription glasses and $16.90 for prescription glasses provided the Public Works Department makes it mandatory for each employee to wear such glasses. Voting in favor were Fair, Grimsmo, Maus and Maxwell. Opposed was Blonigen. 14. Consideration of Awarding Final Payment on the Construction of the 4th Street Warming House. Currently, the City of Monticello is withholding $200 from Jay Miller Construction on the 4th Street Warming House addition. The work has recently been completed satisfac- torily to the City and it was recommended that final payment be processed. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus and unanimously carried to approve final payment to Jay Miller Construction in the amount of $200 on the 4th Street Warming House project. 15. Consideration of Sealcoating Project for 1983. As part of the comprehensive street maintenance program, the City has budgeted $27,800 for seal coating streets in 1983. The Public Works Director requested approval to prepare plans and specifications and to advertise for bids to be returned June 27th, 1983. - 9 - Council Minutes - 6/13/83 A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Maxwell and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to prepare plans and specifications and to advertise for bids for seal coating project for 1983. 16. Consideration of Resolution Regulating Lobbying by Cable Communications Company. Recently, the SherburneAgright County Cable Communication's Commission, of which Monticello is a+member, has recommended that all of the communities involved in the commission adopt a resolution requiring any cable T.V. companies who are interested in providing service,.to meet and discuss their proposals only with the cable commission members at a meeting rather than lobbying individually with individual members or Cities. It was felt that if all communities adhered to this policy, problems would not arise in the future with individual companies trying to persuade individual members or com- munities on their aspects of their company. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution setting a policy on cable television lobbying with the Sherburne/Wright County Cable Communication Commission only. (See Resolution #1983 #72) . 17. Consideration of Protective Covenants - Oakwood Block. A list of protective covenants has been prepared and agreed to by Security Federal Savings & Loan and the City of Monti- cello regarding Security Federal's purchase of the Oakwood Block from the City. The purpose of the covenants is to regulate the type of development that may occur on the Oakwood Block and outlines some of the concerns and requirements presented by the City on future developments. Basically, the protective covenants are as follows: 1. No vehicular ingress or egress shall be developed or allowed on Block 32 that abuts Pine Street or Walnut Street. - 10 - Council Minutes - 6/13/83 2. All proposed development shall be reviewed by a 3 member architectural review board consisting of one member selected by the developer, one member selected by the City of Monticello, and a third member selected by the other two members. This board shall review the proposed development plans in regard to design, traffic flow, intensity of use, and landscaping, etc. 3. No sale or subdivision of a lot may occur until a development is committed to. 4. The covenants shall run with the land for a period of 20 years. A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell and unani- mously carried to adopt a resolution authorizing the proposed restrictive covenants to be attached to the documents and re- corded to the Wright County Recorder's office as part of the sale of the Oakwood Block to Security Federal Savings and Loan. (See Resolution 1983 #73). 18. Presentation of Feasibility Report on Meadow Oak Storm Water Drainage. Mr. Chuck Lepak of OSM, City's Consulting Engineering Firm, presented to the Council a feasibility report they were authorized to prepare regarding the Meadow Oak storm drainage problem. As part of the Meadow Oak Subdivision, it was initially planned to provide for excess storm water drainage from the project to flow into what is known as County Ditch #33. It was recently brought to the City's attention that the area known as Meadow Oak Subdivision was not originally assessed for the County Ditch Project and is not allowed to drain its storm water run off into the County Ditch without prior County approval. The feasibility report presented possible solutions to the drainage problem which included three basic alternatives. 1. Direct discharge to the river which would require construction of a storm sewer pipe that was esti- mated at $217,000.00. 2. Overflow discharge into County Ditch #33, which is presently how the project was designed. Council Minutes - 6/13/83 3. A controlled discharge into County Ditch #33 which would require the installation of a gate that would be closed normally preventing any discharge into the County Ditch until the waters would reach a certain level, which should only occur during an abnormally high 100 year rainstorm. It was recommended by the City Engineer that the controlled discharge was seen as the most beneficial approach to the problem for the City and the County Ditch authority. The Council will be discussing this item at the next Council meeting. Meeting Adjourned. Rick Wolfste ler Assistant Administrator - 12 -