The URL can be used to link to this page

1986-02-18 CC Agenda/PacketCITY OF ALBERTVILLE ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: 497-3384 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2/18/86 I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES IV. DEPARTMENT BUSINESS a. Administration • - Heidelberg's liquor License - Gramm-Rudman Resolution - State Budget Shortfall Resolution and League Action • • - City Licenses Renewal Dates and Fees b. Legal - Joint Power c. Planning • - Public Hearing on Site Plan Ordinance (8:00 p.m.) Preliminary Plat Division in the Barthel Develoment-- LeRoy Berning -- Request to set a Public Hearing - Approval for 2 members to attend the March 5 Planning Conference --Duties and Powers of Zoning Board of Appeals (24.00 each) d. Maintenance - Approval for K. Lindsay to attend the Gravel Roads Workshop and the Pavement Maintenance Workshop March 3rd and 4th. Cost-- $25.00 for each workshop. Needs help to push back snow banks. e. Engineering - Change Order #4. V. OTHER BUSINESS Arlan Middleton --St, Michael Insurance Income Recieved-Bills to be Paid • Compilation of Statements and Schedules for the month ending 12-31-85. VI. ADJOURNMENT Make our City........ Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: 497-3384 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1986 The February 18th meeting of the Albertville City Council was called to order by Mayor Walsh. Members present include Gary Schwenzfeier, Donatus Vetsch and Bob Braun; members absent included Don Cornelius. Others present included Don Berning, Maureen Andrews, Gary Meyer and Barry Johnson. The minutes of the February 3rd meeting were read. There was a motion by Bob Braun and a second by Gary Schwenzfeier to approve th a minutes as read. All were in favor. ARlan Middleton of St. Michael Insurance was present to inform the Council that the City's Insurance Carrier --Minnesota Mutual Fire and Casualty is requesting Driver Licenses forall authorized drivers of City vehicles. His suggestion to the Council was: 1. Designate drivers in both the maintenance departments. 2. Run MBR checks on a regular basis to assure that the drivers who have volunteered to be drivers have a clean record. 3. Keep a "hard copy" of the MBR checks on file with the City of Albertville. As a result of this discussion Resolution 1986-5 was passed (included in agenda packet) on a motion by Gary Schwenzfeier and a second by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor. A copy of the resolution should be forwarded to A. Middleton and to the Fire Chief, David Vetsch. Gary Meyer reviewed with the City Counicl his written opinion on certain aspects of the Joint Power's agreement, which was distributed before the meeting. (copy include in the 2-18 packet.) Gary was requested to be present ar the Joint Powers meeting on Thursday February 20th. Brian Bebeau, Chairman of the Planning Commission was present to recommend that the Council approve Ordinance 1986-1 regarding Site Plans. There was a motion by Donatus Vetsch and a second by Gary Schwenzfeier to approve the Ordinance. All were in favor. The Council requested that the Planning Commission recommend a fee scale for the Site Plan Application fee and report back to the Council. Make our City........ Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE 2 - LeRoy Berning of Barthel Construction was present to show the City Council a preliminary plat for Lot 1, Block 6 of the Barthel Industrial Park. Barthel Construciton is requesting approvals of the following items: 1. A replat of Lot 1, Block 6. 2. A Conditional Use Permit to allow 2 four plex apartments in the Industrial Park's Residential District. 3. The use of zero lot lines in the newly platted area. The Council was informed that the Planning Commission has set their Public Hearing for March 13 at 8:30 p.m. Gary Meyer informed LeRoy that a legal opinion would need to be done on the Title before the plat could be finalized. The motion to set the Council's Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. on March 17, 1986 was made by Gary Schwenzfeier and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor. Maureen was asked to request that Loren K. be present for the hearing. Recommendation to the Planning Commission --Change the zoning of Lot 1, Block 6 from Residential to Multiple. There was preliminary discussion on the setting of the assessments for Barthel Industrial Park. Assessment figures are to be based on the anticipation that Albertville Industrial Development will be making application for rezoning of residential properties in the Industrial Park. Le Roy was asked to inform Ken Barthel that a letter requesting the rezoning was needed to set things in motion. The following resolution were approved: 1986-2 GRAMM-RUDMAN REDUCTION 1986-3 GOVERNOR'S BUDGET REDUCTION 1986-4 FEDERAL TAX REFORM The motion to approve these resolutions was made by Gary Schwenzfeier and seconded by Bob Braun. (Resoluiton included in the agenda packet.) All were in favor. The 1986 License Fees and Renewal Dates were reaffirmed on a motion by Bob Braun and a second by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor. There was a motion by Donatus Vetsch and a second by Gary Schwenzfeier to send two Planning Commission members to the Duties and Powers of Zoning Board of Appeals on March 5th. Cost $24.00 each. All were in favor. COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE 3 There was a motion by Gary Schwenzfeier and a second by Donatus Vetsch to send Ken Lindsay to the Pavement Maintenance Workshop March 4th. Cost is $25.00. All were in favor. There was a motion by Bob Braun and a second by Gary Schwenzfeier to pay bills. all were in favor. The Heidleberg Inn Licenses were discussed. The Council was informed that Bill Heidelberg had been contacted by Certified letter on February 12th and by phone on February 14th that the City Council would be discussing the licenses. Bill said that he thought he could be present after 9:00 p.m. By the time the Council had finished all their business Bill had not showed up. Maureen was requested to inform Bill Heidelberg of the Council's actions: That payment of $1,032.00 must be recieved by the City of Albertville on or before March 3rd at 8:00 p.m., which is the regular meeting of the City Council. If payment has not been recieved by this time the City will take action to suspend the Heidelberg's liceses for Liquor ($750.00), Suday Liquor ($200.00), Cigarette ($12.00), and Amusement ($ 40.00) at 12:00 midnight and will take legal action action to collect the amount that is past due. In addition, the City will notify the Wright County Sheriff's Office of the suspension for enforcement purposes. The motion was made by Gary Schwezfeier and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor. There was a motion by Donatus Vetsch and seconded by Bob Braun to adjourn. All were in favor. CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: 497-3384 February 12, 1986 Mr. William Heidelberg Heidelberg Inn 5772 Main Avenue Albertville, Minnesota 55301 Dear Mr. Heidelberg: This letter is to remind you that you are still delinquent on your payment to the City for the following licenses: -Liquor License (October payment) $ 750.00 -Cigarette License 12.00 -Amusement License 40.00 -Sunday Liquor License 200.00 -Interest (on October payment) 30.00 Total $1,032.00 The City is requesting that the payment is made before the Council meeting Tuesday, February 18, 1986 or the City will have no choice but to expire the licenses issued to your establishment. If you are having some difficulty in making payment, the City Council has asked that you appear at the February 18th meeting so that a possible solution can be worked out. If you have any question regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 497-3384. