City Council Agenda Packet 04-08-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 8, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held March 25,
1985.
3. Citizens Common is/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Ordinance Amendments
6. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment to Section 9-1-5:
Protection and Preservation of City Streets.
Old Businos
5. Consideration of Vacating Portions of Sixth Street, Seventh
1 Street, Hennepin Street, Washington Stroot, and Fallon Avenue,
Also Known as the Old Copeland Road, All Lying Within the
Proposed Construction 5 Addition.
6. Consideration of Granting Final Approval to the Final Plat
for Construction 5 Addition.
7. Consideration of Granting Approval for a Conditional Use
Permit to Allow a Multiple Dwelling in Excess of 12 Unite -
Applicant, Construction 5.
B. Consideration of Authorizing Dahlgron, Shardlow and Uban, Inc.,
Consulting Planners, to Commonco a Downtown Rehabilitation
Study.
9. Consideration of Council Formal Request to OSM to Complete
Aa -Built Drawings and Turn Over Reference Films for the
WWTP Project.
10. Consideration of City Hall Roof Specifications and Authorization
of Advortleemont for Bids.
Now Business
11. Consideration of Widoning 7th Street and Relocating the
Lighting System in Connection with tho Highway 25 Project.
Agenda for the Meeting of the City Council
April S, 1985
Page 2
12. Consideration of Purchase of Park Equipment.
13. Consideration of Authorizing Investigation of Senior Center
Relocation.
14. Adjournment.
MINUTES.
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLI,O.CITY COUNCIL
March 25, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Fran Pair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: mayor Arve A. Crimsmo
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Maxwell., seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held March 11,
1985.
4. Public Bearing - Consideration of Tax Increment Finance Plan
for Construction 5, Inc.
Construction 5, Inc., is currently in the process of replotting
their property located along Lauring Lane and I-94. Due to
the unusual topographic conditions in this area, the cost of
making ordinary public improvements such as streets, curb and
gutter, sever and water, along with storm sower would be extremely
high; and as a result, the area was considered for a Tax Increment
• District to help defray the cost of these anticipated public
improvements. ,By establishing a Tax Increment District around
this subdivision, any improvements built in .this area would
generate tax revenues that could be used to help reduce the
cost of the assessments to ,the property owners.
No comments ware hoard from the public, and the public hearing
was closed.
5. Consideration of Adoption of a Tax Inrroment Finance Plan.
,The Tax increment Finance Plan for the 'Construction 5 Subdivision
proposes to collect, approximately S150,000.00 in tax increments
to help defray the estimated $790,000.00 cost of improving the
property with public Improvements. The .increment of $150,000.00
Would consist of approximately 925,000.00 annual increment generated
by an 10 -unit multiple apartment dwelling and a 25,000 sq. ft.
office/warehouse complex. The remaining $240,000.00 in improvement
cost would be assessed to the benefited property owners.
Motion was made by Blonlgan, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution approving the Tax Increment nistrlct
and requesting certification with the County Auditor.
See Resolutions 1985 15 and 1985 YG.
Council Minutes - 3/25/65
6. Consideration of Vacating Portions of Sixth Street, Seventh
Street, Hennepin Street, Washington Street, and Fallon Avenue,
L Also Known as the Old Copeland Road, All Lying Within the Proposed
Construction 5 Addition.
7. Consideration of Granting Final Approval to the Final Plat for
Construction 5 Addition.
B. Consideration of Granting Approval for a Conditional Use Permit
to Allow a Multiple Dwelling in Excess of 12 Units - Applicant,
Construction 5.
The above three items were tabled until the next meeting per
the request of Construction 5. Inc., representatives, who were
unable to attend the meeting at this time.
9. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction
and Operation of a BMX Track in a B-3 (Highway -Business) Zone -
Applicant. Chuck Teslow.
Mr. Chuck Teslow, part owner in Rolling Wheels, Inc., Fun Center,
requested a conditional use permit to allow for the construction
and operation of a BMX track for non -motorized bicycle races.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional
use provided Mr. Teslow submit a landscaping and tree planting
plan for his property along the freeway. In addition, the Planning
Commission recommended that the operation of the BMX track follow
the eight recommendations set out in Exhibit 1 attached to the
minutes.
Motion woo made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigon, and unanimously
carried to approve the conditional use permit with a ono -year
review provided the operation follows the eight recommendations
sot forth by the Planning Commission.
10. Consideration of Authorizing Plans and Specifications to be
Prepared for the Reroofinq of Monticello City Hall.
Building Inspector Cary Andarson reviewed with the Council the
proposed plans for reroofing the Monticello City Hall with additional
insulation and now shingles. The estimated coat was approximately
$28,000.00, and Mr. Anderson requested approval to prepare plans
said specifications for bidding.
Motion vas made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to authorize the City staff to prepare plans and opocificaLlona
for reroofing the City Hall.
-2-
Council Minutes - 3/25/85
11. Consideration of Approval of Plane and Specifications for a
Portion of the Interceptor Sower.
City Engineer, John Badalich, reviewed with the Council the
final plans and specifications for the construction of a portion
of the interceptor sewor under Highway 25 adjacent to the railroad
tracks.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve plans and specifications for this portion
of the interceptor sewor construction and to authorize the advertising
for bids returnable April 17, 1985.
12. Consideration of Granting a One Day License for the On -Sale
of 3.2 Boer - Applicant, Lions.
13. Consideration of Granting a One Day License for the On -Sole
of 3.2 Beer and to Sall Set-ups - Applicant. Ducks Unlimited.
As in the post, the Munticallo Lions Club requested one day
licenses for the July d celebration and also a one day license
for 3.2 boor and est -ups for the Ducks Unlimited Banquet, which
Is held at the Monticello Roller Rink.
Motion was made by Dlonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the issuance of both licenses to the Monticello
Lions Club contingent upon proper insurance and other documents
being submitted as required.
Related Information
Mark Irmitar, Municipal Liquor Store Manager, requested a letter
from the Council to the Municipal Liquor Store Association opposing
possible legislation that would allow the sale of wine in grocery
stores in Minnesota. Mr. Irmiter noted that the Municipal Liquor
Store Association is lobbying against allowing the sale of wine
In grocery @torso. as they felt it would be an enforcement problem,
etc.
The Council discussed whether the City should be supporting
this just because of free enterprise, but the general consensus
was that enforcement problems, especially in sales to minors,
could be a problem if wine was allowed to be sold in all types
of grocery stores.
Motion was mads by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell. and unanimously
carried to &and a Setter of support to the Municipal Liquor
Store Association indicating the City's opposition to allowing
grocery stores to sell wine because of law enforcement problems
that could arise, including enforcement problems In sales to
■Inoru and apposiny thu yruater availability of alcohol through
additional outlets at the same time the state is considering
ralsimj the drinking ayu.
Council Minutes - 3/25/85
!�f
14. Intormation on Starting a Municipal Compost Pile for Leaves
and Crass Clippings.
Public works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council
the idea of starting a municipal compost pile at the City dump
site on River Street adjacent to the Wright County Montissippi
Park. Mr. Simola explained how a compost pile could be started
and felt this would be a worthwhile project for the City to
help reduce the amount of additional garbage now being taken
to landfills, etc. It was noted by Mr. Simola that possibly
additional land area could be acquired or used in Montissippi
Park for the storage of leaves and the County Board members-
appear
embersappear receptive to this idea.
It was the consensus of the Council to authorize the Public
works Director to proceed with plans for a municipal compost
site and to discuss with the County Park Board and Board of
Commissioners about using some of the Montissippi Park land
for this purpose.
15. Consideration of Authorizing the City Attorney to Perform a
Title Search and Pending Clear Title Opinion, Authorizing an
Offer for the Acquisition of the Northerly half of tots 1, 2,
3, Block 50, Original Plat, City of Mont.iccllo.
Motion was made by Bill hair, seconded by Rlonigen, and unanimously
-- carried to authorize the City Attorney to do a title search
on thin property; and if clear title opinion is determined,
authorization was madu to prepare .: purch.:ne agreement for Lhis
property at. 545,000.00 plus the ahatument. of all outotanding
special auaeuuments with $3,000.00 earnu:;L money.
16. Consideration of Bills for the Month of March.
Motion was made by Maxwell, ucconded by Rlonigen, and unantmouuly
enrried to approve the bills for thu month of March an presented.
Rick Woltatuller
Assistant Administrator
-4-
1/
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
4. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment to Section 9-1-5: Protection
and Preservation of City Streets. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In the past, we have discussed the above referenced ordinance
on several occasions, the most recent occasion being the complaint
by Ed Schaffer last year regarding Liefert Trucking using many
of the City streets for truck routes. Section C of the above -referenced
ordinance states that it is unlawful for anyone to operate a
truck over 9,000 lbs. gross weight on any residential street
except when in the process of making pickups or deliveries at
residential dwellings. That section further states that these
pickups and deliveries should utilize designated truck routes
or state highways when making these deliveries or pickups.
It goes on further to state that the pickups and deliveries
on residential streets shall adhere to the provisions of Section B.
Section B deals with the load limits on City ,streets or parking
lots. It is currently illegal for anyone to operate a vehicle
having an axle weight load in excess of 4 tons. violations
of this ordinance occur every day, whether it be a truckload
of gravel, a semi delivering freight, or a cement truck utilizing
City stracts. There is a provision, however, under Section B
that allows a parson to operate a vehicle in excess of 4 tons
if he first obtains a permit from the City Administrator. Furthormora.
the City Council may designate certain streets to be used regularly
for such persons, firms, or corporations in the operation of
thair business.
In an attempt to lesson the violations occurring on City streets
and yet protect and preserve our City stroots, we have undargono
a study of the tonago design of all the streets in the City
of Monticello. Our City Engineer has draftod a map indicating
the weight limits for all the City atroots. It is enclosed
for your review. On that map, the Public works Department has
indicatod some reductions in those weight limits that should
apply to spring road restrictions, as the streets aro not as
strong during that period of the year and prono to broak-up
from weights that at other times of the year would have little
affect. By roforring to this map, it can be coon that the lowast
maximum rated capacity for any atroat in Monticello is 5 ton.
