Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 02-10-1975XONTICEI.L0 CITY COUNCIL Tentative Agenda February 10, 197$ --- 3:00 P. M. City Hall MAYOR: Con Johnson COUNCIL1'1E\. Stanley Hall, Denton Erickson, Gene Walters, Richard Martie. I'lecting to be caped. Citizens comments. 1. Engineering proposal - Orr, Schelen,'-layeron & Assoc. 2. Consider request by League of Women Voters to en- courage Minnesota Legislature t;o establish policy regarding non -returnable containers. 3. Engineering proposal - There Meyer. 4. Discussion of adoption of now set of ordinances. 5. Unfinished business. G. Old business• 7. New business• Enclosures for Council= Letter from Sen. Robert Dunn Information on returnables .%Iniling to: There %Icyer &, Ansoc. League of Women Voters - Nancy Cassano Gary Prinalo - City Attorney Doti Smith - }Ionticullo Timoo M L„ J REVISED PROPOSAL TO PIONTICELLO, MINNESOTA FOR COMPREHENSIVE STORM WATER, SANITARY SEWERAGE AND WATER FACILITIES JANUARY 10, 1975 ORR-SCUBLEN-NAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTI14G ENGINEERS 2021 EAST IIEZ414EPIN AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNEOTA 55413 -At/-)a y/ January 10, 1975 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Monticello City Fall 215 South Cedar Street Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Attn: Mr. Conrad 0. Johnson, Mayor Gentlemen: Pursuant to our recent discussion, and in light of the fact that the City of Monticello is restricted in its annual budget due to the action of the Minnesota Municipal's Commission, Orr-Schelen- Mayeron s Assocites, Inc. would like to submit for your consideration a revised program of study to undertake certain engineering functions for the City. It our previous proposal to you, under date of October 25, 1974, we outlined a complete program of engineering and planning necessary to develop Comprehensive Plana for a storm water system, a sanitary sewerage system and a municipal water system for the City of Monticello. As stated .in our previous proposal, Orr-Sehelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, Inc., is a Minnesota based engineering firm with offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota offering consulting services to government, industry and -z - the private sector for over fifty years. Our engineering expertise extends into all aspects of civil, mechanical, electrical, sanitary, structural and environmental engineering and land surveying and devel- opment. We are presently the consultants and designated city engineer for many municipalities within the State of Minnesota and adjoining states. The types of municipal projects we are now working on includes street paving (concrete and bituminous), water works (storage, distribution and treatment), sanitary sewers, storm water systems, recreational areas, solid waste disposal, service buildings and sewage treatment plants along with the associated environmental problems. Presently we are serving the following communities on various municipal projects. They are as follows: Bloomington, Minnesota Burnsville, Minnesota Fairfax, Minnesota Grant Township, Washington County 11ugo, Minnesota Janeavillo, Minnesota Laketown Township Lauderdale, Minnesota Minnetristo, Minnenota New (lope, Minnesota Orono, Minnesota Richfield, Minnesota St. Louis Park Shoreview, Minnesota Shorewood, Minnesota South St. Paul, Minnesota Tonka Bay, Minnesota Wells, Minnesota White Bear Lake, Minnesota Maquoketa, Iowa Metropolitan Waste Control Commission State of Minnesota State of Wisconsin Further we would be pleased to have you wr.ito or call any of our clients as to our accomplishments and reference. ,I,ld-7J Ae, -3 - This revised proposal for engineering services will consist of several elements along the following general plan of study. PHASE I - GENERAL PLAP OP STUDY AND EVALUATION A. Comprehensive Storm Water Plan The storm water study as proposed would include the present limits of the City of Monticello, the recently annexed area and the entire contributing drainage area within the township. The study would encompass the following scope of work so as to guide the City in its land use development commensurate with good drainage practices. 1. Analysis of rainfall in the monticello area. 2. Hydrological invost•igation of the study area including proposed land use classifications and development, runoff quantities and pattern of: runoff. 3. Investigation of: the location, the size and the use of natural ponding arons, flooding areas and recharge areas to reduce downstream pipe capacities. 4. Definition of apccial disposal requirements from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Natural Resources, the Watershed District and bright County. _�w, f "-, B -4- 5. The preliminary design of the master storm water system would define the drainage corridors through Monticello to the Mississippi River and the general location of all trunks and design discharge of these storm sewers. 6. Preparation of preliminary cost estimates of the proposed storm water system. B. Comprehensive Sanitary Sewerage System The purpose of this study is to evaluate the existing sanitary sewer system and the existing wastewater treatment facilities of the City so as to develop an overall sewerage system to meet the present and long range needs of the City, including the recently annexed area and adjacent rural area. The sanitary sewerage study as proposed will encompass the following scope of work: 1. Analyze the existing sanitary sewer system as to its adequacy to servo present and long range needs of the City. 2. Evaluation of the oxiating data relative to the wastewater treatment• facilities and other sources of. wastewater discharge to the City system. -5- 3. Using the population projections of the State Planning Agency, the proposed Comprehensive Development Plan for Monticello and other data relative to the long range development contemplated for the City as presently expanded, an overall sewerage system will be developed to meet the long range needs for Monticello. 