Loading...
City Council Minutes 06-27-1983MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION June 27, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus. Members Absent: Jack Maxwell. 1. Call to Order. 2 . Approval of the Minutes. A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus and unani- mously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on June 13, 1983 and the Joint Meeting held with the Planning Commission on June 21st, 1983. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, Complaints. Wesley Olson, representing the Monticello Jaycees, requested approval from the Council to authorize the Monticello Jaycees to sponsor a traveling circus show on the former Oakwood Block on Saturday, July 23, 1983. The Jaycees planned to have two performances with a seating capacity of 1,400 per show and they have submitted an application with the $100 fee per City ordinances. Mr. Olson noted that the ordinance does allow the Council to waive the $100 fee for non-profit organizations and requested consideration of waiving the fee. The Council discussed concerns about possible parking problems with the circus being located in the downtown area as the possibility exists that many of the patrons would be parking in the downtown parking lots, etc. It was suggested that the Jaycees contact the school district to see if they would allow parking on their playground area at the corner of 4th and Pine Streets, next to the public library. As a result, a motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the traveling show permit to the Monticello Jaycees for a circus performance on July 23, 1983, contingent upon the Jaycees making efforts to work on the parking problems and try to find suitable locations for parking areas. It was noted that the Council would reimburse the,$100 traveling show fee if parking congestion does not turn out to be a problem to the down- town businessmen. - 1 - Council Minutes - 6/27/83 4. Consideration of Hwy 25 Bridge Lighting. At the previous Council Meeting held on June 13, 1983, the Public Works Director was authorized to have Olson & Son's Electric perform a detailed inspection and miscellaneous repairs of the bridge wiring to determine what cost would be necessary to renovate the Hwy 25 bridge lighting system over the sidewalk. After the inspection was completed, it was found that only minor repairs would be needed to get the system in operation and replacement of four light fixtures was estimated to cost $1,864.80. If one of the two remaining fixtures that are believed to be okay are found faulty after being lit, it would cost an additional $316 to replace one fixture. The initial investigation by the electrician costs $210 making the total cost of the repairs estimated at $2,074.80. Although the majority of the Council Members felt that a $2,000 investment to repair the bridge lighting would not be feasible if the new bridge was in operation within 5 years, it was the Council's opinion that it would probably be longer than 5 years before a new bridge was constructed and operational. Council Member Blonigen felt that if the repairs are made, a second quote should be obtained on the work as he thought the first quote seemed high. As a result, a motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to have the Public Works Director obtain a second quote for repairing the Hwy 25 bridge lighting and submit it to the Council at the next meeting for comparison. 5. Consideration of Presentation by OSM Relating to the Feasi- bility Study on Meadow Oak Drainage. Mr. Chuck Lepack of the City's Consulting Engineering Firm, OSM, presented a review of the feasibility report they com- pleted regarding the possible storm water drainage from Meadow Oak Subdivision into County Ditch 33. As part of the feasibility report, three alternatives were recommended to be presented to the County Board as follows: 1. A direct discharge to the river of all drainage from the Meadow Oak Subdivision which would require a construction of a storm sewer pipe estimated at $217,000. M= Council Minutes - 6/27/83 2. An overflow discharge into County Ditch #33 which would only allow excessive drainage to be directed into County Ditch #33. 3. Control 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. Mr. Lepack noted that prior to the Meadow Oak Subdivision, the area in question had a culvert for drainage that was approximately three feet higher than the one proposed at this time. Although the new culvert for drainage run off would be three feet lower, by having a controlled discharge gate installed, drainage should be less under a controlled discharge than what would have occurred in the past during a large rain fall without a controlled discharge. Mr. Gene Bauer, the property owner along County Ditch #33, expressed concerns to the Council about the large 18 inch culvert that would drain from Meadow Oak onto his property which then has to go through a small culvert into County Ditch #33. In the past, his fields, when they have become flooded, dry up in a short period of time and can continue to be used but if the development was allowed to drain by controlled methods through his property, he felt he would always have water running through his property and his property would not be useable. It currently appears that the County Ditch #33 has been having problems with drainage even without the Meadow Oak Subdivision and that the County Board will possibly have to consider doing some type of repairs to the Ditch regardless of whether Meadow Oak is allowed to have a controlled discharge. The possibility does exist that Meadow Oak Subdivision for the present time could completely block the