Tho ma3ority of the streets in Monticello aro designed for a
7 ton or greater capacity. Bearing this information in mind,
it appoara that we can safely raise tho maximum axle weight
load from 4 tons to 5 tons within the City of Monticello if
we incorporate some typo of spring road restriction. As shown
on the map, the spring road raotrictiona would roduco the rated
capacity of the streets alightly during those porioda when the
Croad restrictions aro posted by Wright County on othor County roads.
fQ
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
What we are proposing is that the ordinance 9-1-5(8) be changed
from 4 ton to 5 ton maximum load and that the Council adopt
the current street design capacity map for regulation of loads
in excess of 5 ton and regulation for spring road restrictions
for reducing loads. Copies of the map, along with a cover letter
and copy of the City Ordinance, will be sent to everyone known
to operate vehicles in excess of 9,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight
within the City limits of Monticello. With the cooperation
of those individuals, we could allow slightly heavier loads
legally on City streets yet protect and preserve those streets
for the citizens of Monticello.
A copy of the existing ordinance and a copy of the proposed
change are enclosed for your review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Alternative 11 would be to make a motion adopting the proposed
ordinance amendment as shown and incorporate the street
design capacity map dated February, 1985, as the official
Council policy.
2. The second alternative would be to leave the existing road
limits as they currently are and leave the ordinance as
it stands.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that you
approve the ordinance amendment as outlined in Alternative 01.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the existing ordinance; Copy of the proposed ordinance;
Copy of the street design map dated February, 1985.
-2-
9-1-2 9-1-5
(I) In any manner on any street or highway so as to interfere with
or interrupt the passage of. other vehicles.
(J) Along the curb adjacent to any school property from eight o'clock
(6:00) a.m. to four o'clock (4:00) p.m. on days when school is
in session.
(K) On any street or roadway between the hours of two o'clock (2:00)
a.m. and six o'clock (G:00) a.m. from November 15th through
April 15th, except physicians on emergency calls. (3/12/79 M65)
(L) On any City street for more than 72 consecutive hours.
9-1-3: REMOVAL OF VEHICLES: Whenever any police officer finds a
motor vehicle has been parked oe stopped in violation of any
regulation contained herein, such officer is hereby :authorized to move
such vehicle, provide for the removal of such vehicle and the impounding
of the mama, or require the driver or other person in charge of the
vehicle to move the same. Any such removal and/or impounding of the
said vehicle shall be at the expense of the owner.
9-1-4: OWNER: For the purposes of thin Section, the term "Owner" shall
mean the person, firm, or corporation who holds legal title on
the data of any alleged violation as evidenced by tho official records
of the Minnesota Secretary of State. Copies of any of the files or re-
cords of the secretary of state certified an being true copies shall be
received in evidence with the same force and effect as the originalu,
shall .ba admissible without further foundation and shall be prima facie
evidence as to the ownership of the said vehicle, but nothing herein
contained shall exclude or prohibit the introduction of other evidence
bearing on the Issue of ownership.
9-1-5: PROTECTION ANU PRESERVATION OF CITY STKr11TSa
(A) TRACTORS OR OTHER TYPES OF VEHICLES,WITR LUGS: Tractors or other
vehicles with lugs thereon or any other typo of farm machinery that is
not equipped with rubber tires are hereby prohibited from using said
bituminous treated streets or parking lots in said City and whoever
drives such a vehicle upon said streets whereby said streets or parking
lots shall be damaged shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(n) 1^1r) LIMITS ON CITY STRUTS OR PARKING LATS: It shall also be un-
lawful, for any peruan or,perspns, firm or corporation to drive any
vehicle over caid streots or parkinq lots having no nate weight luad
in excess of four tons. That any pornen, firm or corporation wishing
to drive such vehicles in excess of above mentioned wuight over any
UE the streilts of Monticello, shall tirst apply to tha Pity Admini-
strator for his permiseiun. That the City Council say designate cer-
tain streets to be used regularly by such ivreons, firm or corporation
in the! operation of their busin,��s, outlining cart&in routes that said
vehicles are to follow and that no dovlatlon from such sautes will ba
persi asible .
9-1-5 9-1-7
(C) TRUCKS OPERATING ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS: It will be unlawful for 1
any person or persons, firms or corporations to opereto a truck of over --
9,000 gross weight on residential streets except thoav trucks that are
actually engaged in making deliveries or pick-ups at residential dwell-
ings. Further, they will utilize state highways or designated truck
route wherever possible when making these deliveries or pick-ups. All
other truck traffic not making deliveries or pick-ups will utilize only
state highways or designated truck routes. Trucks making deliveries
or pick-ups on residential streets will adhere to the provisions of
paragraph 9-1-5 (B).
(D) PENALTY: Any person or persons, firm or corporation who shall
violate any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished of a
fine of not more than one hundred dollars (5100.00) and cost of pro-
secution, or in default of payment of such fine, shall be imprisoned
until the fine is paid, not however to exceed thirty (30) days.
9-1-6: STREET NAMES: Street names have been adopted according to
the official city map on file at City iiall. (12-27-76 926.)
9-1-7: UNREASONABLE ACCELERATION t ERRATIC DRIVING:
(A) Unreasonable Acceleration by any motor vehicle upon any public
highway, street, parking lot, alley or other public property within
the limits of the City of Monticello, except when an emergency creates
the necessity for such operation, is prohibited.
Unreasonable acceleration of a motor vehicle is hereby defined as aecel-
oration which unnecessarily breaks traction between a tire or tires and
the driving surface, thereby causing squealing or screeching sound Irl
the tiro or tires or the unnecessary throwing of sand or gravel by th:!
tire or tires or both.
(0) E:rractic Driving - No person shall drive a vehicle on o public
highway, street, parking lot. alley or other public property at erratic.
or irregular and changing speeds so as to create a hazard to himnulf
or other personsorproperty or so interfere with other traffic in tho
area. (10-)D-77 942)
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 146
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELL40 DO HEREBY ORDAIN
THAT TITLE 9, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 5(B), OF THE CODE OF CITY ORDINANCES
IS HEREBY AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
9-1-5: PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF CITY STREETS:
(A) TRACTORS OR OTHER TYPES OF VEHICLES WITH LUGS: Tractors
or other vehicles with lugo thereon or any other type of farm
machinery that is not equipped with rubber tires are hereby
prohibited from using said bituminous treated streets or parking
lots in said City and whoever drives such a vehicle upon said
streets whereby said streets or parking lots shall be damaged
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(B) LOAD LIMITS ON CITY STREETS OR PARKING LOTS: It shall
also be unlawful for any person or persons, firm or corporation
to drive any vehicle over said streets or parking lots having
an axle weight load in excess Of five tons during periods of
the year when county road restrictions are not in effect. During
periods of county road restriction or on streets designed for
more than five tons, the current City street design map adopted
oy the City Council shall take precedence over the five (5)
ton limit and can be more or less restrictive. That any person,
firm or corporation wishing to drive such vehicles in excess
of above mentioned weight over any of the streets of Monticello.
shall first apply to the City Administrator for his permission.
That the City Council may designato certain streets to be used
regularly by ouch persons, firm or corporation in the operation
of their business, outlining certain routes that said vehicles
are to follow and that no deviation from such routes will be
permissible.
Adopted thin 0th day of April, 1905.
Arvo A. Grimsm0, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas A. Eidam
City Administrator
N
NSTAT13
-
9T11TE3
1
I
POWER
N
ca'
r
ge, .
D cXv 1
i
MONTICELLO
Pr
EA•, fff
. F FWfLrQJ�
LEGEND
MAXIMUM RATED CAPACITY
STREET DESIGN
------- 9Ton DESIGN
CAPACITY
............•• T Ton DESIGN
FOR
- - - - - - - - - - S Ton DESIGN
D cXv 1
MONTICELLO
_ GRAVEL SURFACE,
UNIMPROVED
WRIGHT CO., MINNESOTA
EGfQa CQ¢Qaaa INTERSTATE 94 - OVER 9 Ton
SPRING ROAD RESTRICTIONS
......•"••••• S Ton LOAD LIMIT
—
----- _____ 3 Ton LOAD LIMIT
tTz
--�--- T To. LOAD LIMIT
-
NOTE • SPRING ROAD RESTRICTIONS COINCIDE WITH
"-•"' ^'
DATES OF ROAD RESTRICTION POSTED BY
WRIGHT COUNTY ON OTHER COUNTY ROADS.
'
er
It ,T R. L44
e �.
re 4, •.•ti/j e 1
IID\ ttf4 _ .1 � �� \` -••//
:4 YTirAA�iter i ♦ \ ,
•` T�iA•.'P11'••..••rEif+'••:f a Rc fw` :•,. •. ,
I � • / y �Icw`e � w`` � e
ww�fe
♦.^SR'1�- nuu...r;i�uii••..iss.. _ IIS I' �
--f ---
-------------- -- - — — - -
--------
`c°°cl, c
Council Agenda - 4/6/65
5. Consideration of Vacating Portions of Sixth Street, Seventh
Street, Hennepin Street, Washington Street, and Fallon Avenue,
Also Known as the Old Copeland Road, All Lying Within the Proposed
Construction 5 Addition. (T.E.)
6. COnaiJeratLon of Granting Final Approval to the Final Plat for
Construction 5 Addition. (T.E.)
7. Consideration of Granting Approval for a Conditional Use Permit
to Allow a Multiple Dwelling in Excess of 12 Units - Applicant,
Construction 5. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Because Gus LaFromboise was unclear on some of the procedures
involved with the Construction 5 proposal, they asked for a
postponement of action from the last meeting. Gus returned
from his vacation and was assigned to jury duty on a case in
Minneapolis. As of this date, I have a meeting scheduled with
Gus and nary 1.aFromboise for Monday morning, the day of the
meeting. I am hoping that any confusion that may have resulted
in our past conversations will be clarified so that the agenda
can address these three items on Monday ovening. Gus has indicated
that should the jury be released prior to Monday, he will make
an attempt to got here early. If he should got hero before
the agenda is submitted, there will be additional information
attached, perhaps under separate cover. If we are unable to
meat until Monday morning, I will have to bring all of the information
with me for initial presentation at the Council meeting Monday
night. There is, of course, the possibil.ity that negotiations
fail, in which case items 5, 6, and 7 will bo dropped from the
agenda for a second consecutive meeting. Again, it is my suspicion
that Gus, having been absent from earlier discussions, simply
has not been fully appraised to the development format that
we have proposed. I have a fooling that when fully explained
they will find the proposal suitable, and tho subject will Como
before thu Couucll un Monday night.
-3-
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
8. Consideration of Authorizing Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc.,
Consulting Planners, to Commence a Downtown Rehabilitation Study. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In the middle of March I attended a morning meeting of the downtown
retailers with respect to the proposed Downtown Rehabilitation
Project. Earlier, I had attended a Chamber of Commerce luncheon
and gave a brief overview of the project the City was investigating.