4. The preliminary design of the master sanitary sewer system will include the general location of all trunks, the size of these sanitary sewers and design discharge based on the proposed Comprehensive Development Plan for Monticello. 5. Preparation of preliminary cost estimates for the trunk sewer facilities. 6. Based on the recommendations developed above, submit to the appropriate federal and state agencies the necessary applications for grants for construction of sanitary sewerage facilities under the I'aderal Water Pollution Control Act. C. Comprehensive I-,nt-er SVstom Plan The purpose of thin study in to evaluate the existing water system of the City and develop on overall water plan which the City can follow to ultimatoly construct a complete and economically operating water system for the present limits of Monticello and the recently "? - /&— 7j 4"' -6 - annexed area to the City. The water system study as proposed would encompass the following scope of work. 1. Analyze the adequacy of the e�.isting water system for future demand and incorporation of this system in the overall water plan. 2. Determine all feasible water supply sources for Monticello. a. Investigate development of well fields. b. Investigate development of scattered wells. C. Investigate use of any available surface supplies or the development of new surface supplies. 3. Develop by computer analysis, an overall distribution system for each feasible water source investigated under Item No. 2 above incorporating the existing water system. 4. Investigate treatment methods that may be necessary to provide city residents with a first class water product for each of the sources investigated under Item No. 2 above. 5. Outline the various mothodu available for assessing the water system, establishing probable assessment rates for sourco and supply facilities. Recommend water usage rates to be charged proposed users. ';2 -i•-u W I -7 I G. Prepare a written report discussing all of the investigations jI made above and recommend the most feasible approach to the I City Council. PHASE II - FACILITIES DESIGN Orr-Schelen-Nayeron & Associates, Inc. will design and prepare final plans and specifications for the construction of the recommended storm water facilities, the sanitary sewerage system and the municipal water system for the city of Monticello upon approval and decision to proceed by the City Council. The facilities designed will meet the requirements of the applicable regulatory agencies from whom the required permits will be obtained. Bidding documents will be prepared and assistance will be given in the advr.rtising for bids and recommendation of the award of bids. PHASE III - CONSTRUCTION PHASE During the construction of the planned facilities, Orr-Schelon- Mayoron will provide the following services. 1. Periodic observations of work in progrean. ;- -/0.-I s '=' J -8- 2. Preparation of supplementary drawings required to clarify working drawings. 3. Review of detailed shop and equipment drawings to determine compliance with plans and specifications. 4. Review of laboratory, shop and mill tests of materials and equipment done by testing laboratories. 5. Review and make recommendations on requests for partial and final payments to construction contractors. 6. Assistance during construction with interpretation of plans and specifications. 7. Consultation and advice to the client during construction. B. Final i.napection and report of the completed project. COST OF ENGTNEERTNr S1711VIC17S The total engineering fee for basic services outlined under Phaso I through Phaso TII above will be based on the actual construction cost in place, including all equipment, material and construction labor but excluding engineering costs, land, legal fees, and finance charges. The engineering fee for projects having a a_/O•)Sl�i J -9- construction cost less than $500,000 will be seven and one-half percent (7-1/28) and for projects having a construction cost of greater than $500,000, the engineering fee will be six and one-half percent (6-1/28). In the development of projects such as this, certain special services are required, the cost of which are added to the basic engineering fee. Special services such as soils investigations and borings, laboratory and materials testing services, water quality testings and land surveys are generally paid for at cost. Other special services such as field surveys and staking will be charged on an hourly basis according to the attached schedule (Exhibit n). Resident engineering services are charged on the basis of two times technical payroll. These special services are usually negotiated when required. Based on the cost for performing the services outlined under Phase I above for other municipalities, and for budgetary purposes, we would propose to undertake the work outlined in Phase I above for the following amounts not to exceed: st -/0-7 S '�� J -10- A. Comprehensive Storm water Plan - $ 6,500.00 B. Comprehensive Sanitary Sewerage System Plan - 10,200.00 C. Comprehensive water Plan - 8,300.00 Total fee not to exceed $25,000.00 The fees for the various plans outlined under Phase I are based on our per diem rates for technical staff computed at 2.25 times techanical payroll according to the attached schedule (Exhibit A) This amount (Phase I) is part of the total engineering fee and will be credited toward the total fee, on a proportional basis to the total project, as a project proceeds to the Facilities Design Phase. Further, we are very interested in serving the City of Monticello as your designated City Engineer. We would propose to furnish to the City several routine engineering as follows: 1. Attendance at all regular council meetings for a fee of $25.00 per meeting plus mileage expense. Mr. John P. Badalieh, P.E. an Associate with the firm, will be designated to serve the City of Monticello in tho capacity of City Engineer and attend the meetings of the City Council as required. J -11- 2. The filing system for engineering projects, if one exists, is proposed to be updated, or if none exists, a filing system would be developed with the necessary index maps to provide an easy reference for utility locations. 