City Council Agenda Packet 05-14-1984AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF _'8iE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 14,•1984 -- 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
council members: Oran'Fair, Ken Maus, Jack'Maxwell,'Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of 'the Regular Meeting Hold -April 23, 1984.
3. Citizens Camments/Petitions, Rquosts, and Complaints.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Public Hearing - Improvement of Hart Boulevard and -Coder Street.
OLD BUSINESS
5.
Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the Preparaiion'of Plana
and, Specifications for the Improvement of Hart Boulevard. and
Cedar Stroot.
6.
Consideration of Making Final Payment to PALCO for the Construction
of tho Wastorator Treatment Plant.
7.
consideration of 'a Raquost to Extend the Wastewater Tioatmont Plant
Grant.
8.
Censidora tion of an Earlier Adopted Resolution Authorising Plans
and Spoclficatione for the Improvement of County Road 75.
9.
Considoration of a Resolution Accepting a-Roviaed Environmental
Assessment Workohoot and Authorizing Distribution.
NEW BUSINESS
10.
Considoration of a Proposal to Replace the Roof on 'the Picnic Shelter
at West Biidgs Park.
11:
Considorati'on of a Proposal to Replace Air Oompressori at the WWTP:
12.
C6seidoration'of a, Motion Adjuiting Building Pormit Raquirements
for Minor .Building Improvements.
13.
Consideration of a Simple Subdivision.
14.
consideration of an Appeal of the Decision of the Planning Commission
�;
Palating to a Variance for Multi -Family Dwelling.
AGENDA FOR TIIE MEETING OF TIE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 14, 1904 - 7:30 P.M.
Page 2
15. Consideration of the Quarterly Liquor Store Report.
16. Adjournment.
C
h MINUTES
REGULAR 14EETI14G - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
April 23, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present; Arvo A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Ken Maus, Fran Fair,
Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
1.
Call to Order.
2.
Approval of Minutas.
Motion was mado by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to
approve the minutea of the regular meeting held April 9, 1984.
4.
Public hhearinq - Modification No. 1 of Tax Increment Financinq District
01 and Adoption of Tax Increment Financinq District N4.
IRI Corporation is proposing to build an additional four buildings
an the west half of Lot 7, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park, which
will W known as Tax Increment District 04. A portion of one of the
warehouse buildings will be situated on the north half of Lot 7
and will be on a portion of tha west half of the lot which is currently
Tax Increment District 01. Since it is virtually impossible to divide
the value of a building Wtwean two separate Tax Increment Districts,
it was nocossary to detach a portion of the land from Tax Increment
District ql and incorporate it into the now Tax Increment District 04.
Under state law, a public hearing must be hold before any now Tax
Increment District can be established or any modification can be made
to an existing Tax Increment Financing District. Tho public hearing
was hold, and no comments were hoard from the public in regard to
either tho modification or the now district.
5.
Cana ido rati on of a Wnaolution Approvinq Modification No.l to Tax
Increment Finmicinq District ii.
A motion was mado by Maus, socondod by Dlonigen, and unanimously
carried to adopt a r000lution modifying Tax Increment District ql
and reducing the siva of this district by tho north 175 feet of
Lot 7, Block 3. Sao PL,solution 1984 q 13.
6.
COnafrl]ration of n Po s olution Anprovino Tax Incramnnt Financinq
Dintrict 04.
h
Tax Incroment Financing District 04 will be comprised of all of the
west half of bOL 7, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park, and the north
. 1 -
Council Minutes - 4/23/84
F 175 feetof the east half of Lot 7, which was recently eliminated
from District 01. The buildings proposed for construction on this
parcel will consist of two 00 x 120 foot buildings, one 60 x 220 foot
warehouse building, and one 50 x 80 foot office building. All of
the buildings on Lot 7 will be connected by canopied passageways.
The tax increments expected to be generated from this new construction
will amount to approximately $20,000 annually to pay off the debt
of approximately $57,000 to the HRA for the IIRA's cost in the west
half of Lot 7.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution approving the Tax Increment Financing
Economic Development District N4 for IXI Corporation. See Resolution
1984 014.
Consideration of a Resolution Requestinq Certification of Tax
Increment Financinq District #4 with County Auditor.
Cn co the Tax Increment Plan has been approved by the City Council,
it is requir-ed that the District be certified to the County Auditor
before it can go into effect.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
r' to adopt a resolution requesting certification of Tax Increment
Financing District #4 with the County Auditor. Sea Resolution
1984 q 15.
8. Consideration of a Resolution Requentinq fortification of Tax
Increment Financinq District 03 with Catuity Auditor.
At the previous Council meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution
approving tho outablioliment of Tax Incrc m nt District 03 for the
Fulfillmont Systems Project for proles rty situated in Lauring Ilillsido
Torraco. Also, before this District ean'bo formally eatablished,
the County Auditor must certify the original aoaossod value of the
property within Tax Incrownt Financing District 03.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwoll, and unanimously
carried to adopt the ronolution requaating cortification by Uio
County Auditor of Tax Increment Financing District q3. Sao
Resolution 1984 d16.
9. Consideration of a Resolution Awardinq Sale of Tax Inerament Bonds.
At the April 9 Council meeting, Jerry Shannon of Springate.d. Inc.,
the City's Bonding Consultant, received autliorization to secure
bidu for Uio Salo of $155,000 bond iuuuo for Tax Increment District
03, Fulfillment Systems Projoct.
2
Council Minutes : -'4/23/84.
Eight bids_ wore rocciv_od_ from_area,finaneial institutions as follows:
`Mooro' Juran 8.3861 C
Dain,Bosworth 8:41
'Miller, 'schoade r 8.'53
American Nat'l Bank 6 Trust Co. 8.57
Piper, Jaffrey 8.60
let Nat'l Bank - St. Paul 8.6635
lBt Nat'l Bank - Mpls. 8.6660
Juran a Moody 8.6735
It was recommended by Springsted, Inc., that the City award the sale
of the bonds to Moore Juran at a not interest rate of 8.3861%. Motion
was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to
award the sale of the $155,000 tax increment bonds for District 13
to Moore Juran at a net interest rate of 8.3861%. Sea Resolution 1984 417.
10. Consideration of Pump uouso Nos. 1 a 2 Bids.
At the April 9 Council meeting, plans and specifications For additions
to Pump Hous as'Nos. '1 a 2 were approved and the Public Works Dirocto_r
wan authorized to advurtiso ,for bids.. Three bids were ,reeaivod.on
the building can ptructjar as fol'loyat
-NAME BOND OR CASH NO. 1 6 2. NO. 2 ONLY
Jay Miller Conat. Cort. Chock $20,G18.06 $14,678.00
Quintln ,Iannore Cashior's 'Check $21,548'.00 $15,523.00
Jim 'Schleif Const. Bid Bond $17,985..00 512.139:00
Eloctrieal bids for both pump house additions were also reomivad on
Monday an follwo s
NAiC N0. `1 .NO. 2
Double "D" Electric 51,279.-00 $1;691.00
Mortonson 'Electric $ 593.00 5' 893.00
Olson 6 Sons.Electric 81;832:00 (combined '1 a 2)
Klatt Electric Co. 5 436:00 $ 645.31
By•combininy the Iow, construction bid -from Jim Schleif Construction
of Buffalo for both puffV houses In the amount of $17,995.00 and the
low abectrical bid from Klatt Electric Ccmpany of Buffalo in the
amount of $1,081.37, the total cost for both pusp house additions
would total $19,076.37.
- 3 -
O
Council Minutes - 4/23/84
Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried
to award the contracts for construction of the pump house additions
to the low bidder, Jim Schloif Construction, and Klatt Electric,
for a total price of $19,076.37.
11. Consideration of Final Acceptance for Wastewater Treatment Plant
Construction.
recently, a final inspection was conducted by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Corp of Engineers, along with City staff members
and Consulting Engineer on .the Wastewater Treatment Plant construction
project. Tho general contractor, Paul A. Laurence Company, recently
completed its punch list items; and as a result, they requested a
final payment in the amount of $103,354.00. The City's engineering
firm, OSM, also recommended that the City accept the project as
completed and sign the Certificate of Final Acceptance Forms.
It was noted that after final acceptOwnco of the construction project,
the general contractor would be providing a one-year Performance
Bond to take care of any items that may need repairs or to correct
problems that may exist at the Treatuant Plant. This Performance
Bond would be for a period of one year after acceptance data.
Some concerns were expressed by Council members on issuing .a final
acceptance of the projact due to the fact the ,Plant still has odor
problems. Public works,Directer, John Simola, noted that City personnel
are currently in the process of trying to find the odor problems
and feel there may be a defect in one of the holding tanks, which
would be the responsibility of the contractor to repair once the
City isolates the problem. Mr. Simola noted that the Performance
Bond for one year would cover any repairs that would be necessary
and felt that the contractor has completed the project according
to specifications and should be paid his entire amount. It was the
general Council consansus that if there are sono problems at the
Wastewater Treatment plant; including odor control, they ware
somewhat reluctant to sign the final acceptance forms and make final
payment to the general contractor prior to the problem being isolated
and corrected. It was felt that the general contractor may be more
helpful in solving the problem beforo final payment is made rather
than relying on the Performance Bond to correct the problem.
An a re nilt,.motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to postpone final acceptance of the wastewater Treatment plant
project and poatpo a final payment to the general contractor until
the odor problems can be further researched by the Public Works
Dspartmant. This item will again be considered by the Council on
May 14, 1904.
- 4 -
0
Council Minutes - 4/23/84
12. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for Car Wash and Cas Station/
�.., Convenience Store in a B-3 Zone, Applicant - Samuel Construction.
Mr. Sam Peraro cam before the Planning Commission on April 10 and
received approval for his proposed convenience store/self-service
gas station and car wash on South Highway 25. Mr. Peraro has met
all of the Conditional Use requirdments, including providing 13
parking spaces for his new building. As a result, motion was made
by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve
the Conditional Use Permit for Samuel Construction for the convenience
store/gas station and car wash facility located in Commercial Plaza
25 on South Highway 25.
r
13. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Sales hat
and Minor Auto Repair In a B-3 Zone, Anplicant - Eugene Kunkel.
Mr. Eugene Kunkel requested a Conditional Use Permit for a used
car sales lot and minor repair facility on the former location of
Dino's Restaurant on East County Road 75. The Planning Commission
at their last meeting recommended approval of the Conditional Use
Permit provided all conditions of the City ordinance are met, including
screening and blacktopping of parking areas, etc. Mr. Kunkel proposes
to build s 24 x 40 foot permanent building on the parcel and also
agrees to resurface the entire area to mast the City Ordinance.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Pair, and unanimously carried
to approve the Conditional Use Permit to Tri -Auto Sales for sales
car lot and minor auto repair facility provided all conditions of the
City Ordinance arc adhered to.
14. Conoideration of a Proposal to Allow Dahlgran s Associates to be
Enqaqed by Wriqht County State Bank, at al.
Consulting City Planner, Howard Dahlgren s Associates, has been asked
by the Wright County State Bank, Stokes Marine, National Bushing,
and the Monticello Times to be a consultant and design now egress and
ingress accesses for their parking facilities from Highway 25, etc.
Because Howard Dahlgron c Associates is the City Consulting Planner,
Mr. Dahlgron'requested permission from ,the City Council to work privately
for these individuals in designing their new access from Highway 25.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to authorize the City Consulting Planner, Howard Dahlgren s Associates,
to engage privately with these individual land owners to design now
accesses from Highway 25.
- S -
c>>
Council Minutes - 4/23/84
15. 'Consideration of a Feasibility Roport on Reconstruction of Hiqhway
F 39/75 and Transmitting to County Enqincer, and Consideration of a
r Resolution Ordering Plans and Specifications Contingent on County
Approval of Feasibility Study.
A feasibility report on the reconstruction of County Road 75 was
'submitted by the City Engineering Firm of OStt to the City Council.
The City of Monticello would share in the reconstruction costs with
Wright County on the repaving of County Road 75 from approximately
Otter Creek Road near Pinewood Elementary School on the wort to
the high school on the east. The feasibility report proposed three
alternatives for the repaving of this major portion of County Road
75, with the first alternative being the complete replacement of
the blacktop surface after removal of the existing pavement. The
estimated cost of this alternative with all indirect costs was
estimated at $382,700.00. A second alternative for this area would
be to remove approximately 2� inches of the existing bituminous
pavement by a milling process and then replace it with new materiel.
'fie life span of this alternative was estimated at approximately
seven years vs. 20 years for a completely now constructed road,
with the second alternate estimated at $248,800.00. The third
alternate would be similar to the alternate 92 except that a
gootextile fabric would be placed on the existing bituminous mat
after milling. This would provide additional life to the street
to approximately 125 years and total cost was estimated for this
alternative at $301,000.00.
In addition, the feasibility report presented cost estimates for
bituminous overlay and the construction of bituminous shoulders
from Otter Creek Road westerly an County Road 75 and also bituminous
overlay and construction of bituminous shoulders from the high school
easterly to County Road 39. This construction cost for the shoulders
and overlay was estimated at 8167,400.00, which would be entirely
the County's responsibility with no participation of funds by the City.
Lastly, the feasibility report estimated that $17,300.00 would be
needed for bituminous overlay and pavement repair for a cagmont of
County Road 75 oast of the County Road 3') junction to Interstate 94.
'Reis portion also would be entirely the County's responsibility.
It was noted that reconstruction of County !toad 75 with a complete
now bituminous surfacing would provido the longest life rpan before
major repairs are needed, but the cost would total 8382,700.00, which
is considerably more than the County had initially budgeted for. John
Simola, Public works Director, noted that the County had initially
estimated this portion to cost approximately 8165,000.00, but the
County was estimating replacing only about 2% inches of the bititminou_s
surfacing rather than a complete reconstruction. Since the County
will be paying approximately 65-70► of the estimated i363,ff00.00 cost,
the scope of the project will have to be approved by the County Boaro.
01P,
Council Minutes - 4/23/84
It wa• noted that some of the reasons why County Road 75 has
dotor so badly over the past few years may be from County
neglect as far as routine maintenance is concerned; and as a
result, motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blcnigen, and unanimously
carried to recommend to the County Board that Alternate Al resulting
in a total reconstruction and repaving of County Road 75 be considered
in the amount of $382,700.00. This would provide a now street with
an estimated 20 year life without major repairs until that time.
The feasibility report and the City Council recommended alternative
will be presented to the County Board for their consideration prior
to plans and specifications being started.
16. Consideration of Feasibility Report on the Reconstruction of Hart
Boulevard and Cedar Street and Adopting a Resolution Sattinq a Public
Hearinq and Ordsrinq the Preparation of Plans and Specifications.
A feasibility report was also presented by the City Engineer on the
feasibility of paving the existing 24' Class V surface Cedar Street
in both a rural type road without curb and gutter and also a
permanent type street with curb and gutter and storm sower facilities.
The estimated cost of a 24 foot wide bituminous surfacing of Cedar
Street was estimated at $37,200.00. A second alternative was also
presented which would widen the strest to a 34 foot width to match
existing Cedar Street north of the railroad tracks and also to
construct a sidewalk along with curb and gutter and storm sower
(� drainage facilities. The estimated cost of this alternative was
$79,600.00.
Tho Council discussed the merits of constructing this street with
curb and gutter vs. a rural type bituminous surfacing, and it was
.the consensus that U. the sidewalk may not be necessary in this
area, as a now siduwalk will be constructed along Highway 25 one
block west of Cedar Street during the Highway 25 reconstruction in
a year or two. In addition, it was felt that portions of the property
along Cedar Street may not be developed for quite some time due to
its low area. The consensus of the Council was to consider bituminous
surfacing only at the present time. It was noted that the first
alternative for a bituminous surfacing only was estimated at $37,200.00
for a 24 foot width street, but it was decided that the plans and
specifications should include the widening of this street to
approximately a 32=34 foot width bituminous surfacing without curb
and gutter. ,The strist at this point would then in the future allow
for the construction of curb and gutter at a minimal cost since the
width would already match existing Cedar Street north of the railroad
tracks.
A feasibility report was also presented on the reconstruction of flirt
Boulevard from approximately the Monticallo-Sig lake Hospital to
where Hart Boulevard connects with 0ounty Read 75. The project would
7
v
Council Minutoo - 4/23/84
include widening start Boulevard to approximately '34 foot from the
U hospital to approximately the Wastewater Treatment Plant and also
include the installation of curb and gutter to this point. The
balance of start Boulevard would be a rural type bituminous surfacing
only with ditches to control storm water runoff. The estimated 'cost
of this project was estimated at $89,900.00.
Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Pair, and unanimously carried
to authorize the city Engineer to prepare pians and specifications
for the improvement of Cedar Street between the railroad tracks and
inuring Lane with a 32-34 foot bituminous rural type street and to
prepare plans and specifications for the improvement of Hart Boulevard
with a portion of the project to be rural type street with the balance
having curb and gutter also. Sac resolution 1984 M 14
17. Consideration of a Feasibilitv report on Construction of a Portion
of Interceptor Sewer and Adoptinn a resolution orderino Plans and
Specifications.