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, / Maureen T. Andrews City Administrator cc: Mayor and Council Members Clerk City Attorney Make our City........ Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business NN �E'Elj) THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES NEEDS YOUR HELP Governor Perpich has recommended a $23.1 million cut in local government aid. This is an 8.1 percent cut in LGA in 1986. On top of that, the governor's budget proposal suggests an 8.78 percent cut in homestead credit payments to cities, about 9.1 million, for a total cut to cities of over $32 million. We need your help in convincing the Legislature of the severity of these recommended cuts. We need your help to educate the citizens in the state of how these cuts could affect services in your city and what the impact could be on future property taxes. The League Board of Directors at its February 4 meeting directed the LMC staff to begin an aggressive public relations campaign on the effects of budget cuts on cities, but success depends on you, and all city officials. HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO READ the enclosed material. We have included: * a copy of the League's policy on budget cuts * an explanation of how the governor's 3.5 percent cut really equals eight to nine percent for cities, and how the governor's proposal differs from the League's policy on state budget cuts * a crib sheet summarizing budget cut facts * a pledge sheet, for your city to volunteer to work on this issue * a printout city -by -city of the dollar figure of the governor's recommended budget cuts TALK to your legislators and explain what the effects of the budget cuts would be on your city. PLEDGE a couple of hours of your time and/or that of your city staff to help the League's lobbying effort in reducing budget cuts to cities. CONTACT the League. Let us know if you've talked with legislators, and what the effects of the cuts would be on your city. FOR MORE INFORMATION On the budget cuts: Contact Diane Loeffler or Jeff Van Wychen. On the public relations effort: Contact Donald Slater or Jean Mehle at the League office: League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Ave. E., St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 227-5600. STATE BUDGET CRISIS AT A GLANCE THE SITUATION The state is facing a $700 million shortfall in revenues this biennium. As a result it is proposed that budgets approved last spring be cut $380 million and most of the budget reserve be used. THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS Cut LGA to cities by $23.1 million (8.1%) in 1986 Cut homestead credit to cities $9.3 million (8.78%) in 1986 Change state payment schedule Freeze the homestead credit appropriation in 1987 and grant only a 3% increase to LGA in 1987 Restore education cuts and the budget reserve if additional revenue is received Abolish levy limits WHAT LEGISLATORS NEED TO KNOW The basics: Cities are required to budget on a calendar year. Because cities can not increase levies for 1986 or pass the cuts on to a lower level of government, they would have to make significant budget cuts in the next nine months. The impact these cuts will have on your city. Will you be laying off staff, increasing your short term borrowing? Your city's current fiscal situation. How are you dealing with the major (and unpredictable) cuts in federal revenue sharing? Is your assessed value increasing or decreasing? Are you subject to levy limits? If so, have levy limits prevented you from planning for this sort of budget problem? Ask that levy limits be repealed. Do you currently do short-term borrowing to pay your costs until you receive property tax and state payments in the second half of the year? If, as proposed by the governor, the state changed to two payments of LGA and homestead credit in July and December, would you need to do further short-term borrowing? 1987 will be a very tough year for cities in general, given the complete elimination of federal revenue sharing, delayed necessary costs due to 1986 cuts, costs of implementing comparable worth, and inflation. The governor has recommended only a three percent increase in local government aid and no increase in homestead credit funding. Is your assessed value growing? Do you anticipate having to seriously consider significant property tax increases? Your legislators are not all-knowing. They need to hear from you on these issues. For the addresses and phone numbers of your legislators, see the Legislative Bulletin No. 1, Feb. 7, 1986. Or call House information, (612) 296-2146, or Senate information, (612) 296-0504. SIGN UP The League of Minnesota Cities needs the help of city officials in communicating to the Legislature and to the public what the serious effects of the large proposed budget cuts would be. The Legislature is already in its second week of the session. Time is short. Legislative leaders want to complete the session by March 17, leaving them four weeks to finish their work. The League is working hard to convince the Legislature to reduce the recommended budget cuts to cities. Our success depends on cities. Please pledge some time to this effort. We realize how busy things get in cities, and how elected officials and city employees often say, "I should call my legislator," but other commitments need attention first. We hope this pledge sheet will encourage you to make this a priority. Within the next few days, the League will send you a press release about how the budget cuts affect cities statewide. We would like you to add information about your city and forward the release to your paper. Because things are happening so fast, we want to be sure that when legislators actually vote on budget cuts, cities are able to respond immediately. To do this we will set up a phone tree, where each city would call three to five cities about what's happening, and then call their local legislators. All city employees should be aware of the effects of the proposed budget cuts. Please consider sending them a brief explanation with their paychecks. The League will send you a sample. Please fill out the form below and send it to the League office. We feel that calculating the number of hours city officials are willing to commit to this effort and reporting that to the Legislature will make an impact. Our city will pledge the following number of hours to helping to limit budget cuts to cities. 