I indicated at the Chamber meeting that it was the City's desire
to attempt to get a feel for the acceptance of such a project
among the retailers. At that morning meeting, a number of questions
were asked with respect to cost and assessments and individual
obligations. I answered all questions to the beet of my ability
with limited information. Obviously, without a development
plan designed, we have no coat estimates whatsoever. I also
indicated that the first phase of the work, to wit, the analysis
and studies, are largely City responsibility and only become
assessable amounts when and if the project develops. I went
on to explain that the City did not wish to engage in a rather
costly and extensive study without the support of the downtown
and their full realization that the study may come to a construction
project that will affect them financially. After a rather lengthy
discussion, the members present unanimously voted to encourage
the development of a downtown rehabilitation study and encourage
the support of all retailers in the area. The area to be studied
initially and of primary concern to these pooplo is that area
that primarily fronts on Broadway. I indicated to them that
our study vary likely would not be limited to that area since
an overall consistency needs to be established ranging from
River Street all the way to the freeway. Any in-depth studios
that may occur will be done by sector but will tomo as refined
sections of the overall development plan.
In reviewing the downtown rehabilitation proposal submitted
by Dahlgron 6 Associates (now known as Dahlgron, Shardlow and
Uban, Inc.), I noticed that the Phase I proposal contained a
great deal of inventory analysis and baso map preparation.
Information such as this, developed in the first phase, does
little or nothing to excite the public about the potential rehabilitation.
in discussing the alternatives with John Uban, we decided it
would be most effective at this time to investigate the sketch
alternatives as laid out in that first proposal as wall as soma
minimal baso map preparation. This is largely a matter of generating
coma perspective sketches as wall as coma site plan developments.
It is my contention that two concept drawings would auffica
at this timo. The work involved in preparing coma of those
drawings will, in fact, include some of the effort originally
defined in Phase I. It will, however, be far loan detailed
than the defined Phaco 1. Further, because we have eliminated
Sector ] and reduced in size overlay Sector 4, the estimated
coot has boon reduced to $4.500.00 .
-4-
Council Agenda - 4/6/85
This work, of course, is prior to Phase I and is meant primarily
to give visual aids for the merchants involved. Once reviewed
and presented, along with a possible slide show, we should be
able to determine to what extent the merchants are willing to
particlpatn. From that point, we will know whether or not to
authorize the in-depth study entailed in Phase I and Phase II.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban, Inc., to commence a
sketch alternative program for downtown rehabilitation,
including an area from Maple Street on the west to Palm
Street on the east, and Broadway Street on the north to
the railroad tracks on the south, for the sum of $4.500.00
2. Do not authorize the preparation of sketches.
3. Authorize the commencement of Phase I, detailed analysis
of the downtown.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that we authorize Uban to begin the sketch
alternatives and concept analysis for the downtown. I think
that we can generate more support from the private sector by
having renderings done that could give illustrations of how
the downtown can look after the project. Granted, these sketch
alternatives are not meant to be project commitments in any
way, but merely proposals that both the City and the private
sector can react to.
There is no supporting data for this item.
-5-
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
9. Consideration of Council Formal Request to OSM to Complete As -
Built Drawings and Turn Over Reference Files for the WWTP Project. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
After the completion of the design phase for the WWTP, the City
of Monticello accepted a grant in June of 1980 for the construction
of its WWTP facilities. In July of 1980, we entered into a
contract with OSM for the engineering work during the construction
of the proposed project. The project was completed on January 3,
1983, and all warranties began.
Over the course of the construction as per our contract with
OSM, we paid them $525,536.00 through the grant program. Of
this amount, approximately $390,000.00 was for basic construction
engineering, design modifications, and inspection. Approximately
$47,000.00 was paid to OSM for equipment modification drawings,
and another 552,000.00 for the completion of the as -built drawings.
An additional $36,000.00 was paid to OSM for legal fees in battling
the weldor Pump suit.
Today, approximately two years after the substantial completion
of the project, we have yet to receive a sot of acceptable as -built
drawings, nor have the necessary files pertinent to the construction
and equipment at the WWTP boon turned over to the City.
We originally received a oat of preliminary as -built drawings
from OSM in the spring of 1983. Those drawings were basically
a set of plan drawings with various notations as to notes where
one could find information about the 139 field modifications
and the 97 change orders. In many instances, the actual field
modification drawings, which ordered the contractor to perform
the changes, were simply attached to the back of the as -built
drawings. In numerous cases, those field modifications as ordered
in no way resembled the actual in-placo construction. In general,
the as -built drawings were oxtramoly cluttered, poorly done,
and difficult to follow. After review of the drawings by the
WWTP staff, the Public works Director, and members of the Pollution
Control Agency, it was decided to send the drawings back to
OSM and request that they rods many of the drawings.
During tho summer of 1983. I had several discussions with Mr.
Garold Carrick, the project anginoor for OSM, in regard to the
completion of the ao-built drawings. Those dincuoaiona centered
around the format of the as-builto and possible completion datoo.
I mot with Jerry on two occasions in 1983, and each time the
City compromiaod a little more in what they would accept on
the an -built drawings. In Juno of 1983, I recoived a letter
from Jerry indicating 7 items which were remaining Stop III
contractual obligations. Two of those obligations as of Juno 29,
1983, aro listod as providing the final as -built drawings and
transmitting to tho
-6-
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
City the appropriate project files. During the remainder of
1983, I continued to request on several occasions by phone and
in various meetings that OSM complete the as -built drawings
and transmit the necessary files to us. On November 15, 1983,
I received another letter from Jerry Corrick indicating that
they would be finalizing the as -built drawings shortly.
Early in 1984, we began receiving pressure from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency and the Corps of Engineers to begin
finaling out the grant. In various meetings with the PCA, we
must have the approved shop drawings and as -built drawings,
construction related test results, etc., available for review.
In March of 1984, 1 wrote a letter to OSM requesting that they
turn their attention toward completion of the as -built drawings,
as it appeared a letter was necessary since the past verbal
communications were to no avail. I was given a date from Jerry
Corrick that the as -built drawings would be completed no later
than April 16, 1984. This date came and went with no work being
done on our as -built drawings.
During the summer of 1984, I again had several phone conversations
with OSM about the as -built drawings. I was informed that Jerry
Corrick would be working on them in his spare Limo before turning
them over to the drafting department for completion.
After months again with no response from OSM as to the aa -built
drawings. I wrote another letter to OSM on October 3, 1984,
and diocuanod, among other things, the completion of the ac -built
drawings. My response, was that they will be working on the
oa-built drawings shortly. With continued pressure from the
PCA and Corps of Engineers as to finaling out the project, and
after the passing of the loot construction grant budget extension
period, I decided I could no longer sit back and wait for the
completion of the an -built drawings. The $100,000.00 duo the
City could be paid and sitting In a bank drawing interest.
I wrote a letter to OSM on January 18 explaining to them that
I must bring this itom before the City Council and would do
so in February of 1985 if 1 received no word from OSM. On January 29,
1985, I received a letter from John Badalich explaining that
at the currant time, they were knee doop in the weldor Pump
suit and requested an extension of time to April 1, 1985. 1
talked to John after receiving his letter and told him that
I would hold off on any further action of any kind until the
April 1 deadline.
The April I deadline has tomo and Bono, and the as-builto aro
not yet complete. it In my understanding that a few hours of review
work by Jerry Corrick and Charles Lopak have been completed,
but 1 have no indication as to when the drafting and printing
would ba complete along with the tranefor of the files to the
City of Monticello.
-7-
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
Because of extreme pressure from the Corps of Engineers in February,
we filled out the final paperwork for the close out of the grant
and wrote a letter to the Pollution Control Agency asking them
to omit the requirement for the as-builts and leave the problem
of the as-builts between the City and our engineer. We have
not yet received word back from the Pollution Control Agency
if they will honor our request and close out the grant and release
our 5100,000.00 final payment to us. I bring this item before
the Council in an attempt to get the City Engineer to put more
priorities on completion of the City of Monticello -s projects.
Not only that part of the project that deals with the construction,
but the final paperwork as well. In addition to the WWTP project,
as-builts and construction inspection documentation have been
extremely slow in coming on other projects.
The City staff wishes to continue the good working relationship
we have with the City Engineer. However, we feel it is time
for the Council to remind the engineer that we expect completion
of his work in a timely fashion and that he should give more
priority to closing out those projects with the City of Monticello.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. This alternative would be for the City Council, in the form
of a motion, to formally request the City Engineer to complete the
as -built drawings for the WWTP facility in a form acceptable
to the staff of the WWTP and the Public Works Director
and turn over all pertinent files required by the PCA and
the City of Monticello to the City no later than April 22,
1985. The request should further stipulate that if the as-builto
and files are not provided by that date that some type of
punitive action will be taken against the City Engineer.
2. The second alternative could be one so chosen by the Council
to achieve the desired results and insure future consideration
to completion of the City of Monticello projects.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and the Public
Works Director for the City of Monticello that the Council choose
Alternative 01 as listed above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Miscellaneous correspondence and information oupportinq the
aupplomant.
-B-
city o/ montice[lo
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
March 19, 1985
mons (612)265-2711
.
retro (912)333.5736
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Grants Section
Division of Water Quality
"Ala 0run3m0
1935 West County Road B-2
MY Council,
Roseville, MN 55113
Dan Mangan
Fran Fun
Kenneth Maus
Attn: Ms. Linda Prail, PManager
Project
Jack Maaw00
Re: Treatment Works Grant Step 3,
C270855 03
,d.ML9he10r.
Tom Efdom
Dear Ms. Prall:
"k wlco Duoctoc
Rick Wolfalcl'er
Mode Works:
Thin is to inform you that the Monticello Waste Water Treatment
John Snnoa
Plant is in operation, has mat its discharge permit limitations
-tanning a Zontnp:
for the past year and is operating efficiently.
Gary Anderson
Although the City has not as of yet received a eat of "final"
as-builte for the project, our engineer has informed us
in writing that they will be completed by April 1, 1985.
We, therefore, request that the Grant be closed out and
let the City and Consulting Engineer, John Bodalich of
OSM, work out the ao-built problems.
Enclosed Is the City -a request for final payment and our
final accounting of all project costs. It you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact
Rick Wolfstoller at (612) 331-5739. Thank you.
R paCtfully,
aw
John E. Simola
Public Works Director
J ES/kd
Enclosure
cc: Arve A. Crimamo
Tom Eidom
Rick Wolfotoller
Mika Wright, Corpo of Eng.