3. Assistance would be provided to the sewer and water superintendent on problems relating to the sewerage and water systems. 4. Assistance would be provided to the street superintendent in matters relating to state aid projects, street maintenance and traffic control needs. 5. All plats and plans submitted by the developers would be reviewed in preliminary and final stages including all utility and street improvements. G. Maintenance programs currently utilized by the city staff relating to engineering would be reviewed upon request. tie would propose t•o undertake the engineering tasks noted in paragraphs 2 through G above on the basis of our per diem rates for techanieal staff computed at 2.25 times technical payroll according to the attached schedulo (Exhibit A). The City Adminis- trator would be informed of tho engineering services requested by other City personnel prior to these tasks being undortnken by i -12- our firm. Depending on the routine engineering services that may be required, a retainer type fee could be worked out on a monthly basis, if so desired by the city council. We are most appreciative of the opportunity to make this proposal to you on these various projects. In the event you may need any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to call. For your further information and reference, I am enclosing a brochure of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron s Associates, Inc. that indicates our experience and capabilities. Yours very truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. D. A. Mittelsteadt, P.E. President DAM/jet I EXHIBIT "A" ORR-SCHELEN-KAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers - Land Surveyors 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 FEES FOR SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING SERVICES The fees for surveying and engineering services are based on our regular schedule of per diem rates now in effect on similar projects. Expenses are reimbursable in accordance with the schedule given below. Billings for services of principal and technical staff of the firm will be based on time actually expended. Per diem rates for technical staff are computed at 2.25 times technical pay- roll costs. Payroll costs include cost of salaries and of man- datory and customary benefits such as statutory employee bene- fits, insurance, sick leave, holidays and vacations, pensions and similar benefits. Charges arc made for technical personnel actually engaged in the execution of project work. A summary of rates and personnel classification are presented below: Classification Ranqe of Hourly Billinq Rate Principals ................... $50 Associates ................... $25 - $40 Engineers....... .......... $15 - $35 Technicians & Draftsmen...... $12 - $22 Survey Crew: 3 Men, Vehicle 5 Equipment $36 Direct Expenses: include long distance telephone, computer, tele- graph, travel and subsistence, outside work, report reproduction and special reproduction costs not generally included in normal overhead will be reimbursable at cost, plus 10% of the direct expense for accounting and clerical charges. Statements, issued monthly, will include names of personnel associated with the work, a summary of time spent, and a detailed description of reimbursable expenses. - leo -i JOHN P. BADALICH, P.E., ASSOCIATE ORR-SCIIELEN-I-LAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. Badalich, is a registered professional engineer with vast experience in design and admistrative engineering with local and state government, industry and private consulting firms in all aspects of civil, sanitary, structural and environ- mental engineering. EDUCATION Bachelor of Civil Engineering University of Minnesota (1950) REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL EIIGI14EER State of Minnesota PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES Air Pollution Control Association Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers National Society of Professional Engineers Water Pullution Control Federation American Public Works Association EXPERIENCE 1973 - Present Associate: Orr -Schelon-Mayeron 6 Associates, Inc. Consulting engineering services to Government, industry and the private sector in all aspects of civil, mechanical, electrical, sanitary, structural and environmental engineering. 1971-1973 Associate: Quirk, Lawlor. & Matusky Engineers Manager of St. Paul office in providing engineering and environmental services to industry and Government in Minnesota and'adjoining states. 1967-1971 Executive Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Responsible to the Governor for the interprctation and adminiotration of state anti federal laws, relating to all environmental matters. Further responsibilities consisted of organizing the Agency and employing such assistants and other officers, employees and agents doomed necenrary to discharge and functions of the Agency and defining duties for such personnel. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is responsible at the state level, for the protection of the environment in tho fields of air pollution, water pollution, solid waste disposal and pollution as relates to land use planning. ,1 _,,. ) S Al/ J -'- 1955-1967 City Engineer, City of South St. Paul, Minnesota; Responsible to the City Council for all engineering in the city; and the administration of all public works and related departments in the city which included the Engineering Department, Water, Sewer, Street Department, Traffic Engineering, Building Inspection, Sewage Treatment, Garbage Collection and Disposal, Refuse Disposal, Parks and Playgrounds and Airport. In addition to the administrative and engineering duties of the aforementioned departments, he was also the Purchasing Agent for the city. 1950-1955 Engineer.: Bridge Department of the Northern Pacific Railway; Responsible for design and construction supervision. 