The city Engineer has prepared a feasibility report for the installation
of a portion of the .planned interceptor sower line under Highway 25
Prior to the upcoming highway 25 upgrading by the State of Minnesota.
It was felt that by doing this work prior to the upgrading of Highway
25 that significant cost savings could be realized if the City was
i allowed to open cut Highway 25 for this sawor line installation rather
than doing the projert later after Highway 25 is imVroved and being
required to born under the street.
The installation of the interceptor sewer in thu highway 25 area
would be approximately 30-35 foot deep, and it was estimated that
the city could save approximately $20.000.00 by being allowed to open
cut Highway 25 rather than boring under the road. The total estimated
cost of installing the sorer line under Highway 25 was estimated at
$5$,000.001 and if extended one block under Cedar Street also, the
total project cost would be approximately $124,500.00.
Motion was mads by Maus, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried
to adopt a resolution receiving the feasibility report and authorizing
the City Bnginear to prepare plana and specifications with alternates
on the installation of the irate retptor sewer line through both Highway
25 and Cedar Street. A decision would-be made later by the Council
as to whether only that segment under Highway 25 would be constructed
or whether to construct the segsMnt from Highway 25 through Osdar Street.
See resolution 1984 #19.
18. Consideration of replacing Paint Striper.
John $imola, Public Works Director, presented to tits Council three
Quotes he recently received on a new paint striper for the Public
Works Daparterrnt. The pri<'is ranged from a low of 57,231. U1 for a
Council Minutes - "4/23/84
high pressure paint striper to $2,850.00 for.an airless paint striper.
Mr. Simcla recommended that tho city considor"purehasing a now airloss
paint striper in that the City would be using less thinner when
painting and cleaning the machine after useiand the machine -with an
airless 'system could be used for other purposes such as painting
buildings, etc.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to authorize the Public works Director to purchase a now airless
paint striper in the amount of $2,850.00 and to authorize the sale
of the existing paint striper.
19. Consideration of Approval of Bills for the Month of April.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for thu month of April as presented.
Sue Exhibit -N1.
20. Consideration of Sewcr"and water Extension - Jay Morrell Property;
South Ifiahway 25.
Mr. Jay Morrell is currenEly constructing -a warehouse building on
the west side of'llighway 25 south of'Sandberg South Addition. Tho
property is not currently served by sower .or water, and Mr. Morrell
t discussed with the Council various alternatives for connecting to
the City -s sewer and water my -stem.
Mr. Morrell initially indicated a desire to install his own sawsr
and water service by placing an easement on the adjacent property
he awns and connecting to a service stub an Sandberg Road. The
City staff noted that 'in the past, it has .not been acceptable by
the City to allow connections to the sower and water system by
crossing other platted property with onsement■ and recommended that
the ,sower and water service be extended along the Highway 25 right-
of-way to"provide access to the property. .The estimated cost of
extending the sewer and water mains in the Highway 25 right-of-way,
including a sewer manhole and water hydrant, was estimated at
812,000.00. The initial City recommendation was to immediately
assess approximately $3,.000.00 to Mr. Morrell of this cost and defer
approximately $5,000.00 for up to ten years.
Mr. Morrell indicated a willingness to install ,his own "sewer and water
,service through an aasomont and pay all, costs associated :with the
hookup and also agreed to provide a written "agreement with the City
noting tlut if the actual sbwer and water ruins ara Favor extended "
along,ilighway "25 in tho,futurai he understood that his property
would be assessed at -a dater date.
9
9
Council ,Ptinutes '4j23/84
CIA
thro h an ea r1connecti
1
satisfactory to the Cit stating that his r ert would
.. � - ions
After' Council dlecvssio�,�it wag" _the cons �suops ofYtho'Co � a,,.,es •
Mr. Dforrell be.,allowed `to provide own sewer and orate
cement ii-necessary provided the logs a roomont was'
` Y ped..
in the future when the 'sewer and water mains were actually extended.,:
21. Ratification of Union'Contract.
City Administrator Tom Eidom informed the Council that the Local 49
union personnel along with himself and a State Mediator have
recently reached an agreement for the renewal of the employee's union
contract for an additional two years effective April 1, 1984. The
new agreement would call for a 450 an hour raise the first year of
the contract and a 500 per hour raise effective April 1, 1985, during
the second year of the contract. The average increase would amount
to 5.1% and a motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus, and
unanimously carried to ratify the union contract as proposed.
Hick wolfstollor(r -
Assistant Administrator'
Y
10 -
O
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints. (R.W.)
Enclosed you will find copies of petitions for sewer and water
extensions for 8ondhus Tool and First National Rank properties.
The individuals may be present at the Council meeting to
formally request services.
It is recommended that the Council accept the petitions and
refer them to City staff for review to determine best alternatives.
The staff could then work directly with each individual property
owner.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of petitions for sewer and water extensions.
- 1 -
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
TO T11E CITY COUNCIL. OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA-
-1 (we), the undersigned owncr(s) of the property
described helow petition that such property be im-
proved pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
(Local Improvements, Special Assessments) and hereby
petition the following improvements:
Please indicate with an X the
improvements requested
XSanitary Sewer
XCity Water
Storm Sewer
Bituminous Surfacing (hlacktopping)
SLv,!et Lighting
Curb and Gutter
Other (please explain improvements requested)
Description of Properly: C �J_A�/—zL, �/,� 6.77Aw�dJ�0��
1111C� %I� gi,v,912 dt,h �/�OAI
n{ 41X cy/A
��ihtkt1L��rgMpuC�y� First National Bank of Monti llo
CB�. Pogai nik Its President
C
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
TO 711E CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
I (we), the undersigned owner(s) of the property
described below petition that such property be im-
proved pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
(Local Improvements, Special Assessments) and hereby
petition the following improvements:
Please indicate with an X the
improvements requested
KSanitary Sewer
X City Water
Storm Sewer
Bituminous Surfacing (blacktopping)
Street Lighting
Curb and Gutter
Other (pleas'e explain improvements requested)
Description of Property: A'Al ���
�.'iu'f0�l 1i /i
C. o ,'ce
SSQnature(s) of owner(s) �
0
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
`— 4. Public Hearinq - Improvement of Hart Boulevard and Cedar Street. (T.E.)
C
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
It is required by Minnesota Statute 429 that a public hearing be
conducted. At the April 23 meeting, the Council adopted Resolution
1984 018 which stated that the Council would consider the improvement,
set a public hearing for the 14th of May, and, in addition, appointed
CGM as project engineer and ordered the preparation of plans and
specifications. There apparently was some confusion and CSM has not
prepared plans and specifications at this time. Rather, they have
extended the detail work on the feasibility study. Consequently,
when the hearing is closed, the Council must decide whether or not
they wish to pursue the making of the improvement. This relates to
the immediate next item on the agenda. If the Council wishes to
pursue with the planned improvement, then no further action is
necessary, except that you may wish to re -affirm on a consensus
vote that the Resolution 1984 018 should stand as adopted. If,
however, public opposition to the proposal is so strong that you
wish to reverse your decision, the resolution revoking your earlier
resolution should be adopted. That resolution is contained in the
next agenda item.
The expanded feasibility study should provide sem round eatimates
for home owners with respect to the proposed assessments. Further,
because there arc some irregularly shaped lots and unusual ownerships,
the Council may want to determine in a preliminary way how the project
is to be aoscased. It might also be beneficial under the framework of
the hearing to discuss whether or not you wish to have the assessment
hearing prior to the final ordering of construction. This becomes
protective to the City in that it prevents any appeals to assossmonlu
after the fact.
- 2 -
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
5. Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the Preparation of Plans and
Specifications for the Improvement of Hart Boulevard and Cedar
Street. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the April 23, 1984, Council meeting the City Council approved
the feasibility studies for Cedar Street and Hart Boulevard. The
approval of the feasibility study for Cedar Street was based upon
an alternate which did not exist. Alternate C was chosen, and this
alternate would be to have a 33 foot wide street matching that part
of Cedar Street on the north of the railroad tracks, however, but
deleting any of the curb or catch basins on that portion of Cedar
Street from the railroad tracks to Lauring Lane.
For Hart Boulevard, the Council approved the feasibility based upon
an alternate of a combination of urban and rural type construction.
The urban type street would be 33 feet in width and continue from
the Medical Center eastward to the low point in Hart Boulevard. At
that point the street would reduce to 26 feet in width without
curb and gutter and be a rural type section to County Road 75 on the
cast end of Hart Boulevard. Although the City adopted a resolution
ordering plans and specifications for these projects based upon the
feasibility studies, OSM would be unable to complete the plans and
specifications in the short amount of time allotted. They have,
therefore, come forth with an upgraded feasibility study for each
of the proposed areas and included a more defined cost for each
segment. These feasibility studies are included with Lha agenda
supplement for, your review.
For Cedar Street, the total Street reconstruction project is expected
to cost 554,200.00. This includes contingencies and indirect costs.
It does not, however, include any sewer or Water services or connections
to the property on the West side of Cedar Street or the east side of
Cedar Street. It would be an economical and simple procedure to put
water' and sewer pipes underneath Cedar Street at this time. Mr. Wilbur
Eck has indicated that at some {mint in the future the two rental houses
may be removed and apartment complexes built on that property, we
would, therefore, have to size the sewer and water pipes under Cedar
Street accordingly. There would be no assessments for these particular
connections until such Lima they were used.
For Hart Boulevard, the cnginoer has 1'avised Lilo feasibility Study
slightly. There is significantly less curb and gutter needed than
was originally thought. In addition, there is lose storm sewer than
was originally thought. The engineer, however, does feel that Uro
sweet should not be narrowed at the point where the urban section
leaves off and the rural suction bogins. It is Lha engineer's
rocommendatlon that the road be continued the same width throughout
its length. The entire consu'uetion including water, main is oxpoctod
- 3 -
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
to cost $77,800.00 including contingencies and indirect costs.
The total construction costs are estimated at $56,800.00. Of
this $56,800.00 approximately $4,000.00 is for the additional
width in the rural section from 26 to 33 feet. Additionally the total
curbing was reduced to 750 feet or less on the west end only in
the residential area to the low point. The estimated cost of this
portion is only $4,500.00. The staff concurs with the recommendation
of the engineer that the curbing be limited to that westerly portion
only where it is necessary to control the drainage properly and to
provide additional aesthetics to the residential property.
At this particular time, we have received only one letter regarding
the above projects. we have received written comment from Mr. John
Bondhus whose property abuts [fart Boulevard on both sides of the
road. I do take exception to portions of Mr. Bondhus' letter. It
appears that he is under the impression that the curb and gutter
will extend through a major portion of the property. This is not
the case. Also, when he indicates the trees and vegetation will
be stripped away, much of the trees and vegetation consisted of
box elder trees, which were removed by NSP during their tree trimming
process. These trees are located right underneath the power lines
and on the boulevards and created potential hazards for the NSP
power line. There is very minimal vegetation and trees that would
be disturbed by this project. Any replanting could be done in such
a way as to enhance the properties more than the existing scrub brush
and box elder that exist there now. In addition, Mr. Bondhus was made
((` aware prior to the installation of his sidewalk that this project
would go through and that he would be responsible for the removal
and replacement of those portions of the sidewalk as necessary to
complete this project. lie was in agreement prior to placing Lila
sidewalk. 1 will attempt to meet with John Bondhuo prior to the
public hearing and make him more aware of the necessity for this
project and the inadequate drainage as well as point out that we
have limited the amount of curb and gutter to the minimum required.
B. ALTii RIIATIVE ACTIONS:
The altornaLives as seen by staff are:
1. To do Lilo prolocto as recommended by the enyincer.
2. To make some modifications as requested at Lha hearing.
3. Do not order one or both of the projects.
C. STA17F 111iCOMMENDATION:
The staff agrees with Lha revised feasibility studios as presented
and roeommesdo Lha conformation of Lila resolution ordering plans
and spocifications for both projects (alternate 01).
- 4 -
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
l - Since this project should be tied to the improvement of County
Road 75, the calling for bids should concur with the date set for the
County Road 75 project. We could conceivably let the original resolution
stand ordering the preparation of plans and specifications and have
the plans and spec's returned at the same time as Cuunty Road 75 plans
and specs. We would then call for bids on all projects at the same
time and we would have a separate resolution at that time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from John Badalich; feasibility studies.
C
RESOLUTIOrl 1984 q
WHEREAS, a resolution duly adopted by the City Council on the 23rd day
of April, 1984, set the date for a public hearing on the proposed improve-
ments to Cedar Street and Hart Boulevard, and
WHEREAS, said resolution designated Orr-Schelen-Mayercn 6 Associates as
engineer on the proposed improvement and authorized the preparation of
plana and epocificatiors, and
WHEREAS, the public heariny has been duly held pursuant to the requirements
of M.S. Chapter 429, and
wH EREAS, all those wishing to be heard were given an opportunity to speak.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RF.SOLVLD BY 711E COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Maar CELLO,
FII NNESOTA, shat Resolution 1984 418 hereby is totally and in every way
revoked with rospect to Lite inprovem:nts of Hart Boulevard and Cedar Street.
BE IT FURTHER K:SOLVEDthat the order of Resolution 1984 #16 for OSM to
prepare plans and spucificntion s for auch improvement is hereby declared
null and void.
Adopted by the City Council this 14Lh day of May, 1984.
Thomas A. Eidom
City Adminiutrator
C
Arvo A. Grimamo, Mayor
0
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
6. Consideration of Making Final Payment to PALCO for the Construction
of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. (,1.5.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the April 23, 1984, Council meeting, the City staff and City
Engineer reviewed with the Council the Wastewater Treatment Plant
project. At that time both the City staff and the City Engineer
recommended final payment to the Paul A. Laurence Company in the
amount of $103,354.00. This money was being held for uncompleted
lien waivers and two uncompleted change orders. The City of
Monticello has accepted a bond in addition to the one-year guarantee
bond specifically to handle the lien waivers and court costs. In
addition, the work on the two change orders has been completed.
Therefore, all the work on the project is complete.
At the April 23 meeting, the Council took no action on the final
payment duo to a possible leak in the sludge storage tank and the
odors being emitted frown the WWTP. The Council asked for a report
on the odor problems and the possible leak to be delivered at the
next Council meeting, May 14, 1984. In order to prepare such a
report, I asked that the project engineer, Gerald Carrick of Orr-
Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, prepare a detailed report as to the
measures taken and equipment installed to reduce or control odors
at the WWTP and also the limitations of these controls or equipment.
In addition, I asked the Superintendent and Chief operator of the
WWrP, Mr. Al Meyer, to prepare a report as to his operation of the
WWrP and the various odor control equipment. I also instructed Mr.
Al Meyer to investigate thoroughly the possible leak in Lilo digester.
The request that this leak be further investigated was also given
to the WWTP Operator in late fall of 1983.
Both of the reports arc enclosed for your review. I have reviewed
both reports thoroughly and will attempt to summarize the reports
and my individual opinions ss to the odor control problems and possiblo
leak.
I will first address the possible look in the sludge storage tank.
The WWTP personnel lowered Cho level of Lilo tank during the weak of
April 23. During Lha first week of May, the WVrl'P personnel entered
the sludge storage tank, thoroughly cleared the walla, and were unable
to locate any visible defects in the steal cover walls other than
a few small rust spots. I instructed tho Superintendent to fill the
tank with clean water from the Municipal water system, pressurize
the cover, and test for looks in that manner. This process, however,
will take several days, as this tank is expected to hold between
400,000 to 500,000 gallons of water before it can be pressurized.
We may or may riot have results back for you at Monday ovoning's meeting
as to whether a small look exists in tho cover itself.
C
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
6y referring to Mr. Corrick's report, it can be seen that several
controls to reduce odors were built into the WWTP. Many of the
plants operating in communities throughout the state do not have
some of these controls. One question that I'm sure is on many of
the Council's minds is are these controls working or are they
effective in reducing odors. Mr. Corrick uses three categories
for the controls. One is the covering of the units or enclosing
individual treatment units. Number two is the system by which
methane gas is confined or controlled, and the third is the scrubber
units or odor control systems themselves, which are located in the
various buildings.
The covers themselves are an effective way to reduce odors by
confining those vapors and gases that do create odors. Are the
covers themselves effective? It is my opinion that they are,
with the exception of a possible leak in the 65 foot diameter sludge
storage tank cover. This problem, if it exists, should be easily
correctable by welding in the area of the crack.
The resource recovery system, collecting and confining methane
gas --is this system effective? We have a problem with the waste
gas burner in that moisture collects in the line leading to the
waste gas burner. A change order placed a drain in this line.
It appears that this drain is not proving an effective means to
remove the moisture from the line. As the moisture collects, it
tends to block off the flow of gas to the waste gas burner; and as
pressures build up in the tank, they arc automatically vented to
the atmosphere. This problem is not one of construction in that
there was no indication that the piping had to be laid at a grade
for which to drain to a trap. It is possible that a sag in the
line exists, and we are studying this problem further.