John Badalich, OSM
250 East Woodwrsy
Routs a. Bo■ 53A
Ianticelo, M" 65351
ORR•SCHEIEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES. INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
January 29, 1985
Mr. John Simola
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant
EPA Project C270855-03
As -Built Drawings
Dear Mr. Simola:
Pursuant to our discussion last week, and as a follow-up to your letter dated
January 18, 1985 regarding the referenced matter, we are asking for an extension
of time to complete this task. As you know, beyond our control we are presently
involved in the Waldor Suit, and Jerry Corrick will he devoting full time to the
this law suit for the next several weeks.
I realize the completion of the as -built drawings for the wastewater treatment
plant has dragged on for sometime, primarily due to what constitutes an as -built
drawing. On utility plans, which are basic in nature, the plans are changed to
reflect the exact construction elevations for structures such as manholes, house
services and ties to the house, services. For construction plans for office,
industrial/commercial and utility buildings, including wastewater and water
treatment plants (because of the complexity of these plans and the inter -relation
of mechanical, structural and electrical drawings), the field modification and
change order plans or sketches will constitute the as -built drawings. References
are made on the original drawing as to the field modification or change order
number. As i understand it, how the as -built drawings should be prepared has
been a main point of contention. 1 further understand this has heen resolved,
and we will complete the task in an orderly manner.
2021 East Hennepin 11 vointe • Suite 233 • Mulneanolk, i lituiesola 55413 • 612/ 331- 8UCO
Page Two
Mr. John Simola
January 29, 1985
The Waldor law suit is presently of the utmost priority with all key staff
members who were associated with the wastewater treatment plant, and as soon as
this matter is resolved, we will complete the as -built drawings. At this time,
we can only speculate on when the law suit may end. As you know, this law suit
is also preventing the close-out of this project, not just completion of the
as -built drawings. We will keep you updated on the proceedings of the trial.
Our target date for completion right now is April 1, 1985. We feel your
indication that 'you might bring this matter before the City Council is
inappropriate at this time, therefore, we request that you wait until after April
1st to resolve this matter.
If you have any questions in this regard; please call me.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHE LEN-MAYEHUN
8 ASSOCIATES, IN
ohn P. 8ada11ch, D.E.
ice President
JPB:nlb
cc: Jerry Corrick, OSM
Linda Prail, MPGA
Thomas Eidem, City of Monticello
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
lmy
January 22, 1905
The Honorable Arve A. Grimsmo
Mayor, City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Dear Mayor Grimsmo:
Res Treatment Works Grant
Step 3, 0270855 03
our records indicate that the subject project was physically
completed in March of 1983. We realize that a lawsuit
regarding the pumps is pending but the outcome of the case
should not impact the grant amount. It is our opinion that
no additional costs resulting from the lawsuit will be
considered to be grant eligible so the City gains nothing by
keeping the grant open. it is our position that it would be
in the City's best interest to administratively complete the
subject project and allow the final audit to be scheduled.
It usually desirable for the audit to be done as soon after
completion as possible to ensure that the necessary records
and personnel are available. In addition, the City could
receive final federal and state grant payments.
In order to administratively complete the grant the City
should submit the following items:
1) A statement indicating that the subject treatment
facility is in operation and is operating efficiently.
2) A final accounting of nll project costa that separates
eligible costs from ineligible costs and basic costs
from alternative technology conte.
3) A draft final payment request.
Once this information is received, it will be reviewed and
you will be advised as when to submit your final payment
i}tmnat 6121296-7220
1035 West County Pond 02, nosevino, Minnen otn 551 0-271w
nrp'mevotruna • tAdu14ff4afiru17i7nL01 itdr,!r !:u:;twJCapal]Slot
Caved csm" t—tv CmtJnyo,
-ql-3
The .Honorable Arve A. Grimemo
Pagel
request. If you have any questions please contact me at
(612) 296-7228.,,
Sincerely,
{,;kwu-.'DA. �
Linda D. Prail
Project Manager
Grants Section
Division of water Quality
LDPltjb
c c . Osm
'none 10121295.2711
Morro 10121333.5739
xayor:
Ana G irnamo
::;tv courrW:
Dan Bronigan
Fran Fak
Kenneth Maus
Jack Ma.wsa
AdminleealoC
Tom Fide.
-inenco Mader:
nick woitetonef
"uhhc works.
Jonn Slmoie
vtanNno 8 Zoning:
Cary Anaeraan
250 Eaal Draadway
noute e. Oo. 03A
-.1on14090, MN 55302
City o/ /t'/onfice[�o
MONTICELLO. MN 55302
Jauunry 18, 1905
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue, Suite 230
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Attn: Mr. John Badalich
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant and
Appurtenant Work EPA Project C270655-03
As -Built Drawings
Gentlemen:
The time has come for your firm to give some immediate
priorities to completing the as -built drawings for the
City of Monticello -a Wastewater Treatment Plant.
It has been approximately 10 months since the official
start-up of the Wastewater Treatment Plant facility and
over 1 year since the Paul A. Laurence Company completed
work on the project. Since that time, we have made numerous
requests of your firm to Complete the as-builto and forward
to us all of the shop drawings and related Information
for our filen. We have discussed the need to complete
these as -built drawings with the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and the Corp of EngLnears at various meetings attempting
to final out the project. We have written your firm more
than onto in an attempt to put this portion of the project
back on a high priority.
We feel we can no longer nit hack and wait for you to complete
your work. The Minnecota Pollution Control Agency in urging
us to get the paperwork out of the way cc thnt this project
can be finalad out. The City of Monticello will not final
out the project without having acceptable as -built drawings
for the project and the backup information concerning shop
drawings and the like. No request that you complete all
of your revisions to the as -built drawings and transfer
all of the necessary chop drawings and documentation in
soma aoaomblance of order to the City of Monticello no
later than rabruary 4, 1985. If this work to not accomplished
by that date, this item will be placed on the February 11
Council agenda for appropriate action.
January 18, 1985
Orr-Scholen-Mayeron 6 Associates. Inc.
Page 2
If you have any questions, or if ve may be of any assistance
in the completion of your tasks, please contact us.
Respectfully,
John E. Simola
Public Works Director
J ES/kd
I
i
cc: Gerald Corrick, Project Engineer, OSM
Linde Prall, MPCA
Tom Eidem, CA
Albert Mayer, WWSP Supt.,
Stop'? Construction Pile
JS
" .
City o/ V..&A.
_ ��`
s
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
October 3, 1984
Pnone16121295.2711
Matro10121333.5739
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue, Suite 236
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Maya:
Attn: Mr. John Badalich
Arve Grknsmo
City Council:
Dan Slonyon
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant, In
Fran Fav
Appurtenant Work, EPA Project C270855-03,
ttMa
Jack Ma.wo
JaCk n
Supplemental Billings and As -built Drawings
Gentlemen:
Administrator:
Tom Ewen,
This letter is written in response to a recent letter requesting
Financo Director:
a meeting to resolve the above referenced items.
Ra:k wodsioner
_
Pu°9c works
I first should comment on the July 17 letter I received
JonnSurrom
in regard to the June 27 letter I wrote to you regarding
to you
Plan
rson
Ga,V 6 Anda,so-
rho May 1980 billing for miscollanaoua services.
In your firm -0 letter, you responded to tho first part
of the billing for $488.63 for follow up regarding deficiencies
in the paintings and coatings at the Wastewater Treatment
Plant site.
�--
You indicated that you had demonstrated to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency that the level of inspection was
commensurate with the level of work being performed at
tho job site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
in fact, wan not satisfied with the level of inspection.
They did, however, feel that rather than jeopardize the
entire construction project and the grant, they would leave
the problem of rosolving this matter in the hands of the
City sinco the City would be ultimately rooponoiblo for
taking corrnctive action regarding the deficiencies in
the construction project.
I fool I must again draw your attention to a letter writton
to your firm on Juno 15, 1982, noting that there would
bo problems with tho installation of tho coatings at the
Waotowator Troatment Plant. At that time, wo requostod
that you continuo full time inspection. Wo roqueatod this
so that the deficiencies in the coating systems could be
kept to a minimum. On Juno 1, 1902, we informed tho Inspector,
Richard Keeling, as to potential problems with soma of
tho coatings at tho pita. Than again on Juno 28, 1902,
wo wrote anothor letter to your firm pointing out more
problems with Cho coating oystams at the Waot.owater Troatmant
Plant. I have enclosed those letters for your review.
250 Call Oroedway
Routs s. 00% 63A
AMncntlo. MN 55302
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, Inc.
October 3, 1984
Page 2
V
After these conversations and letters were written, the level
of inspection remained significantly lees than full time. We,
therefore, feel you had the opportunity to reduce the number
of deficiencies in the coating system by full time inspection
of the paint systems and coatings. Consequently, since you
did not do this, we feel that the $488.63 is unjustified for
following up later with problems with the coating systema.
The second portion of the billing refers to an amount, of 5217.17
for follow-up problems with the gas burner moisture drain.
I may have misstated the point regarding the gas burner in my
,lune 27, 1984, letter. I did not mean to indicate that OSM
did not inspect the gas piping installation. An stated in your
letter, you reviewed the August 4, 1982, inspections and found
no notations of any incorrect installation. The incorrect installation,
however, did exist. There vas, and still is, a significant
amount of back fall from the gas purification building to the
gas burner. We feel that there were at least two periods where
your firm could have noted the deficiencies in this construction
and corrected them. The first period, of course, was with the
initial Installation of piping . There was. indeed, back fall
in the piping, and your specifications, as wall as the installation
instructions for the equipment, clearly indicate that a moisture
trap or drain be provided at all of the low points in the goo
piping system. This was not done.
The second opportunity which your firm had to correct thin problem
vas in April of 1983. You issued field modification 1138 which
included the Installation of a drain lino to drain moisture
from the low point in the mothane gas burner piping. At thio
particular time the actual low point was not determined; and
with Change Order 194 the contractor, Paul A. Laurence Company,
was paid for installing this drain in the waste gas burner line
when it vas required in the original contract and in the original
installation specifications for the methane gas burner. Since
that time, the City has had to correct the problem by making
the excavation and installing the valving necessary to drain
the lino at the gas burner. We, therefore, conclude that the
City has essentially paid throe times for the installation of
this drain; onto with the original contract, the second time
with the Change Order 194, and the third time by the final installation
by ourselves. We, therefore, think your billing of $217.17
In unjustified.
As stated in my letter of Juno 17, 1904, I assume the remaining
portion of the billing Is for cioaling with the sludge storage
I—
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron r Associates, Inc.
