Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda Packet 04-11-1988
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 11, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held March 28, 1988. 3. Citizens Comments/Pet itions, Requests, and Cortplaints. 4. Update on Well 83 Test Drillings. Consideration of Awarding Bid for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain JI �– Improvements on West County Road 39 - Grossnickle Property. 6. Consideration of Conradi ional Acceptance of Chelsea Road Im,Q7�rovement Project. 1;6/ /�Gte+•+-t rn l�Ri �e nJ �i.r„� C / I�jjM.l� �I 7. Considerationof CopF sion Building Plana`. /�� A _7_6//z".d�-,,.o�orP[1141S 41) 8. Consideration of Awarding Lds on L1 uor Store Landscaping. 9. Consideration of Walt M$c 's Resignation and Matt Theisen's Appointment as Superintendent. -L- 10. Consideration of Authorizing for Water Department Position and Posting of Opening with Union. 11. Consideration of Request for One (1) Day Sec-up/3.2 Beer License for Ducks Unlimited Banquet and One (l) Day 3.2 Beer License for July 3rd Celebration - Lions Club. �li 12. Adjourn. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, March 28, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: Arve Grimsmo 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Bill Fair to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held March 14, 1988. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Citizens Comments/Petition, Requests and Complaints. Community Education Coordinator Requests Mayor to Sign Proclamation Estaolishing April 24 through April 30 as Handicapped Awareness Week. Betty Held, Coordinator for Community Education for the Handicapped in Wright County, requested that the Mayor sign a Proclamation setting April 24 through April 30 as Handicapped Awareness Week. Held also distributed educational material pertaining to handicapped awareness. Held expressed her thanks for City assistance in promoting handicapped awareness among the citizens of Monticello. 4. Consideration of Request by Wright Flyers Model Flying Club to Use Old NSP Ballfields. Don Fisher, Leo Davis, and Bob Bayless were in attendance representing the Wright Flyers Model Flying Club. Mr. Fisher outlined the proposal calling for use of the Montissippi Ballfields for a model plane flying park. Fisher described the history of the Wright Flyers organization, which started in 1979 with 12 members and has grown to a membership of 60 individuals. The proposal outlined by the Wright Flyers Model Flying Club called for the converting of the old NSP Ballfields into a model airplane flying park. It was proposed that the City should lease the NSP property and make it available for use by the flying club. Under the terms of the proposal, the City would provide for mowing of grass and maintenance of the field, with Wright Flyers reimbursing the City for the cost of the grass mowing. The City would be responsible for removing the fences that now exist on the property. In return, the Wright Flyers suggested that they would provide liability insurance and attempt to enlist all potential users of the flying park into the Academy of Model Aeronautics which would serve to improve park safety. Members of the Council asked a number of questions regarding the use of radio controlled model airplanes. It was noted that the model airplanes can be controlled within a range of one mile. Liability coverage for the activity is set at $500,000. It was noted by City staff that the City would be exposed to some liability and that the liability coverage offered by the flying club only covers individuals that belong to that flying club. Council Minutes - 3/28/88 Dave Fisher from NSP was in attendance to answer questions. Fisher noted that it is not NSP's policy to lease property to organizations for recreational purposes. Warren Smith asked how the flying parks in other communities such as Fargo and Cedar Rapids have worked out. Don Fisher responded that he did not know of any problems in those communities with the model flying club parks. Smith asked also how many members of the club live in the Monticello area. Don Fisher stated that 78 percent live in the Big Lake -Monticello area. He went on to say that flying competitions are held on occasion which will draw up to 75 people. Bill Fair asked about the noise that the planes would generate. All planes must have mufflers and a decibal meter is used to guarantee that planes are not too loud was the response by Don Fisher. Warren Smith noted that the interest of the flying club in the Monticello area could possibly be viewed as an opportunity to the community. Dan Blon igen responded by saying that the City must draw the line somewhere, as only a limited number of Monticello citizens are involved with this activity. He went on to say that using tax dollars to sponsor this type of activity is not appropriate. Councilmember Bill Fair noted the difficulty in limiting a city park for use by one group. As the discussion came to a close, Public Works Director Simola stated that there might be some conflicts between users of Mont issippi Park and users of the flying park, as the noise generated from the flying park may disturb users of the quiet river park. There being no further discussion on this topic, a motion by Blonigen to deny said request. Motion seconded by Bill Fair, voting in favor of motion: Dan Slon igen , Bill Fair, Fran Fair. opposed: Warren Smith. Motion passed. 5. Consideration of Ballfield Concession Stand and Fees. .Teff Michaelis was in attendance representing the Softball Association. Staff presented Council with a building design and estimated construction cost. in addition, staff described alternatives by which the cost to maintain the field can be recovered by the users of the field, it was suggested by staff that the City would charge the Men's Softball Association $125 per team and $25 per field Pot weekend tournaments. This charge would be applied to adult activity and not to Little League or other juvenile sports activity. Jeff Michaelis stated that the Softball Association would have no problem with this fee structure, it was noted by a Monticello citizen that development of this field should be a priority for the City Council, as the field serves numerous teams and individuals in the area. A discussion of the type of facility or type of concession structure ensued. It was recommended by staff that the City construct a block structure, as long ZE Council Minutes - 3/28/88 term maintenance will be less expensive and problems associated with vandalism will be eliminated. Council asked the City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, if funds are available for this concession stand. wol_fsteller replied that a transfer of funds would be required to fund this project. There being no further discussion on this topic, a motion was made by Bill Fair to authorize the development of plans and specifications for a block building and authorize City to solicit bids. Motion seconded by Smith. Motion passed unanimously. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding Bid for Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, and Appurtenant work for Projects 88-018, County Road 39 East; 88-02, Dundas Circle; and 88-03, Grossnickle Project on West County Road 39. City Engineer, John Badalich, presented the bid results for said city project. He noted that bids were received and opened for the referenced project and that 13 bids were received. The bids ranged from a low bid of $487,424 to a high bid of $828,042. The low bidder was LaTour Construction for the $487,424 amount which includes an amount of $55,046 for Dundas Circle. He went on to say that OSM's estimate of construction cost based on preliminary reports of January 11, 1988, and an earlier estimate for Dundas Circle totaled $516,660. Badalich recommended the award of the project to LaTour Construction, Route 1, Box 76, Maple Lake, Minnesota. He went on to say that alternate bid, 88-03, is the Grossnickle Project which LaTour Construction bid at $39,181. He recommended that if the City wishes to proceed with Project 88-03, it should also be awarded to LaTour Construction Company. At this point in the meeting, Mrs. Grossnickle expressed her concerns about the high cost to improve her property and that high cost may make the project unfeasible. Mrs. Grossnickle was informed by staff and Council that the share of the costs is not as yet determined and that it is possible that the Golf Course could share in part of the cost, as they will be receiving benefit from the improvements. In addition, there is a possibility that the City could hold an amount in deferrment. Mrs. Grossnickle was urged to have the property appraised and determine what the increase in value of the property would be if it had sewer and water service. It was the conclusion of Council that the alternate bid would not be awarded without further input from Mrs. Grosanickle. Motion by Warren Smith to award trunk watermain, sanitary sewer, sanitary lift station, and appurtenant work, Project Nos. 88-01B, 88-02 to LaTour Construction for a total base bid of $487,424.30. Motion seconded by Bill Fair. Motion passed unanimously. See Resolution 88-8. C� Council Minutes - 3/28/88 7. Consideration of Continuing with or Abandoning Efforts to Complete Deep Well 03. A review of problems associated with the development of Well @3 was presented by John Simola. Simola noted that previous testing of the area had proved inaccurate and that staff was disappointed to find that the water quality and water quantity contained in the partially completed well is significantly below earlier expectations. Simola recommended that the City develop a small test well next to the present site. The test well would proceed well below the level of the existing well thereby providing the City with better information regarding the potential of the well site. In addition, it was suggested that the City develop a test well south of the present site. New information taken from other well logs in the area indicate that the liklihood of development of a well that can produce water in higher quality and volume is improved in an area south of the present site. After discussion, motion made by Warren Smith to approve further testing to determine if existing well should be drilled any deeper and develop a test well south of the present site. Motion seconded by Bill Fair. Motion passed unanimously. 8. consideration of Liquor Store Landscape Pian. After discussion, motion by Smith to approve landscape plan. Motion seconded by Bill Fair. Motion passed unanimously. 9. General Discussion Concerning Construction and Funding of an Elevated Water Storage Tank in the Industrial Park versus a Ground Level Water Reservoir an Monte Hill. Public Works Director Simola and City Engineer, John Badalich, outlined two alternatives for resolving problems associated with municipal water tower capacity and water system pressure. one alternative calls for development of a new elevated water tower estimated at 140 feet high on city property in Oakwood Industrial Park. The other alternative identifies development of a ground level water reservoir 60 feet high on top of the Monte Hill. It was noted by staff that the Monte Hill alternative is less expensive and will provide for greater storage capacity. After discussion, staff was directed to initiate talks with the township supervisors regarding development of the water reservoir on Monte Hill . council minutes — 3/28/88 (1 10. other Matters. Motion made by Warren Smith to cancel advertisement for bids on well pumphouse. Motion seconded by Bill Fair. motion passed unanimously. .here being no further business, meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, eff O'Neill Assistant Administrator Council Agenda - 4/11/88 Update on Well t3 Test Drillings. O .S.) A. REFERENCE AND HACRGROUND: At the last meeting, the Council authorized two additional test holes -- Test Hole ®3 to be performed in the area of Deep Well i3 near the reservoir, and Test Well 04 to be placed on City owned property just south of Dundas Road. The seismic testing performed by Minnesota Geophysical indicated we would hit granite at about 320 feet in the area of Deep Well ir3. 1t also indicated that further to the south the glacial till layers were becoming more significant and the sandstone layers less significant. Test Hole ¢3 was completed on Friday, April 1. It showed that the sandstone became firm at about 255 feet and that the granite was encountered at 325 feet. The granite was so firm at this particular spot that it caused a fracture in the drill rods, thus leaving approximately 100 feet of drill rod and bit in the hole. After many attempts to retrieve the drill rod and bit, it was cemented in place and left as the hole was closed. At the completion of the testing, we met with representatives of 034, Renner Well Drilling, and Minnesota Geophysical and discussed the possible cornpletion of Well 03. It was felt that the best possible way to complete Well d3 would be through the use of a screen placed in the open holed sandstone and gravel packed in place. In this particular case, they will be using a 14 -inch temporary casing placed to a depth of 255 feet. They will then open drill a 13 -inch hole from 255 feet to 325 feet. A full -depth, 8 -inch screen will be placed in the open hole and gravel packed around its entire diameter. Based upon the drilling information and information obtained from Johnson Screen, it is anticipated that the well would yield 1,000 gallons per minute. This, however, can only be determined after completion and development of the well. At this time, I do not have the cost for completion of the well. If it is available under separate cover by Friday afternoon, it will be hand -carried to you. if not, it will be presented at Monday evening's meeting. The Test Well p4 placed over at the City's property on the south side of Dundas Road showed an extremely good water bearing glacial till formation. There are enormous amounts of water bearing sands and gravels from 120 to 220 feet in depth. The aquifer Is overlaid by significant amounts of clay which would protect it from surface sources of pollution. Below the 220 foot level to a depth of 330 feet one encounters clays, shales, and mixed sandstones indicating a much reworked glacial drift. ME Council Agenda - 4/11/88 On Thursday, April 7, I had a representative from the Minnesota Health Department do a field survey for a possible well location at Test Hole @4. The individual from the Minnesota Department of Health indicated that it was