1971-1974 Special consultant to the United Power Association and U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and served as Chairman of the Safety Review Committee for the decommissioning and dis- mantling of the Elk River Nuclear Reactor which was a precedent setting complete dismantling and removal of a nuclear reactor. Mr. Badalich has boon a frequent lecturer at the University of 14inne- sota Center of Continuation Studies and Professional Engineering Organizations and authored several publications in engineering jour- nals. lie also has appeared before the Congress, the State Legisla- ture and other Stato and Federal Agencies on environmental and engineering matters and proposed legislation. - /. -)'T 149 OREGON HINIHuM DEPOSIT LAw First -Year Impacts and Effectiveness In 1973 the Oregon Legislature commissioned Applied Decision Systems to conduct a study of the impacts and effectiveness of the state's Minimum Deposit Law. The final report was accepted by the State in October 1974 end is now available to the public. The Oregon Minimum Deposit Law went into effect October 1, 1972. It required all containers for carbonated drinks and malt beverages to bear a minimum 5c refund value (except for "certified containers" on which the minimum refund value was 2c). It also prohibited the sale of soft drinks and beer in pull -tab cans. The major findings of the study are summarized below. Litter Analysis The principal objective of the Minimum Deposit Law was to reduce beverage -related litter throughout the state. The litter analysis indicates that it was successful in accomplishing that. During the eleven months after the law went into effect, beverage -related litter declined by 66% compared to the year before. 100 �. IN 1971 During that period after the law, average daily traffic increased by 4.5%, making the decline even more significant. Each category of beverage- related litter also showed a significant decline. Other litter, however, did not decline after the law, and in fact increased by 12%. Total litter. as a result, declined by 10.6%. v^ Economic impacts Each of the industries studied has experienced increased costs end/or decreased profits since the law. In the first year the industries (excluding retailers for whom adequate data was not obtained) showed a combined reduction in pre-tax profits of $2.9 iiPF1.7En Dr_clsiox A DIVISION or TEMPV., nABSED & BIALwr.. Mr. ie WAUIJU7 STDEr.T-waLLr.s:.rr nil.La- VABSAc IIVSErTs o:Ial SYST)�vIS to 44.1 million related to beer and an additional $4.0 to $4.5 million related to soft drinks. On a simple units basis, that amounted to reduced operating profits of 44.5t to 6.4c per six-pack of beer, and 8.3t to 8.8t for soft drinks. The projected second -year profit impacts will be higher for beer (6.2c to 8.1d per six-pack) and lower for soft drinks (5Q per six-pack). Sales of packaged beer and soft drinks have slackened since the law. Despite the continued growth of the population, sales for both on an ounce basis have levelled off at the pre -law levels. In the face of historical growth of per capita consumption each year, the per capita consumption in Oregon has now declined since the law. The impacts upon each of the industries is summarized in the table below: -\a t SUMMARY Or [CONOAIC IA0✓1CTS If /i INDUSTRY IST YEAR PROFITS SLILLEO JOBS I INYC57f9Fi •�// Solt 3`10 47.1 to •53.5- .I42 to 148 •53.5 to $4.5- 4,5• -50 to - 60 1�' t S Enwn 8wr vloLutart -90.9 to •11.2 -50.7 tR •51.9 • SO to 60 • U to So •12.2 to {).i •10.4 to $0.5 • W N.nul.cturen GINtt PUYi0act."19- 42.2 to 42.5 •10.1 •140 to -162 •200 to •26S •10.5 VIL ' TOTK •16.9 to - m {B.6 •279 to •258 -16.4-16.4to f8.6mm .290 to .482 .1Nt,N4 Year Profits -1.1M Consumer Attitudes Consumers in Oregon approve of the Minimum Deposit Law overwhelmingly. Of those interviewed in September 1973, 91% were in favor of the law, and only 5; disapproved. Furthermore. over 80% either found it no inconvenience to return empty Containers. or were willing to put up with the inconvenience if it helped to reduce litter. Over 80% also indicated a willingness to pay "slightly" higher prices for beer and soft drinks in order to reduce littering. Copies of the full report may be obtained from the Legislative Fiscal Office. State Capitol. Salem. Oregon 97310 for the cost of reproduction ($7). NOTE: Eroerpta reprinted with pamiacion of tho State of Dragon. J �.J91A�2�=11February 4, 1975 INDIANA HOUSE DUMPS CAN BTLI, y� The Indiana State House dumped legislation today that would place a forced deposit on beer enc] soft drink containers. The body voted 85-11 to kill the measure. "The results we've seen come out of Oregon where such legislation is in effect simply don't justify the costs to the people," notes Indiana State Representative Mendle E. Adams -D, Delaware County. "we've got to take an overall view. Attacking a single product isn't going to get us anything but higher prices." Similar thinking is beinq echoes] in other state houses around the nation as 49 state legislatures open new sessions. A survey in several stator, shows many "bottle and can ban" bills will be replaced by proposals to meet the overall solid waste problem, without further tightening the economic squeeze. "This simply isn't the time for us to consider legislation that has proven inflationary elsewhere," said Tndiana Representative Ed Goble -D, Batesville. "we've got our hands full trying to hold the line without the headaches a forced deposit law would create." "Resource recovery and recycling of our solid waste is the only answer to the solid waste. problem," Representative Ed Coble continues. "Such programs are beginning to happen in this state and throughout the country. But we can't expect it overnight." The economic repercussions deposit legislation would cause were voiced by Representative Jewell G. Harris, Majority whip. "The two most important thinga on my mind right now are honnIna prices down atic�hr lllq.mY j,ltuents wor)ijnc��" he noted. "Forces] deposits on beer and soft drink containers prove to result in just the opposite." 