October 3, 1994
Page 3
�o
tank cover. Again, 1 feel that the risk or deficiencies could
have been reduced if your firm had supervised the testing of
the tank cover itself; specifically, that portion of the specifications
which reads that the tank cover shall be tested throughout its
travel. It is untrue that the service condition of the cover
could not be tested until it was put into operation. The service
condition of the cover is tested as the water is placed in the
tank and as the cover is raised. This is tested by reading
the monometers noting any leaks in the coal. This is done with
pure water as we did finally to determine the area of the leakage.
The contractor, the Paul A. Laurence Company, has indicated
that they fool the fault lies with the engineering firm for
incorrectly determining the ballast. You have stated in previous
lettere that you feel it is the contractor -a fault for providing
you with incorrect verbal data by phone. The problem as we
see it lien with the firm of Orr-Scholon-Mayeron having contracted
with the Paul A. Laurence Company to make the calculations with
the ballast. You may not have been paid for the work and may
have done it as a favor to the Paul A. Laurence Company. The
fact is, however, that all those calculations were solely between
the Paul A. Laurence Company and Orr-Scholon-Mayeron. It may
have boon easier in this particular instance for your firm to
1 have told the Paul A. Laurence Company to have another firm
make those calculations.
We are again at the point where it appears that the City will
have to take corrective action to gat the sludge storage tank
in operating condition. The contractor has delivered block
to the site but lion indicated that he is not interested in installing
them; thus, the City has scheduled personnel and ranted equipment
to install thin ballast later this week. We therefore think
any billing from your firm for the follow up on this problem
created between the contractor and OSM should not be paid by
the City. We will keep track of our time and equipment in the
Installation of this ballast system and the methane gas drain
lino and hope to receive payment from the contractor at a later
data.
You made coma vary valid points in your July 17 letter, specifically
stating that the engineer, through inspection services, cannot
indemnify the owner from contractor deficiencies in the inevitable
engineering work associated with correcting ouch deficiencies.
It is our opinion, however, that In these particular cocoa there
were some eircumatances you did have control over, and you could
have reduced the amount of defieioncloo in those instances.
We believe that there are also Instances which the engineers,
contractors, and City have no control over, and we have taken
( care of many of those over the pant year or two at the Wastewater
\� Treatment Plant. Those small problems are taken in stride as
Orr-Scholen-Mayeron 6 Asoociaten, Inc.
October, 3, 1984
Page 4
C.
part of the owners risk since we do not expect to be indemnified
against all risk, only as you note, to keep those risks tolerable
and workable limits.
Our last concern, John, is with the as-builts for the Wastewater
Treatment Plant project. Your firms original preliminary revision
of the construction drawing was not acceptable to the Wastewater
Treatment Plant staff nor myself. It was my understanding in
the original discussions with Mr. Jerry Carrick, the project
engineer, that the as-builta for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
would be completed in 1983 and that the revisions we requested
would be made. After one delay after another and numerous phone
calls with the project engineer, we agreed upon a date of completion,
April 16, 1984. As that date became closer and it became evident
that little, if any, work was being done on the as -built drawings,
I wrote a letter to your firm to Mr. Jerry Corrick on March 8,
1984, Indicating that I would meet with him again to go over
the necessary corrections or additions to the as -built drawings.
We hold that meeting in March. I had expected the as -built
drawings to be completed in April of 1984. Since that time,
I have spoken to the project engineer, Mr. Jerry Corrick, on
numerous occasions and have asked him to complete the drawings.
He stated duo to a back log of work, they had boon put on a
loverpriority. I told Mr. Carrick that I did not want to start
vriti ng lottero and hoped that he could get the as-builto completed
as soon as possible. In my last conversation with him about
nix weeks ago, he indicated that he was going to start working
on the drawings shortly, and he was going to be discussing them
with you. To date, we have only one set of drawings, which
aro incomplete; and as you wall know, John, we need the ao-built
drawings bofoto we can close out this project. Please give
them your earliaot attention.
If you have any questions or if we may be of any additional
assistance concerning those matters, pleaco contact us.
Roope tfully,
UL��
John H. Simola
Public Works Director
JS/ked
Enclo auras
cc: Tom Eidem
Al Meyor
Stop III File
/� as
City o1 Vonfic.&
7
I
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
_ A'
II I
March 8, 1984
Pnone16121265.2711
I
Marola121333.5738
I• (
Orr-Sehelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, Inc.
2021East Hennepin Avenue, Suite 238
May«;
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Ane Grrnamo
Cly Counce:Attention)
Mr. Gerry Corrick
owelonlpan
Fren Far
aM Mau*
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant and Appurtenant Work,
Jack Me■wo0
EPA Project C270855-03, As Built Drawings
I
Aemtnueel«:
Gentlemen:
Tom E10em I
Finance Dred«:
This letter is in regard to the as built drawings of the
Rick WMetaW
Wastewater Treatment Facility which you forwarded us in 1983.
Fumk Wane:
upon review of these drawings, we informed Mr. Gerald Corrick
h0
of your office that they were unacceptable to the City of
{'Ien1a 2a onrlq.
Gert' Andaman
Monticello. During various discussions with Mr. Corrick
and reviews of the drawings with Mr. Corrick, we indicated
that too many of the drawings made reference simply to change
orders and were not detailed drawings of the actual construction.
In addition, we felt that many of the drawings were extremely
cluttered and some were of very poor quality reproduction.
We have offered on several occasions to meet with you end
your drafting department to come up with a comprehensive Sot
of easy to read and understand drawings which can be used by
the Treatment Plant personnel in the dny to day operations and
in the future to aid in design modifications or additions. Since
we have boon unable to schedule such n meeting in the pant many
months, we feel it is necessary to give you a formol notification
of the unacceptability of the drawingn prior to the final in-
apaction for the project.
In our last discussion pertaining to this subject, it was decided
that the as built drawings would be completed no later than
April 16, 1984. Please inform us of any date which we may mcut
with you at your office to go over these drawings. If we may be
of any additional assistance or if you have any questions, please
contact us.
Repactfullydo , />
��l✓ �,e�J
John E. Simple
Public works Director
1 JPS/ked
L
cc1 Tom Eidem, City Administrator
Tho [est Droeaney Al Mayor, WWTP Opurator
11ouu �, Do■ e3� Stop III Correa. Pllo ✓
•Aafllc , MN 56362 JES
DEPARTMENT OFS O ARMY
ST PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS Of ENGINEERS
1135 V S POST OFFICE 6 CUSTOM MOUSE �y
ST PAUL. MINNESOTA 65101 �+„ •r 'J1 I \ / E , )'
REPLY TO . IRE (V r (j
ATTENTION Of: March 1, I984 t8R•SCKLEN-L'.' -'''n 6 ASSOC.
COMM 'O "' -
The Honorable Arve Crimsmo VAR 0 2 19EA
Mayor, City of Monticello
City Hall
Monticello, Minnesota
I
SUBJECT: Final Inspection 7� •h
Treatment Yorks Grant
Step 3, EPA No. C270955-03
Dear Mayor r:rincmlo:
A final on-site inspection for the subject EPA funded Construction
project has been scheduled for Thursday, March 15, 1984, at 9:30 a.m.
The purposes of this inspection will be to assess the operability
of the completed facilities, evaluate the grantee's compliance with
the grant conditions. determine if construction conforms with the ap-
proved plans, specifications, nddendums and change orders and to dis-
cuss any legal/administrative problems that may exist.
Please be sure the persons responsible for the project records, the
operation and maintenance of the completed facilities, and the project
construction management will be available during this inspection.
The attendees should be prepared to dtscuas end supply information
relevant to the following:
Contractors and contract status; subcontracts; minority
business participation: Dnvis Bacon wnge rates; status of
all grant conditions; grantee's accounting procedures:
grantee's operation and maintenance program, and the status
of all funding.
Specific data required are itemized on the attachment to this letter.
A copy of this latter is being sent to those persons listed below for
their information and as an invitation to attend this inspection. For
further information or possible rescheduling, should the above time
and date prove inconvenient, please call me at (612) 725-5823.
Sincerely,
Michael T. Wright. P.E.
Assistant Project Manager
of: James Bostick, NPCA
�( Jerry Carrick, OSM
'l
�/►��y INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR FINAL INSPECTION
Keneral Grant Information
X Total grant amount (include amendments)
X Pending grant amendments - status - amounts
X Present budget period
X EPA payments to date
X Pending EPA payment
List other sources and types of Federal funding - amounts - status
Status of Grant Conditions
X User Charge System - approved - enacted - dates
X Sewer Use Ordinance - approved - enacted - to EPA - dates
X O&M Manual - approved - dates
Flood Insurance - date purchased
Pretreatment Program
X Compliance with special grant conditions
Project Cost Data
X Supply the following information for each contract:
Contractor name, contract number, original eligible contract amount, final
eligible contract amount, change order recap sheet showing change order amount -
eligible amount - time extensions - and approval status, list all MBEs and the
amounts paid to each.
_X Also recap all other grant eligible costa: e.g.. Engineering. Force Account,
Equipment and Small Purchases.
�X The sum of the contracts and other costs should equal the total grant
eligible amount.
Contract Data
_X Date of beneficial occupancy/substantial complatioo - actual or target
- X _ Date of Engineer's certificate of completion issued to contractor - actual
or target
OIL_ Data of grantee acceptance - actual or target
j X Copy of all subcontracts
X MBE paid invoices
X Contractor payroll records
X List all remaining oonstruction deficiencies.
X Recap any outstanding problems which may affect project close-out; e.g.,
pending Iegal issues or contractor conflicts.
Grantee Records (Have these available for review.)
X Accounting ledger
X All fiscal records
X All invoices and payment requests paid for with EPA funds
Construction Management Records (Have these available for review.)
X Approved shop drawings
X As -built drawings o
X Construction related test results a
�✓X Mnnufacturers' certifications
X _ Logs books and reports -
X Approved plane and specifications, addenda and change orders
Project Operation and Maintenance (Have these available if ,npplieable)
X _ Plan of operation
Laboratory reports regarding effluent quality
x..... Effluent discharge permit
x_ Daily operating log
X O&M Manual
Number and license status of all operating personnel
ORR•SCHEIEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Division of Kiddo Consultants, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
November 15, 1983
Mr. John Simola
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Re: Monticello WWTP and Appurtenant Work
EPA C270855-03
Gentlemen:
With regard to some of your recent inquiries concerning various
aspects of the project, we offer the following responses:
�v 1. Bentec Engineering is responsible for calibration during the
two year warranty period. Please refer to Specification
Section 1690 for specifics.