an excellent site for a municipal well, and the test hole log indicated a high production well. This representative indicated we would have no problem getting approval for a municipal well at this location. At our Thursday, April 7, meeting, we discussed the possibilities of locating our primary well at Test Hole A4 and using Deep Well A3 only as a peaking, blending, or emergency well due to its more significant concentrations of iron and manganese. It is expected that the glacial formations encountered in Test Hole 14 would yield lower quantities of iron and manganese. We will be taking samples from Test Hole 14 as well as nearby agricultural wells to make this determination next week. If we were to develop our primary well in the area of Test Hole i4 south of Dundas Road, we could install a submersible puny in a pitless unit which does not require a pumphouse. We then could build a pipeline back to the reservoir and construct the original pumphouse as planned with some modifications. This pumphouse would then not only serve to add cholorine, polyphosphates, and fluoride for Deep Well A3, but it would also add those chemicals for Deep Well t4 or other wells developed in a well field in the area of the industrial park in the future. We will bring to the next Council meeting on April 25 some cost estimates of putting a primary well at Test Hole 14 and constructing a purphouse and connecting piping. For this meeting, we need only to concern ourselves with the completion of Deep Well A3. B. AI.TERmIATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to complete Deep Well 03 as outlined above with an expected capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute, fully realizing that the iron and manganese content may be such that the well would only he used for emergencies, blending, peaking, or at sometime in the future when the City needed water treatment. The cost of completion will be provided later. Our current costa are $11,000 for initial site investigation, $29,500 for Deep Well S3, and $3,000 for Test Hole 43, for a total of approximately $44,000. 2. The second alternative would be to abandon Deep well 13 and close it up, for a total investment of $44,000. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It Is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and City Engineer that if the cost of completion of Deep Well A3 is within reason, we -2- Council Agenda — 4/11/88 should cosplete this well. It oould serve as a backup well. It is in a different formation should the glacial drift formation aquifers have problem9, and it may ultimately yield less manganese and iron than was anticipated . D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of the log for Test Hole t3; Preliminary lot for Test Hole 14. —3- 55 A Hififilp i Bogs 1688 dARVIS STREET N.W./ELK RIVER: NIN 55=/(612)427-8119 p ''NCORPORATEO 427-610R. INT X FIFE, dr1 CT J' ,STECL I6G - C MING BAILED 51EL FP? K I18I a =CITY F 11IONTI(IM-0 ' ST 5 TEEL ##11 IT SCIiECti Y------------Y/WYNYYaWYYY �YYYY M 14r Rcw. 19?$ WELL DRILLING FOR FOUn GENERTIONS �/ ■/t � !!> 0 sums 5688 ARVIS S AEET N.W.! ELK R VERA Mk 53301(612)42T-6100 INCORPORATED it APRIL. 1988 ORR-SCHELEN-14AYERON E ASSOCIATES. INC. 2021 East Hennepin Ave Suite 0238 Minneapolis, Minnesota Attn: Mr Charles A. Lepat. P.E. SUBJECT: CITY OF MONTICELLO DEEP WELL 03 RE: COST ANALYSIS TO COMPLETE WELL AS PER CHANGE OF DESIGN Dear Sir. As per our meeting yesterday afternoon. I have listed the steps necessary to complete the existing deep wet 1 f3: Transport. Furnish & Weld in place 14" black steel casing 226ft $38.50 $8,701.00 Drill & Drive 14" casing 30 ft $58.SOtft $1.755.00 Drill 14" open hole [255 to 325ft] 70 ft $30.001ft $2,100.00 8" P.S. S.S. Screen 110ft $75.00Ift $8,250.00 Set 8" screen with J -hook 6hrs $115.001hrs $ 690.00 Centering guides 2 sets 565.001ea $ 130.00 Furnish & install Gravel pack !30 Eau Clare wash sand 80 bags $12.50/ea $1.000.00 B" leader pipe 40 ft $IS.201ft $ 608.00 Remove 14" liner [labor] 8 hrs $125.00lhr $1.000.0000) Credit for 14" liner 256 ft i18.501ft ($4,736.00) to include charges for trim/haul PAGE /1 /! I o • A Remove 18" liner [labor] 2 hrs $125.00/hr $ 250.00 Credit for 18" liner 20 ft $15.00/ft ($ 300.00) to include charges for trim/haul Furnish b install neat cement grout 240 bags $ 8.00 $1,920.00-. Furnish b Install air compressor 1 L.S. $ 500.00 Development 8 hrs $125.00/hr $1,000.00 Furnish 8 install Test pump 1 L.S. $1,500.00 Test Pumping 10 hrs $100.00/hr $1,000.00 Demobilization 502 $3,500.00 $1,750.00 Credit 24" casing 23ft $39.23 $ 902.29) TOTAL 25.215.71 If you have any questions concerning the scope of work involved in completing this well, please feel free to call me at 427-6100. Sincerely Submitted, Roger E. Renner, CWD/PI PRESIDENT E.11. RENNER b SONS, INC. STATE LICENSE 01015 RER/jr 24/26 encls. PAGE 02 , figymp 15688 ARVIS STREET N.W,/ ELK RI ERA WELL DRILLING FOR FOUR GENEPTIONS ✓ MN 5330/ (512)427-6100 INCORPORATED 8 APRIL, 1988 ORR-SCHELEN—MAYERON 8 ASSOCIATES. INC. 2021 East Hennepin Ave Suite 8238 Minneapolis, MN 55413 ATTN: Mr Charles Lepak SUBJECT: City of Monticello Deep Well 93 Project No. 88-OIA RE: PAY REQUEST /1 INVOICE I 10564 AMOUNT $ 28.091.50 Dear Sir, We have recently completed the installation of the 24" outer casing and the 18" liner. Work on this project has been placed on hold for futher y design changes due to the Ht Simon penetration in lieu of the sand and gravel anticipated. At this time, I ask that you review the following bid items for accuracy and subsequent payment: 1. Mobilization 50% $3.500.00 f 1.750.00 2. Furnish b drive 24" casing 202ft S 95.00 $19.190.00 3. Furnish b install 18" casing 202ft $ 35.00 $ 7.070.00 4. Furnish b drive 18" casing 24 ft $ 65.00 S 1,560.00 TOTAL $29.510.00 Less previous payments -00 Less 5% retainage f 1,478.50 TOTAL PAY REQUEST 01 $28.091.50 If you have any questions concerning this pay request, please Cali. 5 ncerel Sind, R.er E. Renner. CWD/PI PRESIDENT E.H. RENNER b SONS. INC. STATE LICENSE /71015 RER/jr 24/27 f sons INCORPO 29 iARCH. 1988 ORR-SCHELEN-14ATEROM 8 ASSOCIATES. INC. 2021 E Hennepin Ave Suite #238 Minneapolis, Minnesota ATTiI: Nr Charles A. Lepak. P.E. SUBJECT: CITY OF MONTICELLO RE: TEST WELL WELL DRILLING FOR FOUR GENERATIONS 15668 JARVIS STREET N.W./ELK RIVER, MN 55330/ 1612► 427.6100 Dear Sir, At the City Council meeting last night, the City of Monticello requested that E.H. RENNER 8 SONS, INC. install two monitoring wells. The monies alloted for these two wells was budgeted at $3.500.00 each. The following charges would apply for this work: 1. Mobilization/Demobilization 2 NO CHARGE 2. Drilling 64 borehole [site #11 320ft $6.00 $1.920.00 3. Abandon 64 borehole [site #1] 320ft $2.75 $ 880.00 4. Cloth sample bags C-200ft 40 .00 NO CHARGE 5. Glass sample jars [205-320ft] 25 $2.00 $ 50.00 6. Drill 7-7/8" borehole [site #21 200ft $7.00 $1.400.00 7. Install Steel casing 197ft $5.00 $ 985.00 8. Install Galvanized screen 5ft $30.00 $ 150.00 9. Install PVL casing 197ft $2.50 $ 492.50• 10. Install PVC screen 5ft $33.00 S 165.00• i1. Gravel Pack 5 sacks $6.00 $ 30.00 12. Grout 8"X4" well 180ft $2.00 $ 360.00 13. Cloth sample bags 0-100ft 20 .00 NO CHARGE 14. Glass sample jars 100-200ft 20 $2.00 $ 40.