Item 03, the odor control systems themselves, consists of air scrubbers
that scrub the air prior to being released from the preliminary treatment
area and the equalization storage basin and sludge thickeners. The
odor control scrubbers themselves do function. 11owevor, there is a
problem with a chemical that we arc currently using, potassium
pormanganate, and we are looking for other chemicals to use which do
not require such significant maintenance. If the air in the preliminary
treatment, the CQ basin, and the oludgo thickener is not scrubbed before
it is ejected to the atmosphere, odors do exist. The only one of these
problems rolatod to the contractor would be the leak in tho sludgo
storage tank cover if it exists. If it does exist, the contractor
would repair it under the warranty, and we have a bond for this purpose.
Now I should discuss some of the operations at the WWTP which I fool
are not condusive to controlling odors. Number one, the equalization
and Storage basin,which was intended to bu used to equalize flows
coming into the Plant, is currently being used as an aeration basin.
7
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
An activated sludge culture is being grown in the basin. It is
unlikely that the odor air scrubbers,if operating at 100% efficiency,
could control the odors emitted from this area. A second area
of possible consideration is the domes or covers over the existing
trickling filters. We are, in effect to reduce chlorine usage and
lower operational costs at the WWTP, injecting large amounts of
forced air through these filters and venting this out into the
atmosphere through the roof untreated. This feature was added
by the WWTP staff, not a part of the original design of the Treatment
Plant.
A third item of concern in the operation of the WWTP is the almost
total of reprocessing of all the sludge produced from the Plant. It
is the Operator's opinion that we can go without land disposing of
sludge for the entire year of 1984 by continuing to reprocess sludge
throughout the Plant and burn it up. We have hauled only a few
thousand gallons of sludge since the Plant was put on line approximately
18 months ago. This operation procedure of continually recirculating
sludge is not condusive to controlling odors at the WWTP.
In addition to this, the WWTP is not being run entirely as a conventional
activated sludge plant. Originally it was expected that only one
activated sludge basin would be utilized. At this particular time,
in order to obtain better treatment and as currently required by our
permit, the Plant is being run almost as an extended air plant. We
are running both aeration basins and recirculating approximately 150%
of the flow through those basins on a continual basis.
In some way it can be seen that while there are soma minor problems
with the equipment, the general operation of the Plant itself is
not conclusive to odor control.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
As Public Works Director, I see only one alternative action. 'That is,
to take care of the problems with the gas burner and tank cover as
soon as possible, to operate the odor control scrubbers at maximum
efficiency either by changing chemicals or keeping up with the
amount of maintenance necessary to use the existing chemical, and
to change or modify those operarione at the wwrP an rhat odor control
can be given a higher priority. Ven, this will mean that we can't
grow cultures in the EQ basin and that we will have to haul sludge
like everybody else. And theme items may cost in additional operation
costs, but they will, in conjunction with those listed above, reduce
odors at the WWTP.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONi
it is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the alternate
listed above be used. Changes in operation must be wade slowly to
allow continued treatment of the wastewater. However, those chanyes,
A.. 1 believe, should be started immediately. The WWTP Superintwndent, however,
fools he must be allowed to run the Plant as Ire seas fit or he will not
be responsible for possible permit violations.
_®_
C
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
In addition, I would request that final payment be made to the
Paul A. Laurence Company and that we are withholding monies
not specifically set aside for any of the odor control problems.
I do believe that the Paul A. Laurence Company would react to
any proven crack or defect in the tank cover expediently as
possible even after final payment was made.
I would also wish to conclude, as Al Meyer and Jerry Corrick have,
that wastewater treatment plants do emit odors, and the "best" that
we can hope for is to control odors to a level that is tolerable
to the nearby residential and commercial properties and inhabitants.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of report from Albert Meyer dated May 9, 1984; Copy of report
from Jerry Corrick concerning odor control; Copy of report from
Albert Meyer dated May 4, 1984, on the trickling filter fan.
9
REPORT
l TO: John Simolo
FROM: Albert Fteyer
C ;
SU137 ECT: Odors in the WWTP
DATE: May 9, 1984
First, I will list the areas in the wwTP where significant odors exist.
Second, I will take each area individually explaining the causes of the
odors and give solutions or possible solutions for any problems that
may exist. The areas in which odors exist are the preliminary treatment
area, the diverter structure, the equalization tank, the prir"ary clarifiers,
the trickling filters, intermediate clarifiers, aeration basins, sludge
thickener, and digesters N1, 02, and q3. The preliminary treatment area
has raw sewage coming into and going out of it. Fresh raw sewage has
a slightly musty odor that does not cause a problem, flowever, from time
to time we receive septic raw sewage caused by various conditions in
the collection System. Septic sewage gives off hydrogen sulfide gas,
which smells like rotten eggs and does cause a problem. Also, at various
times during the operation of the Plant, we have brought back largo amounts
of supernaLo from the digesters, which also releases hydrogen sulfide gas.
The preliminary treatment area has a Rosswood fume scrubber to eliminate
odors. we have been having problems with the fume scrubber system, of which
1 will go into more detail later in this report. on a normal basis, not
much can be done about the septic raw sewage coming into the Plant. The
large amounts of supernato are controlled in the Plant. But at this time,
without the use of p3 digester, we aro unable to draw small amounts of
supernato at a time, although John Roffman and myself have boon working
on a system where we can draw 20 gallons per minute, which will cause
no odor problem in tho Plant. odors aro also generated by grit and rags
that aro removed from the raw cowage.If they are allowed to stand too long,
they turn septic. That problem in corrected by removing ,them on a regular
basis in plastic bags, which are deposited in the garbage dumpater. The
divertor structure has somewhat the Same problems and solutions as the
preliminary treatment area, although we do not have grit and rags to remove
In thio area. we also have a Ronswood fume scrubber in this area, which
hanclleo the divortar otructuro area and the equalization tank. The
equalization tank under normal operating conditions has an activated sludge
cultura in it. Activated sludge has a strong, musty, earthy smell, which
to me smells like fresh pluwed ground in the spring and is not at all
unpleasant to mo. flowever, from time to Limo a largo batch of supernato
is put into the equalization Lank for further treatment. This produces an
acrid small mixed with the musty Odor, which is vory unpleasant at times.
Tho Ronswoud fume aerubbor should be able to handle this problem after we
have taken caro of the problums with the Rosewood. The primary clarifiers
- 1 -
0
V
Report
To: John Simola
From: Albert Meyer
Subject: Odors in the WWfP
Date: May 9, 1984
have similar conditions to the preliminary treatment area, although it will
not have supernato dumped into it. It will have slightly septic conditions
occasionally depending upon the amount of flow plus the weather. The
primary clarifiers are open tanks and have no way of controlling the
atmosphere around them. The only way of controlling odor would be chemical
oxidation by means of an oxidizer like hydrogen peroxide. The trickling
filters are an aerobic treatment process which does produce a musty odor.
However, occasionally anaerobic conditions may exist in some areas of the
trickling filters producing an acrid, rotten egg smell. This has been
eliminated primarily through the use of a fan placed in the wall beneath
the trickling filters as detailed in my report of May 4. The intermediate
clarifiers are similar to the primary clarifiers, probably not having near
the problems of septicity that the primaries would have. Again, if an
odor problem develops in the intermediate clarifiers, we would have to use
a chemical solution. The aeration basins have an activated sludge with
odors described earlier in this report with the equalization tank. Under
normal circumstances, these odors are stronyer than the odors from the
equalization tank. Also, they are open to the atmosphere, and we have no
way of controlling them. As I stated earlier, I don't believe that those
are an unpleasant odor. llowever, flow and weather conditions may affect
the aeration basins causing a short-term unpleasant odor. At these times
the aeration basins are not healthy. The only way of correcting that is
to nut -so them back to health. Thu sludge thickener is a gravity thickener
which settles the sludges to the bottom and then is pumped to digester #1.
The sludges that are pumped to the thickener are two entirely different
kinds. First, the sludge from the primary clarifier and intermediate
clarifier are anaerobic and heavy. The sludges that are pumped from the
final clarifier are aerobic and relatively light. when the two sludges
aro mixed, the aerobic die producing a dead animal odor. The anaerobic
sludge produces hydrogen sulfide with the rotten egg odor. The atmosphere
in the sludge thickener building to very foul and offensive. Tho Plant
has a Rosswood fume scrubber in this building for Cho purpose of handling
this odor. Digesters 011, 112, and 03 all have anaerobic conditions producing
hydrogen sulfide and methane gas. When run properly, they produce a
tremendous amount of methane gns, which wo use to run a woukasha engine,
which in turn runs a blower for the aeration basins. Also, the methane
Is used in the boiler to heat the Plant and digester 111. If for somo
reason we aro not able to use all tho gas produced, it is to be automatically
burned in a waste gas burner. At thio time. the waste gas burner lino is
full of water and continues to fill UP with water during Lim operation of
the gas system. At this Limo there is no way to remove this water except
to blow it out with high pressure air, which we do from time to Limo. Tito
water in Lha lino produces a head which will not allow the gas to roach
the burner. If it does sot reach Lilo burner, it will be vented out vents
on top of the digesters, which will produce an offensive odor in the
C(C)
Report
To: John Simola
From: Albert Meyer
Subject: odors in the WWTP
Date: May 9. 1984
surrounding area. A permanent solution to this problem would be to place
a manhole of some type along side of the burner and install a water drain
line in the gas pipe leading to the burner. As I stated earlier, digester
#i3 or as the sludge storage tank is not in operation at this time and has
been drained and cleaned for the purpose of investigating a possible leak
in the floating cover. At this time, we have not been able to locate the
leak and have found no solution to the problem. The next stop is to fill
the sludge storage tank with water, pressurize the cover with air, watch
for the bubbles to appear around the cover. if we find the leak that way,
we will have to get a welder in and weld where ever the leak is, which we
suspect is in a seam.
Earlier in this report, I said that we were having problems with the
Rosswood fume scrubbers. That statement is not entirely correct. 1
believe that the Rosswood fume scrubbers will be able to handle the problem
if we can get the chemical solutions to the fume scrubbers. We have found
that potassium permanganate crystalizes in the lines causing problems
getting enough solution to the Rosswood units. The WWiP staff feels that
although the metering pumps in the boiler room meet specifications under
ideal conditions, they are more problems than they are worth. We feel
that feeding I1TII directly into the units at the location would be more
efficient, less costly, and less problems. The system that we are leaning
toward now is called an erosion food chlorinator. It is a commercial
chlorinator produced by FMC Corporation, which can be bought from Feedrite
Controls for around $150.00 per unit, or we may design one of our own.
Eithor of these units would use nonpotablo water already at the location
of Cho Rosawood fume scrubbers and MTM tablets, which are available from
moat swimming pool companies, Foodrito Controls, and other chemical handling
companies.
In conclusion, I would like to state that I do not believe that a WWTP can
bo run odor free. The only possibilities are to oliminato as many as
possible. By its vary nature, wastewater treatment does produce odors.
llbort Meyer
superintendent, wW7'P
C
N
ODOR CONTROL
AT THE
MONTICELLO WWTP
BY
ORR-SCHELFN-MAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
GERALD S. CORRICK, P.E.
Numerous measures to control odors were implemented into the design of
the wrp. This was a deliberate and conscious effort due to the very
close proximity of the plant to private residences within City limits.
Due to the very nature and operational constraints of a wastewater
treatment plant, it can never be practically or realistically stated
that odors will be totally eliminated. Our design goal with regard to
odor control was to confine, treat, and handle odors and malodorous
gases to the extent that when released to the atmosphere, the residual
odors are within legal and humanly tolerable limits.
The following list represents odor control measures designed into and
currently functional at the treatment plant.
1. Covered Treatment Units. The following treatment units are
covered with aluminum geodesic domes or steel fixed or floating
covers.
A. 2 - 40' diameter trickling filters
B. 1 - 35' diameter equlization/storage basin
C. l - 26' diameter thickener
D. 2 - 40' diameter digesters
E. I - 65' diameter sludge storage tank
F. Preliminary treatment units housed within enclosed concrete
structure
2. Resource Recovery System. Methane gas is collected, purified and
utilized rather than vented to the atmosphere. Excess gas produced in
the digo star process and not utilized is burned in the waste gas
burner rather than released to the atmosphere.
3. Odor Control System. Enclosed high odor areas within the plant
such as preliminary truatment, sludge thickener, and the equalization/
diversion structure require continuous odor control treatment. The
odor control system consists of a central oxidant mixing system
located in the digostor control building with remote air scrubbers and
fans located at each high odor source. The air is continually rocir-
culated through the air scrubber, the odor being reduced by a spray
mist odor elimination process before released to the atmosphere. The
common oxidants used are potassium permanganato or sodium hyperchlo-
ride.
QC
The odor control equipment has been sized to scrub malodorous gases
associated with conventional municipal raw sewage wastewater and
thickened sludge. The equipment design range for scrubbing hydrogen
sulfide gas is 0 to 20 PPM concentration with an expected removal of
95%. Accordingly, odor concentrations exhausted from the equali-
zation tanks, thickener tank, and preliminary treatment areas should
not exceed.1 PPM. It should be noted that concentrations of 50 - 200
PPM are common in sludge digestion and aeration tanks.
The following is a list of potential odor related factors and sources
at the plant:
1. Surge waste loadings to the plant which are not equalized can
create instability and create short term odor problems.
These odors could originate from covered as well as uncovered treat-
ment units. During periods of normal wasteloading, the uncovered
units will be a source of low level, threshold odors which cannot be
eliminated.
2. Current operational options not originally designed or anticipated
including extended aeration, EO tank as third aeration basin, contin-
ual sludge reprocessing, and forced air at trickling filters.
3. Overloading existing odor control equipment (EO Tank).
4. Accidental release of gasholder dome pressure relief valves.
5. Potential leak in steel gas holder domes. (This condition has not
been verified to exist.)
6. Potential malfunction of the odor control system. (To our
knowledge, this condition does not exist.)
-2-
D
REPORT
T0: John Simola
FROM: Albert Meyer
DATE: May 4, 1984
SUBJECT: Trickling Filter Fan Cost and Savings
June 21, 1983, we started blowing air und_r the trickling filter with
Walt Mack's furnace blower. At that time we were not meeting State
standards for chlorine residual and were using 90 pounds of chlorine
per day. We saw immediate results. The chlorine residual went up,
and we started cutting our chlorine dosage back. We finally found
15-20 pounds per day would meet State standards. July 12, 1983, the
Wastewater Treatment Plant staff, after studying the results of our
experiment, decided to install a permanent fan in the wall beneath
the trickling filters. 1 asked for and received verbal permission from
John Simola to go ahead. The cost of the project was $276.59 for
material, $311.52 for labor, and $100.00 for electrician and electrical
permit, for a total of $688.11. we are now emoting the chlorine residual
utandarda as a rosult of using the fan. Plus, we have reduced the
1L. ammrnia in our offluent to almost nothing, and we have reduced the
chlorine usage at current prices by $2,400 per year. Subtracting
s6lo.00 for running the fan, we have a not savings of $1,790 per year.
tering the summer months when we have our highest usage of chlorine,
the savings are $11.41 per day for a complete pay back in 61 days of
operation.
e { - ' , --,-? c.:f?".-z
Alpert YL-yer
Superintendent, Wastewater Troatmcut Plant
c
(00
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
7. Consideration of a Request to Extend the wastewater Treatment Plant
Grant. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROIAID:
At the April 23 meeting, the City Council discussed the extension
of the grant budget period six months to January 31, 1985. At that
time the principal reason for extending the grant budget period was
so that if the City was able to recover funds from the Waldor Pump
lawsuit for court costs and attorneys fees, these amounts could be
paid back to the EPA and PCA. It was pointed out that one negative
aspect of asking for such a grant extension is that the City is not
able to request all of its funding from the PCA until the lawsuit
is settled. Therefore, we would have to wait until January 31, 1985,
to request payment for approximately $86,000.00 fr m- the State of
mvunesota. The net effect would cost the City approximately $4,000
to $5,000 in lost interest on that money. The City Council, at the
April 23 meeting, tabled all action on the request for the grant
budget period extension as well as final payment for the WWTP.
I have recently learned from Jerry Corriek of OSM that it would not
b: necessary to extend the grant budget period for the purposes of
paying back the EPA and PCA for legal fees if we should recover them.
These funds could be channeled back without the grant budget period
huir,g open. There are, however, two other reasons given by OSM for
keeping the grant budget period open. Number one is the claim made
by OSM for additional engineering monies for Step II. The EPA has
ruled these funds ineligible. OSM has appealed and has not as of
yet received final word back from the EPA. The City has supported
this claim in the pout made by CSM in the form of letters and such
written to the EPA. The City would be liable for its share of the
claim should the I7PA finally give in.
no second reason for keeping the claim open, as 1 understand it from
M1. Jerry Carrick, is the possibility of receiving some additional
funds from the PCA for innovative and alternative technology from
Change Ordoru 62-96. Thin amount would be approximately $3,000.00,and
w: have not received word back From the PCA as of yet confirming or
denying Lhoso funds.
Mi. Jerry Carrick :s expected to supply son) additional data for thin
agenda supplement, and it will be included for your review.