14 ,A - /a - 1 5 a -L SUMMARY IMPACTS OF BEVERAGE CONTAINER REGULATION IN MINNESOTA This report, prepared in response to a request from Governor Wendell R. Anderson in his Special Message to the Minnesota Legislature, "Securing a Quality Environment in Minnesota," February 14, 1973, examinee the impact of beverage container regulation in Minnesota on employment, resource and energy usage, solid waste and litter, and consumer prices and expenditures. Mandatory deposits, with consequent changes in the packaging array of beer and soft drink consumption in Minnesota, would have both positive and negative impacts in Minnesota. Benefits would include possible reductions in the externalities associated with the overuse i of mineral and environmental resources, decreases in the costs of solid waste disposal, and a reduction in litter. Costa due to the change include fob losses, capital write-offs, a lose in consumer convenience, and increases in some classes of prices. The results of this study indicate that neither the benefits nor the costo of container regulation in Minnesota are as great as have been believed. This study eatimateo the impact in Minn000ta of regulation by the State of Minnesota only; the costa to Minnesota would be higher if passage of mandatory deposit regulation in Minnesota stimulated passage of similar legislation by neighboring states. Minn000tana currently consume about 2.3 million barrels of boor per year and 13.39 billion ounces of soft drink (see attached Tablas - 1 - �Z ./D -7I d -L 2.1 - 2. 3). Package beer is about 541 in returnable bottles, 16% non -returnable bottles, and 302 cans by volume. Package soft drinks are 522 returnable, 172 non -returnable bottles, and 312 cane by volume. The percentage of sales in returnables is nearly three times as high in Minnesota as nationally for beer and slightly higher for soft drinks. The desire to legislatively impose a change to an all -refillable system is based on the premise that the present container array costa society more than an all -refillable system. These higher social costa arise from lack of the ideal competition of economic theory in industry and the consequent failure of prices to adequately reflect rebource costa. Higher coats include externalities in resource use (overuse, too rapid depletion of scarce resources, and disfiguration J of the environment through solid waste disposal and litter). In addition, the character of the industry from producers through retail markets may keep consumers from getting the container array which they actually desire. The result is a divergence between private and ::C ocial costo of beverage containarirtation so that the present ntainerization coats to society may be enough more than an all - refillable system to justify mandating a change. Opponents of a change through regulation argue that the present array beet meats consumer desires, especially for the convenience of disposable containers, and that the alleged benefits do not justify the costs of employment losses, capital write-offs, and possible damage to Minnesota breweries and soft drink producers. Opponents further argue that if improper prices cause too groat a present use of resources in beverage containers. a better answer Is federal action to ensure better prices. The operation of markets would then determine which uses of resources are marginal according to consumer desires. The study calculates energy use and resource use (steel, glass, aluminum) for the present array of containers compared to energy and resource use under an all -refillable system at current beverage consumption levels. Estimated annual savings in resources are 31.4 thousand tons of glass, 21.3 thousand tons of steel and 2.5 thousand tons of aluminum. These are very small proportions of total U.S. and world use and only iron has much possibility of being depleted. (Sand and aluminum are two of the most common components of the earth.) Those reductions in use should be valued at the savings in external costa, or about 9599,000 (at the estimated cost necessary to achieve 1976 air pollution standards). Probably only one -fiftieth of this value would be realized by Minnesotans. Energy savings would be inconsequential, about one-fifth of one percent- of Minnesota's 1970 anergy use. The gasoline equivalent of thio saving would allow each Minnesota household to drive throe miles per week, if the energy saving accrued to Minnesota. The distribution of energy savings are estimated at 36.3 thousand barrels of fuel oil, 1.6 million gallons of diesel fuel and gasoline, 1.3 million MCP (thouoand cubic fact) of natural gas, and 21.5 thousand tone of coal. Those savings are part of the national (and international) onergy pool so that only a portion would be available to Minnesotans. Gasoline and diesel fuel use would very 11kel 3 be higher in Minnesota due to the greater use of transportation fuels 1 by the heavier and bulkier refillable containers. A mandatory deposit system would still allow the use of cans. it is likely that cans may regain 405 of their present volume, so that the actual savings would likely be 8 - 105 lower than the savings attributable to an all -refillable system. Litter rates may be reduced 15% by piece count and 225 by volume. Collection cost savings could range from $500,000 to $860,000 depending on the estimate of total collection costs and any change in pickup activities. if there were no change in the expenditures on litter collection, litter accumulation should be reduced by 30%. The value of the litter reduction should exceed chic possible collection costs savings. The report estimates that beverage containers generate approximately 127.4 thousand tons of solid waste per year In Minnesota; an all - refillable system is estimated to generate 79.5 thousand tuns, n reduction of 47.9 thousand tons. Thin represents 385 of the beverage container content of solid waste and approximately 1.55 of total municipal solid wants. The value of this saving is probably around $200,000 direct coats plus perhaps $100,000 in external or non -market. coats