2 hours (1/2 hour per week for the next four weeks) 4 hours (1 hour per week for the next four weeks) 8 hours (2 hours per week for the next four weeks) hours over the next four weeks Areas our city would help with: Calling/writing my legislators Working with the press in my area (forwarding press releases) Informing city employees of the problem Working with the phone tree (3-5 phone calls on short notice) Testifying at legislative committee hearings Attending legislative committee hearings Send to Jean Mehle, League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Ave. E., St. Paul 55101, (612) 227-5600. Fiscal stress continues Governor's budget reduction recommendations Revised state revenue and expenditure forecasts indicate a $720 million shortfall. This is the result of a lagging economy and some underestimating of the cost of the large income tax cut the state approved last spring. As a result, Governor Perpich has proposed reductions in the state budget. The proposal would use all but $100 million of the budget reserve to offset the deficit, and would cut the budget by $380 million. State taxes would not increase. The following questions and answers highlight the impact on cities. How much money would cities lose under the governor's recommendations? Local government aid (LGA) to cities would be cut $23.1 million to a total funding level of $262.7 million. This represents an 8.1 percent cut from the original LGA appropriation for 1986. Homestead credit payments to cities would decrease 8.78 percent for 1986. Early projections indicate a loss in this program of $9.3 million. In addition, the budget proposal suggests reductions in other grant programs that benefit cities. How come the reductions are eight to nine percent? The papers indicated cuts to cities were 3.5 percent. There has been much confusion on this point. The governor's budget address framed the budget crisis on the basis of the state's biennium (a biennium being the two-year state budget period). The governor recommended 3.5 percent biennial reductions on most programs in order to balance the budget. However, because cities are already through the first year of the biennium, the practical reality is a seven percent cut in the last year of the biennium for most programs. But, cities' cuts equal more than seven percent because they would absorb the cuts of other programs. An additional $4.2 million would come out of LGA to cover the 3.5 percent biennial cuts of miscellaneous credit and expenditure programs (wetlands credit, enterprise zone credits, pension amortization aid, etc.). The governor's proposal would cut homestead credit more than seven percent, too. The additional two percent reduction is due to this program being expected to absorb the 3.5 percent biennial reduction in the circuit breaker program of property tax refunds. Because the tax forms and tables have already gone out, the governor looked for alternative places to cut these funds and decided on the homestead payments to local governments. How will these cuts apply to individual cities? The governor recommended that each city's LGA payments for 1986 decrease 8.1 percent from the level that the state certified to the city in August. One - 1 - impact of this is to remove the "grandfather" provision which provided that no city could get less LGA than it had received in the previous year. Each city's homestead credit payments from the state would decrease by 8.78 percent. While cities will not receive full reimbursement, individual property tax bills will not change in 1986. When will the cuts be effective? Unfortunately, they would be effective for the current calendar year, 1986. This makes it very difficult for cities to absorb these cuts. We are already well into the budget year and do not have the option to levy additional taxes to offset this decrease in revenue. Doesn't the state realize that cities are experiencing tough times and that any cuts in the current year will be very difficult? Unfortunately many state decision makers do not have a good understanding of city finances or the fiscal stress that cities have been experiencing year after year. Cities have tended to do what they had to to cut budgets without keeping the public or legislators informed. Cities have been very creative in making efficiency improvements and very frugal in salary settlements, particularly when compared with other units of local government. Unfortunately, many state lawmakers hold wrong impressions. Many legislators do not realize that cities would have to make the cuts in 1986, the calendar year we are already partly through. They tend to think in terms of the state's fiscal year which runs from July 1 to June 30. While state agencies and others will be able to stretch their cuts through June 30, 1987, cities must balance the books as of Dec. 31, 1986. Many state decision makers do not realize how dependent cities are on state funds. On average, local government aid and homestead credit combined account for one-half of cities' total current expenditures. While cities vary widely from that average, state funding is very important to almost all cities. Enclosed is a printout of projections, by city, of the amount of funds they would lose under the governor's recommendations. Communicate those amounts to your legislators and let them know if the cuts will be forcing you to lay off staff or cut services. Cities are under tremendous fiscal stress right now. This is the result of cuts in federal revenue sharing of one-third to one-half in the current year, other federal cutbacks, skyrocketing insurance rates, declining tax base, the costs of complying with mandates such as comparable worth, and inflation. While the consumer price index (CPI) is near three percent, actual inflation for local government purchases is about six percent according to the implicit price deflator for state and local government purchases. This is because cities do not purchase housing or food, two significant components of the consumer price index that are declining or showing no significant increase. Legislators must understand that for most cities, not a single major source of revenue (federal funds, the local taxbase, or state funding) is growing at the rate of inflation. And, worse yet, most are declining. - 2 - How would the proposed League policy on state funding differ from the governor's recommendations? The League policy asks that all components of the state budget receive cuts equally. The governor made several exceptions: education would receive only a 2.5 percent cut on a biennial basis, and some welfare programs were exempt from cuts. The League feels that all programs should share cuts equally. The result of this is a lesser reduction for all. While the governor's budget would cut approximately $32.5 million from cities in LGA and homestead credit, the League proposal of applying an equal cut to all state budget items would reduce the cut for cities to a total of approximately $22.2 million. While that is still a major cut, it is a much more equitable and manageable one. For local government aid, the League proposal would result in a cut of about 5.2 percent as opposed to 8.1 percent. What if the projections are wrong and state revenues come in higher than projected? The governor has recommended that the state would restore funds to education (public schools and post -secondary institutions) first if the state projections are overly pessimistic. Only after restoring all education funds would any other cut program be eligible for funds restoration. The League recommends that cities have equal access to restoration funds. If we must share in the shortfall, we should also share in any unexpected windfalls. What about the state payment schedule? Can we count on being paid on time? Once again the state is looking to local governments to solve its cash flow problems. Currently cities receive six equal payments of LGA and homestead credit during the months of July to December. The governor has recommended that cities receive two equal payments; one in July and one in December. In theory, interest earnings on the larger first payment would balance out any borrowing costs cities would incur waiting for the second payment. The state should not solve its cash flow problems by causing local units of government to do short-term borrowing. The current payment schedule should remain. If the state makes changes, it should work toward getting funds to cities earlier in the year, not later. What are the implications of this for 1987 and future years? Unfortunately, 1987 will also be a very difficult budget year for the state. Last year the state passed a $900 million tax cut which the state only began to implement in the first year of the biennium. Some phased -in provisions will have a larger impact in the next biennium. The governor has recommended that local government aid increase only three percent for 1987. That would hardly begin to restore the funds cities would lose in 1986. The proposal further recommends that the state freeze the homestead credit appropriation at its reduced 1986 level. Cities will find it very difficult to balance their 1987 budgets without tax increases. Even without any increase in levy, many communities will see - 3 - their mill rates increase as the result of declining assessed value. Very few cities are seeing their taxbases increase at the rate of inflation and over half are experiencing real declines. Cities will experience further budget pressure in 1987 because of the complete elimination of federal revenue sharing (historically about five percent of cities' budgets), costs of implementing comparable worth plans, and other state and federal cutbacks. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the governor doesn't even propose an inflation increase in property tax relief programs that could help temper the impact of this on individuals. State lawmakers are beginning to talk of further income tax reductions in 1987. State leaders should first consider the public service consequences. What can city officials do to help the League in urging the state to minimize cuts to cities? Cities' success in this effort depends on city officials throughout the state contacting their legislators. You don't need to be familiar with the homestead credit or local government aid formulas. Few legislators know the details of these programs either. What you do need to tell them is what your budget situation is now and how difficult it will be for you to absorb state cuts in the current fiscal year. It is also important that you stress the need for increased funding for 1987. Share your concerns about increased property taxes next year and how few alternatives are available. Unlike the state or federal government, cities cannot balance their budget by reducing payments to others. The streets still need plowing. Make sure the people in your city understand the implications of the state cuts through articles in your local newspaper. The League will help draft press releases. Some cities are preparing special information pieces on the state budget and its implications for city services and giving them to each employee The League will help cities with this if your wish. Our success depends on city officials throughout the state taking the time to talk to their legislators. Legislators like to hear from local officials and value their input. You can make a difference. For further information, contact Diane Loeffler of the League staff, who is leading the League's lobbying efforts on budget cuts and can respond to individual questions. She is assisted in this by Legislative Assistant Jeff Van Wychen. - 4 - BUDGET POLICY RS-1. State Funding to Cities (A) Cities are heavily dependent on state funding. On average, homestead credit and local government aid together account for over two-thirds of the expenditures of cities. It will be very difficult for cities to absorb cuts in the current budget year. Economic challenges facing cities include a declining tax base, cuts in federal support, costs growing faster than the general inflation rate, and the need to implement additional mandates. While a good case can be made for exempting cities from state budget cuts, equality is a compelling value. The League recommends that all components of the state budget be treated equally. That is: 1. All components of the state budget should be cut by an equal percentage without exception. 2. Cities should have equal access to restoration of funds if revenues come in greater than projected. 3. Each program should be cut individually and not shifted onto all cities through the local government aid program as recommended by the Governor. 4. The state should not shift its cash flow problems onto local governments by changing the payment schedule. 5. While many systems are available for allocating the cuts by city, given that the cuts impact a budget year already begun, each city should be cut an equal percentage of the funds they were certified to receive in 1986. 6. The Legislature and the Governor should work with the League Board of Directors in developing and analyzing more detailed budget provisions. The League feels strongly that property tax relief should continue to be a high priority. Any budget cuts to cities will likely have some impact on future property tax levels. That fact should be acknowledged by state decision makers and the public. By fairly and equally reducing all components of the state budget, the impact on cities and property tax relief can be held to a more reasonable level. If all components of the budget are included equally in the cuts (including welfare and education), the percentage reduction each must endure will be reduced. Preliminary projections indicate that the overall percentage cut on a biennial (two year) basis would be approximately 2.7 percent. For cities that would mean a cut of 5.2 percent in local government aid in 1986 because our payments for the first year of the biennium have already been received. That is significantly less than the 8.1 percent reduction recommended by the Governor. Just as all components of the budget should share equally in reductions that are based on projected revenue shortfalls, all components should also have funds restored on an equal basis if actual revenue receipts are higher than those currently projected. RS-1. State Funding to Cities (A) (cont'd) The Governor has recommended that the cuts in wetlands credit, native prairie credits, pension amortization aid, and other miscellaneous programs be deducted from local government aid for administrative simplicity. That is very unfair, particularly since cities will absorb the majority of those cuts even though there are very few prairies or wetlands within cities. The cuts should be applied against each program separately. If that is found unfeasible for some programs, the cuts should be shared with all taxing jurisdictions through the homestead credit program. In the last state budget crisis, many accounting shifts were made which have created numerous cash flow problems at the local level. The Governor again recommends that the schedule for state payments to cities be changed in order to ease state cash flow problems. The League is opposed to any further changes in the state payment schedule. The League is prepared to analyze and respond to individual budget issues as they arise and encourages the legislature to work with the League Board of Directors and its staff. Adopted by the LMC Board of Directors on February 4, 1986. Adopted by the League membership on February 5, 1986. [O D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D � O O UC) � � E � = f�' f� � r�7 � � O Z G m <r-1 � f 1 rCJ � Or0 � T � fZ►1 -i � � D D CL+Zr'l--�OCDOm.+<morr:tDOODC2x �mmmmDrZO -•3 DZDOm«ZrZ mmDz«m mDD—Zmmmzm►.Z Dm -� Z m m m --A0 m D D Z n --1 --q -4 << Z Z Z r Z D r r r m ., r- r D D r m m m ro ru UO N r. �• . - ... nJ V •- mm NrrVNrow-4ss GJu]CnCJIruUI W -4Lq v1~`U1ny,mNmv CD -4mNrr-4.-�v.r.icnmmmNv.im-4 m09CnC WrwN-4W 0� '0r M'�,Lnrm-4GWLnn�nm�rR9,r""'NG,c�1-ncnW rWL4Q.)rcnmvN n. mcnmNm�OmmN.ru'mmCDw�Ch9mGCM41—(71GSG►-m W Ln .r cn m .r cn N CM fU �-. ~ rV ,. O.4.' 9�rmrn +lw` V �� W�rG4, W..m V r —" nJ `. nJ mom. ;+~wwmCCcnrcn-4 rom-Lna!wrn;Ln..vcn m~ w V") w Ln lV m v W V J m W LAG r-ImmCnN CDO-4 W 0 G~ WwmvrVmm m.