B. ALTI.R.1AT1 VE ACTIONS:
Thero are throe altornativou as we sea it.
1. Alternative NI would W to proceed with the grant budget period
extension.
C 2. Altornato 02 would be to deny the grant budget period extension
and ask for immudiato final payment from Lho Minnonota Pollution
Control Accncy upon finalizing the job.
- 10 -
Council Agenda - 5/14/64
3. Alternative #3 would be to apply for the grant budget period
extension but to ask for reimbursement from Orr-Scholen-Mayeron
6 Associates for the lost interest in doing same.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff rocommendation that this matter be discussed with
John Badalich at the Council meeting and an alternate arrived at
after discussing the matter thoroughly with him.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Information supplied by OSM.
C
C
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 14, 1984
GRANT BUDGET PERIOD EXTENSION
We present this supplement as clarification to the City Council
regarding the purpose for and factors relating to the extension
request.
On behalf of the City, OSM recently requested a grant budget per-
iod extension from the current expiration date of July 31, 1984
to January 31, 1985. There are three reasons for requesting the
extension:
(1) PALCO vs City of Monticello 6 Waldor vs OSM Lawsuit. A re-
cent court order setting the trial for day certain October
1, 1984 has necessitated the extension. Details of the
expected time for resolution are included in the attached
grant amendment request. Even though all the monies previ-
ously granted by the MPCA for defense of the claim have
boon expended, there are these aspects to be considered.
a) If the City/OSM obtains a favorable decision on the
lawsuit and is awarded legal defense costs, the grant
conditions specify that the grantee shall reimburse the
MPCA/EPA their portion of the expended costs. The grant
budget period should normally be open to account for
this. However, the MPCA has indicated that alternate
arrangements for reimbursement have boon made on other
projects and probably could be on this one as well.
b) In the case of an unfavorable lawsuit decision; if the
grant budget period is not open, the City would forfeit
the opportunity to request a grant amendment to have
the agencies share in the potential liability. The MPCA
has indicated to us however, that it would he very un-
likely for them to share in those costs.
(2) Step 2 Deviation Request: Another consideration regarding
the grant budget period extension relates to the Stop 2
Deviation Request currently under review by EPA in Washing-
ton, D.C. A favorable decision on the deviation request
would require a subsequent grant amendment in order for the
City to request reimbursement of. the $82,000 engineering
fees in question. It is not likely that tho-doviation
decision and grant amendment could be processed within the
current budget period. Failure to extend the grant budget
par.iod would forfeit: the opportunity for equitable roim-
bursemont of: a favorablo deviation decision.
0
(3) The City may be eligible to request reimbursement of ap-
proximately $6,000 of Innovative/Alternative (I/A) funding
either previously deferred or inadequately unaccounted for
change orders by the MPCA/EPA in Assistance Amendment No.
4. The status is currently under review by the MPCA grants
staff. Preliminary indications from the MPCA are favorable,
that is, the City has the right to request reimbursement.
The catch relates to the fact that these monies are not
formally accounted for in the grant. These I/A funds must
be introduced into the grant budget by grant amendment.
Accordingly, premature closure of the budget period would
forfeit the opportunity of reimbursement of the I/A funds.
The unfortunate aspect of extending the budget period relates to
the interest on borrowed money the City of Monticello will expend
over the extended period. The reason this is a factor is that the
State of Minnesota withholds 108 of its share of the grant (10%
of approximately $750,000 - $75,000) until the grant is closed
out by final payment. it has been estimated by City staff that
lost interest will range from $5,000 to $6,000 based on a 6 month
extension.
In our opinion the most critical aspect regarding the grant budg-
et period extension relates to the possible forfeiture of the
Step 2 Deviation Request ($82,000) that OSM has been diligently
pursuing over the last four years. Further, in all likelihood
the eligible ]/A funding will counterbalance the interest costs.
Accordingly, we recommend support of the grant amendment request
for the budget period extension to January 31, 1985.
i
-. City o� ///onfice[Co
J
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
April 16, 1904
Pha 16121295 2711
Moto 161213333739
Ms. Duane Anderson
Division of Water Quality
Maya.
Grants Section
Anne Onmamo
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
city cou"Ca'
1935 West County Road B2
owoswlgq l
Fran Fee
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Kenneth Mage
Jack Me,wea
Attn: Ms. Linda Prail
Re: Monticello %WTP
Ad—,IWTm Edem
Step 3 Grant Amendment Rs uest C270855-03
Fner,ce 0-60W.
Grant Budget Period Extension
thew Woxeleser
PvwK Wolm
Gentlemen:
Jdm Senou
P1GwyA erwn
Gary Moanorl
The Cit of Monticello hereby requests a Ste 3 Grant Amendment
Y Y 9 P
to extend the grant budget period 6 months to January 31, 1985.
This extension will provide adequate time for resolution of the
Paul A. Laurance Co./Waldor ve. City of Monticello/05M Lawsuit.
The particulars of this request are detailed by our Consulting
Engineers, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, Inc., in their
letter to Mr. Anderson dated April 13, 1904.
Should you have any questions in this regard, please contact me
at your eonveniena.
Sincerel ,
Arve A. Grimamo
Mayor of Monticello
AAG/kad
cc. step 3 Pile
Gerald S. Corrick - OSM
John Badalich - 05M
John Sialola, Public Works Director
960 4. ara00. 8 r
ly
Nfsglb a, Baa iA
menacab, MN 55362
l
ORR•SCHEIEN • MAYERON B ASSOCIATES, INC.
isulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
April 13, 1984
Mr. Duane Anderson
Division of water Quality
Grants Section
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Attn: Ms. Linda Prail
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant
upgrading and Appurtenant Work
EPA Project No. C270855-03
Step 3 Grant Amendment Request
Grant Budget Period Extension
Gentlemen:
C', we submit for your consideration a Step 3 Grant Amendment Request
for the referenced project.
The current grant budget period expires July 31, 1984. We are
requesting an extension to January 31, 1985 based upon the antici-
pated time required for resolution of the June 29, 1981 contract
claim and subsequent lawsuit filed against the City Monticello by
the Contractor, the Paul A. Laurence Co. (PALCO).
For reasons described in our last grant budget period extension
request letter of May 31, 1983 (copy attached), the weldor vs. OSM
lawsuit filed in Hennepin County District Court has boon actively
pursued. By mid -summer of 1983, both parties had declared readiness
for trial. We have been awaiting response from Hennepin County
District Court until just recently when we received a court order
scheduling the trail for day certain October 1, 1984.
The court proceedings will probably last 2 - 3 weeks. The, post -
trial motions and administrative work will require at least one
month assuming no appeal of the court decision.
We estimate closeout of the grant paperwork with the agencies will
require at least two additional months after the lawsuit is re-
solved. The grant budget period would therefore need to be extended
Gto January 31, 1985 to accommodate the anticipated timetable
described heroin.
C7)
2021. £ost Hennepin Avenue - Suite 238 - Minneopolis, Minnesota 55413 - 6121331-8660
Page Two
Mr. Duane Anderson
April 13, 1984
The treatment plant construction is complete and operating satis-
factorily. The MPCA/COE final inspection and documentation closeout
was performed on March 15, 1984. To the best of our knowledge, all
other grant conditions have been satisfied.
Another consideration regarding the grant budget period extension
relates to the Step 2 Deviation Request currently under review by
EPA in Washington, D.C. A favorable decision on the deviation
request would require a subsequent grant amendment in order for the
City to request reimbursement of the engineering fees in question.
It is not likely that the deviation decision and grant amendment
could be processed within the current budget period. Failure to
extend the grant budget period would forfeit the opportunity for
equitable reimbursement of a favorable deviation decision.
It is our understanding the lawsuit and deviation request are the
only outstanding items required to be resolved prior to closure of
the grant.
We trust the information submitted herewith will fulfill your
requirements for grant amendment consideration. Please call if you
have any questions or require further documentation.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
NC
6 A OCIATES, .
.
Gerald S. Corrick, P.E.
Project Manager
GSCsmin
enclosure
cci Mr. Thomas Eidem, City Administrator
Mr. John P. Badalich, OSM
Mr. John Simola, Public Works Director
w.,• f PI I. nx ro+.
p.w:rx.fP+
MEAGHER,GEER.MARKHAM, ANDERSON. ADAMSON,FLASKAMPABRENNAN prP.. .IPw,o
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
G 9 aypfOw
?2501d5 GE NTEN^aO SOUTH EIOH7H SIRE E'i �fl..,.cw..P
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 35AO?
a+ro f oa.n.P
PHONE Ia12 335.0891
` • w1oo1
April 2, 1984
5x1.' w ,.VII
alwwl+- r NDtlf
pU+r-•s'•Ow
Pnr1• L IN.+www
•c -..o. oaurt-
r.P.Aw w A+1f
P ! I,unw1.0
.I .wpl_A V
CwM.Af i falrtil•
CN..IAf w M .n[•
wnn . wf•, ,.
Mr. Gerald S. Corrick
Orr-Scbelen-A.ayeron a Associates. Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
Re: waldor Pump v. OSM
our File No. 40057
Dear Jerry:
We have now received the Court's Order setting the
trial of this case as a day certain for Monday, October
1, 1984. This Order is in response to the plaintiff's
Motion for a continuance and a day certain setting. we
can count on the case co-r.mencing trial on that date.
I have written a letter to our expert witness John
Filbert alerting him to this trial date. I have also
written to Ching wu and Brad Boyd. Obviously I will
count on yourself, Chuck Lepak, Bernie and John all
being available as necessaryat that time. Obviously
as the date approaches I will be in contact so that
we may thoroughly review and prepare in advance of
trial.
Very truly yours,
Thomas L. Adams
pry, wf..Ir
TLA:dp
co".. Qom..—•--- --
Enclosure AFRI o± 1�3q ••r
L -
L
C
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Waldor Pump b Equipment Co., ;
Plaintiff,'
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORDER
} FILE NO. 789 10"'
VS.
} c?; �
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron
c0
Associates, Inc., } 0 ,1s i"
rn
Defendant.)
S• S
--------------------------------------------------
� K L
The above -entitled matter came on for hearing before
the undersigned, Chief Judge of the above-named court, on
March 27, 1984, upon plaintiff's motion for a continuance of
the trial to a day certain.
Gerald L. Svoboda, £sq., appeared on behalf of the
plaintiff. Thomas L. Adams, Esq., appeared on behalf of the
defendant.
Upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. That plaintiff's motion for a continuance of the
trial date is granted, and
2. That trial of the above -entitled matter, previously
set for the week of April 23, 1984, shall be rescheduled for
the day certain of October 1, 1984.
Dated thisj2�Z_day of BY THE COURT:
March, 1984.
���Wlt ®e r e�audge
Hennepin County Courts
0
Council Agenda 5/14/84
B. Consideration of an Earlier Adopted Resolution Authorizinq Plans
�- and Specifications for the Improvement of County Road 75. W .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the April 23 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution
approving the feasibility study and ordering plans and specifications
for the improvement of Highway 75 contingent upon County Board
approval. The County Board approved the feasibility study at the
Board meeting on Tuesday, May 7, 1984. The Wright County Board
agreed with that alternate of entire replacement of the existing
pavement chosen also by the City. The Wright County Highway
Engineer, Mr. Wayne Fingalson, is in the process of transmitting
a letter to the City of Monticello authorizing the preparation of
plans and spec's in accordance with State- Aid requirements. A copy
of the letter will be enclosed for your review.
Since the resolution already adopted will suffice for the ordering
of plans and specifications, no further motions or resolutions are
required at this time. It is recommended, however, that we discuss
with Mr. John Badalich a time table for the development of such
plans and specifications and possible letting dates to concur with
the other two street projects for the City of Monticello.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Copy of letter from Wayne Fingalson.
C - 12 -
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
9. Consideration of a Resolution Aeceptina a Revised Environmental
Assessment Worksheet and Authorizing Distribution. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE: AND BACKGROUND:
The original proposed size of Meade. Oak placed the project in a
category requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. The work
that had been done was called a scoping worksheet, the results
of which was to assist in determining to what extent an impact
statement should be prepared. While going through that process,
the developers of Meadow Oak amended the overall plan by reducing
tine total number of units from 532 to 465. This is a reduction
of 67 dwelling units. By so reducing their project size, that
portion of Meador Oak which has not yet been approved now becomes
subject to the environmental review. Having changed the size of
the project, a revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet was
required. In reviewing and commenting on the revised UAW, the
goal is to determine whether or not an impact statement shall be
required as oppused to what scope will be in tine required Impact
Statement. Under the previous proposal, there was no question
about whether or not an Impact Statement would be requiredn it
was. Under the revised proposal, the question is whether or not
to require an Impact Statement. it is conceivable, and probable,
that the worksheet does address all of the environmental concerns
and provides mitigative measures. If the Worksheet is determined
to be adequate and the environmental concerns adequately addressed,
then all Impact Statement will not be required.
The formal action before the Council at this time is to make formal
acceptance of Lila revised Environmental Assessment WorkuhocL and
authorize distribution to the various federal, state, and local
aganciou, and interested parties requesting them. At the end of
the comment period, all comments will Ian assimilated and preuonted
to Lila Council for Lheir duLermination of whether or not an Impact
StatomenL should lx: required.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution accepting the UAW and authorizing distribution -
this will give me the direction to submit to all federal agoncicu
and to the Envircunnental Quality Board for publication in Lila
Monitor. The Monitor will be published on May 21,and the public
comment period will commence that day and last until Juno 20.
2. Reject tine EAW au inadequately addressing curtain environmental
concerns - this would nasonlially send the EAW tack to McCombs -
Knutson for further information. In order to take thio action,
you must specifically address the items that have not Mean adequately
covered in Lilo r•upoit.
- 13 -
c
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The revised EAW provides considerably longer answers and more in-
depth studies to the environmental questions than did the first
EAW. The first EAW was considered adequate by staff, Consulting
Planner, and Consulting Engineer. Please note that this study
also includes a special hydrology study. I also wish to note that
I have submitted a copy to an independent hydrological specialist
who will review the hydrology questions involved. Because this
EAW is more in-depth than the original, and we found the original
to be acceptable, we recommend that this one be accepted as adequate
and the distribution be authorized.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the revised EAW, copy of the resolution for adoption.
- 14 -
RESOLUTION 1984 N_
l
AWEFEAS, pursuant to u MCAR Section 3.038, R.1(b), an Environmental
Assessment Worksleet is required for the subdivision proposal known as
meadow Oak, and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by McCombs -
Knutson, Inc., pursuant to Council Resolution 83-89 duly adopted by the
Council on the 14th day of November, 1983, and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment Workshoet has been revised and
resubmitted according to the provisions of the Minnesota Environmental
Quality Board.
UN, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY WE COUNCIL OF•7HE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA, THAT: _
1. The revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet 1s hereby accepted.
2. The City Administrator is hereby directed to distribute copies of
said revised Environmental Assessment Workshoat to all appropriate
federal, state, and local agencies an required, and to any persons
requesting a copy.
3. The City Administrator shall cause a prase release to appear in the
Monticello Times, such reloaso to provide ganoral and specific
information as required under G MCAR.
Adopted this 14th day of May, 1984.
Thomas A. Eidom
City Administrator
C
Arve A. Crimsmo, Mayor
D
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
10. Consideration of a Proposal to Replace the Roof on the Picnic Shelter
at west Bridge Park. (.1.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Last year the City staff attempted to replace the roof in the Community
Building in West Bridge Park through a combined project with the Lions
Club. The Lions Club wished to add on to the existing Community
Building. The addition as proposed would be mainly a roof addition
and concrete floor with an open type of shelter. we were unable to
get together with the Lions Club last year and get the work started
as a combined project.
This year in anticipation of replacing the roof only on the structure,
the staff placed into the budget an amount of $3,500.00. We were able
to obtain a quote last year from a local contractor for replacing the
roof, and this was the cost if the City first removed the old roof.
We expect the cost this year to be approximately the same or slightly
less, as we have solicited bids from more than one contractor.
Upon discussing the proposed project with Lion Club members this year,
Mr. Ken Maus brought up what I feel is a worthwhile solution to last
year's problems. lie suggested that the Lions Club build an entirely
separate structure independent of the existing Community Building.
Due to a sewer line crossing the area, the structure would most likely
be located to the southwest of the existing Community Building.
Approximate size of this structure is expected to be 24 x 36. At
this time the Lions Club members are checking with different suppliera
and builders of such picnic shelters.
Duo to current staff work load, we were unable to Solicit the quotes
or bids for the replacement of the roof far enough in advance to have
them enclosed with the agenda. I'hey will, however, be delivered to you
at Monday night's meeting.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. The first alternative would be to attempt to repair the existing
roof' with Dome Dort of trusses placed under the existing roof.
This does not appear to be a very practical idea at this Lima.
In addition, with the new roof we would he attempting to got away
fr= the white metal look of the exiating roof.
2. The second alternative would be to replace the roof as proposed
With a vaulted typo truss raftor, insulated ceiling using dorkar
colored shingles and rough aawn cedar or fir for around the soffits
and gable endo.