culvert leading into this Ditch and retain its drainage entirely on its own property, but it was some of the Council Members opinion that this would only delay a problem that will have to be looked at once the entire Meadow Oak subdivision is developed in the future. It was noted by Mr. Lepack that if the Meadow Oak Subdivision would be allowed to drain into the County Ditch, this area could be included in the assessment district to help pay for improvements that apparently now are necessary to the Ditch. - 3 - Council Minutes - 6/27/83 Although the City Council could not take action other than authorizing the feasibility report to be presented to the County Board for their review, a motion was made by Grimsmo and seconded by Fair to accept the feasibility report prepared by the consulting engineer and present the report and a petition for a controlled discharge from Meadow Oak into the County Ditch #33. The County Board will now have to hold future public hearings on the ditch problem and in the meantime the Meadow Oak Subdivision run off will be entirely contained within its own property boundaries until some type of a solution is reached by the County. Voting in favor of the motion were Grimsmo, Fair, and Maus. Opposed was Blonigen who felt that the Meadow Oak Subdivision should pond its own water on its own property. NOTE: At this time, Council Member Maxwell was in attendance. 6. Consideration of an Appeal on a Variance Request - Country Kitchen Restaurant. The Country Kitchen in the Monticello Mall recently decided to move their pylon sign from the north side of the building to the south side to gain better exposure from I-94. The sign was also raised to 32 feet above the roadway in com- plainance with City ordinances. As part of the pylon sign, the Country Kitchen has always had a small reader board attached to the sign which allowed them to change the wording daily to advertise their specials. In addition, this reader board is also used for messages not necessarily related to the Country Kitchen, but for such things as advertising civic events, etc. Because the sign was raised in height when it was moved to its new location, the reader board is currently difficult to reach for the employees to change messages and as a result, Country Kitchen applied for a variance to place this reader board sign back in its former location at the north end of the building near the front entrance. The Planning Commission,at their public hearing on this matter,denied the variance request for the second pylon sign as they felt allowing an establishment to have two pylon signs would result in additional requests by other businesses for the same and it was noted by the Planning Commission that another restaurant requested a similar type advertising sign which was also recently denied. - 4 - Council Minutes - 6/27/83 Mr. Bryan Tschida, manager of the Country Kitchen Restaurant, requested that the Council reconsider the denial and noted that this was the first request the Country Kitchen Rest- aurant has ever made for a variance in their nine years of business in Monticello. Mr. Tschida felt that the Country Kitchen has always had this reader board message sign for nine years and was not a new requE:st for an additional sign as some others have asked for. He noted that if the sign would have been raised in its present location to the maximum height, there would be no problem with the message board, but he was not aware that by moving the sign to the rear of the building, he would lose his rights to retain the message board in its f ormer location. Mr. Tschida also noted that other businesses in Monticello have more signs than the current ordinances allowed and felt that in his case, the reader board sign would not be any worse than what has always been there for nine years. Although some concerns were expressed by Council Member Fair concerning the precedent this would establish by granting a variance for two pylon signs, a motion was made by Maus, seconded by Maxwell to approve the variance request for the reader board sign at the Country Kitchen to remain at its former location due to the fact this establishment has always had this message board sign near its entrance. Voting in favor were Blonigen, Maus, Grimsmo, and Maxwell. Fair was opposed. 7. Consideration of a Proposal by Curry and Associates to Serve as Independent Computer Search Consultants. u Mr. Dave Maca.uley,of Curry and Associates presented to the Council a data processing development plan for the City of Monticello. The proposal includes three phases consisting of project planning and organization, data collection analysis, and def ini tion of requirements. A final phase, implementation, will be undertaken if the City decides to continue beyond the feasibility stage. The basic proposal by the independent consultant to determine the needs of the City in regard to computer processing would cost $6,800. It was estimated by the consultant that after the needs of the City are determined, a computer system with programs to operate the financial records for the City of Monticello cost between $15,000 to $30,000. - 5 - Council Minutes - 627/83 The Council discussed whether the consulting fee and the cost of the computer equipment could be justified by the City over the expected life of the equipment which is usually about five years. It was noted that the City currently expends approximately $5,000 per year for computer processing with its auditing firm and it was recommended that the City Staff pursue other alternatives and check with other cities and service bureaus regarding computer applications for the City. The possibilities include sharing computer time with either the present firm the City does business with and also checking with other cities and vendors. It was the Council concensus to table any action regarding the hiring of a consultant at this time to study the City's needs for com- puter applications. 