-nJu7v4, mmr r�Om Cn►-NmcncnmcnNvcnmm.Oiuicmi�m�mvr9� GW�ON Wr -4W Mwr mMmm.-B W4-r9OW CD ~ c•, ru ww rcnwmnimN•. Ln �WrumN rrr� ��mw�. Nu�i �iuiws�nJm�mw-cn NLns,mw'4rQ--4W -'m►-LnNrL,WW Ou��om vcnr.- 6 Ln w m 0� cn N m m cr,mw►-CnmmrmmNvmym.rLnnN�vNF mcnCDGCn•LGnOmiuW]rmV CJ11W Lmi1 W v C.J r9� j Ln .. mN9 m�C•im~ _ ~ WN Ln nJ� r CD 9 Cmn Ln W n) v Ln m 9 �1 �I Ln m m rV m m- 9 fU r W W 0 r ru r r 6 m 6 V 6 mmu)9 r r W0)co mN rC•1�--NrV g,ru rruw m v W m9N.� r 6 �Om W.1�p.. �mm'-n vm r r•-N r Wm LA 0N6 G,rmu)WCnLn0GGG W cT^Nrm Wr W WL-i0nJE4N (.�vLnr,�r _ ro m W m r C� fr m v A) j, W+O � ~ m .. v 0 ru ~ �~. W uWl� uvwLn0m LnNLnCW W v .. V �CJI��m�9� Cr+Cn� Lj fV .. C11 m W M •~• Lnn m CT C' -4 G Lnn 6.•( j Lnn ru W 6 �O 6 9 6 m-4 m 6 W 6 m m �J nJ WLnmmrm WG-4WsG ru `il `+� '-' OF+ W ru �I n) r � n; rV _ C•l Ln r fig C•, 5 _ vr+ W9ClinJn) MkosrvcD 4 r m Cn r v c., w fV r r m _v °':°:°m •• N� m °•'�m 9 �mfT V m0 6 v Ln vmwww_m. '4IDm m(n 9m W CD cn r cn �I Ln O N Cn W W v CN 6 m Cn r Ln Cn CD CWn m C.1 W a1 r m c11 W r u7 ~ v ��mmmro,LnWmwLn M Ln mr CnmmWWr c-, CD m ri '- "' N r fV rV NLnN r fil6m V mmGCnMCX) Ln r- _ W W r u7 W CT Ln -• Ln m V O N 6 - r v -`+� w Crt r o+ r -u7 6 'Cl69mrrCnmCn•-m�OC.I" m�Cn�CJI6LnLn m W co m60mCTJ c•jr�ummrorswmw�omww��4mmwLnr9"�;9rm umvmmQ; CD cn m Ul m a p -1 m mm m Z n n a C0r ,..� `* (ma N rL m o m 3 O D in 30 CD y m o r-) -A fo D -1 r»r 0o C m m 0 z,, 0 D --- amp m 0mo m m rL r aDO m a`) nncm o c � 3-+Z (nmr=-) ro �0 m m m ... _ m '� .Y r.. r W _ m m m X D m a -Ci�n m3 m m �mv N 11 11 m m --m ID vv �r)w mcn my m Of 0m maa r') + r n C C r `= n -4 Ti chLn � n C m c m CL ¢, D r < Z m D M D co r C + O X Y c n Q' n Qmi rD rt .t ID v m Z wCm rp D = r^ --ItnD C7 -1 M ... G) 3 m C-) CrO <, Cn D En Ln ~ CITY OF ALBERTVILLE n ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: 497-3384 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE'S LICENSES RENEWAL DATES AND FEES LICENSES RENEWAL DATE FEES ON -SALE LIQUOR APRIL 15 (PAYABLE 1,500.00 4-15; 10-15) OFF -SALE LIQUOR JANUARY 1 100.00 SUNDAY LIQUOR JANUARY 1 200.00 CIGARETTE JANUARY 1 12.00 AMUSEMENT JANUARY 1 10.00/DEVICE LIMITED 3.2 -- 25.00/EVENT OFF -SALE 3.2 JANUARY 1 50.00 ANIMAL -- 6.00 SEWER DIG IN'S JANUARY 1 45.00 (REQUIRES SECURITY BOND FOR $1,000) Make our City........ Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business ROBERT J. MILLER, P.A. GARY J. MEYER, P.A. LAW OFFICE N1FYI1:R & M1LL1,:R A Partnership of Professional Corporations 9405 - 36TH AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55427 GARY J. MEYLR, P.A. (612) 542-3030 February 18, 1986 Mayor James Walsh Members of the City Council City of Albertville Albertville, MN 55301 Gentlemen: LEGAL ASSIST -ANT GAIL RANDALL You have asked that I give you a written opinion regarding certain aspects of the Joint Powers Agreement between the Cities of Hanover, St. Michael, Albertville and the Town of Frankfort, dated December 13, 1977, as amended. I have had the opportunity to review not only that Agreement but George Hoff's letter of January 14, 1986, and David Kennedy's letter of January 27, 1986. I will attempt to deal with the questions in the same order as related in George Hoff's letter of January 14, 1986. 1. Use of Revenues for Purpxmes Other Than Bond Repayment. In connection with the use of surplus water revenues, the City of Albertville has the most at stake. The bonds issued under the Joint Powers Agreement are not issued under a separate entity of the Joint Powers, but are issued under the name of the City of Albertville. The obligation is a general obligation of the City of Albertville and not that of either Hanover, St. Michael, or Frankfort.If the debt service represented by the bonds is not paid through the use of the revenues of the Joint Powers water system, the City of Albertville is responsible for the bond payments. The end result could be that if there were a deficiency the City of Albertville would have to levy an ad velorum tax throughout the City to cover it. Albertville is required by the Agreement to maintain a "sinking fund account for debt service on the bonds to which the net revenues of the water are pledged", and in addition is required to keep a surplus account. To this account the Joint Powers Board is required to transfer all surplus revenues. Although the Agreement does not appear to restrict the use by the City of Albertville of these funds, and it appears that the City could use the surplus fund for whatever purposes it wishes, I believe that the spirit of the Agreement would prohibit Albertville from commingling those funds with its general revenue funds and using it for purposes unrelated to Joint Powers. However, it should maintain a separate reserve account with the surplus funds for prepayment or regular payment of the bonds as it becomes necessary. I have no reason to dispute bond counsel Dave Kennedy's opinion that the bond resolution does not prohibit of the amendment of the Agreement to provide some other use for "surplus funds" in addition to the debt repayment. However, it may not be prudent for Albertville to do so, and still protect its citizens from the possibility of the City's general obligation for payment of the bonds. If the City has the power to amend the bond resolution to use the surplus funds in some manner other than provided therein, it can also put conditions on that use. For example, the City of Albertville could agree that surplus net revenues in excess of a certain amount (such as an amount necessary to be kept in surplus and reserve for the payment of one or two bond premiums) could be used for uses other than that specified in the Agreement. Without amending the Agreement, the City of Albertville could thereby agree that if those conditions were met surpluses could be used, for example, for one particular project, such as a new well, without foreclosing its right to insist that the surplus be used in accordance with the Agreement instead of for some other further project. It would be my opinion that it would not be in the best interests of the City of Albertville, in view of its general obligation on the bonds, to agree to a blanket amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement to provide for some other use of the surplus revenues, but that the issue can be addressed on a situation by situation or project by project basis, thereby allowing the City to set certain conditions, such as a specific reserve account in order to use the additional surplus funds, if the council feels that the funds should be used at all for other than payment of the bonds. 2. Revenue -Short -Fall. Paragraph D of the Joint Powers Agreement specifically provides that each City and Town "shall contribute 25% of the required amount" in the event that the water charges "do not generate sufficient gross revenue and to pay the operating costs and the principal and interest on the general obligation water revenue bond of the City of Albertville". It also provides that the amount shall be repaid when there is sufficient amounts of excess funds to do so. If the City of Albertville were to require a specific amount of reserve of surplus in order to agree to pay certain amounts from the surplus funds for a particular project, other members may require that this surplus account be used before any amounts are paid by the members in accordance with paragraph D. That being the case, paragraph D would have to be amended to exclude any required surplus account. The amount that each community should contribute in the event of the revenue shortfall, of course could depend on the amount of the shortfall. The Agreement is specific that the amount must be shared equally between all of the members. 