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that we proceed with alternate N2 to replace the
existing roof on the Community Building and have it completed prior
to the July 4 celebration in the parks. This is contingent upon
bids being received which are at or below the $3,500.00 budget
amount.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
There is no supporting data for this item.
C
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
11. Consideration of a Proposal to Replace Air Compressors at the
WWTP. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUID:
The two air eompmasors located in the basement of the digester
building at the Wastewater Treatment Plant are in need of replace-
ment. These compressors supply air for the heating and ventilation
system controls, the air operated diaphragm sludge pumps, the air
operated diaphragm sewage sampler pump, and the pista-grit/hydro-siv
grit removal system. The compressors are Worthington, three cylinder,
air-cooled models delivering approximately 130 cubic feet per minute
at 60 pounds per square inch pressure.
These compressors were originally put into service on July 16, 1982.
Due to some immediate problems with oil leaks and an exploded manifold,
it was later learned that the compressors were being run at too high
of pressure. They were being run at 60 PSI, and they were designed
to tolerate only a maximum of 60 PSI. For this reason, the one-year
warranty was started on Auqust 16, 1982, rather than July 16, 1982.
Some modifications were made to the air system during the period
from July, 1982, to the end of the warranty on August 16, 1983.
One of the modifications consisted of switching to an alternating
system for the air compressors rather than keeping them running
continually at a load and unload situation. in addition, to cut
down an the numlwr of stops and starts and the loads on these
compresuors, a change order was mads to install a larger air receiver
so that the number of stops and starts per hour could be reduced.
In addition, at this Lime due to problems with moisture in the air
system, an after cooler and a dryer were installed.
Approximately 35 months after the end of the one-year warranty period,
on W cem1x)r 3, 1983, we began experiencing numerous breakdown problems
with loth eompreusors. It was at this time drat we learned that
porta for these comprosuors ware extremely difficult to get. It
was at this time that 1 notified by phone Mr. Jerry Corrick and Mr.
Clnarleu lepak of OSM. 1 reiterated the current problems with the
air comprosoor and the fact that 1 felt we should approach the Paul
A. ldurenoo Company about pousiblo repairu under the warranty since
the compressors had been run at uignificantly high prauouros in the
Leginning and that the failures logon so close to the end of the
warranty period. I told Mr. Corrick that 1 would follow up the repairu
with a uummary wlen wu completed Lilo work and wore back on line.
Before we could got tho parts and complete the repairs an compronaor
01, a second backup compressor failod on January 29. We immediately
began running the Plant with tine City's new portable Sullair air
compi'ossor. Although this system worked quits well, it was costly.
/
The compreasor needed around-the-clock attendance and used approximately
- 17 -
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
100 gallons of fuel per day. It was at this time that we began
considering the replacement of these compressors. At this time,
however, we did feel it was more cost effective to repair the
compressors and keep on operating. We felt that the repairs
at this time only amounted to less than $1,000 for both units,
as we were doing most of the work ourselves.
Then things began to got worse. The first compressor failed again
with only 30 hours on it. The parts for 02 were unavailable, and
is would be difficult to scavage parts from one compressor to the
other when our intention at this time was to put both of them back
together. We finally managed to get one compressor running again
and were told that the parts for the other compressor would be at
least a month in coming. It was at this time that we made the
decision to look further into the replacement of these compressors,
as our cost for labor and materials and outside services were
becoming extremely high. A detailed summary of these costs is
enclosed for your review, as well as a letter summarizing the
initial problems written to CSM on February 15, 1984.
During our conversations with some of the companies in looking for
parts for these Worthington Compressors, it was brought up by these
suppliers that this may not be the test application for these
Worthington Compressors. I then contacted CSM to look into the
matter as far as the specifications and the suitability of these
�► compressors for the location in the WWTP. At this time I wrote
a letter to several different compressor companies describing in
detail the problems we were having and the environment the com-
pressors were to operate in. I asked these companiou for their
recommendation as to the type of compressor for this application.
These proposals will to summarized in a later portion of the
agenda supplement. Also at this time, I began researching how
we came into having these compressors at our WWTP.
Ui August 20, 1980, the Paul A. Laurence Company indicated on the
bid proposal form that they were going to supply compressors
manufactured by the Curtis Company with the construction of the
WWTP. SomoLtme later the Paul A. Iaurence Company was asked to
duscribo in detail, suppliers of various pieces of equipmont
for the WWTP. They did am by supplying us with a process equipment
manufacturer/vendor list. Cn thio list under Specification 1540.05
the Paul A. Durance indicated that the air compressors would to
supplied by Curtis Manufacturing Company of St. Louis, Missouri,
and that the vendor for those air compressors was the Waldor Put3
and Equipment Company in Minnoapolio. It appears now, however, that
Lho Waldor Pump and Equipment Company submitted through the Paul
A. D urenee Company, the general contractor, shop drawings on the
Worthington Compressors rather than the Curtis Cominesuors. I do
not have Lho actual information as to how thio change camp about,
C but the and roault was that Orr-Scholen -Mayo ran r Aosociatos did
approve t.ho aluminum, single stags, air Cooled Worthington Compressors
for installation in the WWTP.
- 18 -
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
The specification for the air compressors is very basic and
specifies only the capacity of the units. It does, however, name
units to be Worthington, Quincy, or equal. The spec section is
enclosed for your review.
it is the staff's opinion that three basic items led to the
current problems with the air compressors: 1) that the specification
in itself is a basic one; 2) that the specification itself did not
take into consideration the location of the air compressors or
operating environment. The area that these compressors are located
in, as stated earlier, is in the basement of the digester building.
The compressors are placed in a small cubicle in the corner of the
building near the heat exchanger for heating the digesters. This
area has little or no ventilation whatsoever, and temperatures in this
area can reach 130 degrees during the summertime. 3) The third problem,
as staff sees it, is that the air compressors that were delivered were
the bottom of the line in meeting the specification and application.
We have learned that the Worthington Compressors of the type at the
WWTP were under limited production when they were delivered to
the WWTP. A company by the name of Atlas Comco had purchased that
particular air compressor division from Worthington and immediately
began liquidating all of the equipment on hand. For this reason,
it has become extremely difficult to get parts for these machines.
As Stated earlier, the specifications alone, we feel, are not at fault.
It was a combination of Specification, the application, and the
Worthington CompresSoru themselves.
If we had received a better grade of compressor such as a two-stage
all taut iron compressor and it were operating in an area with
tetter ventilation, we feel that the compressors may have delivered
satisfactory service.
U. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
At this particular point in Lim:, it data not appear that there are
many alternatives. 'Pilo fact that the City has spent thousands of
dollars in keeping those compreasora running over a Short period of
time indicator that it is not practical in any way to koop both of
thew comprossors opernt.ing nt the load which they are currently seeing,
especially in the atmoupher0 in which they must operate. Tho ally
alternative au we currently seo it is whether or not to replace both
compressors.
1. Thoreforo, alternate kl would W to replace only one of the
comprecooro. With this alternate, we would replace 0110 of the
comprousors with a water cooled screw or piston typo compressor
capable of handling the design load of the WWTP. We would keep
one Worthington comprusuor in operating condition for limited
service as standby and backup when the main comprousor is down for
f scheduled maintenance.
L
- 19 -
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
2. Alternative o2 would be to replace both of the Worthingtons
with compressors such as the water cooled piston or screw to
allow for alternating the compressors periodically.
CSM has researched the possibility of recourse with the contractor
for the compressor problems. This, however, appears to be doubtful
at this time, as the specifications were very basic and the Worthington
Compressors do Meet the requirements of the specification in
tatud c.paCity• In addition, the major problems with the
compressors occurred after the end of the one-year warranty period.
OSM is sending some additional information regarding this and it
will be enclosed in the supplement for your review. There will be
someone representing CSM at the Council meeting to answer any
additional questions you may have.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is the staff recommendation, as well as recommendations from
several compressor dealers and distributors, that we replace one
of the Worthington Compressors with a water cooled screw or piston
type compressor. This would be alternate N1 as listed above.
I think most of you are familiar with the piston type compressor.
It is similar to a gasoline driven engine in that it has a piston
rotated by a crank shaft. In thin, case, and the piston compresses
the air and air is drawn in and expelled through a series of valves.
The piston type of compressor we have at the WWTP is cooled only
by the fins an the driven pulley on the air compressor. The
compression of air causes heat and thus, significant amounts of
heat are built up.* The water cooled piston type compressors are
virtually similar to air cooled compressors in basic design, but
they have a water jacket around Lhe cylinder and piston area and
some of them have this water jacket throughout the head and valve
area. By recirculating cool water through this jacket, Use compressor
is kept cool. In addition, the air is kept cool and lose has to be
done to ticat the air once it is discharged from the compreusor.
The screw typo of comprousor is relatively simple. It eonsiata of
two rutohs or screws aide by side in a casing. The rotors are the
only two moving parts in to compreucor. Ilia male loboa function as
pistons that roll in the female cylinders. The male does the
compressing, the female in an idler. Air and oil are injected
through the system and provide a cuuhion between tie rotors to add
to the long life. The oil is then separated from the air and the
air in forced outward. The screw typo of comprossor is water
cooled by Cooling the oil with water in a radiator typo cooler.
71ha heat from the oil in removed by the water flowing through tow
radiator. Tile cool oil in then raturnod to the acraw compressor
Note : A single stage air compraasor producing air at GO PSI can
Chave discharged air tampuraturan exceeding 1250 F.
- 20 -
C
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
and cools the compressor and reduces the heat build up in the
compressed air. The City currently owns one screw machine.
It is a 100 cubic feet per minute Sullair screw machine. It is
a portable unit used in the Street Department and has been used
to power the WWTP for a period of time. The screw compressor
is quiet and has given the City good service over the past year.
The attached is a tabulation of the proposals received from the
various compressor manufacturers and dealers.
As can be seen by the attached list of suppliers and recommended
air, compressors, an overwhelming number of manufacturers and
distributors have recommended the water cooled screw type compressor
in the 30 horsepower category. As you can see, we have a price range
of approximately $4,000.00 from a low of $5,336.00 to a high of
$8,295.00. At the time of this agenda supplement, I had not had
ample time to contact individuals who currently own and operate the
various compressors as listed. I expect to have a chance on Friday
and Monday to check out their references and make a recommendation
to the Council at Monday night's meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the bid proposal form; copy of the manufacturing vendor
list; copy of the specification for air compressors; copy of the
February 15 letter to Jerry Corrick: copy of the April 27 request
for proposals from compressor companies; copy of report from Jerry
Corrick at OSM; copy of tabulation of costs related to the
Worthington Compressors.
- 21 -
TABUlAT1UN OF COSTS RELATED
TO TIIE WORTHINGTON COMPRESSORS
December 3, 1984 through May 14, 1984
Repair Parts: Rings, cylinders, rod bearings, main bearings,
valve strips, valve plates, pistons, seals,
piston pins, bushings, and gaskets.
$2,877.38
Machine Shop Work: honing cylinders, rebuilding rods, polishing
crank shafts, fitting bearings and pins,
surfacing valve plates, checking for cracks.
$ 520.00
Gas and Oil for Sullair Portable $1,300.00
City Labor, Repairs 6 Operation of Portable $1,450.00
TOTAL $6,147.38
•NOTE: Those figures include the cost of parts currently on order
and the labor costa to install same. tabor costs do not
include insurance, benefits, or overhand.
C
Page 10 of �s 0
BID
PROPOSAL PORN, Part IV
Replace
page PP -8 with revised page.
1538
Digester Mixing Equipment ..............
ATTA RA.
Digester Roof Covers ...................
A T7 R AA
1539
Digester Heating and Gas
Safety Equipment .......................
VA ReC.
1540
Air Blowers i Drives (9 psi)
Submerged Diffused 1510.01............
S uTB[ DuIL.T
Jet Aeration 1540.04A.. .
V, -r
Gas Engine (Methane) ..................
WhL)KES H A
1565
Boiler .................................
KEWAUN6e.
Circulation Pumps ......................
KI &
' Unit Heaters......
%
Oil Tanks ..............................
RpL.4-
Underground Piping System ..............
RnvAaea
,
1580
Power Roof Ventilators .................
Glen anew
Odor Control System ....................
Qo}s WooP-M Akr,uCt
1595
Controls ...............................
Jajj k,Ra&,
1690
Instrumentation System Supplier........
OENTEC.
Control Panel ..........................
DENTE c
Ultrasonic Plow Meters .................
N APCo
Ultrasonic Level Transmitters..........
POwier.►1
Open Channel Flow Transmitters.........
RtoTr ca
d/P Transmitters .......................
Rose:wtouN r
PH Analysers ...........................
O RCATLAILE
Dissolved Oxygen Analysers .............
R[Kaloap
Suspended Solids Analysers .............
TECHNCL-obY
Page 10 of �s 0
NONTiCRLl.O, MrNNi;S(1TA
PROCESS F,OUIPMENT MFG/VEIIDOR
LIST
i
REFEnENCF.I
�L ! 1-uM
MANUFACTURER
VENDOR
OR MODEL
1539.11 Digester Recirculating
Pump Clod - Pump Div.
Waldor Pump b Equipment
1999 No. Ruby St.
9700 Ilumboldt Ave. So.
Melrose Park, IL' 60160
Mpls, MN 55431
(312) 344-9600
(612) 884-4396
Steve Broderick
1539.15 beat Exchanger
Americanlleat Reclaiming
Waldor Pump 6 Equipment
Corp.
9700 Ilumboldt Ave. So.
i
P. O. Bort 10
Mpls, MN 55431
Lykens, PA
(612) 884-4396
Steve Broderick
1540 Gas rngine
Waukesha
1220 So. Prairie Ave.
Waukesha, W1 53186
(414) 547-3311 .
1540-04 Air Blowers
Sutorbilt
Waldor Pump 6 Equipment
9700 Ilumboldt Ave. So.
Mpls, MN 55431
(612) 884-4396
Steve Broderick
I r�C m�css�to`
r�wuliaLua�ng7
Kieplerk
905•JA
:-Waldor Pump 6Equ�ment:
-9700'.Iluii oIaCSo.
. yZ,. - .
Wit. ^Louis,• MO 63133
•Ave:.
'Mp1s,,..MN._Ss4�lT;
A-31-4) 303=1300
_(,612).-884-4396.
.._
'Steve -Broderick
1565.04 Boiler
Kewanee Boiler Corp.
Ryan
M115KC
I
101 Franklin St.
Kewanee, IL 61443
I565.06 Unit heaters
Roberto-Ilamilton Co.
M.S;
800 So. Turners
800
Crossroads
Mpls, MN
(612) 5e4-1234
,
•1 .
engine installation; to start up, test and place engine in good
working order; and to instruct plant personnel in operation and
maintenance of engine.
(o) Vibration Darrpeners. 9'he blower -engine assembly
shall be provided with spring type vibration mounts.
(p) Clutch. The blower engine assembly shall be pro-
vided with a manual heavy duty clutch to allow a no-load.start.
(q) Radiator. The blower engine assembly shall be.provided
with a unit- mounted• radiator, hose hnd cdnnedtione. Engine
mounted fan to be pusher type. Cooling watei circulating pump
to be furnished as in integral part of the Engine.
.05• AIR COMPRESSORS
Contractor shall fuinish and install two.(2)•Air Compressors.
Each air compressor to have ai capacity of 130 SCFM free air
using a 25HP 460 volt' 60 cycle 3 phase motor. Air compressors
to provide compressed air at 60 PSIG and shall be base mounted
and connected to one (1) vertical 120 gallon air storage tank.
Units to be complete with multi -V -bolt drive, belt guard, dual
control and automatic low oil pressure shut down control. Units
to be Worthington, Quincy or equal.
06 AIR FLOW CONTROL
This Contractor shall furnish and install an air flow control
system on the equalization tank which .hall include an orifice,
a dp cell, a convertor, a black box with sot points, a butterfly
valve with notor oporator, wiring between all of the units so
as to cause the vale to cpcil when more air is required to the
tank, and for the valve to clu3e when less air i- required. The
openinq motion and clocinq motion shall be pulsed so that any
signal will only cause- a mincer change (19) in the valve position.
Under correct air flow the valve shall remain motionless.
Thu valve shall be for installation between flanges and the
orificu plate ::hall br) stainless utual and placed between companion
flanges.
068-2748 1540 - 6
0
I
city 4 Vo-liAlo
t r! MONTICELLO. MN 55382
February 15, 1984
Ptwne18t2129S-2711
Mono 1,12)333-5739
Mayor: Orr-Seholen-Mayeron 6 As :9ociatas, Inc.
n
Ao Cranamo 2021 East Hennepin Avenue, Suite 238
city council.Minneapolis, MN 55413
Dan Blonleen
Fran Fav
Kannam Mws Attention: Mr. Gerry Corrick
JuCk Aae+wea
C�
50 t'aat B,W dr/y
noino s, Doi, 83A
Yonkl: olW, MN 55362
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant EPA Project
�ammbtnmr:
C270855-03 Air Compressors.