A chnnge to an all -refillable system can be expected to have little effect on beer consumption, with an increase of about threo-tenths of on.: percent in the average money price of boar. Soft drink sales ahuuld be affected to a greater extant, but should not oxcoad a 105 drop in sales. Average money prices paid for soft drinks may fall by - 4 - around 131. The effective price, including consumer time and effort, should increase. The Minnesota brewing industry may need to make an investment of perhaps $7 million in new equipment, bottles and handling facilities (e.g., additional warehouse storage space). The soft drink industry may require an investment of $19 million. The expected value of the job loss depends on the extent of can sales remaining after imposition of deposits. An all -refillable syatem would cause an expected job loss of 341, but the loss could be as low as 188 or as high as 1,157. The expected number of job dislocations is 388. (The difference between "job losses" and "employee dislocations" is due to (1) adjustment for normal attrition; (2) changes in the industry and geographical situs of jobs.) Total costs, including loss of income, search and relocation costs, are estimated at $800,000 or an annual charge of $80,000 at 101. Mandatory deposits, with can sales at 401 of their present market share, would cause job dislocations of an expected number of 280, with a cost of $575,000 or a $57,500 annual charge. A common answer to the job lose argument to that an all -refillable system would "create jobs" to offset the looses. The all -refillable system or mandatory deposit system would require greater amounts of labor in handling returns in retail stores, by distributors, and by brewers and bottlers. However, this additional labor requirement should not be considered an offset to the job dislocations. Those now requirements are in different geographical areae, and are generally lower -skilled, lower paying jobs. We estimate no not change in the number of jobs in Minnesota as a result of the bottle bill. The total quantifiable annual bunofit to Minnesota is estimated - 5 - t2,,&-75_ to be around $855,000 or $1,158,000 (depending on the litter collection cost estimate) plus an additional $762,000 national benefit for the all -refillable system and around $858,000 to $1,117,000 for a mandatory deposit system plus $701,000 in additional national savings. Not quanitified Is the benefit of not seeing as much litter, but part of this value is included in the dollar estimate. Total annual quanitified costs are estimated at $733,000 for the all -refillable system and $472,500 for the mandatory deposit system. The value of the lose in consumer convenience is not quanitified but may be significant. If, for example, convenience Is worth 1/4C per filling, the lose in convenience would equal $1,578,000, making total coats exceed total benefits. i —6 - J Points of Agroeaent ry 1•:aus :..ods, '!ayn�, . cod Owl, and the League of Women Votdrs Throwaway soft drink and beer containers are a problem. A state -.Tide policy or po:icias are recet.sary to deal with this problem. Monticello grocery retailers do not feel that a deposit on all soft drink and beer containers would be a satisfactory solution. We all could support a ban on the flip -top ring. We all could support a small tax to be used toward public education and litter cleanup. We all could support the use of uniform beverage cans -- either steel or aluminum. Whon onacted, this would need to be done in stages to allow industry to make the change more easily. Couldn't small throwaway glass boor and soft drink containers be done away with? Recommend investigation. The current trend in Monticello appears to be away from throwaways and back to the returnable, reusable bottles. Lot's pass legislation and continuo education to ensure that this trend continues in the manner in which it is now moving. Reoommondationso That the mayor appoint a committoo to help with community education regarding the preference for using returnable beer and soft drink containers as well as the reasons for recycling projects. That the committee look into the possibility of dovoloping a recycling project for the City of Monticello. Jim Maus would agree to become a member of such a committee. The League of Women Votors would agree to have a member be appointed to the committee. That someone involved with the St. Michael recycling project should be sought as an ox -officio member or as an adviser to the committee. ,,2 . /a- is 40J 9EYER-ROI-ILIN, INCL ! 1 ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N, Buffalo. Minn. 55313 Phone 612.682.1781 February 10, 1975 Honorable Mayor and City Council Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit the following revision to our original proposal for Engineering services dated December 9, 1974. Our original proposal, we feel, properly reflects the cost of the needed Engineering studies as outlined by City Council approximately December 1, 1974. The needs still remain the same, however, a change in funding ability may dictate a new stepped approach to the studies. In referring to our original report, we would suggest the following changes: Muncipal Water Supply Items I through 4 would remain as is. Item 5, financing, would be deleted at this time and studied as each improvement proyect is intiated. The revised cost of the Muncipal Water Study shall be $3,000.00. Wastewater Collection and Trentment Facility Item 1, thorough evaluation of the existin collection system would remain the same -j7,900.00 Item 2, Collection trunk system for the newly annexed area and adgoini.ng township areas would remain the same - $3,400.00. Item 3, Wastewater treatment facility - the original proposal developed a report to be submitted for approval to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. We would suggest that the revised study be 1 nited to a determination of the expansion capabilities and costs of the existing facility and a proposed location and cost of: a new facility providing n basis for the overall