3. Repayment to Frankfort in tie Event Annexation. Paragraph D of the Agreement also provides as follows: "In the event that the Town of Frankfort has forwarded money to the district under this section and annexation of any part of the Town by other parties to this Agreement takes place, then the annexing party shall make a cash payment to the Town of Frankfort for the full amount previously forwarded by the Town of Frankfort -2- to the district." As you know, the City of Albertville and the Town of Frankfort are presently involved in a lawsuit regarding this particular section. We have previously discussed the merits of that suit and this section in detail. A key issue is whether, in the event of such payment to Frankfort, Frankfort must reimburse the city making the payment in the event that Frankfort is reimbursed for the payment in the future. Frankfort claims it need not do so. Albertville claims that it must do so or the provisions of the paragra�-h are indeed a penalty which is not enforceable as against public policy. A further question is the amount of the payment. Frankfort claims that the payment must be (as it appears to say) the exact amount previously forwarded by Frankfort to the Joint Powers. Albertville's claim is that the clause must be intended to be a reimbursement of what Frankfort has lost, and should be limited only to the amounts of the lost revenues from the annexed property itself. It is my opinion that it would not be prudent for the City of Albertville to agree to any amendment of the Joint of the surplus revenues wi Frankfort/Albertville anne to waive its rights under previous "irregular proper Albertville without doing any future annexation. Un it is not prudent for the any other portion of the A Albertville agrees to the other than as specified in with a deficiency in net r Agreement provides that al must contribute to 25% of deficiency, Frankfort coul the City of Albertville ha for properties previously Powers Agreement deaiing with the use shout a resolution of the cation question. Frankfort could agree :his Agreement with respect to the :ies" and annexation by the City of ?rejudice to its rights with respect to Less Frankfort is willing to do that, :ity of Albertville to agree to amend jreement. For example, if the City of ase of the surplus funds in some manner the Agreement, the City could be faced ?venues in the future. While the L of the members of the Joint Powers :he required amount to cover the I claim that it need not do so because 3 not made a cash payment to Frankfort annexed. 4. Unanimous or Majority Vote of Joint Powers Members. Presently the effect of the Joint Powers Agreement appears to require unanimous vote on almost all issues. For example, the change in water rates or hookup charges have been governed by paragraph C of the Agreement, which has required amendment in order to change. Paragraph F which was added on February 3, 1981, does provide that the Joint Powers Board may "adopt by resolution appropriate regulations, including permit fees, to regulate persons and parties making connections with the joint powers water system". The argument could be made that those resolutions need not require a unanimous vote, since a resolution would not be an amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement. However, it would be my opinion that if the resolution has the effect of amending any previous paragraphs of the Agreement (such as paragraph A and B regarding the obligations on the bonds or paragraph C regarding the water rates), such a resolution would require an amendment of the Agreement and a unanimous vote. -3- It is important to note here that not only does an amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement require a unanimous vote of all of its members, but also requires an actual amendment of the agreement. An amendment of the agreement mandates approval of that amendment by resolution and ratification of each of the respective city council or town board members vote or consent, therefore, in those cases must always be contingent upon approval or ratification of each board or council. The Joint Powers Agreement could be amended to require a majority (3/4) agreement on any area by resolution of the board, without further amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement. It would be my opinion that in view of Albertville's general obligation on the bonds, it would not be prudent for Albertville to agree to anything less than unanimous consent to any amendment other than that of paragraph C dealing with water rates and hookup charges. In view of Albertville's general obligation on the bonds, it would be prudent to agree that the rates may be increased, and thereby amending Paragraph C, by a 3/4 vote of its members. In that way, one member would not be able to veto a rate increase which might be needed to assure payment of the bonds, or even to operate the system efficiently, both obligations of the City of Albertville. 5. Miscellaneous Additional_ Power.2 of the Board. It would be my opinion that it would be preferable to have the Board be the general obligor on the bonds, and thereby require each City to share in the general obligation in the event of a default. However, the City of Albertville's present obligation on the Joint Water bonds must take priority to any future bonding indebtedness. There is no reason that another City member could not agree to use its bonding powers for a future Joint Powers project. However, questions will arise as to the use of surplus funds in the event (i.e., does Albertville or the other City have the right to apply surplus funds on it bond obligation incurred on behalf of the Joint Powers?). In my opinion the board should have the specific authority to make improvements to real estate, as long as the improvements require unanimous consent. In view of Albertville's general obligation on the bonds, it would not be prudent for the City to agree to additionally give to the Board "limited necessary powers" to operate the system by adoption of appropriate resolutions. The effect of those resolutions could be to impinge on the City's rights and obligations under paragraphs A and B in connection with the bonds. The council must decide whether it wants the Joint Powers Board to be able to have authority to "parcel" new water hookups or approve new additions to communities if there is a problem with water availability. In my opinion, this could be a power -4- which could be subject to abuse, particularly in view of natural competition between members for development and industry. This letter is intended for use by the Albertville City Council members only and not for general publication. GJM/gr Very truly yours, Gary J. Meyer, P.A. City Attorney City of Albertville -5- ORDINANCE 1986-1 . AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1975-5 REGULATING THE USE OF LAND, THE LOCATION AND THE USE OF BUILDINGS AND AND THE ARRANGEMENT OF BUILDING ON LOTS AND THE DENSITY OF POPULATION -IN THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA The City Council of Albertville, Minnesota, does ordain: Ordinance No. 1975-5-, entitled "Regulation of the Use of Land, the Location, and the Use of Buildings and the Arrangement of Buildings on Lots and the Density Population in the City of Albertville, Minnesota" is hereby amended by the ad&ion of Section 420(10A), after 420(10) and preceding Section 420(11): Section 420(l0A). SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS. Subdivision A. COMPLIANCE. A site plan must be approved before a building permit for a new structure