Tom Ektem
7,nanco Director:
Dear Gerry:
Rick W0111e1eller
*uwc works:
I am following up our past conversations about the air
Jona Sanole
compressors with a letter summarizing the problems which
Gpa Zoning:
1my0Andorsoin
we have had. The two air compressors that we aro talking
about are the air compressors located in the basement of the
digester building and providing air for the odor control
system, the ODS Sludge Pumps, the Johnson Control System,
j
and periodic air for the grit removal and plata-grit systems.
The two air compressors were put into service in July of 1982.
They were set up pumping at about 80 PSI on a continuous run
Lype of situation in that they loaded and unloaded. This system
was later changed to an on/off type of alternating system.
In the fall of 1902, cumpressor pl blew an exhaust manifold.
At this time I believe it woo determined that the compressors
were running at more than design pressures. Tho prcosuroo were
then sot lower to a maximum of 60 PSI. A short Lima later I
believe compressor 01 experienced an oil seal failure and lost
oil and oubaequently was removed to have the oil oval replaced.
This Cortifieato of Substantial Completion for thoso unite was
originally made out to begin July 16, 1982. At a mooting in the
fall of 1982, the date was chanyod to have the effective warranty
dates from August IG, 1982 to August 16, 1903, duo to some of the
known problems that had been occurring with the compressor.
On December 3, 1983, with 2,721 hours on air compressor 41, it
was taken out of service due to a loud knocking noise coming from
all throo cylinders. Up until that tima, the required maintenance
ouch as oil and filter changes had been performed and documented
C�
50 t'aat B,W dr/y
noino s, Doi, 83A
Yonkl: olW, MN 55362
0
TO: Mr. Corry Corrick
RE: EPA Project C270855-03 Air Compressor
DATE: February 15, 1984
PAGE: Two
for this unit. In December, Gerry, we notified OSM that we
were having problems with the compressor and would follow up
with a detailed report of the actual necessary repairs.
Upon disassembly at our shop of compressor #1, we found the
rod bearings had failed and that the crank shaft was slightly
rough. It took a significant amount of time to locate parts
and to determine the availability of such items as undersized
connecting rod bearings. It was finally determined that the
crank shaft could be salvaged by polishing and that standard
bearings could be used. In additionnLto the standard bearings,
wrist pins, bushings, rings, and valves were needed. We sent
most of the machine work and polishing work to Village Engine
in Osseo and did the general mechanical work ourselves. Total
parts and outside labor came to $511.91.
Before we could get all of the parts and got compressor 01
operating again, compressor 02 'failed on January 29. One of the
cylinders had overheated and it had sucked portions of the air
filter and valves into the piston thereby scoring the piston
and cylinder. Upon examination it was determined that the rod
bearings in this compressor were also bad, and the crank needed
polishing.
We finally roenived all of the parte and outside machine work for
compressor #1 on February 2, 1984. Upon reinstallation of this
compressor, it ran for approximately 30 hours when a strip valvo
disintegrated and wan sucked into one of the cylinders causing
the piston to crack and the cylinder to become scored. The coat
of these parts wan approximately $430.00, and we were able to got
compressor 01 back on line by February 14. We have not as of thin
time received enough parts to put compressor #2 back together again.
During all of the problems with the compressors, we referred back
to the specifications for the co prencors, Spec #1540.05. we have
a couple of questions concerning the compressors themselves and
the specifications. Its different dealers or distributors which
we have discussed the application of these compressors with have
indicated that this may not be the proper installation for a single
stage air cooled canprosoor and that we should seriously consider
the installation of two stage water cooled or screw type water
cooled comprosuors to replace these unite. The one question that
I do have in in roforenco to Lhe specifying of those coml>rnosors
J
J
TO: Mr. Gerry Corrick
RE: EPA Project C270055-03 Air Compressor
DATE: February 15, 1904
PAGE: Three
in that what other applications have you used this particular
specification in and what do you use as criteria for going to
a two stage or water cooled compressor. The second question
refers to the specification itself. It appears that the units
were specified to have automatic low oil pressure shut down
control. The units themselves had a low oil pressure relay in-
stalled as part of the oil pressure gauge. There were, however,
no innorconnecting wires installed with the main control panel,
nor is the necessary relay switching included in the main control
panel. Do we have recourse to have the contractor complete this
shut down control system? And why was its installation missed or
overlooked?
At this particular time it may be difficult to approach PALCO
with any of their warranty costs related to the compressors.
But certainly the fact that the safety shut down systems were
not installed and operating an well as the overloaded condition
of these comprousors when they were initially installed may have
contributed to the premature failure of the units. This may make
a warranty claim more practical. Please contact us at your
earliest convenience regarding this matter.
Thank you.
lly
Ras c u�i^E
ohn G. Simola
Public Works Director
JES/kad
cc: Tam Eidom
Al Moyer
Marlon Lepak
John Badalich
OSM Correa.
JES ✓
C
0
- _ City o/ V..&AI.
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
April 27, 1984
Phone IB 121295.2111
Metro IB 121333.5739
Mayor:
A7ve Gnmsmo
City Council
Den 91on1gan
Pc: Air Compressor Problems at wastewater Treatment Plant
Fran Fair
Kenneth Maus
Jack Maxwoe
Gentlemen:
The City is experiencing major problems with two Worthington Single
AOMnbtrata:
Stage Air Compressors at our Wastewater Treatment Plant. These
Tam Etdem
units are rated at max. 60 PSI and 130 cu. ft. per minute and are
Fwnce Director:
powered by 25 H.P. electric motors.
Nkk Woestoem
�wS�
The compressors are located in a basement of a boiler roods near
Ptemhq a Zoning:
a hoot exchanger in a confined area whore suaemortime air temperatures
Bary Anderson
can exceed 130eF. Even though the units aro lees than two years old,
each unit has failed numerous time with loose and damaged rod
bearings, main bearings, broken valves, broken manifolds, scored
and broken pistons and cylinders, and leaky seals. The breakdowns,
which began immediately after Uic one year warranty period, have
cost the City thousands of dollars and have hampered operations at
the wastewater Treatment Plant due to the long delays in obtaining
parts.
The City is interested in obtaining proposals for the replacement
of one or both of these comprosuora immediately. We are interested
in proposalo that would provide us with an air compreaaor or
compruasorn dosigned such as to give little problems over the
design lifu of the plant. An extended warranty period may be
advantagoous. we feel there is a definite need to go to a water
cooled typo compressor and possibly a screw typo. If the oxiating
25 II.P. 460/480 volt, 3 phase motots could bo re -used, this would
b: a twmutit.
Thero are currently 80U gallons of air receiving capacity at the
plant and a 470 yallun water surge tank nearby could provide non -
potable water for cooling. Current air usages at the plant now
exceed an average of 70 C.F.M. 9 60 PSI with design units estimated
at over 130 C.P.M. 0 60 PSI.
250 Eut Brood"Y
Aeote 4. Dox 63A
MointicaGo, MN 55352
'O:
:E: Air Compressor problems at wastewater Treatment Plant
)ATE: April 27, 1984
AGE: Two
We invite your firm to make a proposal for a new air compressor
.or compressors. Peel free to call us and examine the current
site and equipment.
Due to the fact one of the compressors is now down and parts are
not available until next month, we fool we have no timo to delay.
we, therefore, ask that your proposal be delivered to City Hall
at 250 East Broadway no later than 2:00 P.M., May 10, 1984. All
proposals will be considered at the May 14 Council meeting.
If you have any questions, you may reach me at 612-795-1170 or
leave word and I will return your call. Thank you.
Sincere y,
John E. Simela
Public Works Director
JESjkad
cc: Jerry Corrick, OSM
Toa Eidom, CA
Al Mayer, WWTP Supt.
WWTP Pile
JS ✓
Fj
J
I�
C
/ CompressAir 6 Equipment Co.
700 mendelssohn Ave. N.
Minneapolis, 6"uJ ',55 (1
Mid.est Marketing Inc.
6010 Blue Cir Dr.
I-tinnotonka, M7 —54 jcl
C-AIPE Inc.
2G549 Fallbrook Ave.
Wyoming, HN 5j 0�1 .2
Arrowhead Marketing
Griggs Midway Building
St. Paul, MN S5/01
{ John Henry Foster Co.
3103 Mike Collins Dr.
Eagan, MN 0 /
,k Air Products Company
9250 Grand
Minneapolis, MN
Air Compressor Equipment
2968 Rice _
St. Paul, MN
k Sullair
9250 Grand Ave. S.
Minneapolis, M11 -:, Z/, -2D
f}I' Modern Equipment Conyrany
3718 Codar Ave. S.
tdinnoapolia, MN
Quincy Compressor Division Colt
Industries
G043 Hudson Road
St. Paul, MN 55- /��
Gardnor-Iunver/Coopor Ind. Industrial Mchnry Div.
13095 Industrial Park Blvd.
Minneapolis, MN 9;L/L/I
Minnaeota Industrial Tool
9015 W. 74th St.
Minnoapolia, MN
0
MANUFACTOR£R
Gardner Denver
Quincy, Ill.
C -Air Inc.
Wyoming, Par;
Curtis Compressor
Company, New York;
s Joy Compressor,
Montgomeryville, PA
Baxer
Norfolk, VA
Joy Compressor
Michigan City, Ind
Sullair Corp.
Michigan City, Ind
DISTRIBUTOR
Y.N. Ind. Tools
Eden Prairie. M7
National Bushing 6
Part Co, of Buffalo;
St. Cloud, M;:;
C -Air Inc.,
Wy=ing, MN
Compress Air 6 Equip.
Co.
Minneapolis, MN
Modern Equip. Co.
Minneapolis,
Air Products Co.
Minneapolis, "S:
Sullair Corp. Sullair North Central
Michigan City, Ind. Minneapolis, muj
TYPE MODEL CAPACITY DELIVERY WARRANTY
Water EBERF 25 HP Immed. 2 yrs. air
Cowled 107 CFM end (1 yr.
Screw @ 100 PSI parts 6 labor)
Can be con- 2rd yr. parts)
converted to
30 HP at extra
COSI
Water HST -30 30 HP 2 yrs. air end
Cooled 122 CFM @ 125 PSI
Screw 130 CFM @ 60 PSI
HST -30 With City's 25 HP 2 yrs. air end
motor s reduced
capacity
water D30 30 HP 10 days 2 Yrs. air end
Cooled 124 CFM @ 100 PSI
Screw A30 130 CFM @ 60 PSI
Water TA030B 30 HP 4-6 wks. I yr. motor
Cooled 123 CFM @ 100 PSI 2 yrs. air end
Screw 130 CFM @ 60 PSI
water 10-30 30 HP 4-6 wks. 2 yrs. air end
Cooled 120 CFM @ 100 PSI
Screw 130 CF'M @ 70 PSI
10-3 120 CFM @ 100 PSI 4-6 wks. 10 yrs. air end
24 KT 130 CFM @ 70 PSI not pro -rated
Water 10-25L 30 lip 4-6 wks. 2 yrs. air end
Cooled or 30L 120 CFM @ 100 PSI
Screw 130 CFM @ 70 PSI
10-25L 30 F!P 4-6 wks. 10 yrs. air znd
or 30L 120 CFM @ 100 PSI not pro -rated
24 KT 130 CFM @ 70 PSI
PRICE FOB
MINNEAPOLIS OR MONTICELLO
$5,336.00
$7,549.00•
$6,190.00•
$7,072.00•
$6,170.00•
$7,079.00•
$400 deduct for
less after cooler
$6,967.00'
$8,245.00-
$5,740.00-
$7,181.00-
MAIr'FACTIORER
DiSTRIBUTORI
TYPE
MODEL
CAPACITY
DELIVERY
WARRANTY
Quincy Compressors
John Henry Foster Co.
Water
Basic
4 -cylinder
Immed.
1 year
Quincy, Ill.
Minneapolis. wl
Cooled
W5120-
102 CFM @ 60 PSI
Piston
LUD
using City's 25HP
motor
Co=:pAir-Kellogg
Air Compressor
Water
CRS 30
30 HP
4-6 wks.
1 year
St. Paul, MJ
Cooled
130 CFM @ 110 PSI
Screw
Water
BW2L
2 -cylinder
4 week
Cooled
110 CFM @ 110 PSI
Piston
using City's
25 HP motor
Hydro-
120
6-8 wks
2 yr. air end
vane
PUMW
• NO—E: includes est.
S300 freight
PRICE FOB
MINNEAPOLIS OR MONTICELI.O
$5,434.00-
5,434.00`
$6,650.00-
56,650.00•
$8,295.00,
$8,295.00•
$6,895.00•
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 14, 1984
AIR COMPRESSOR PROBLEMS
BY GERALD S. CORRICK, P.E.
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSIIL'fING ENGINEERS/LAND PI-ANNERS/SURVEYORS
2021 FAST HENNEPIN AVENUE, SUITE, 238
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55413
(612) 331-8660
COMMISSION NO. 1748
ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Lond Surveyors
May 11, 1984
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Attn: Mr. John Simola
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant
and Appurtenant Work
EPA C270855-03
Air Compressor Problems
Gentlemen:
We present this letter in response to your letter dated February
15, 1984 and your RFP Letter dated April 27, 1984 (copies of both
attached) regarding the referenced subject.
Wo have reviewed our project files regarding the history of the
air compressor problems anti I have consulted with our engineering
staff and manufacturer's representatives regarding compressor
system design, operations, maintenance, and costs. Based on our
review and discussion we offer the following observations:
(1) The air compressors were furnished and installed by the
Contractor in compliance with the specifications and field
modifications with the exception of the low oil pressure
shutdown control which was just recently installed by the
Contractor.
(2) The air compressors specified aro a conventional, budget
conscious design. Air-cooled reciprocating compressors are
the most widely used and least expensive typo of compressor
available. Water-cooled compressor system's initial costs
aro generally twice as expensive.
(3) The furnished compressors operating in the given environment
should have provided acceptable service in excess of the
actual litre of the units. The ambient tomporaturo is higher
than ideal, but adjustments in type of Lubrication and fro-
yuoncy of lubrication should compensate for the temperature.
(4) Rogular maintenance including oil changes at the proper in-
tervals has been identified as the critical factor ospeci-
ally when units are opurating in loss than ideal conditions.
2021 East Hennepin Avonue • Suite ?33 • Minneapolis, A4innesota 55413 • 61213
3 660
Page Two
City of Monticello
May 11, 1984
(5) It should be recognized that the units were, for a short
time, operated at a cut-out pressure in excess of their
stated design capability potentially damaging the units.
(6) During start-up procedures, one of the units was started
against a closed valve. This caused the manifold to ruptur0
and may have had a damaging effect on internal parts of one
compressor.
It is our conclusion that singularly none of the operational con-
ditions to which the units were exposed would cause failure. we
also believe that the specification and design of the units was
adequate to provide an acceptable service life with regular main-
tenance. It was and is, our judgement that the greater expenses
of water-cooled units •was not necessarily justified for this
application.
Our design philosophy for the treatment plant was not. to provide
equipment designed in excess of what was warranted by anticipated
use. we do however, recognize that the present staffing level of
the plant along with previous discussed conditions may be valid
reasons for now providing Water-cooled units having fewer mainte-
nance requirements and a greater degree of reliability.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
6
ASSOCIATES, INC.
Gerald S. Corrick, P.E.
Projoct Manager
GSC:min
cc: John P. Badaltch, P.E. - OSM
Charles A. Lepak, P.E. - OSM
i
7.
City
�+
-
MONTICELLO, MN 55362 A
February 15, 1984 R E C E I VE D
Phone (617)7957711
b ASSOC.
COMM: Y�- 0
Meeol612)333-5739
Lii--,�W
FEB ] G 1924
Meyer.
A—Gnmomo
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron s Associates, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue, Suite 238 ---"--'�—I
Gry Council
Don Bloniaen
Minneapolis, 'MN 55413
Fran Foe
✓,enneln Maus
Jar, Ma•w oil
Attention; y
attentionMr. Gerry Corrick
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant EPA Project
Adm,n,sne:or,
1270855-03 Air Compressors.
Tom E.dem
Finance Duoclor
Dear Gerry:
Ric,' Womaieller
Public Wcnei
I am following up our past conversations about the air
Jet- Sm018
compressors with a letter summarizing the problems which
Gwry gAm.nion
we have had. The two air compressors that we are talking
about are the air compressors located in the basement of the
digester building and providing air for the odor control
system, the ODS Sludge Pumps, the Johnson Control System,
and periodic air for the grit removal and piste -grit systems.
The two air compressors were put into service in July of 1982.
They were set up pumping at about 80 PSI on a continuous run
type of situation in that they loaded and unloaded. This system
was later changed to an on/off type of alternating system.
In the fall of 1982, compressor #1 blew an exhaust manifold.
At this time I believe it was determined that the compressors
were running at more than design pressures. The preasures were
then sot lower to a maximum of GO PSI. A short time later I
believe compressor 01 experienced an oil seal failure and lost
oil and subsequently was removed to have the oil seal replaced.