trunk system design. The report required by pollution Contrul Agency could be delayed until such time that 90% federally funding would become Thoro n Mayor, Prolossional Enginoor Robort Rohlin, nogisforod Land Surveyor '2 /d - 7s 9' Page 2 February 10, 1975 available for the City of Monticello (Currently 131 on 1975 tentative allocation list of 480). The revised cost of Item 3 would be $4,500.00. Total Wastewater Study cost to be $15,800.00. Storm Water and Surface Drainage We would propose that Items I and 2 would remain as is with a complete deletion of Item 3, to be taken care of as the corporate limits are expanded. Total cost of Storm Water Study would be $4,400.00. The above revisions would not delete any items that are immediately needed for the proper planning of the City of Monticello, but, would postpone those items where specific answers are not necessarily needed at this time. One further consideration would be completing the report on an hourly basis with the above figures used as a maximum cost for the study. All study costs would be credited to the City on a pro -rata basis, against the engineering fees as the actual construction is undertaken. We appreciate the opportunity of submitting this revised proposal and will be at your Council. meeting of February 10,1975 to answer any questions you may have. TPM:dm cc:l. 7411 Respectfully Submitted MEYER.ROHLIN, INC. '--chore P. Meyer Professional Engineer ,2 -Avx- 75 A141 9 0v 110 yda —.1 �oo CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into Lhis day of , 1975 by and between the City of Monticello, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter sometimes called the "Municipality" and Meyer-Rohlin, Inc., Engineers and Land Surveyors, hereinafter called "Engineer", for the calendar year of 1975. WITNESSETH: RECITALS A. The Municipality desires to engage competent engineering services in the two following capacities in connection with improvements for the Municipality. (1) As a consulting Engineer to the City for definite proposed projects, and (2) As a resident City Engineer to assist the City forces in routine City engineering problems. B. The Engineer desires to perforin engineering services for the Municipality as needed. C. The parties hereto desire that the fees to be paid for such services shall be stated in this Agreement and be binding upon the parties for all engineering work done. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the muLual and reciprocal promises staLed herein, the parties agree as follows: I AGREEMENT I The Municipality engages the Engineer to perform professional engineering services for the Municipality as needed. II The Engineer shall perform work for the Municipality as directed b the City Clerk or the City Council. The work shall be divided into the following categories: A. As Consulting Engineering Projects B. As Resident City Engineer The work and services to be perfumed in each category are as follows: A. As Consulting Engineer (1) Preparation of Preliminary Plans, Survey and Report: The Engineer shall supervise the making of all required sub -surface explorations and shall make the engineering surveys and invesLigations of the area and the proposed improvement necessary to prepare preliminary plans and report, including estimates of: Construction cost, assessable footage or area, and the estimated front foot or area assessment rate. The Engineers shall also assist the Council in preparing data, making presentations and representations to the various government agencies for Federal assistance. (2) Preparation of Working Drawings and Specifications: From the approved prelimi-naries, the Engineer shall prepare working drawings, specifications, and other Contract Documents completely describing the material and workmanship required and procedures to be followed for the construction of the Project, and he shall adjust the preliminary construction cost estimate to include changes in the scope of the Project, the Owner's requirements, and market conditions. The Engineer will obtain approval of: the plans and specifications from the Minnesota State Board of Health and Pollution Control Agency, if so required. The Engineer will assist the Council in preparation for advertisement for bids and general contract conditions, and will furnish all necessary drawings and copies of contract documents to prospective bidders. Tabulation of bids will be made by the Engineer, and the Engineer will advise and assist in the awarding of the contracts. (3) Supervision of Construction: The Engineer will furnish the necessary general supervision of the construction to check the Contractor's work for general compliance with the drawings and specifications and shall endeavor to protect the Owner against defects and deficiencies in the work of the Contractor, but cannot guarantee the contractor s performance. The Engineer s >veneral supervision shall not include furnishing part or full time inspection, but shall include the following services: (a) Additional Instructions: The Engineer shall issue such additional instructions to the Contractor as may be necessary to interpret the drawingsand speci.fications or to illustrate changes required In the Contractor's work. (b) Contractor's Submittals: The Engineer shall check shop drawings, samples, equipment, approval clnLa and other data submitted by the Contractor for compllnnce with the drawings and specifications. (c) Contractor's Requests for Payment: The Engineer shall aeL upon the Contractor's requests forpaymenL in accordance with the provisions of the General Conditions of the Contract. (d) VLsLts to the SI -Le: The Engineer shall make periodic inspections at the site to check the Contractor's work for general compliance with the Contract Documents zinc] to determine the extent of work completed for checking of ContracLor's requests for payment. ?.ia-75A(Y (e) Sp._ial Performance Tests: Ti._ Engineer shall witness and fully report the results of all special performance tests required for the Project. (f) Final Acceptance: The Engineer