or major addition to an existing structure in the Residential, Multiple Dwelling, Community Store, Commercial, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial Districts. The purpose of such approval is to assure that new developments conform to City plans and the City Code, and provide the most appropriate and compatible plan for that area. Subdivision B. APPLICATION. Approval of a site plan may be initiated by the owner, user, or potential user of the subject property by making application in writing to the City on such forms designated by the City. The City nay request the applicant to furnish a scaled drawing of any of the following items which the City considers necessary for the proper consideration of the application: (1) Lot or parcel; (2) Existing grades and buildings within 100 feet of the site; (3) Finishing grades and proposed drainage; (4) Interior circulation, including bike and automobile parking spaces, loading spaces, driveways, stacking spaces, walks, curbing, and lighting; (5) Proposed building and their entrances and exits; (6) Recreation areas; (7) Proposed landscaping specifications and locations; (8) Existing trees of six (6) inches or more in diameter; (9) Proposed screening; and (10) Depth of water and sewer pipes from main to building hookup. Subdivision C. APPLICATION FEES. An application fee, to be set by resolution of the City Council, shall accompany the application. Such fee shall not be returnable. On proof of financial hardship, the City Council may waive the application fee. PAGE 2 Subdivision D. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. All requests for site paln approval may be referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommedation to the City Council. Subdivision E. CITY COUNCILE APPROVAL. All recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be referred to the City Council. The City Council may affirm, amend, or reject the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Subdivision F. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL. The following findings shall be made before a site plan may be approved. The site plan shall: (1) Be compatible with the surrounding land uses; (2) Preserve existing natural features whenever possible; (3) Achieve a safe and efficient circulation system; (4) Not place excessive traffic loads on local streets; (5) Conform with City plans for parks, streets, service drives, and walkways; (6) Conform to goals and policies of the City Council; (7) Achieve maximum safety, convience and ammenties in the City; (8) Show sufficient landscaping to buffer unsightly features and to enhance the development; (9) Not create detrimental distrubances to surroundinq properties; (10) Meet the requirements of thes Ordinance unless a variance has been granted; (11) Show efforts to conserve enerov whenever possible; and (12) Meet the requirements of Ordinance 1985-2, Section 2, with regards to placement of sewer and water lines. Subdivision G. TERMINATION OF FINAL APPROVAL. Approval of a site plan shall be for one (1) year to allow for the initiation of construction. If construction is not started within one (1) year, or within any extensions granted as hereinafter provided, the developer may file a written request with the City for an extension. The City may extend site plan approval for periods not more than twelve (12) months each, upon a finding that the project design meets the applicable City Codes standards in effect at the time the request for extension is considered, or the design is modified to satisfy those standards. Subdivison H. LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION. The landscaping and screening shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. If seasonal weather conditions or phasing of construciton present Practical difficulities in the installation or completion of the landscaping, the completion of the landscaping may be deferred for not more than six (6) months by the City. The extension of time shall be granted in writing. The owner or occupant of the premisis shall maintain the landscaping, and screening in good condition free of refuse and debries. All diseased or dead materials shall be promptly replaced. In addition, the owner or occupant of the premisis shall maintain the grade level and the sewer and water pipes depth approved in the site plan. PAGE Adopted by the City Council this day of t 1986. Donald Berning, City Clerk Attest JAwalsh, Mayor Published in the Crow River News 1985. IEYER-ROHLIN, INC. zu ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612-682-1781 February 14, 1986 Honorable Mayor and City Council c/o Maureen Andrews, Administrator City Hall Albertville, Minnesota 55301 RE: 1984-1 Improvement Project Albertville, Minnesota Members of the Council: This letter is in regards to the status of the Poly- America/PCI problem and the lien waivers requested by the City of Albertville on the above referenced project. �. Please find an enclosed letter I received from PCI in regards to the above paragraph. This correspondance appears to indicate that the Poly-America/PCI incident is solved and PCI is pursuing the collection of the requested lien waivers. A meeting has been set up for the morning of February 243 1986 with the MPCA, the City of Albertville, Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. and other involved parties in regards to the withholding of payments by the MPCA on the above referenced project. We hope, at this time, that this issue can be settled and the project can be continued without further interruptions. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, ME'ER-ROHLIN, INC. Barry/D. Johnson Project Engineer BDJ:kp cc:Gary Meyer, w/enclosure cc:Don Berning, w/enclosure cc:E-8401- N Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Registered Land Surveyor WIACIIPROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS INCORPORATED 8736 Zachary Lane • Osseo. Minnesota 55369 • Telephone. (612) 425-4515 February 12, 1986 Mr. Barry Johnson Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. 1111 Hwy. 25 N. Buffalo, MN. 55313 Re: Albertville Dear Barry: This letter is in response to your questions about the riprap installation on the ponds and also to bring you up to date on where we stand with the Poly -America bill. We did have a meeting with Wynn Alterman of Poly -America the week of February 3 and have agreed to a settlement on their bill for the liner and their tech- nical assistance. Their final check will be going to them this week. Hope- fully this will satisfy everyone. We are still in the process of collecting lien waivers from our other subcontractors and suppliers who have worked on the project to date. The mailing time is the only delay we should encounter on these. I'm hoping we have all these to you by the end of next week so we can get our payment then for work done during January. In regards to the riprap installation, we feel very uncomfortable doing any more work on the project until we are paid for what we have done already and until we are assured that we will be paid for what we do in the future. It appears that the MPCA has cut off funds to the City, through no fault of PCI, and we are wondering if this, in fact, is the reason that the City is delaying payment for Request Number 11. If we go ahead and complete the riprap instal- lation at this time, can we expect payment for it on our pay request for the end of February? We estimate that we only have four days of work to complete the riprap and, you are correct, now is the time to do the work. We will wait for your response. If you have any questions on this please feel free to