2. Chuck Lepak will be responding this week to the October 27,
1982 MPGA pretreatment program letter.
3. Our latest inventory of your file space required for the pro-
ject will be 30' of depth for 8-1/2"x11" size. (Stop 1, 2
and 3).
4. We will be finalizing the As -built drowings and updating the
O&M Manual after completion of all construction work
(specifically we are waiting on variable speed drives and
metha.ie gas boiler operation).
5. we expect final project closeout by the COE in the upcoming
months. Please review the attached list for the files the
City will need to provide.
6. Pleaso find attached some suggested procedures your WWTP
operations staff may wish to employ to enhance the diver.ter
(Into control.
7. We have no word on the Waldor/0SM LA wsuit trial date as yet.
We oxpoct a minimum 6 week notice.
2021 East Honnapi) Avenue • Suito 238 • Minnonpnlis, Minnosotn 55413
612/331.8660 TELEX: 7.9.0948
® Page Two
Mr. John Simola
November 14, 1963
B. We would appreciate information regarding the status of the
following items:
a. Status of lien waiver/indemnification bond review.
b. Status of RAS/EQ pump recommended flow rates and
modifications.
c. Status of digester heating costs.
d. Status of Step 2 reimbursement requests?
Please call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
b AS OCIATE C.
Gerald S. Corrick, P.E.
Project Manager
GSC:min
cc: John P. Badalich, P.E. - OSM
Charles A. Lepak, P.E. - OSM
O .�
ORR•SCHEIEN • MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting [ngiruters
L and Surveyors
July 8, 1983
Mr. John Simola
Public Works Director.
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant
Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
Step 3 Contractual Obligations
and Monitoring Work
Dear John:
This lotter is in response to your request regarding the remaining
Step 3 contractual obligations of. OSM with respect to the above
V referenced project. we have tabulated in an attached document the
major work task, items yet to be completed.
Furthermore, we have prepared a tabulation of forthcoming monitor-
ing related work the City should expect within the next two years.
we have estimated the anticipated work effort for each task. The
work tasks are described and tnhulated in an attachment. The
actual level of effort will, of course, depend on the level of
participation requested by the City and the actual circumstances
encountered. These work tasks are not included as part of the Step
3 Engineering Agreement between the City of Monticello and OSM in
that EPA funding was not available at the time the agreement was
ontered into. We recommend that the City look into the need of
those services and consider developing a procedure for authoriz-
ation of such work as needed.
Consulting Costs incurred by the City regarding the referenced work
tasks are not grant eligible. Recently, the EPA has changed their
regulation mandating consulting monitoring services by the design
Engincor for an extended period after the construction is complete.
This was offected by tho evident need for such services duo to the
apparent lack of contract and/or treatmont performance. The current
EPA regulations consider engineering costs associated with monitor -
Ing as grant oligiblo. Unfortunately for the City of Monticello,
the regulation is not rotroactive to the date of. our Step 3 grant
application, and thereby costa incur.rod by the City for the same
aro not grant oligiblo..
2021 EnstlJcnnrpirrJlvcnuc Suite 239 !l'linncnpo:is./lrinnrsnro ,5413 • 612/331.8660
Page Two
Mr. John Simola
Re:• Step 3 Contractual Obligations
and Monitoring Work
July 8, 1983
OSM proposes to perform the above referenced monitoring work in a
manner both mutually agreeable to the City and OSM.
We hope this response to your concerns regarding current Step 3
contractual obligations and additional forthcoming monitoring work
helps clarify the situation.
Please call if you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
6 Cl/A'TES, INC.
v Gorald-S.\Corrick, P.F.
Project Manager
GSC:min
enclosures
cc: John P. Iladalich - OSM
Charles A. Lepak - OSM
ti•
�`/ REMAINING STEP 3 CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
(AS OF JUNE 29, 1983)
1. Construction contract close-out administration. This includes
the MPCA/COE final inspection and monitoring of punch list work
through acceptance of the project by the City. (Currently in
progress).
2. Provide to the Corps of Engineers the appropriate project
closeout paperwork. (Currently in progress).
3. Provide 1 -day instrumentation orientation to Operations staff
as part of start-up services. (Scheduled for July 13, 1983).
4. Provide necessary services toward resolution of the Waldor Pump
Co./PALCO vs OSM/City of Monticello lawsuit regarding the air
operated diaphragm sludge pumps. (Anticipated. trial date in
Spring, 1984).
r
S. Provide final 'As -Built' drawings.
r 6. Update Operation and Maintenance Manual as required.
7. Transmit to City the appropriate project files.
cJ
l� POST - STEP 3 (NON GRANT ELIGIBLE)
ENGINEERING AND MONITORING SERVICES
FOR CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
MONTICELLO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
AND APPURTENANT WORK
1. Construction warranty assistance. Provide information and
liaison with contractors, suppliers, etc., regarding warranty
items.
2. Consultation regarding treatment plant operations,
maintenance, and monitoring procedures.
3. Consultation regarding sewer system user charges.
4. Consultation regarding pretreatment program requirements for
industrial users and monitoring systems.
5. Consultation regarding implementation, expansion, and enhance-
ment of the property management system. �.
6. Consultation regarding troubleshooting of operational or
equipment problems.
7. Development of a filing and record keeping system for storage
at City Hall. Organization and filing of the Step 1, 2 and 3
project files suitable for final audit purposes.
R. Participation in the final audit answering questions and
providing information to the EPA auditors.
9. Consultation to City administrative staff regarding financial
closeout of the Step 3 Grant.
10. Provide liaison with agencies such as the MPCA, EPA, D10 and
COE as required.
11. Provide consultation to the City during the warranty period
regarding contract performance by the Contractor. (i.e.,
liaison with Contractor's bonding company, subcontractors and
suppliers guarantees, etc.).
12. Research of the project files, etc., to gather information or
answer questions proposed by the City.
C�
i
i
13. Site visits at structured intervals (bi-monthly, etc.), for
first two years operation to monitor performance and assist
operations staff.
14. Assistance in updating documents as necessary to reflect cur-
rent conditions (i.e., O 6 M manuals, As-Builts, Related City
Ordinances -Pretreatment, User Charge, Sewer and Water,
Property Management, etc.).
15. Participation on the City's behalf regarding liens, disputes,
claims, etc., with other parties regarding the treatment plant
project.
C
Mr. John J. Wexler
July 24, 1979
Page Three
E. Other Enqinee ring Services - These are
listed and des-
cribed under Tasks 1 through 17 in the
grant application.
The following is a brief description and the associated
costs which consist of direct labor, indirect labor costs
and fixed
fee as shown on Form 5700.
1) Task
1 - Tabulation and
Eva ulation of Bids,
Contract Documents, Etc.
$ 3,673.00
Task
2 - Preconstruction
Con ferences
1,2G4.00
Task
3 - Shop Drawings
Schedules
4,884.00
Task
4 - Site Visits by
Project Engineer
9,309.00
Transportation
1,340.00
Task
5 - Weekly Construc-
tion Meetings
13,489.00
Task
6 - Shop Drawing
Checking & Approvals,
& material Approval
32,094.00
Task
7 - Off-site Factory
Testa, Etc.
4,866.00
Task
8 - Contractor's Payment
Reviews & Verification
by Cn9incer
4,299.00
Task
9 - Drawings and Details
Required to modify Draw-
ings Based on Contractor's
Actual Equipment Furnished
46,920.00
Task
10 — Supplementary Engineer-
ing Consultation, Calcula-
tion s, and Opiniono
12,016.00
Task
11 — Review and Approval of
Chariga Orders
12,016.00
lir. John J. Wexler
July 24, 1979
Page Four
Tank 12 - roor.lination between
City L L'ngineer Ret1arding
Design b Construction
Procedures 12,016.00
Task 13 - Coordination between
Construction s 3xiatiny
r•.avilitics 5.,469.00
:aIIk it - Final lnupectiost 2,520.00
Tank 15 - SchuJulius 6 Approval
of System Startup 6 Per-
forwance Touts 4,030.00
Tank 16 - Assiut Operating
Peroonnul 3,004.00
Taal: 17 - Prcl3aration of record
or As -built Drat+itrys 51,704.00
Thn,total coat of tail. futictionu. Tacks 1 through
21, is ;370,634.00 which includes costa for direct
labor, indirect labor costa and fixed fee and cora-
paron exactly with the coot shown on ITA, Fv= 57x0,
for the line itcras 7, S and 11 of said form. Travol
cuoto'in the amount of ;6,016.00, tele,+hone calla
its the amount of 02,00.00, laboratory services for
wastawatur samplinf and analysis durin{l start-up
poriod its the arloutst of 6.6,000.00, and printing
cuuto in thu aatount of 5950.00 for a total of
015,!;GG.00 aru aluo added to tho abov., costa. Morti-
fore, thu lural coot for ungitscorin7 and tochniaal
ourvivou ralueatod under thin 3tul. 3 Crant Applica-
tion iu S3UG,2U0.00.
d. :
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
10. Consideration of City Hall Roof Specifications and Authorization
of Advertisement for Bids. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Hall roof replacement specifications are before the
two Committee members, Gary Anderson and Councilmember Dan Blonigen,
for final review and revision. we feel the specifications as
presented will be adequate to facilitate a complete reroofing
for the City Hall building.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the specifications for the City Hall roof replacement
as presented.
2. Deny the specifications for the City Hall roof replacement
as presented.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the specifications as presented.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Specifications are available for your review at City Hall.
-9-
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
11. Consideration of Widening 7th Street and Relocating the Lighting
System in Connection with the Highway 25 Project. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In a recent on -the -site design meeting with representatives
of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, it was learned
that a problem exists with the width and alignment of 7th Street
on the east and west sides of Highway 25.
Seventh Street on the east aide of Highway 25 was recently reconstructed
to a 9 ton, 44 -foot width, curb and guttered street. The City
spent a significant amount of money on this street incorporating
in the retaining wall for Hillside Cemetery. Seventh Street
on the west side of Highway 25, however, was put in in the early
70'a probably before any collector road was even thought of,
and its width is only 36 feet.
The north curbs of East and West 7th Streets are relatively
clone in alignment, with the West 7th Street curb being approximately
2 feet farthor north. MN/DOT fools that the intersection should
be constructed to a full 52 -foot width to accommodate safe traffic
through the intersection, including the necessary turning movements.
I indicated to Jim Povich and Bud McCollough that they would
be hard pressed to got the City to rebuild East 7th Street due
to its width already of 44 foot and the significant amount of
monies already spent there. After some discussion, MN/DOT agreed
to allow the City to leave East 7th Street as constructed to
the 44 -foot width and taper it into the 52 -foot width along
the south curb line for Highway 25. Because of the comotory
and retaining wall, the north curb on East 7th Street would
be used as an alignment guide for the placement of the intorsaction.