Thu Certificate of Substantial Completion for these units was
originally made out to begin July 16, 3982. At a meeting in the
fall of 1982, the date was changed to have the effective warranty
dates from August 16, 1982 to August 16, 1983, due to some of the
known problems that had been occurring with the compressor.
On December 3, 1983, with 2,721 hours on air compressor 01, it
was taken out of service due to a loud knocking noise coming from
all throo cylinders. Up until that time, the required maintenance
such as oil and filter changes had been performed and documented
711,0 Eml 010011-9v
Routs a. Bo. e3A
Meaecsao, MM 0702
TO: Mr. Gerry Corrick
M. EPA Project 0270855-03 Air Compressor
DATE: February 15, 1984
PAGE: Two 1
for this unit. In December, Gerry, we notified OSM that we
were having problems with the compressor and would follow up
with a detailed report of the actual necessary repairs.
Upon disassembly at our shop of compressor 01, we found the
rpd bearings had failed and that the crank shaft was slightly
rough. It took a significant amount of time to locate parts
and to determine the availability of such items as undersized
connecting rod bearings. It was finally determined that the
crank shaft could be salvaged by polishing and that standard
bearings could be used. In addition to the standard bearings,
wrist pins, bushings, rings, and valves were needed. We sent
most of the machine work and polishing work to Village Engine
in Osseo and did the general mechanical work ourselves. Total
parts and outside labor came to $511.91.
Before we could get all of the parts and got compressor 01
operating again, compressor 02 failed on January 29. One of the
cylinders had overheated and it had sucked portions of the air
filter and valves into the piston thereby scoring the piston
and cylinder. Upon examination it was determined that the rod
bearings in this compressor were also bad, and the crank needed
polishing.
we finally received all of the parts and outsida machine work for
compressor 01 on February 2, 1984. Upon reinstallation of this
compressor, it ran for approximately 30 hours when a strip valve
disintegrated and was sucked into one of tho cylinders causing
the piston to crack and the cylinder to become scored. The cost
of these parts was approximately $410.00, and we were able to got
compressor 01 back on line by February 14. we have not as of this
time received enough parts to put compressor 02 back together again.
During all of the problems with the compressors, we referred back
to the specifications for the compressors, Spec 01540.05. We have
a couple of questions concerning the compressors themselves and
the spocifications. The different dealers or distributors which
we have discussed the application of these compressors with have
indicated that this may not be the proper installation for 9 single
stage air cooled coteproscor and that we should seriously consider
the installation of two stage water cooled or screw typo water
cooled comprossors to replace those units. The one quostion that
I do have is in reference to the specifying of those comprossors
°J
TO: Mr. Gerry Corrick
RE: EPA Project C270855-03 Air Compressor
DATE: February 15, 1984
PAGE: Three
in that what other applications have you used this particular
specification in and what do you use as criteria for going to
a two stage or water cooled compressor. The second question
refers to the specification itself. It appears that the units
were specified to have automatic low oil pressure shut down
control. The units themselves had a low oil pressure relay in-
stalled as part of the oil pressure gauge. There were, however,
no innerconnecting wires installed with the main control panel,
nor is the necessary relay switching included in the main control
panel. Do we have recourse to have the contractor complete this
shut down control system? And why was its installation missed or
overlooked?
At this particular time it may be difficult to approach PALCO
with any of their warranty costs related to the compressors.
But certainly the fact that the safety shut down systems were
not installed and operating as well as the overloaded condition
of these compressors when they were initially installed may have
contributed to the premature failure of the wits. This may make
a warranty claim more practical. Please contact us at your
earliest convenience regarding this matter.
Thank you.
Ras elS'imola Res �
ohn /-/•'',•,'j�(/J
Public works Director
JES/kad
cc: Tam F.idem
Al Me yo r
Charles Lepak
John Badalich
OSM Correa.
JES
C
0
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
�.� 12. Consideration of a Motion Adjusting Building Permit Requirements
for Minor Building Improvements. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Discussion has been held within City staff of possible amendments
to a resolution to establish when building permits are not required.
In looking over the five items where building permits are not
required, we see some changes we would like to propose here and
some problems which have occurred as a result of permits not being
required for these. I will address them as follows:
1) we would like to delete all together. There should not be any
dollar amount of when building permits are not required. we would
like to see building permits required regardless of any dollar
amount. Instead of having a flat dollar amount we should look at
having a certain flat fee attached for certain items of work, such
as the following examples: replacement of an existing window and
putting in a padio door, not that we are after the building permit
money, that we should look at a flat fee for work such as the header
placement, sizing of the header, proper installation of a sliding
door, and also proper sizing of the glass for the sliding door;
reroofing, going over existing shingles, we should have just a flat
amount for that. Basically that when shingles are installed over
existing shingles the shingles that they are installed over are
�) in good enough shape to take existing shingles and/or if there are
too many layers of shingles on that they do not apply an additional
layer of shingles on but do take existing shingles off down to the
existing roof decking; Setting a flat fee for reroofing, removal
of existing shingles and installation of new shingles, that the
roof deck be examined once the shingles are removed, that the roof
docking material is in good shape for placement of new shingles over
existing roof decking; residing should be act on a dollar amount figure,
that to be determined by the Building Inspector. I will cito several
instances where siding being installed improperly; where siding may
be installed over dilapidated siding, siding may be installed whore
improper paper is installed underneath it where it doesn't allow the
exterior wall to breath properly, therefore, moisture results behind
the siding and paint on the siding will tend to blister or pool off
due to too much moisture behind the improper installation of siding.
3) The portable building, the square footage should be increased to
120 sq. ft. to include the roof overhang and should be addressed to one
story detached accessory buildings used for tool and/or storage sheds,
playhouses, and aimil.ar uses be added to that. Delete provided it
will be only for an accessory building in addition to the garage.
4) Number four seems fine, but we would add the following after
"placed on private property": "except when onto City right-of-way,
work muot be done in accordance with City spocificntions."
- 22 .
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
5) We should have a permit for installation of woodburning fireplaces
or stoves, not that we're after the money for the permit, but that
the proper installation of the fireplace and/or the wood stoves,
and there is proper support underneath them and protection around the
insertion of the stove pipe through an exterior wall. We would also
like to see other items included to it for when a permit is not
required, one being fences not over 6 feet in height; second, movable
cases, counters, or partitions not over 5 feet high; third, retaining
walls not over 4 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footings
to the top of tire wail; fourth, painting, papering, and similar finish
work; fifth, window awnings supported by an exterior wall on a residential
house and/or garage when projecting not more than 54 inches; sixth,
prefabricated swimming pools in which the pool walls are entirely above
the adjacent grade and if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons.
With the insertion of some more exemptions of a building permit along
With redefining of some existing Resolution 049 where building permits
are not required, deletion and addition of some changes I feel we would
have a very good Ordinance format to work with in regard to building
permits when they are not required.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve Resolution 1982 q49 changes to this resolution adding and/or
deleting wording where necessary.
2. Deny Resolution 1982 049 changes all together and leave the existing
resolution the way it is.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of resolution amendment to Resolution 1982 049
as presented with the changes in wording as indicated. We feel the net
result when this is completed will be it will be more self explanatory
to the public when and when not building permits are required.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Resolution 1982 049: Copy of Resolution 1984 0_ with proposed
changes; Copy of 1982 addition of the Uniform Building Code, Chapter
3, SeCtion 301x, Section 301b.
- 23 -
C
RESOLUTION 1984 k_
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH WHEN BUILDING PERMITS ARE NOT REQUIRED
WIIEREAS, the City of Monticello requires that it shall be unlawful for any
person, firm or coporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair,
move, improve, remove, convert, or demolish building or structure only
after securing a building permit, and;
WIII;REAS, the City Council realize that there might be occasions when
Obtaining d building 13CI-MIL might become an unnecessary requirement due
to the nature of work being done;
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED that a building permit Shall NOIT be
required under tha following conditions, although inspections of the
same may be required by the Building Official at his discretion.
BUIIDING PERMIT POLICY
A BUILDING PERMIT 1S NOT REQUIRED WHEN:
1. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage
sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the projected roof
area does not exceed 120 sq. ft.
2. Fences not over G feet high.
1. Movable Cases, counters and partitions not over 5 fest high.
4. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet in height moacured from
the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall.
5. when driveways, sidewalks, and other similar hard surface accessoiion
are placed on private property, except when onto City right-of-way
work must be done in accordance to City spoeifications.
U. Painting , papering and similar tinish work.
7, window a vnings nupportod by an exterior wall on residential house
and 101' galaq0 when projnctiaq not more than 54 inches.
8. Pr.nldbri cated awimmin(l pools in which the 1)[301 walls aro entirely
,ibovu tlsu adjacent giado and if the capacity (Icon not exCeed
5,000 qa I lens.
Adopted this day of 1984.
Arvu A. Grimsmo, Mayor
Thomas A. Hidem
City Administrator �_—\
RESOLUTION 1982 049
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH WHEN BUILDING PERMITS ARE NOT REQUIRED
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello requires that all building and
relevant work be done only after securing a building permit, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council realize that there might be occasions
when obtaining a building permit might become an unnecessary
requirement due to the nature of work being done;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a building permit shall NOT
be required under the following conditions, although inspections
of the same may be required by the Building Official at hie
doscrstion.
BUILDING PERMIT POLICY
A BUILDING PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN:
1. The amount of work to be done is less than $800.00
and requires no structural change.
2. Mien reroofing or residing is to be done and no
structural repair will he done,
1. A portable building of less than 100 square feet in to
be placed on a lot, provided that it will be the only
accessory building in addition to the garage.
4, when driveways, sidewalks, and other similar hardsurface
accessories are placed on a property.
5. For the installation of wood burning fireplaces or stoves.
Adopted this 28th day of June, 1902.
Arve A. Grimemo, Mayor
ATTEST;
L-3���g
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
1982 EDITION 301.302
Chapter 3
PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS
Permits
Vin•, 101. lel IN"rnih Rryuired. It ,hall R• unlawhd I... em Ietw.a, tum .a
mrµnauun to rm 1. rumtrm t. enlarge. alt". u•P.uc u,. •, r. m,rr.na. nuu..c.
n.n.e1 ur denx.h,h any hud.hng .n ,tn:,hu. rcpul.ro I h, (III, , Dile p; ,.
'J,ecmed on Subxunm 1b).'I the, u11."n .• w the ,.tux• h. h.•.ho•> -Ih—r
fir, uinamwg a ,epi tc I— le, rack Inn cl ire nt ,tru.tuc h,m 0.. h:.nd.
ntfrual
I bI F.acmpted W -L. A hmhhng Irnh,t +hall m4 K- n ywr, d 1- the ❑dL,w mg
1 Uno,tun ,ktached a, --r) building, a I a+ x.d nnl
playh,uw, and .... od t uv,. 1--ded the rt..;r,lal ,.,I ,ma d.+•, nn
carted 120 114are [let
'_ Fence, nix mer h Ice: high
1 Oil drnxk,
a \fu.ahle ca,c•,, c.wntcn aml parl,uun, rod mcr 5 twat high
S Retaining %alb which are n,t ...a•, d feet m height mca—ed h.uu d:a
txwam n1 the:aiding o, the h,p ul the %all, un:c+, ,uP1uI ung a,wchn1•r
W tmµwrxhng llammab:c liquid, -
6 Water I:nd,+upµnmddnrcth uµnI gr.x4• d the rnp.x'.ly d.x•, and tared
SIR\l gall-, and the rah, ut height to deunctr..n ., whit din, ON —ecd
Iwn 1.1 I'M.
7 1'lallur m,, walk., and d... ewey, n.d - r Ilu. 11) uxlx•, ohne I•ruk ural
nut Deer any ba—u'nl,, ,Inn below
9 Ihmting, potvnng and .... War 17tu,h —k
9 '1emµ,r p m,Uun picture. ick—s— and theater ,lige un and ,cencry
10 \Cuxlux -n,ng, +ulry,n n•J M an eaten. all u1 aa,up R. Ih.num .
and Gnwp \f Occuparew, when ru fee, g n.d oxine than Sd ."-%
I Prefabricated ,w mooing µ,o1, acc.c,,.x. to, a I.unlp R. Iln.,um 71 rrcu
pan.y in xh,, to the p.4 all, me cntncly at—e the adl.wcnt glad. and d
the capac ny d. x•, rxx «teed �I a al rah,n+
llnlr++.eherwl,e eacmptnl, vparate p!umhmg ciccntcal and rn.lhmwal
µrmn,
.,If he rcyuircJ La the J—e e"ntp1W urn:,
1'acngw,n In.m the Irnu I rcywrenrnt, ,I 1hr.... A, hill n.d h• dn•maJ t,
Fran: .WlMnvalnm I„r any x.nA e. Ik• Mn!: to ar.. marine, ut .u111: -.,l IM
t[,an„nuI the, —k -.x my Mtu'r liw,.n. -dime c, of 11 w,. J:. him
Application for Permit
Sec. W.I. lel.\yPllcullun. I,.d,tn.n a I. rant. Ile afI'I:.._:.t •tl:l' I...t ,.:.• an
apphcah,m thetclor in wt,unp un a Iwm hu... 1,:J h, 0:; L. -I. a; r:r..I
arcncy h. mal ruga.- ha.. +u. 1, ,:pp:u mual .Iiia
I lj".I.ty ail .k,cnlx• Ili: wink t.. h• .. , "A 1.. d: • Ix'rw• t .. ..1
arplrrrarun r+ mwh•
i
•-puytd,yp ,.._ „/, .:,���- _ .. ....'_�-• � .til,. ,.
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
13. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Tom Chock is requesting to subdivide the residential Lot 3, Block 42,
Original Plat to the City of Monticello. In doing so, he would sub-
divide the lot exactly in half, 33 ft. x 165 ft. for each new sub-
divided lot with half of the lot going to Lot 4 and the other half
to Lot 2. On Lot 4 he currently has an existing 4-plex. In doing
the simple subdivision, it would allow him to create another lot
on which to build a proposed 4-plex. In the subdivision of residential
Lot 3 with the newly created subdivided lots, Mr. Chock would be
in conformance with the Ordinance on the minimum lot size in an R-2
zone: and also his proposed building would meet all of the setback
requirements required by Ordinance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. 'Approve the simple subdivision of residential Lot 3, Block 42.
2. Deny the simple subdivision of residential Lot 3, Block 42.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the simple subdivision of Lot 3,
{/ Block 42.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed simple subdivision plot plan of residential Lot 3,
Block 42; copy of the proposed location of tho Lot 3, Block 42.
C - 24 -
_—PJ.OT -Py AN Phone: 295-950
THOUS CHOCK
'nDnRESS_gpl_�$.T THIPD $ MONTICEUD. MINNESOTA PERMIT MM3ER
rr.AL ORIGINAL PIAT
:RIFT ION LOT a 4, 3, and 2 BLOCK_ 2 ADDITION CITY OF MONTICELL40
a0. fl. OF SITE ARCA 32,670 S0. FT. OF AREA OCCLPIED BY BUILDING -
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT
tmis rORM NCCO NOT OC USCO WHEN PLOT PLANS ORA" TO SCALC ARE FILED WITH THC PERMIT APPLICATION.
.0RNCV OUILOINOS. PROVtOC THC fOLLO.INO INrORNATIONI LOCATION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND CRISTINO
i NP NOV
EMCNT5. SMO. DUKOINO SITE AND SLT.ACR DIMENSIONS. SNOW CASMENTS. FINISH CONTOURS OR OAAINAOC,
11457 ,LOOK [L[vA, IONS. STREET ELEVATION AND SCWCR ELEVATION. SNOW LOCATION Of WATCR, SEWER, OAS.
.110 CLCCTRICAL SERVICE LINES• SNOW LOCATIONS Or SURVCT PINS. SPCCIrT THE USE or CACN OUILDINO
NO EACH MAJOR PORTION INERCO f.
INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE (ACH GRAPH SQUARE COLIALS 101.0' BY 101-0•
=41111.1y1tMt it" 191"..d ennDlumlun AH toff. to the dim—mon,.rrS ula.h—m alw..nd IMI mnh.q.. .111b male.11hout
..............................
�, lroR e1Tv wE owtr�
.'.MED APPRDVEO BY DATE.
t •�,� .�f *'•' `,a\., g:,��� •`,fir
ur
Simp2a Subdivision "I` + . ♦ _ f : / �+ ; t . ; t
Paquest.
Tom Chock.
it
1119;� 1 r
•r- n,
W
J n j�
D..C,Vj! is
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
14. Consideration of an Appeal of the Decision of the Planning Commission
Relating to a Variance for Multi -Family Dwelling. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Murphy is proposing to build a 12 -unit apartment building on
three residential lets, Block 10, Wts 8, 9, and 10. With his
proposed 12 -unit apartment building, Mr. Murphy would like to have
eight 2 -bedroom units and four 1 -bedroom units. The amount of
square footage Mr. Murphy has within his three lots is 32,670 sq. ft.