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS f5.815.00 If you have any questions concerning this estimate, please call me at my office at 427-6100. Sincerely Submitted. Roger E. Renner. CWD/PI PRESIDENT E.H. RENNER 8 SONS. INC. STATE LICENSE 071015 RER/fir--24/19 CC: City of Monticello Attn: Public Works Director E N Bever 6 Sari NCORPORATED AfRIt- 11 4 Ai2CfT. 1988 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 8 ASSOCIATES. INC. 2021 East Hennepin Ave Suite #238 Minneapolis, MN 55412 ATTN: Or Charles A. Lepak. P.E. WELL DRILLING FOR FOUR GENERATIONS 15668 JARVIS STREET NW. /ELK RIVER, NN 55330/16121421.6100 SUBJECT: CITY OF MONTiCELLO TEST WELL #3 & #4 RE: INVOICE # AMOUNT S 7.695.75 Dear Sir, We have recently completed the test wells #3 6 04 for the City of Monticello. Enclosed you will find the Drillers tog and the Minnesota Department of Health's Well Affidavit. 1 have also included the sieve analysis of these wells which was also given to you at our meeting on the 8th of April. 1988. Please review the following charge and with your approval submit our invoice enclosed to the City of payment: 1. ilobilization/Demobilization 2 NO CHARGE 2. Drill 64" borehole [site #3] 325ft $6.00 $1.950.00 3. Abandon 64" borehole (site #3] 325ft $2.75 $ 893.75 4. Cloth sample bags 0-200ft 40 .00 NO CHARGE 5. Glass sample jars (205-325ft] 26 $2.00 S 52.00 6. Drill 7-7/8" borehole (site #21 330ft $7.00 $2.310.00 7. Install Steel Casing 218ft $5.00 $1,090.00 8. install Stainless steel screen 4ft $39.00 $ 156.00 9. install PVL Casing 0 $2.50 .00 10. Install PVC Screen 0 $33.00 .00 11. Gravel Pack 27 bags $6.00 $ 162.00 12. Grout B" X 4" well 200ft $2.00 $ 400.00 13. Cloth sample bags 0-100ft 20 .00 NO CHARGE 14. Glass sample jars 100-330ft 46 $2.00 S 92.00 TOTAL 7..105.73 We air lifted test well 04 for 2 hours and installed a test pump foJ�l water quality sample to be analyized by the City of Monticello. PAGE I l.� 1� The following additional costs were incurred as directed: The cost to air lift 2hrs $95.00 $190.00 Furnish, install & remove test pump L.S $100.00 Test pump well 4hrs $75.00 $300.00 TOTAL INVOICE $7.695.75 If you have any questions concerning this invoice or the work performed in these two test wells, please fell free to call me at 427-6100. Sincerely Submitted. Roger E. Renner, CWD/PI PRESIDENT E.H. RENNER b SONS. INC. STATE LICENSE 071015 RER/jr 24/19b ENOLS. DACE 02 >T.R ttr YW.LlQ7� U[+•t1Y1.T w 1114TH WA TEA WELL RIC] a0 "'"rriO r'u+rocr +rLr ,vW I Wi°ht ( , .�..»_,.. ,.+. *ABAYDONED IddntiCel ta lw 121 ZS �� 24ry!`1111 .I!E'WE 325 4...... :.....w•s.w.-.w.:r...s w.r .....w .. a«A.1 W.s �! JYIW.G .ITMUJ 20 from Deep Uel 1 #3 on Che Iso Rd_ #3 Cant .wl. `g...« +Q 1.... S ..a1.w YW6[ �1u City of Honticello -• 250 E. Broadway St. «... c Monticello. 1.111 55362 None •» ^ ..- ..^ ,._ Rocky Sand Brmm I 0 ( 5 I •" - Wed. Sand Brorn 5 1 ?S I• u»r• W i ilea. Sand DU 3ray I 25 ( 30 W>• None —^ Stocky Clav in an*.. o Rocky Clay (Brn/Gray ! ( 40 45 Clay fStirkvI GyP Clay (Sticky) Gray 60 ! 70 +> rc+u•>: Silty San A 1n gpj.�_ ..y... Q.... a....««« Clay Luray j 80 BS".Pumped Fine Sand I I:r> r I nG I Tin'). .....-..—Not �,. Clay „ray !t 105 120 ^ ^- «-a+ ••- RnrkXC1nv Rocky Clay iRed/Orn 135 155 1.10,1 San Lown«« ( � tGG� Rocky Clay Red/Brn 1601 175 a .c mmo, 1'310v. Q. 65 Sacksu"ravel jBrn i I I 1y51o..«c+�• 1,- a. ndsone Ila n I " Gr �,, Portland 325 -Urf.« ., Sandstone 6 Shale IUhite I 2101 245 tion- = Sand-Unnn 04..6 ,. G, -1 nt Shale 3 Sandstone iYellow 250) 20] 1 .wuR>ou>c=ma>,�u co.r."i•.nm r • I "4 4 Shalee Sandstone Pk/YelIor 2601 275 •^�W-�•�• Q - �. > n rr Shale Vh i to `n 237 295 a• -^Jw r1^"° Q "- ,.«+. Sandstone 3 Shale (shite/Red ( 300 310 Sandstone 5 Shale (;lhite I 315 325 siren ft O .1...•n.. 0/T.... a .. ...r 1> r.i([.LLL Cf>..T4rT0.t [r.TW1G.i[.1 E, H. RP purr 3 Sons 71015 St. NU Elk 187e; Victor PrauaK; 2-30-D8 WORK COPY ! e,: TEST HOLE 04 FORMATION LOG COLOR FROM TO Soft Dark Gravel Brown -Green 0 45 Smooth Soft Clay Grey 45 75 Silty Sand Grey 75 105 Rocky Clay 105 110 Gravel with Clay Lenses 110 120 Gravel 120 150 Medium Sand 150 175 Clay Grey 175 178 Medium Sand 178 180 Gravel 180 205 Clay Grey 205 207 Gravel 207 220 Sand with Clay Lenses 220 240 Soft Sand 240 260 Rocky Clay/Med. Sharp Gravel Grey 260 270 Soft Gravel Tan -Rust 270 285 Pieces of Sharp Sandstone Tan 285 295 Medium Rubbery Shale Grey 295 305 Broken Sandstone Glacial Drift 305 310 Shale Medium Glacial Drift Brown 310 325 Medium Shale White -Lt. Green 325 330 Council Agenda - 4/11/88 5. Consideration of Awarding Bid for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Improvements on West County Road 39 - Grossnickle Property. (R. W. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last Council meeting, the City accepted the low bid from LaTour Construction of Maple Lake for the sanitary sewer, watermain, and appurtenant work for Projects 88-01B, County Road 39 East Project; and 88-02, Dundas Circle Project in Oakwood Industrial Park. La7bur had bid $39,181.35 for the 88-03 Project, which consisted of extension of sewer and water on West County Road 39 to serve Bette Grossnickle and the Monticello Country Club. This portion of the project was not awarded to enable Mrs. Grossnickle and the Country Club to review the bid price and for the City to review the estimated assessments that would pertain to this project. At this meeting, a decision will have to be made whether the project will proceed; and the Council will have to indicate the approximate assessment that is anticipated for the three parcels proposed by Mrs. Grossnickle and the one for the Monticello Country Club. In taking the base bid of $39,181 and adding all indirect cost for engineering, bonding, etc., the total cost of this improvement would be $49,760. If this cost was entirely assessed to the benefiting property owners, each parcel if split between four units would total $12,440 each. The original feasibility study done in February was redesigned by OSM to also provide a future connection for the Country Club property. The Country Club will be discussing the sewer and water cost at their meeting Saturday evening; and I should have available input from the Country Club as to whether they would be in agreement with the project being extended to their property. The Council certainly has the option of holding another public hearing and assessing their property for a portion of this cost if it is determined that they benefit from the improvement. The first indications are that the Country Club will eventually in the next few years probably need the sewer and water extensions, especially if the clubhouse is enlarged. The $12,000 assessment is assuming that three units would be charged to the Grossnickle property for each of the lots created and one unit for the Country Club, but it's also the Council's option to assess the properties in a different manner if it is determined that the Country Club should actually pay more than one residential unit pays. In reviewing the total cost of the project, including indirect cost totaling $49,760, there certainly is soma merit to the City picking up a portion of the cost covering patching of County Road 39 and the oversizing cost from a 6 -inch watermain to an 8 -inch watermain. This cost estimated at $4,370 plus the indirect cost would mean the City could justify possibly picking up $5,500 