The future widening of approximately 8 foot would coma on the
Porkins aide of 7th Street.
Our problem comes on the south curb for West 7th Street. MN/DOT
fools vary strongly that the south curb on west 7th Street ohould
be pushed 18 fact south to allow for a full 54 -foot width on
west 7th Street. This would allow for the proper alignment
of tho south curbs in the future. It appears to be most practical
to push this curb south the 18 foot all the way to walnut Street
at the entrance to the mall. At this point, the reconstruction
of our collector road farthor west will begin, and we can incorporate
a narrowing to 44 foot in this area if we so choose in the future.
Estimated cost of removing the oxicting curbing and doing the
grading and paving of an additional 18 foot of roadway along
with the rocurbing is botwocn S1G,000.00 and 915,000.00. Ono
complication to this project is tho fact that the owner of the
Kentucky Friod Chicken franchise in Monticello has, within the
-10-
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
last two years, spent approximately $5,000.00 on landscaping
along 7th Street between Highway 25 and the mall entrance.
This landscaping includes sod, rock, and the planting of several
trees and a few small shrubs. If the or -root were widened the
18 feet, most if not all of the landscaping would be removed,
leaving a 4-5 foot strip of grass or green area between the
parking lot and the now curb. The City has not and should not
make it a policy to replace expensive landscaping or trees located
in its boulevards when doing reconstruction projects. From
the other end, the individual who is conscientious enough to
want to beautify the boulevard should not be penalized for doing
no; and one would think a 12 or 13 year old street would have
many years of life left in it prior to reconstruction. In this
instance, there should be some middle of: the road consideration
given to the property owner.
Since this project is located beyond the right-of-way for Highway 25,
the coat would have to be borne by the local agency and not
the State. Since West 7th Street is a County State Aid Highway
q58, I approached the County Highway Engineer, Mr. Wayne Fingalaon,
about possible County assistance in the project.
Mr. Fingalaon informed me that the County was already $200,000.00
over budget in its 5 -year plan for municipal and County State
Aid projects. Ila informed me that if ttto City of Monticello
wished to have some assistance with this project, the funds
would have to be cut out of another project. Most likely the
project that the funds would be cut from would be the Wast County
Road 39 project. As you may remember, tho City of Monticello
requested that the County look into the widening of Want County
Road 39 from the I-94 bridge to Elm Streat in conjunction with
requests made from residents in that area that we provide a
safer street for pedestrians and bicycles and look into the
speed zoning and no passing regulations in the area. The County
right now in considering doing this portion of County Road 39
with a project they already have in progress beginning this
year on went County Road 39 wont of 1-94. Basically, if we
push for funding for the 7th Street project. we may lose the
funding on the County Road 39 project. In discussing this possibility
with Tom Eidam, it may be more feasible to keep the burner on
for the West County Road 39 project and incorporate the 7th
Street project in with the bonding for the Highway 25 project.
Ono of the other items discussed with t ho MN/DOT people during
that meeting wan the relocation of the atroot lighting along
Highway 25. The existing polos would have to be relocated with
the construction of Highway 25 to a point 2 foot beyond the
Paco of the now curb. MN/DOT requested that the City of Monticello
obtain the services of a consulting ang inoor to lay out and
design the lighting relocation and that the plans be completed
In August for incorporation into the Highway 25 reconstruction
project. The City, of course, would ha vo to pay 100% of the
relocation costs of the lighting system .
sm
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. This alternative would be to address a letter to MN/DOT
requesting that they incorporate the widening of 7th Street
into their project; that a second letter be sent to Wright
County explaining that we wish to keep the priority of West
County Road 39 and that the City understands that there
will be no funding for the improvements to CSAH 58 unless
some other projects are cancelled and funds become available.
In addition, this alternative includes some form of compensation
to the owner of the Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise for
his landscaping. This alternative also includes the ordering
from OSM for the preparation of a lighting relocation plan
to coincide with the Highway 25 construction project.
2. Insofar as the 7th Street project is concerned, there do
not appear to be many alternatives. If we should choose
an alternative which would not widen 7th Street, we may
place the construction of the signal light in jeopardy;
and this signal is desperately needed.
3. Alternative #3 could be that the City drop the priority
on 39 and request funding for the 7th Street project. This
does not seem practical, as the 39 project would be more
expensive and is already on a consideration list for the
County.
G. This alternative could be to look for other ways of solving
the lighting plan and/or the compensation to the Kentucky
Fried Chicken franchise.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council approve
Alternative #1 as listed above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Drawing of intersection.
-12-
S�/o
1
A
L�AiC�
Y'A =
/t /
r \�
get- ..10
exacr'.iss
wed �,
E
..
r,
N
t:ncK e Cl,eufS
00:
i
all
t'.,
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
12. Consideration of Purchase of Park Equipment. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACeGROUND:
With the increase in development within Country Club, City staff
has begun development of the park. In 1983, we began leveling
and grading in the park and re -seeded the area. In addition,
we marked the property corners of the park with short sections
of split rail cedar fencing. This year we plan to continue
the development by planting a few trees and installing the playground
equipment for the youngsters in the area. in addition, we propose
to place four picnic tables within the park. If time permits,
we will begin some of the work for the ball field by installing
a back stop relocated from the First National Bank property
on 4th Street. A drawing showing the proposed development is
enclosed for your review.
In addition to the four picnic table frames being purchased
for the Country Club Park, we propose to buy 12 additional tubular
type frames. The City summer workers will build the picnic
tables utilizing wood and paint purchased locally. with the
purchase of these 12 picnic tables, we will begin phasing out
some of the 12 old angle iron picnic tables which are located
in soma of the parks. Many of these picnic tables are in poor
condition.
In preparation for the proposed development of Country Club
Park and the additional picnic table replacement, we budgeted
$1,500.00 for the picnic tables and $5,400.00 for development
of the Country Club Park. we have obtained prices from Earl
F. Anderson 6 Associates and Gama Time. The price for the Earl
P. Anderson equipment, not including the freight, is $4,533.00.
The price for the Cama Time equipment, not including freight,
would be $4,780.00. we have enclosed the low quotation from
Earl F. Anderson for your review in the amount of $4,533.00.
By referring to the above-reforencod quotation, it can be Doan
that a typical picnic table frame costs $69.00. This includes
the hardware for bolting the table top to the frames. we purchase
the lumbar locally for a coat of $21.00 and the paint or stain
for an average coot of $4.00 par table. when we are done material
wino, we have approximately $94.00 in each table. It takes
approximately 14 manhoure to complete a picnic table. Theme
manhouro aro normally put in by the summer workers at little
or no coot to the City. Currently, the City of Monticello has
37 portable picnic tables. This includes the 12 old style angle
iron tables, we also have 9 permanent tables.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. This alternative would bo to authorize the purchase of the
playground equipment and tho 16 picnic table frames for
a total cost of $4,533.00, excluding freight, from E. F.
Anderson 6 Associates.
-0-
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
2. This alternative would be to not purchase the above equipment
and delay the development of Country Club Park and the picnic
tables. This is not in the beet interest of the City, as
some of our tables are in extremely poor condition; and
the Country Club area is developing quite rapidly, and this
park development is needed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Park
Superintendent that you authorize the purchases outlined in
Alternative q1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Quotation from E.F. Anderson and pictures of proposed equipment.
-14-
EARL F. ANDERSEN AND ASSOC.. INC.
• Para a.w ttocrcat+onar Cg+nemm+t
• tnte:w,tE.ia,o. Spnaga
9860 James CtS 9loo t, $56.12
• Fnneaa SYaicma
• Treat t
00.86 02
7dl•Fina WATS lin^ 1.900.8G2•GO76. 6rT•Ben•Ta00
L
EFA
• S'w ru,matnnga
S.O.ta
• C. ang ara.0
P.O.Box 83A
• tmww En.aommrnn
T.M.Signa
• nt aaan.rg PeoaueU
Complab cot wA ft, design, layout and .natatraticn ♦erecw.
• elaaam Is aurum S.Wg
4_J
Date February 19, 1985
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Your Rel. No. PLAYGROUND
250 E. Broadway
..
P.O.Box 83A
Monticello, NN 55362
Attn: Roger Mack
•
TERMS: Net 30 Days
To Be Arranged 0
Ne nie Pleased to quota YOU the tollowinry:
OUANIITY DESCRIPTION
PRICE EACH
TOTAL
4 509-001 Frame Only
69.00
276.00
1 1506-555 6'0" Diameter Slain
595.00
595.00
1 1006-400 6 -unit Swing - 2 Infant 620.00
620.00
1 525-100 Jr. Gym Center
727.00
727.00
1 716-300 Slide
777.00
777.00
1 0034 Turtle Spring Animal
160.00
160.00
3 0031 Bird
205.00
205.00
1. 0033 Horse
205.00
205.00
1 0035 Motor Cycle Spring Animal 255.00
255.00
12 509-001 Frames Only
69.00
828.00
\
4648.nn
Less Quantity tiscount
115.00
SUB -TOTAL
4533.00
(Mnte+inl Only) SALES -TAX
FREIGHT Pius Frt.
TOTAL
- —
F.O.B. t nctoty QD Destination Q WE ARS AN
-
EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
$hipmentnppior.—.30..days=._..nitetier.6otolrnd+a.
NOTE; kris quotation vit id tot 30dnys,
PPP tt� r
Pietist,, wiitt2 10t Conlimintion alter tint date.
BY
P. Demko
UJohn
�-
�•f
\f� �f�
+�• V '
��J��3:�
f�•J �= I�]o5a i
j, a Ns�s
J �xN+uK� � I
...._
-.• �1� �
_ � � ��I44S/ 51`a\ O
/� ^` � / •
� c
O
Sko.±:uG.�'ir+li t �
p4 - ��
9,�.
1 , ,dam•• • r �•.N
I_ •. _ _ _ .� _ .� � .^ _
5,.•t•�; se'
I �fl�.
'•
L1'! � � -_
A � .. @� �
0
^,, �Aq; gip,', •, �. .ti .ter • ;.., y`� _ ,r c�.
�' ane•• � ':Y•�j5••i � -p• .. ^v Y�•, O
� c � •c• •T • • �i.•/� Of
rc !r,r,,.,7`
SIZE: n'D" 12'0" a 10' al Higheo Point
`QV
11bu
. , .. rin r,.rl,.;nrrr•rl
1 1 In t, 1, (•.d.mm�J
I',p. 'Ilia. np7
- • 1 n .,d.. D.n•J
• + h.•u •r•t •I .rll•+..� 1•mo
Pm. i�h r Itnglra \n
;ducal 4b0rynum 19.nJ uy1
• ;P' (•roll
.I.I lan,r•FIM I
apu.000 n 'fable wlN'r.A 1'Ian1.m1 hr,p;hu 1-0 Ib.