The amount needed for what he is proposing is 33,500 sq. ft., which
would leave him with 830 sq. ft. short or an 830 sq. ft. variance
request. To be in conformance, Mr. Murphy would have to have
six 2 -bedroom units and six 1-hedroom units in his proposed 12 -unit
apartment building to conform to the minimum amount of square
footage allowed, which would be 32,670 sq. ft. with six 2 -bedroom
units and six 1 -bedroom units, he would have 32,500 sq. ft., which
would leave him an excess of 170 sq. ft., thus, being in conformance
with the minimum square footage for a 12 -unit apartment building.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance appeal request to allow a variance of 830 sq. ft
to build a 12 -unit apartment building with eight 2 -bedroom units and
four 1 -bedroom units.
2. Deny the variance appeal ruquusL and not allow an 830 sq. fL.
variance to build a 12 -unit apartment building with eight 2 -bedroom
units and four 1 -bedroom units.
3. Grant no variances at all and make him conform with the minimum
square footage allowed. Thus, lie would be allowed to build a
12 -unit apartment building with six 2 -bedroom units and six 1 -bedroom
uni La.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City utaff recommends denial of the variance request Citing instances
which set precedence buforo with Construction 5 and Choir project to
conform, therefore, staying in the realms of our Ordinance and having
Mr. Murphy conform by building a 12 -unit apartment building with six
2 -bedroom units and Six 1 -bedroom units.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Copy of the proposed location of the now 12 -unit apartment building.
C - 25 -
/I let,.,.'
,r �{ l f r I' 1 •~�' •trt J '
77
9 Liu
��;��s.. f�l..'. G r JJ tvfl •jj•` /�j-•;..�� l,.
.:�{jj' ',._"1 11' ",,,�,.:i "^+tJ �l:• if 4if• ,! ,'I. _"",,., i .rJ .��»•�J (ar trJ
.r, t
�.✓ �Co
NIGH WAY "too a N0, 84 t
1 'n love apt
- - .�,.�� ;' ��' n wet► '+.. •r�Z. �,�\ � ,.r'
Of
Council Agenda - 5/14/84
15. Consideration of the Quarterly Liquor Store RCPOLC. (R.w.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Mark Irmiter will be present at the Council meeting to review
with the Council the Liquor Store lst Quarter Financial Statements.
The statements, which are enclosed with your agenda, compare the
1984 1st quarter with 1963's 1st quarter.
Sales for the 1st quarter are up $16,724.00 or 10.50 over 1st quarter
last year with a gross profit increase of $7,556.00 or 24.92 over
same period last year.
Total operating expenses remain.^d about the same as last year resulting
in an operating income of $9,276.00. This is an increase of $7,478.00
over last year's lot quarter operating intone.
Total net income, which includes interest earnings on investments,
shows a 59,788.00 increase to $15,810.00.
The overall gross profit percentages on sales were at 21.490, which
appears to be in line with expectations.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: ,
No actiun is necessary other than review of quarterly statements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of lot Quarter Comparative Statements.
� -
26 -
MONITICELLO MUNICIPAL L101jori
BALANCE SHEET
MUNICIPAL L101JOR STORE
MARCH 31, 1984 AND 1983
A SSE'f S
CURRENT ASSETS
CASH IN BANK - CHECKING
s 31,530.38
a 22,908.17
CHARGE FUND
15000.00
1,000.00
CASH IN BANK - RESTRICTED
< 20.540.20)
20r540.20)
INVESTMENTS
2125695.00
149,316.57
INVESTMENTS - RESTRICTED
47,540.20
47.540,20
NSF CHECK - RECEIVABLE
48.67
66.51
INVENTORIES
89,439.51
911533.06
PREPAID INSURANCE
10r843.3�
I05966.27
URAMORTIZED BOND DISCOUNT
547.42
957.94
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
$ 3731104.32
---------------
3035918.52
PROPERTY AND EL'UIPMLNT
LAND
6,839,95
1 6,839.95
BUILDINGS AND IMPROMEMENTS
151,671.04
151t671.04
PARKING LOT
8,515.L0
E, 515.50
FURNITURE AND FlYlURES
58,480.31
4',481.69
ACCUM. DEF'R. - BUILDINGS
305239.72)
26,190.75)
ACCUM, DEPR-FURNITURE & FIXTURE
t 28,208.00)
%—.ACCUM. rJEF'R. - PARKING LOT
S-361.47)
-------------
< 4, 4,115.20)
TOTAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPHLNT
t 161P697.61
--------------
-- -----------
$ 15',,1680.78
I TOTAL ASSETS
531;801.93
- ------
$ 159,629.30
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL !-I[ZUOR
BALANCE SHEE'i'
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR.' STORE
t
MARCH 31, 1984 AND 1983
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
CURRENT LIABILITIES
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
PAYROLL N/H - PERA
SALES TAX PAYABLE
PAYROLL W/H - FEDERAL
SALARIES PAYABLE
ACCRUED SICK LEAVE E VACATIONS
PAYROLL U/H - STATE
PAYROLL W/H - FICA
BOND INTEREST PAYABLE
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
LONG-TERM LIABILITIES
BONDS PAYABLE
TOTAL LONG-I£RM LIABILITIES
TOTAL LIABILITIES
p�EOUITY
RETAINED EARNINGS
REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES
r,
TOTAL EOUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
i
li
1
t 28,505.73
40.00
5,481.38
424.40
1,195.40
1,74.38
261.00
272.94
715.00
s 38,370.23
s 65,000.00
-------------
s 6:;.000.00
--------------
t 103, 3'70.3
$ 30:284.54
162.58
3,392.21
538.20
954.20
952.81
26:j.00
466.68
1,519.00
38x535.27
" 85.000.00
--------------
4 85,000.00
S 123,635.27
475,627.19 330,071.63
15,810.5] 6,022.40
------------- -------------
s --431,4:51.70 s 336x094_03
-------------
534,801.93 4 459.629.30
rl's
SALES
L I GUOR
BEER
WIRE
OTHER HOSE
MISC. NON-TAXABLE SALES
DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS
TUT('.L SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
GROSS PROrIT
GENERC.L. AND ADIK. EYPEUSES
FtRSONAL SERVICES
:,Ai APIES, REGULAR
RA
10SURANCEt MEDICAL AND LIFE
'111'IAL SECURITY
707::( PERSONAL SERVICES
SUPPLIES
IjFEIEE SUPPLIES
LxLi1FKAL OrERATING SUPPLIES
9.'JVTFNPNCF or BLDG. SUPPLIES
TVT.*.L SUPPLIES
r,01!TICELLO MUP!I(;]F*AL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EYPERSES
MUNICIPAL LICUOR STORE
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 311 1984 AND 1983
CURRENT -PERIOD
CUR -PD
YEAR -TO --DATE
Y -T -I)
SAME -PD -LST -YR
PD-LYR
Y -T' -D -LST -YR
YTD -LY
AMOUNT
RATIO
AMOUNT
RATIO
AMOUNT
RATIO
AMOUNT
RATIO
s
57rl86.42
32.39 S
57rl86.42
32.39
$
54,968.81
34.40
54t968.81
34.40
92#565.83
n2.114
92P565.83
32.44
80Y344.17
50.28
80r344.17
50.28
2lr104.94
11.96
21Y104,94
11-96
17YB72.06
12.44
19t972.06
12.44
4s800.96
2.72
4F800,96
2.72
5033.07
3.59
5033.07
3.59
1w511.09
.86
11511.09
.86
.00
.00
.00
.00
638.55)
-------------
( .36) t
------
638.55)
( -36)
t
11111.49)
--------------
( .70)
lrIII.49)
( .70)
1.
1761530.69
200.01 s
176r530.69
100.01
s
I!_19PSO6.62
100.01
-------------
159r806.62
100.01
s(
138r598.55)
-------------
( 78.51)$(
-
138,598.55)
------------
( 78.51)
s(
129o430.00)
------------
( 80.99)4(
129p430.00)
( 80.99)
*
3.�r932.14
21.50 $
37t932,14
21.50
s
30F376,62
------
19.02 $
------------
30#376.62
------
19.02
*
141786.91
8,38 S
14,786.91
8.38
$
14,404.30
9.01 s
141404.30
9.01
669.51
.3f,
669.51
.38
716,85
.45
716.85
.45
11OR1.78
.61
It083.78
.61
553.16
.35
553.16
.35
787.S,*
------------
.45
--------------
787.54
A.5
------
705.21
44
705121
.41
*
17r327.74
9.0" s
17,327.74
9.82
s
-------------
16,3'79.52
------
10.25 $
16*379.52
------
10.25
s
11012"
103 s
58,24
.03
$
225.72
.14 S
225.72
.14
923.1.7
923.17
.52
402.92
.25
402.92
.25
.CD
--------------------
.00
--------------
.00
.00
------
367,40
.23
367.40
.23
981.�:l
.55 s
981.41
.i6$
-----------•--
---------- * --
996.0.4
------
.62 $
-------------
996.04
------
.62
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
STORE
FO^ THE ,THREE MONTHS
ENDLD HARCH 31, 1984, AND 1983
es•4,r_x�axr�m-•...egans:
._.......�,e:-e�r.....:r-::._.'..,,,:r4,.• r.•.. r: c_ r c e=c4,=:rcaCe=
CURRENT -PERIOD
CUR -PD
YEAR-TO-DATE
Y -T -D
SAME -PD -LST, -YR
PD-•LYR'
Y -T -D -LST -YR
YTD --LY
AMOUNT
kA7IO
AMOUNT
RATIO
AMOUNT
RATIO
AMOUNT
RATIO
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES•'(AU,DIT) s
330.00:
.-19 #
334.00
.19
s
'20.00
.:01'8
20.'00
.01
COMMUNICATION
130. 06,
.07
130.86
.07
160:72
i10
160.72
TR4VEL-CONFERENCE-SCHOOLS'
.00
.00
.00
.00
`102':83
.'06
-162.$3
.10
ADVERTISING
1NSUt(NCE, GENERAL
219.'31
2i946.98'
.12
1.67
219.31
2,946.99
.12
1.67
634.3
3r�1654 73
.40
1.14
63ti.35
,pb
.06
40
UTILITIES, ELECTRICAL
Ii3L4:'19'
.7i
1,359.19
.:7,7
A,S64.28
:92
34,105:73
1-,464.28
1.94
UTILITIES, HEATING
911`:32,
.52
911.32
.52
856,.00
..,fi
856.00
.92
U11LITIES, S E W
137,:21
.08
137.21
.08
43.34
.03
43.34
.S4
.03
BUM MEMBERSHIP, SUBSCRI.PTIOH,
30'.00'
.02
30.00
.02
100
.00
:00
.00
Tt:).ES AND LICENSES
.:,i:00
.00
5.00
.00
.00
.80.
.00
:oo
GARB.^.GF
247•.50
.1.
247.SO
.14
247.50
247:50
;.15
flEPR, - ACOUIRF:t tSSE1,5
2t73.".�34
1.55
2,734.34
1.tiu
2r�77'.83
'1..43
2:277.83
1.43
OTHER
':•00�
.00
.o0
.00
90:04
,.b6
90_.00
.06
TOTt:1. OTHER ;EP.VIC85 x CHlr'GESS
9:051.7.1
5.23 s
-------------
9,051.71
5.13
s'
-------------
90002.:.'..8
...64 2t
9'',002.58
4,5,61,
DFBT £F.RVICE
��NTFREST #.
1''.28:..13
.,73 $
1r285.13
.73
$
2,190.¢3
1.37 -s_'
21190:'63
1.37
PPYING t.GFP-T FEES
:10.08
.-0 1
10.00
.01
10'.'t)0
,_01
1prti0
.01
Tdit:t DEBT SERVICES s
1,295.13'
T,28i65i.,95r-
.7: S
-
1,29:1.13
-
.74
$
2r200:63
-_--
;1.3$ !
��
2,240.63
1.38
TOTP2. (iFNERrL S ,.DIM. EXPENSES$,
h.:24 S
28,655.99
---
16.24
# --_-28,57$:77
17.$9 # ._=
-28.`578:77
17.$9
TOTfA. OPERATING INCOMC- *
94,276.1:,
:,.2b S
9.4,276.15
5.26
s
1,,797.83'
---'---
1,.13 4
-----------c ------
1,797'85
1.13
UTHLR INCOHF. (EXPENSES)
iNTLkFST INCOME,
3.77 S
6,647.01
3.77
s
*2,260':39 2.67
4
54,260.39
2.67
OTHtRI INCOME
..00
.O0
.00
.00
21.00'
.01
21.00
.01
CPSH LOkt;l tlDRT {
------------
112.65) {
.06) t
_. -
112.65)
-------------
t .06)
{5b:8q'>
1
-
.04) t
56:$4), t
.pq}
TGTP2 CTHFR INCOME iEXPEHSES) #
6iwi34.34
_----------
1-;71 S
.-
6,534.36
-------------
-- __
3.71
----•----_
---------
s
�_
4i224.55
_..:_._,
2.64 s
--•- -^-----
:44,224.55
-2.64
HLT It%,(itis #'
15:810.,51
8:97 t
15,$10.51
8.97
s
6i022.40
_ 3.77 'S _
_
- -6,022.50 --3.7.7
____
as »n cYT C4ucK..c�tr.Gtrau alts, r�t•��.c:�•»•
.r.•r•crr.»-.•
-ae_ti=s:Rx.-r:-::
.-:{sr::.r.•:r
- -
.:sr.--a-amigh��rr.'c.
_ -
..-_a r:¢
r MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR Pace 1
GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT SOLD
1_ Fur the Period 01/01/84 to 03/31/84
:rr-r.>err---- ----__ :.-c ::nn a._.rc: vcm rr. ac•_ :'a-__ .., r. r.. =r_. ..=. =_ a_. r....-.--.-:.= .n.:. -r...=, r. n.... ,; ._e.--==acv=r...= .-.-...:....._-mreoer==o_.
1
Current - Period 1'esr - to - Date Same-Period--Laut-Yr Year -
to -Date -Last -YT -Amount X Amount X Amount 2 •Amount X
LIOUOR SALES
COST OF SALES - LIQUOR
GROSS PROFIT
BEER SALES
DEPOSITS AND REFUkDS
COST OF SALES - ELEk
GROSS PROFIT
WINE SALES
COST Of SALES - :fIt:r
GROSS PRnriT
_• 1
OTHER SALES
MISC. NOH-TAXA&LF. :LES
COST OF SALES - OTHER
LOST OF SALES - FREIGHT
GkOSS PROBIT
TOTAL. SALES
TOTC.L COST OF SALES
TOTAL GROSS PROFIT
s 571186.42
100.00 s
57,186.42
100.00 $
54,968.81
100.06 s
54r968.81
100.00
44x819.94
78.38
441819.94
78.38
---._...
43x869.21
------
79.81
------ -
43,869.21
--.._._..-----
79.81
------
-----------'-
$ 12.366. 8
-
-- --- -------------
21.62 $
::
12x366.48
C:: :-:.----•--•-
---
'
-1.62^ S
-Ta: Cf ::
11,099.60
::: :: f:R �T-:: :: ::-
20.19 $
a=a_.-_ ..-..G=xS
11,099.60
:S ::S'•= :•:'
20.19
..: -__ `
f%^--------
92#565.83
:: :: ::q: L
100.69
92,56:5.83
100.69
80.344.17
101.40
80.344.17
101.40
( 638.55)
< .69) (
638.55)
( .69) (
1,111.49)
< 1.40) (
11111.49)
( 1.40)
7 x417.32
80.95
74x417,32
8.0.95
64,973.10
-
82.00
64.973.10
82.00
-------------
$ 17x509.96
------ -
19.01 S
- -•- --
17,509.96
-
19.05 $
14,259.58
---------------
18.00 S
- -
14r239.58
- ---
18.00
1,104.94
100.00
21,104.94
100.00
19,872.06
100.00
19,872.06
100.00
13,461.38
63.7E
13,461.38
6.1.78
15,013.74
75.50
15,013.74
-- --
75.5,:1
-
------------
5 7r6.^3.:.,6
- ---••- -----------
36.22 4
7%643,56
36.22. s
4,858.32
24.45 s
--
4,858.32
24.45
4,800.96
76.06
4.800.96
76.06
5,733.07
100.00
5,733.07
100.00
1,511.09
23.94
1,511.09
23.9:
:00
.00
.00
.00
:x:018.79
79.51
5,018,79
79.51
4x686.91
81.75
4,686.91
81.75
881.12
13.96
881.12
13.96
887.04
15.47
887.04
15:47
---------------------------
412.14
6.53 s
412,14
-.-__.-.:
6.53 $
159.12
2.78 S
-r...
159.12
2.78
L
176r580.69
.., tn:r.:.
100.00
-_
17615.30.69
rr-'.-7 r, .ro
100.00
a.==r-:rl.: r.
159,806,62
,r,. r. :r.,
100.00
r.•r-•r. n•e: r_aa--
159x806.62
r -r__:
100.00
138,598.55
78.51
---
138,598.55
._.. _.. -
7L`,51
------
129x430.00
80.99
1291430.00
80.99
------` ------
s 37x932.14
------
21.49 $
37x932.14
-------
21.49 t•
30,376.62
19.01 S
30,376.62
19.01