of the project cost on ad valorem taxes, which would reduce the assessable portion to approximately $44,200. This would still result in each parcel, if equally split, having an $11,050 assessment. Although ultimately Mrs. Grossnickle and the Country Club should indicate whether the project should proceed, if —4. Council Agenda - 4/11/88 they feel the cost seems excessive, it may still be in the City's best interest in the long run to proceed with the project if Mrs. Grossnickle's home and the Country Club are ever going to be served with city utilities. The reason is, the cost will never be cheaper; and the Council will probably be faced with the same problem in the future should the Country Club have problems with their on-site septic system. Although at first glance the $11,000 plus assessment per parcel might seem excessive, the Grossnickles were asked in 1978 whether they had an interest in sewer and water being extended to their property; and at that time, they requested not to be included in the project. The assessments for the Country Club Manor and the golf course lots along 39 in 1978 totaled $5,100; and if this cost was inflated by the 6-1/2 percent interest that has accumulated on those previous assessments, the current balance would be approximately $9,000 in today's dollars. As a result, an $11,000 assessment is not as excessive as it might have originally seemed. Mrs. Grossnickle was asked to provide an appraisal of her property as it exists today without sewer and water, which has been appraised by Edina Realty at $130,000. Edina Realty also feels the property, if allowed to be split into three parcels, with sewer and water available would have a total market value of between $145,000 and $160,000. From an economic standpoint, it would appear that Mrs. Grossnickle would be better off ' selling her property as it exists today for the appraised value of $130,000 rather than subdividing her property and incurring assessments of $33,000 plus. By the time Bette completes the subdivision requirements along with providing a common driveway for two lots, she will incur additional costs of close to $5,000 plus the assessments. Mrs. Grossnickle certainly has to weigh the cost versus the benefit and decide whether it is worth the effort to create a new lot. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to award the bid to LaTour in the am,)unt of $39,181 and to assess the benefiting property (Grossnickle and Country Club) for all of the project cost, which would amount to approximately a $12,440 assessment per parcel. 2. The second alternative would be to also award the contract but reduce the assessable portion by approximately $5,500 for the watermain oversizing and street patching and assess the abutting property owners approximately $11,050 each. 3. The third alternative would be to determine the project is not economically feasible and eliminate it from the contract with LaTour. -5- Council Agenda - 4/11/88 C. STAFF RDOOMMENDATION: In regards to the project cost, there appears to be justification for the City picking up a portion of the project cost for the watermain oversizing and street patching of County Road 39 that would total $5,500. The remaining portion of the project cost estimated at $44,200 would typically be assessed to the benefiting property owners. The staff does not have a firm recommendation on how the assessment should be pro -rated other than if the Council feels the Country Club is equivalent to one residential unit, there would be four units that would share in the cost making each assessment approximately $11,050. Naturally, if Mrs. Grossnickle does not feel this cost is feasible for her to assume in order to subdivide her property, the project can be terminated; but as I indicated previously, the City may be faced with extending sewer and water in the future should the Country Club encoLmter any difficulties with their septic system. More than likely, the cost will continue to escalate in future years; and it may be appropriate to proceed with the project at this time. Although the proposed assessments would be a little higher than normal, the opportunity did exist for these parcels to receive the improvements in 1976; but they did not have any interest at that time. The cost of public utilities has increased substantially in the past nine years, and I don't believe there is much justification in asking the city residents to pick up anymore of the project cost than has / already been proposed. The real decision now becomes the property l owner's and the Council to determine what's in the best interest of both the City and affected property owners. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of Edina Realty's appraisals on property without being subdivided and after subdivision with sewer and water available. -6- Edina Real,Nty West Suburban/Wright Co./Monticello Office P.O. Box 66, 6th and Walnut, Monticello, Minnesota 55362 • (612) 295-3456/Metro 338-4334 )fco-I S La P * '\'�\ P ,-) ,.—,4 be p �� .�., rv,a�t �« % � 16 OQ L-at Q v'--"� oa "".A- 5 wIz —kLA ba #4 \\o 000 ac , o 00 — 8o k �9 0 r TL� �..+- C,�tin•r 19 a2,ouO o.. ,a Rk"'m 4 tVs,00u - & 1�uvoo r@N QEsLTOAS © MLS (S� V Edina Realty West West Suburban/Wright Co./Monticello Office P.O. Box 66, 6th and Walnut, Monticello, Minnesota 55362 • (612) 295-3456IMetro 338-4334 44 COS -4. AC. ��A REALTORS© MLS 45 73 �o P ' ! - 4- oU a �,6 y1�5 u.,.��„o,ar� C'.�� S�`•' n steuM AI and o,' )1.aftc d we ►len\. \o+ 81 Edina Realt West Suburban/Wright Co./Monticello Office P.O. Box 66, 6th and Walnut, Monticello, Minnesota 55362 • (612) 295.3456/Metro 338-4334 � j3o, o"0000 19 QEALTOQS ID MLS V Council Agenda - 4/11/88 6. Consideration of Conditional Acceptance of Chelsea Road Improvement Project. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the request of Mr. Jim Boyle and his engineer, Bill Block, I am reluctantly placing on the agenda this item for your consideration. Although I don't believe a lot of progress has been made since the ODuncil last considered this item in November of 1987, with the School District recently utilizing the Middle School as of April 5, 1988, Mr. Boyle and his engineer, along with concerns of the School District, are bringing this matter to your attention. To sumarize past Council action on this natter, Mr. Block appeared before the Council on October 26, 1987, to seek approval of redesigning the drainage for Chelsea Road by incorporating the ponding and drainage requirements into the ditch right-of-way. At the November 9 Council meeting, Mr. Block requested Council approval to widen out the ditches in the area of the culvert in the central portion of the project in an effort to eliminate the requirement of a pond elsewhere within the project site. As you will recall, the City staff had many concerns over allowing ponding to occur within the right-of-way, as we felt it could become a hazard and a potential liability if the pond did not drain or evaporate quickly enough during a large rainstorm. Some problems with this design were apparent this spring when the pond along the ditch came within a few inches of overflowing onto the road surface before the frost left . we've always talked about this alternative being only a temporary solution to the ponding requirements of the entire development and that it was certainly recommended if approved in this manner, an alternate route be established that could provide drainage to an off-site location as the development progresses. Enclosed with your agenda are copies of the October 26 Council meeting and November 9 meeting whereby all of the concerns of the staff members were outlined concerning items that had to be completed before the City should accept the project. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Boyle March 17, 1988, which again surnmarized the concerns of the City before the project should be brought back to the Council for approval. Mr. Bill Block has submitted a letter indicating how they plan on addressing all of the City's requirements and will be requesting that the City conditionally accept the road based on their response to each of the issues. 1. Ponding Requirements. Tho drainage ponding established within the right-of-way could possibly be accepted by the City as a to ram solution for the drainage requirements of this developmeded an acceptable casement is given to the City that would allow the water to be discharged to a new pond easement established south of Chelsea Road. -7- Council Agenda - 4/11/88 Mr. Block has indicated in his letter that they would be willing to provide an easement for a future ponding area, but they have not completed their development plans and as such do not have an exact location at this time. As a compromise, it is recommended that the City retain its present ponding easemenL nurth of Chelsea Road until such time as an alternate solution is provided by the developer. 2. Completion of Project. In regards to the final grading of the ditches and turf restoration of the ditches, Mr. Boyle and Mr. Block have agreed to finish the project as required according to specifications. The City staff has no problem with this provided an adequate amount of the escrow funds still available is withheld for the completion of this portion of the work. In regards to gate valve adjustments, Mr. Block has indicated the gate valves will be adjusted to the new final grades; but they appear reluctant to be responsible should any of them be damaged. Mr. Block is in error in assuming the gate valves were in place prior to this project, as Rehbein was the contractor that installed all of the services and gate valves in addition to the sewer line. As a result, we recommend that City staff verify that there are no damaged gate valves prior to acceptance. As far as the manhole adjustments are concerned, the City has no problem with $1,500 being withheld from Bauerly Brothers' final payment as they have proposed. 1. Easements. A. As noted in the discussion on the ponding within the right-of-way, it is certainly recommended that the City does not release the easement north of Chelsea Road until a new easement and drainage area have been established soutW37 Chelsea Road. In regards to items B, C, and D under easements in Mr. Block's letter, these items do not necessarily have to be resolved at this time, as they do not materially affect whether the City accepts the road or not. 4. Payments. A. L 6 G Rehbein. The City staff certainly does not argue with Mr. Boyle,e contention that Rehbein did not have any basis for filing a lien on the property. The only concern the City has 1s whether to accept the road with a lien against the property knowing full well that there are contractors and individuals who have not been paid for work performed on the project. According to our City Attorney, it has always been his recommendation that the City not get involved with accepting the road until the lien issue has been resolved. Although the City would probably not ever be liable for any of the liens, the City could be brought into any litigation and as a result be incurring attorney's fees. I'm not exactly sure how binding any letter Mr. Boyle provides us is in regards to a hold harmless agreement. If the -e- Council Agenda - 4/11/88 Council feels comfortable that a letter from Mr. Boyle will hold the City harmless, you may certainly accept this; but the staff has always proposed to Mr. Boyle that he either provide a letter of credit as an escrow amount to cover any potential liens or another suggestion has been for him to place an amount with the Courts equal to the amount of liens that have been filed if he actually feels there is no basis and he could definitely win the case. 5. Warranty Bonds. The City certainly has no problem in accepting a one-year warranty bond from Bauerly Brothers as proposed, but the City has also required in the past that the bond cover all the work performed on the project. In this case, a bond should have been provided by L 6 G Rehbein for the sewer and water work performed; and it certainly appears due to Rehbein's bankruptcy that this will not be provided. The staff has previously proposed to Mr. Block and Mr. Boyle that possibly some other type of guarantee could be substituted instead of an actual warranty bond from the contractor. One suggestion was that since the project has been completed for nearly a year, the City could be justified in accepting a cash bond, letter of credit, or some other type of warranty from Mr. Boyle for 10 percent of the project cost rather than 100 percent. In this case, the utilities were approximately $150,000 and possibly a $15,000 bond or letter of credit could be acceptable. The problem the staff has is if the Council accepts this project without any type of warranty bond on the utilities, a precedent will be set whereby it may be hard to require future developers to provide any type of warranty bond on their projects. The City is currently faced with the same situation involving improvements constructed by ouintin fanners along Kenneth I.ane in Ritze Manor. Mr. fanners also did not get a warranty bond from his contractor and as such, he is faced with the same situation. I am sure he is anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Council's action on Mr. Boyle's project in that if the warranty bond requirements is waived, he will certainly be asking for the same consideration. In light of the fact that the contractor has filed bankruptcy, this may be a special circumstance and require special consideration; but it would certainly seem appropriate to require Mr. Boyle to at least put up a percentage of the norms] warranty bond requirements as an alternative. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to conditionally accept the project as proposed provided all of the normal city requirements are met (summarized in my March 17, 1988, letter to Mr. Boyle) . -9- Council Agenda - 4/11/88 2. The second alternative would be to conditionally accept the road according to the terms presented by Mr. Block in his letter of April 7, 1988. 3. The third alternative would be to conditionally accept the road based on a combination of conditions the Council would like to determine. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although there is probably no one more anxious than myself and John Simola to see this matter resolved, it was the Council's decision and also the recommendation of our City Attorney that the Council should not accept the road until all of the requirements have been met of a normal development. Although it appears most of the items can be resolved with the balance of the money left in the escrow funds totaling about $10,000, the main issues really become 1) does the City want to accept the road knowing there is a lien filed for unpaid contractors; and 2) does the City want to waive the warranty bond requirements. The staff feels that if Mr. Boyle would deposit with the Court system an amount equal to the liens currently recorded, this would appear to eliminate any possible liability of the City. Also, it certainly appeared reasonable in requesting Mr. Boyle to provide a cash bond or letter of credit equal to 10 percent of the normal warranty bond requirements in lieu of a 100 percent warranty bond. Although Mr. Boyle has indicated he has no desire to do either one of these items, it still seems the Council will be setting a precedent if it accepts the project without all of our normal conditions being satisfied. On the other hand, the staff would certainly like to see this subject come to an end as soon as possible. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of the October 27 minutes; November 9 minutes; March 17 letter to Jim Boyle from the City; April 7 letter from Block to the City. -10- KIND" ES REGDLAR MEETING - MONfICELLO CITY COQf7CM Monday, Octeber 26, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent. None 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Bill Fair, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 13, 1987. Voting in favor was Arve: Grimsmo, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blcnigen. Abstaining was Fran Fair due to her absence at the last meeting. 3. Citizens Comments. Mr. Bill Block, Consulting Engineer for the Chelsea Road Project owned -by Jim Boyle, appeared before the Council to update the status of the Chelsea Road Improvement Project. Mr. Block noted that he has been working with the City's Consulting Engineer in redesigning the drainage for the road and noted that they are currently working on the final stages of the construction, including ditch grading along with seeding, etc. Mr. Block noted that they are working on changing some of the drainage plan from the original concept and are hoping to get the project completed before frost this fall in order for the City to be able to accept the street and utility construction. Mayos Grimsmo advised Mr. Block to continue working with the City Engineer and City staff; and if Council action is needed on any changes, the items rhould be presented to the staff for presentation at the next Council casting. {. Consideration of Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide an Existinq Onplaetteo Lot into Two Unpiatted Lots. Applicant, Deeole Kramer. Debbie Kramer requested final approval to subdivide approximately a 3 -acre parcel of land along Minnesota Street into two separate parcels containing approximately 2.07 ,acres and .92 acres. The Planning Commission recently approved the simple subdivision request, but the City Engineer brought to the attention of the Council that the surrounding property owner, Tyra Brennan, is currently in the process of submitting a Preliminary plat which indicates the extension of a frontage road/collector road that would lead from Minnesota Street to Elm Street. The preliminary plat proposed indicates that a portion of ons of the lots owned by Debbie Kramer would be used for a road easement and thought this may be the appropriate ties to obtain the easement from the Kramers before the subdivision was approved. Council Agenda - 11/4/87 Consideration of Accepting Revised Drainage Plan and Criteria Necessary Before Acceptance of Cneisea Road Pro3ect. tJ.S.i A. REPERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At our last Council meeting, Mr. Bill Block, the Civil Engineer for Jim Boyle, came before the Council under citizens comments to request a modification in the ponding requirements for Chelsea Road. The Council requested that Mr. Block meet with staff and bring this item back to the Council as a formal agenda item. On Friday, October 30, City staff, Rick and myself, met with Bill Block and John Badalich at City Bail. Mr. Block was concerned with meeting the ponding requirements but also finaling out the project so that the City would take it over for ownership and maintenance. The following is a list of those items which were discussed. Ponding Requirements. Mr. Blocks proposal is to widen out the ditches in the area of a culvert in the central portion of the project. The majority of the water from the central portion of Chelsea Road would flow down the ditches into this area of street right-of-way and sit until it was evaporated or soaked into the granular soils. The rationale for ponding the water on the street right-of-way rather than a pond for the development is the uncertainty of how the property will develop. Mr. Block intends to berm all of the property draining to the road ditch so that the road ditches only carry the water from the road itself. In our discussions we informed Mr. Block that if the City were to allow this temporary ponding of water on the right-of-way that certain precautions would have to be taken to see that water did not sit in these areas for long periods of time. The precautions taken could be utilizing a sandy topsoil and/or utilizing a strip of crushed rock in the ditch bottom so that the ditches would not become sealed. In addition, we talked about the need to still require an easement for an outlet and an easement for a pond so that this temporary ponding in the ditch right-of-ways could be drained at some future time without the City being forced to purchase or condemn property. 2. Completion of the Project. A. Ditchin . Prior to acceptance, the ditching would have to be completed. B. Erosion Control. we discussed the need to place black dirt, seed, and mulch in the road ditches and back slopes for erosion control. It was the general consensus of the group that the seeding and mulch should wait until next years but the City should be provided prior to acceptance the necessary funds to complete this work. This could be in the form of an escrow account. Council Agenda - 11/9/87 C. Gate valve Adjustments. There were a rumoer of gate valves sticking up in the ditches that could be hazards; and these valves need to be adjusted prior to acceptance by the City. D. Manhole Adjustment. There is a problem with the manhole adjustments made by Bauerly Brothers on the project. The manholes were left lower than specified; and to correct this, Bauerly Brothers made a large dish around the manholes. This dish causes a rougher riding surface as well as collection of water and ice. ':he City of Monticello Public Works Director and the inspector for Orr-Schelen-Mayeron both informed Bauerly Brothers prior to the start of the job how the manholes were to be set. :'he inspector for OSM informed Bauerly Brothers during the job that the manhole adjustment was unacceptable and discussions with Bauerly Brothers' Superintendent after the job again pointed out the manhole adjustments were unacceptable. If this work is not rectified prior to completion, an escrow fund should be established to have this work completed in the spring. 