8. Consideration of a Proposal to Alter Sewer Lines and Discharge Points for Wrightco. For the past several months, the City of Monticello has been working with Wrightco in an attempt to help them or assist them in making a single point discharge from their plant to the City sewer system. Wrightco Products currently has three discharge points from their plants into the sewer system and as part of the recently enacted pretreatment ordinance, a single discharge point will be required of Wrightco. Currently, the discharges from Wrightco Products flow into the West Bridge Park lift station and are then pumped down River Street to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Public Works Director, John Simola, in reviewing the situation with Wrightco has determined that if Wrightco Products could have their main discharge enter into the sewer lines that go down Walnut Street and then down Third Street to the east and eventually connect into River Street sewer system, their large flow would not have to go through the lift station in the Bridge Park. In addition, by re-routing the discharge away from the downtown area, some of the odor problems that have been experienced during the past could be eliminated from the downtown area. In addition, when an interceptor sewer line is constructed along the railroad tracks in the future, this new discharge point for Wrightco Products would enable them to hook up to the interceptor sewer system much easier than from their present discharge point. The elimi- nation of Wrightco's discharge through the lift station in West Bridge Park will enable more development to occur in the western portion of the City which has to flow through the lift station before any major improvements would have to be made to the lift station, etc. - 6 - Council Minutes - 6/27/83 The total cost estimate of rerouting the current three dis- charges from Wrightco Products to the new sewer line was estimated to cost $20,767.00 with the City's share of this cost being $11,438.00 and Wrightco's cost being $9,329.00. It was noted that Wrightco has agreed to the proposed route and discharge point and agreed to the cost sharing for the rerouting. Based on the information presented, a motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to proceed with the rerouting of Wrightco Product's sewer discharges into one new point at Third and Walnut with the City's cost to be approximately $11,438.00 per quotes received. 9. Consideration of Awarding Contract for Seal Coating of City C+-rc"n+-c Bids for the 1983-2 Seal Coating Project were received at 2:00 P.M. on Monday, June 27th, 1983 as follows: Allied Blacktopping, Inc. Batzer Construction Buffalo Bituminous ITEM #1 ITEM #2 (Without Sweeping) (With Sweeping) .479 per sq. ft. $35,720.47 .45 per sq. ft. $33,557.85 .409 per sq. ft. $30,500.36 .424 per sq. ft. $31,618.95 .38 per sq. ft. $28,337.74 .359 per sq. ft. $26,771.70 It was recommended by the Public Works Director that the low bid from Buffalo Bituminous at $.409 per square foot with Buffalo Bituminous doing the sweeping,be accepted in the amount of $30,500.36. It was noted that the City had budgeted $27,800.00 for the 83 Seal Coating Project and to meet the budget, some seal coating would have to be eliminated. Questions were raised by Council Member Blonigen as to whether the City could do the sweeping of the excess rock from the streets cheaper than the contractor since the the City does own its own sweeper, but Mr. Simola felt that the City did not have sufficient man power to do the job as cheaply as Buffalo Bituminous. As a result, a motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to accept the low bid of Buffalo Bitumi- nous in the amount of $.409 per square foot with Buffalo Bituminous doing the sweeping and clean up provided that the quantities were altered not to exceed the budgeted amount of $27,800.00. - 7 - Council Minutes - 6/27/83 10. Consideration of Submitting a Formal Request to the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue for the Purpose of Reinstating the Office of City Assessor. Minnesota Statutes require that before the City can have its own City Assessor, a formal letter to the Commissioner cf Revenue has to be submitted requesting that the office of City Assessor be reinstated to the City of Monticello. Since the City has recently hired Mr. Gary Anderson as Building Official and Mr. Anderson is a certified assessor, a motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen and unani- mously carried to adopt a resolution requesting that the Department of Revenue reinstates the office of City Assessor for the City of Monticello. (See Resolution #74). If approved, the Council discussed what policy should be established regarding assessing of City property and rec- ommended that, if possible, an entire survey of the City should be made within a 12 month period in an effort to obtain an equalization of values throughout the City. 11. Department Head Meeting. The Council discussed and reviewed various items with the following department heads in attendance: Karen Hanson Senior Citizen Director Buddy Gay Wright County Sheriff Deputy John Simola Public Works Director. 12. Approval of the Bills. A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair and unani- mously carried to approve the bills for the month of June. Meet' Adjourned. • �iCl Rick Wolfste ler Assistant Administrator