shall prepare completion lists when 85% completion of the Project is claimed by the Contractor and again when 100% completion is claimed. When the Contractor shall have completed the work in accordance with the terms of the Contract Documents, the Engineer shall certify his acceptance Lo the Owner and his approval of the Contractor's final request for payment. (g) Instructions to the Owner: The Engineer shall arrange for detailed instructions by the Contractor and manufacturer's representa- tives of the Owner or his delegated representaLive in the proper operation and maintenance of the equipment furnished and installed for the Project. (h) Record Drawings: The Engineer shall prepare record drawings showing changes in the work authorized during construction and shall submit a set of reproducibles to the Owner. (4) Construction Staking, Inspection and Testing: The Engineer will furnish grade and alignment stakes [or construction and taking measurements for final job estimates. The Engineer will furnish part or full time inspectors, dependent upon the needs of the pro#CL, or if the Council desires to retain a separate resident inspector or inspectors for such work, the Engineer will supervise and assist the inspector as part of the services provided in paragraph three above. (5) Assessment Roll Preparation: Provide all the clerical work and mathematical computations for the complete preparation and certification to the County Auditor for the assessment roll. B. As City Engineer The Engineer will perform the various miscellaneous city engineering duties, not included in the specific projects as covered in paragraph "I1 -A". These services shall include, but shall not be Limited to, being present, or having a qualified representative present, at regular and/or special council meetings when requested by the City Clerk or Mayor; being present, or having a qualified reppresentative present at planning commission meetings when requested by We City Clerk or Chairman of the Planning Commission; establishing an engineering office In City Ilall to assist city maintenance crews, city office personnel and the general public on regular schedule of. Lwo-one half (one day LOLA ) days per month; making the necessary surveys, studies and reports, and meeting with the necessary governmental agencies as may be directed by the City Clerk or Mayor. The Engineer shall furnish all necessary engi.neeri.ng, surveying, drafting and inspection personnel needed to fulfill the required work. III All the engineering services provided under this Agreement shall be of the highest standards of the engi.necrin profession. All men assigned to do various phases of the wort: shall be experienced and qualified for the work to be done. 1-/v-7sv Y IV For the variouscategories of the work performed, the Engineer shall be paid in accordance with the following fee schedule: ~ A. As Consulting Engineer Projects less than $10,000; office cost plus 100% Projects $10,000 to $25,000 10.0% Projects $25,000 to $50,000 9.0% Projects $50,000 to $1.00,000 8.0% Projects $100,000 to $250,000 7.0% Projects over $250,000 6.5% In the event of uncompleted projects, the fee shall be divided as follows: (1) For work done under Article II.A.(1), the Engineer shall be paid 35% of the fee based on the above schedule and the Engineer's estimate of project cost. (2) For work done under Article II.A.(1 and 2) above, the Engineer shall be paid 85% of the fee based on the above schedule, and the Engineer's estimate of project cost. Said 85% shall include the 35% authorized by Article II.A.(1). (3) If the improvement is completed, the total engineering fees (including payment already made under paragraph one and two of this section) for all work and services to be performed under Article IT.A.(l., 2 and 3) above, shall. be an amount as stated in the above listed schedule based on the total final construction cost of the improvement. (4) Charges for work listed in Article 11.A.(4) shall be at the rate of twenty-five ($25.00) dollars per hour for a two man survey crew and thirty ($30.00) dollars per hour for a three man survey crew. For part and full Lime resident inspectors, charges to the Owner by Lhp. Engineer shall be the salaries of all. such personnel, plus one hundred percent (100%). (5) Fees for the pr.eparaLi.on of. Lhe assessment roll ns per Article II.A.(5) shall be an amounL equal to one (1%) percent of the total project cost. B. As City Engivicer For all work done by the principal engineer or his represenLaLive in the capacity of CLLy Engineer, the rei.mbursemenL shrill be a retainer of $100 per munLh. For any additional engineer.i.ng office and field services, Lhe reimbursement shall be at the following rales: Two Man Fief Crew :e-JO.00 per hour Three Man Field Crew $ 35.00 per hour Engineer or Surveyor $ 20.00 per hour Senior Draftsman $ 18.00 per hour Junior. Draftsman $ 12.00 per hour Inspector $ 15.00 per hour These rates shall include all mileage subsistence expenses. In the event that a project paid for under this category is incorporated with other projects and is included under the consulting engineering fee schedule, the amount paid will be credited, as far as they are applicable, to the fee payment. V All the fees to be charged hereunder shall be due and payable when the engineering services are performed and after receipt of a verified statement from the Engineer. The Engineer understands and agrees, however, that improvements may be ordered and contracts let prior to the time money is available for such work and engineering fees in such event, to the extent money shall not be available, the Engineer shall wait ninety (90) days or until moneys are received to pay for such improvements, whichever time shall be sooner. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly constituted and appointed officers and their seals to be affixed as of the day and year first above stated. ATTEST: Clerk CITY OF MONTICELLO Mayor MEYER-ROIIIAN , INC. Professional Engineer NOTE: Approved by Council Resolution the day of. , 19_ � . io - 7-f ty