V.0.n0D1'I n''I abin wJl'r...un• I'n•a,r•d 1.=11.+« 1'u+n
Planlmp weight 50711%
♦Du eP0 P' Inldr. u't\•.J 19anlrmJ Might dJ91,h.
Ln, OP01'I P' Jabtr %Ilhw.rur 141•%1.,1101,'.
I`,nr'I4anlrm! R'rnghl S_9S 11+•
'AmSM n' I'atdn wa I— Alummnm rh
I'Lu I- tYml 0" I b.
v N.
Lw P' ialdr %.1 h., Alun ri, 11.4. h7 -o 1.1 cilli%
0041 000 'w Iehle Wliw— Aluminum 1'lanls
t@aµ;h, 1?OI,b.
WEIGHT: 480 lbs.
525-100
junior
gycenter
A compact version of
our regular gym center,
this unitcontainsallof the
same events except the
parallel bars'. Material
specifications are the
same as those of the
It525-000 Gym Center.
900,00 P' lablr..111vi ue Alum,nrm Plan►.
tv,i:hr 1901.b.
900,•100 tith-h herr II.-. I W r', IV,.M PIan1.
W,q.h, _I01 b.
nlw 4110 H'hn•Id—, U.— fable .0-1-r Alummnm
n,nl. %V,,Mh,. 13. It.
900.;+10
Which hair U.er. fable 11lionre Aluminum
Phrit. Krrrhr, lea Ib.
900,001 1Wd.are Only Wngh, 001 b.
Nae: All N•hoehhair Van Table. Iles 101 Drift
I"n. ,,if P' 1 unit Si- .
.noon, for'their, dUl-ahilitV, these spi'nncrs have
more 'handmiIs'thanmit ist rtfhei's ''avaiIable.
— V_
0034
Turtle
0035
Motorcycle,
1508'-000 (Pictured)
• 1.1 G., Sti'el Hatform trith'Rotanded Edge
e Ntm'Skid'Surfarc
• I -Silo" OAXStrel I'i{.e Braves and Ilandral
•0, llvav) Uuh• SeAvd,liall Hrarinl;sl
• 2-112' Diameter S6,+.Shaft
"SOe.000 a Utamrti•r, Spm.iln.unJ -15 Ilendtaib
'Suri e'
Ow—to Y.— Ihgh
W."Jit. !0: Lb..
1:•oe_595, ti' niamro-rtipin A..!unJ With••u_ t Swirl'Motif
150M•01W.y'-Utaml'trr'Sjnn % .und''..I. llandtad:
Sf+ri N' UiamrtrrCJ'•7" Ihgh
tvdigha ++2 l.b•.,
1505-i5} n" D.mon $pin r\hme.l}\-it h.•ut Swirl M•gil
0031
;Bird
0033
Horse
400 series
Aandard
mingtr
Available in 8' and 10'
beam height these stvings
are the standard by
which all others are
measured.
IIINT! Place swings out
of the child traffic area
and he certain that
there are no obstacles in
the fall zone. As with all
play equipment swings
must be installed over
fall attenuating ground
corer.
8we= Fome
• 2.31`1" O.D. Steel Pipe Beam
• .718" O.D. Steel Pipe Yokes
• '-318" O.D. Calvanired Steel Pipe Legs
• Hot C.alvanired Malleable Iron hankers with Oil Impregnated llearinps
• 410 Straight Lint. Calvanired Chain
Standard swings are shipped with 1110100 slashproof belt seats but also
available are: rings, turning bars or infant seats.
No.
Model
No.
Sec.
Ship.
Ground
Configuration
No.
Swings
tions
Height
Wt.
Space
002.400
2
I
e'
187
7'11"16'6"
1002.400
2
1
10'
206
0'6" %18'0"
i
804.400
4
2
e'
302
7'11"■23`6"
i
1004.400
4
2
10'
331
4'6" %30'10"
I
806.400
6
J
e'
Joe
7,11"04'6"
�1�`�jj1
101b-4�—
J
18'
420
4-6,16. I0"
1011-4.
8
131
1000 400
e
4
10'
set
6'6' %49b"
1400
timble c
11111
e climber that me
I an abrust move
graceful fluid m
I generates intery
children as they
maintain balance.
SIM 4•-10•' WIDE X T-1 I" HIGH X 8'-1•' LONG
bVl'I('11'1' 07% 1 ItC
• Protective Medd of I'lasticcomi"I ste"I
• 'llvin Opposint; ShocA Absmlq•is
• Aluminum Hedw'av
• the combination of plasiic•comed mesh
and the gentle motion of Ow Tumble Cym
Combine to minimise danger hom pinch
points around the Imbe
• 1.9110•' O.D. Steel Pipe forms the strong
Two piece Cab
f 'm= RWW 7
Aided
rThese are the sturdiest of heavy duty slides
1 available today. We Five our lo' and 20' long
models an additional center sway brace to keep
_ 1 the unit rigid for years of heavy service.
r .int
e Fur maximum thrid safety
Matto Forge and the
( omumcr 1'rodutt Safety
Commission strongly
ir.onunend that shdrs be
installed over fall abw,rbinit
ground cover, Installation
Moll I iwate slides w, that
bedway surfate fates north in
order that surface stays (owoer.
.-1 4 rra= mrw
All models have the following features:
a 14 Gauge (;alvanired Steel Tread Plate Steps and
1 arge Platfoim
e One Mete all Stainless Steel Slide. Medway
a I.511o" 0 1). Calvanved Steel Pipe l landrads
a 1 S;R" U 1). Calvanved Steel Pipe Supports
Model Ship
Configuutlon
No.
Wt.
e' 12'
708.300
1771
ifs'\
710.300
2050
to, 20'
712.300
2311
` fes•
—_
,� 71 L! ,
"3261
710.300
3021
Plat. Bed. Center Top
form way Chute Guard
Ilelglu Length Support Rails
a' 8' No Yee
s' 10'
No
Yee
e' 12'
No
Yes
8' le'
Yrs
Yes
to, 20'
Yes
Yes
til'!_1;• 1,5' -, 7' " 10•'1'
r
Id;l' nap I_h.,
••, ?•+�• I'rr..•:1p st:u nliw•�Ir�•� +• I.uu;�tilia�•16 •,Iiv:rC'. �' i\i�lr
'• �. ' y' i a � t� q .,�1. �ur,•J �p.,.� lyl..r,, u{yd•rt:
'• 1 � t ..uric' Ir\..'I.lr..gti•y•i Itj.4
• q. , y r 5, lit,i,,,,ly u�•:•�.I `•u��d I'.,I•••.Ilan'di'atl.
•' E i r ero:. I'Lr•.i.u,rn 1 ip•.,,rll.�•I LL•p:hl
'�,IIq;�'r ',I ua til. till cr•g,Ir \luminoq,t
-i Id,t,,ua,. :•hu•I I:y.i.i I'I,tY.�.ptf•1. l\•�I�Imrpr
• -1
ti1J 1: 2\?' : 1 j'' �:dn' I'fl,"w writ .iH, '7,,0:1 hi
howel
and
gretel
playh®u.re8
721-000.
I1an�i�I,S'•' C;rrir�C,�tlLlu•.\r�i'
l.aJr3cr',nui tiliJc
wt t - ,-•t^��n rh
nr,ir.rY,t 'cr•r i 1•.
721=100
c, Itr.�t•d l..,d�l��,•<
llnr la dart RrpLur. ( argo Vo
Uimkv•rl
fail tN••n'.Ic!If.h
nl li.l7 1 -i,t 114
.721. -200'
1'lanticl 4' Groetwilh Two
S,Iidcs. and;Stn{i,A�y,'mhltr�
ICI IC:I 1.1 'h? lb:
mm" Como 3:
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
13. Consideration of Authorizing Investigation of Senior Center
Relocation. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A couple years back, there wore some preliminary discussions
with respect to the current Senior Center being sold to private
enterprise and being developed in the downtown and with the
Senior Center relocating to the Assembly of God Church. That
proposal fell through rather quickly because of the asking price
of the Assembly of God Church and the required expense to convert
the building suitable for senior activities. In recent weeks,
there has been interest expressed by private enterprise to acquire
the City's property downtown where the seniors are currently
located. Also related to that, there are unconfirmed reports
that the asking price of the Assembly of God Church building
has decreased substantially. I spoke recently with Karen Hanson,
Senior Center Director, and asked her to make some inquiries
on behalf of the seniors into the sale of the Assembly of God
Church. I asked her to further anticipate and estimate the
kinds of needs and building changes that would be required were
the seniors moved to the Assembly of God location. The positive
aspect of making ouch a move would be in the creation of additional
apace and activities, and the finality of the move. we have
on occasion talked of the possibility of relocating the seniors
into the coon to be vacated Fire Hall, but even that would be
limited with respect to the growth potential of the senior program.
I think the Assembly of God location would be the final location
for senior activities. Even should there be substantial growth,
that building could accommodate it. Thorn is. of course, the
potential that we continue to grow; but like all facilities,
there is a point where we must say, "this is as big as we got
and our services have expanded to their maximum point." Again,
I think the building in question would addreac that typo of
growth pattern.
This morning (Friday) I tried to contact Karon to aeoomblo the
data she had compiled. I was informed that Karon wan required
to go to the doctor and was having coma serious health problems
that may cause her to be hospitalized. Consequently, the data
I had hoped to receive in order to present a proposal to the
City Council is unavailable for advance preparation. I think
perhaps, we may wish to simply diecuac the options on Monday
evening and make coma kind of decision with respect to whether
or not the City should pursue this relocation and potential
sale of downtown property. I realize that this proposal may
coma as somewhat of a surprise since the issue was last dropped
about two years ago. If the Council wishes to purouo thio potential
relocation, I would like coma direction so that staff can enter
negotiations and planning knowing we have Council support.
It is, of courno, difficult to attempt to negotiate a potential
sale and acquisition prior to having Council authorization for
such action.
-15-
Council Agenda - 4/8/85
If we have additional information to present by Monday evening,
I will be glad to present it off-the-cuff at that time. Again,
due to some health reasons, I'm unable to give you much advance
information. Consequently, there are no alternative actions,
staff recommendations, or supporting data to be presented at
this time.
-IG-