call. Sincerely, PROGRESSIVE CONTRAPTORS, INC. Ronald E. Gibbons, P.E. REG/pd MEYER-ROHLIN, INC ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612-682-1781 February 14, 1986 Bruce Weaver Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1935 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Albertville WWTF Dear Mr. Weaver: This letter is confirming the 10:00 A.M., Monday, February 24) 1986 meeting at the MPCA concerning the unresolved issue of the NOV and retained monies. - Present at this meeting will be the City of Albertville and their counsel, the general contractor, the liner manufact- urer, and the engineer. Sincerely yours, MEYER OHLIN, INC. L Paul Meyer Professional Engineer PM:kp cc:City of Albertville cc:Gary Meyer, Attorney cc:Bill Neal, Poly -America, Inc. cc:Ron Gibbons, PCI cc:E-8401-E Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Registered Land Surveyor CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: 497-3384 INCOME RECIEVED 2/18/86 SEWER BILLINGS $341.00 STAE OF MINNESOTA ( LIQUOR LICENSE; VIDEO GAME 60.00 REFUND) TOTAL $401.00 BILLS TO BE PAID 2/18/86 NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS, NA G.O. IMP. 9-1-82 $13,386.15 FIRST BANK ST. PAUL G.O. IMP. 9-1-77 6,602.50 ST. MICHAEL INSURANCE 1,700.00 BOB MINKEMA 550.00 G.D. LaPLANT 33.00 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 6.80 KILIAN HARDWARE HANK 120.00 STATE TREASURER -SURPLUS PROPERTY FUND 36.50 (TO BE REIMBURSED BY D.J. VETSCH) HACKENMEULLER'S COAST TO COAST 8.30 FRIST TRUST ST. PAUL 39.99 G.O. SEWER 1984-A 220.88 G.O. T.I.F. 1984-A 219.38 G.O. IMP. 1985-A 323.99 CROW RIVER NEWS CHANGE IN MEETING NOTICE 5.40 AD FOR ADMINSTRATOR 8.00 WRIGHT COUNTY TREASURER 1,551.25 (SHERIFF SERVICE) CHOUINARDS KEN LINDSAY 86.25 MAUREEN ANDREWS 592.91 444.64 PLANNING COMMISSION RAY VETSCH 130.00 HERB SCHERBER 120.00 BRIAN BEBEAU 130.00 PAT WALSH 30.00 Make our City........ Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business PAGE 2 DENNIS FEHN PARK BOARD GORDY BERNING WANDA SCHERBER MICHAEL POTTER 10.00 TOTAL $26,347.94 J&', i-t I 7B, 1 (5 Li LA50 -7 cS"-7-7 , C>c+ NEWTUML cU, 9J- 4. q�r CITY OF ALBERTVILLE WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES JANUARY 1, 1985 TO DECEMBER 31, 1985 12 Month 1 Month Current Year to Budget -------------------------------------------------- Budget Month Date REVENUES General Property Taxes and State and Federal Aids Regular Levy 62,066 51172 22,498 46,418 Homestead Credit 2,978 17,868 Local Gov't Aid 44,439 7,460 44,909 Revenue Sharing 16,177 Fire & Police Aid 1,863 Licenses and Permits Liquior 5,000 417 4,450 Beer 400 33 300 Sewer Permits 335 Building Permits 800 67 1,154 16,148 ~_ Sign Permits 1,300 108 Bingo 25 2 25 Dog 25 2 6 Amusement 130 11 110 Cigarette 75 6 48 Fenrw 2 Fire Protection Fees 51000 417 4,053 Other Rental 208 Interest 21082 2,082 Capital Asset Sales 5,000 Note Payable Fire Truck 36,000 Donations 1,693 Reimbursements 2,115 Miscellaneous 500 ________________________________________________ 42 1 101 TOTAL REVENUE 119,760 -------------------------------------------------- 6,277 36,174 199,912 Page 2 CITY OF AL_.BERTV I L_L_E WRIGHT COUNTY, M I NNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES aANUARY 15 1905 TO DECEMBER 31, 1985 EXPENDITURES Counci I Sa 1 ar i es Special Meetings Administrator Salarie<. Workman's Comp. Ins. Payroll Taxes Dues and Subscriptions Mileage and Travel Insurance Other Total Council Clerk: Salaries Payroll Taxes PERA Special Meetings Dues and Subscriptions Printing and Publication Office Supplies Mileage and Travel Other Total Clerk: 12 Month 1 Month Current:. Year to Budget Budget Month Date ------------------------------------------------ 4132C.) 360 360 4, =20 1 , 0 C) 8:= 175 1,580 I. , 2SO 32 6,400 32 42() 7=5 300 25 544 200 17 54 1,600 17_: 1,600 ------------------------------------------------ 60 44i ) 7, 420 618 2, 27 15,705 3,900 325 333 996 265 22 2Z 282 28t) ... ^" 10 220 250 21 15 Z55 ;� J .J 30 300 25 446 20(--) 17 140 100 8 5 `, too ------------------------------------------------ 8 8 5, 395 ------------------------------------------------- 40".) 395 J 482 Maintenance Salaries 19,000 1,503 I V 46 .'� 18, 99'. Payroll Taxes 1,35) 113 105 1,342 PERA 1,045 87 82 1,047 Inspection Fees 25 Workman' ss Comp. Ins. 1,506 1,506 Utilities 50 i 42 Supplies 300 25 133 1,309 Mileage and Travel Repair<_, and Maintenance 500 42 402 Gasoline 90() 75 94 1,020 Capital Outlay 1,500 125 44i i 871 Other 50 4 20 128 ------------------------------------------------ _ Total Maintenance ------------------------------------------------- 25,145 2,095 5, 84'2 26,642 Page 75 _ CITY OF AL BERTV I L.l_E WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES JANUARY 1, 19SS TO DECEMBE::R 31., 1985 EXPENDITURES City Hall Utilities Telephone Supplies Repairs and Maintenance Rub i sh Capital Outlay Other Total City Nall Pol i ce Protection Fees Total Police Fire Department 12 Month 1 Month) Current Year to Budget Budget_ Month Date ------------------------------------------------ 50() 42 2 976 800 67 17 699 500 42 70 891 300 25 173 1,126 1,105 ------------------------------------------------- 2, 225 ------------------------------------------------ 185 303 5,244 19,500 ------------------------------------------------- 1,625 1,551 18,524 19, J(_ 0 -------------------------------------------------- 1,625 1,551 1S,524 Workman'<s Comp. Ins. 617-; 61: Utilities 30(`) 25 752 Telephone 11 Supplies 300 25 888 2,603 Repairs and Maintenance 500 42 24 55 Gasoline 400 _ _ 65 355 Insurance 2,000 16*7 2,745 Education and Training 30::) 29 195 Dues 125 1 C..) 89 Fire Relief Association 3, 0c.) 250 3,000 4,100 Audit 2 0O 17 365 Capital Outlay 3 , (_ 0(-) 250 56, .?95 Other" 150 1.3 15() 879 ------------------------------------------------ Total Fire Department Krtment 10,325 860 41739 69,157 Park: Department Utilities 8(_)(_) 67 9 555 Supplies 200 17 1 745 Repairs and Maintenance 500 42 576 Gasoline 100 a 222 Capital Outlay 1,00c) 8--?; =92 Other. ------------------------------------------------- Total Park: Department ------------------------------------------------ 2960C) 217 10 2, 49C) Page 4 '-' CITY OF ALBERTVILLE WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES JANUARY 1, 1985 TO DECEMBER 31, 1985 12 Month 1 Month Current Year to Budget Budget Month Date ________________________________________________ EXPENDITURES Street Department Utilities 12,500 1,042 941 10,656 Supplies 79 1,234 Repairs and Maintenance 1,000 83 336 2,037 Gasoline 500 42 113 760 Snowplowing 2,000 167 32 586 Sand and Gravel 300 25 390 City Street Maintenance 5,000 417 113 Township Road Maintenance 1,000 83 1,744 Capital Outlay 1,000 83 323 Other ________________________________________________ 5,250 438 9 Total Street Dept. ________________________________________________ 28,550 2,379 11501 17,852 Undistributed Expenses -~ Accounting and Bookkeepin 2,500 208 200 3,225 Animal Control 1,000 83 135 1,620 Assessor Fees 2,500 208 2,083 Attorney Fees 6,000 500 1,007 8,109 Auditing 5,000 417 4,715 Building Inspector 8,188 Engineer Election Insurance 1,000 83 31444 Interest Expense 949 Printing and Publishing 300 25 10 1,025 Repairs and Maintenance 100 8 Supplies Planning Board Salaries 270 Park Board Salaries 60 Utilities 200 17 0 43 Capital Outlay 810 Other ------------------------------------------------- 243 Total Undistributed Expenditures ------------------------------------------------- 18,600 1,550 1,352 34,785 Total Expenditures ------------------------------------------------- 119,760 91980 16,020 195,881 --Excess (Deficency) of of Revenues over Expenditures 0 (3,703) 20,154 4,031 Page 5