3. Easements. A. Revocation of the Existing Ponding Easement. There is an existing pond easement to the north of the culvert in the central portion of the project. This pond was not utilized at this time. It is the consensus of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and I believe the City Engineer, that we should not revocate this ponding easement without having alternate easements or ponds for future draining of the road ditch ponding. One scenario that could exist is that Ms. Boyle could sell off all of the property along Chelsea Road in five acre increments, and the City could be left without a method to deal with its road ditch ponding. 8. Narrowin.9 of the Sewer Easement for the School. Currently, there exists a bO-root wide easement running from Chelsea Road southerly to the school property. Mr. Badalich felt that this easement could be narrowed to 30 feet. Additional Sewer Easements. Since tnere was a change in the sewer plans, an additional section of sewer was put in for the school on Mr. Boyle's property. Mr. Boyle needs to grant the school an easement for this line to exist. In addition, the City would wish to have an easement along the southerly line of Boyles property toward County Road 118 so that we could utilize the sewer system in the future by installation of a force main along this property line. If this is done, the City would maintain the sewer an the 30 -toot easement from Chelsea Road to the school property line. Council Agenda - 1119187 4. Payments. The -City staf`_ has informed tar. Bill Block that it has been past Policy not to accept a project for City ownership and maintenance until the project is completely free and clear and that all people owed money from the project have been paid. Mr. Block contends that the City should not worry about this and that it is really Mr. Boyle's problem and not the City's should some of the suppliers or contractors not get paid. The following is a list of those individuals we know of owed money on the project. A. L 6 G Rehbein. There currently exists a dispute between L 6 G Rehbein Company and Bill Block in regard to final pay quantities and change orders on the project. The L 6 G Rehbein Company has not paid several of its suppliers of materials and supplies for the job. B. Bauerly Brothers. There currently is a dispute with Bauerly Brothers Construction, who performed the Class 5 and blacktop work on the project. There was an overrun of approximately 35 percent in the Class 5 quantities due to some type of error in elevations on the project. Mr. Block and Bauerly Brothers have yet to meet and finalize the quantities on the project. In addition, the manhole adjustment problem is Baueriy's. C. Topographic Maps Provided by the Citi. The City of Monticello provzdea topographic maps to Mr. Boyle and Bill Block so that they could determine the ponding requirements for the project. There is an outstanding balance owed the City of $1,994.22 for these topographic maps. D. Bill Block and Associates. Mr. Block rias pertormeo the engineering for Boyle's project and has not yet been paid. There may be enough funds in the construction fund to pay Mr. Block depending upon the final outcome of the disputes with the contractors. If not, the City would require a lien waiver from Mr. Block. E. Busey Construction. Busey Construction was hired to complete the ditching and black dirt, seeding, and mulching on the project. :Isere was a contract with Bauerly Brothers to complete the pond and all of the black dirt and seeding. it is my understanding that Bauerly Brothers refused to do this work, and Mr. Block and Mr. Boyle hired Busey Construction to finish the job with exception of the ponding. There should be evidence provided that Busey Construction has been paid. 0 Council Agenda - 11/9/87 S. Sign Off. Thefo owing sign-off's or approvals are necessary before the City accepts the job. A. City Engineer. The C_ty Engineer shouldindicate in writing that he has inspected the job and it meets the minimum requirements and standards set forth by the City of Monticello. B. Bill Block. Mr. Block, as the engineer, should provide a complete set of as builts detailing all of the existing elevations on the sanitary sewers, manholes, ditch bottoms, etc. Mr. Block should provide information as to the correctness of his as builts and that the project is properly constructed. C. School District. It would be in the best interest of the school and the City of Monticello if the school would sign off on the project giving their acceptance of the road and that it meets the conditions of their agreements with Mr. Boyle. D. Bonds. Ic is the City's polity at the final acceptance of a project to obtain a one-year warranty bond from those contractors or developers involved in the project. All of the specifications which we approve prior to the start of any project which the City may take over have this bonding and warranty requirement built in. The specifications for Chelsea Road have such requirements in that performance bonds are required which must remain in effect for one year after acceptance of the project. It is my understanding, however, that Mr. Boyle decided not to require these bonds at the last minute from his contractors in order to save money. We have informed Mr. Block that we must have one-year warranty bonds from the contractors or from the developer prior to acceptance of the project. Both the City Administrator and myself feel very strongly about this issue. our final discussion of the meeting centered around the problem of the bonds and obtaining lien waivers from such parties as L b G Rehbein, who are currently having some financial difficulties and were in dispute with Mr. Block. we informed Mr. Block that the City had accepted a lien waiver bond in the past on a project and the City Attorney found it acceptable, as it protected the City against future liens. Mr. Block again reiterated his feeling that the City should not require final payments and that it would be Mr. Boyle's problem. Mr. Woifateiler indicated that he would check with the City Attorney on this matter: but in all likelihood, the City would not change ita policy for a single project. •e- Council Agenda - 11/9/97 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to accept the road and sewer system for ownership and maintenance by the City of Monticello at the completion of those items and conditions as listed in the text of this agenda supplement. 2. The second alternative would be to negotiate with Mr. Boyle and Mr. Block on one or more of the above items and/or modify our existing policies in some way. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff would like to see a speedy completion of this project and acceptance by the City as soon as possible. There is a great deal of concern by the School District that the road be accepted and maintained by the City prior to the opening of the middle school in January or February. There are, however, a great number of loose ends on this project, many of which should not be overlooked. There is a consensus by the staff that if the road is accepted by the city with loose ends still existing that these loose ends will never be tied off unless done so at City expense sometime in the future. We, therefore, recommend that the Council follow alternative number one as closely as possible while keeping an open mind to the school's requests for a speedy acceptance by the City. we will meet with Mr. Block and Mr. Shelley Johnson prior to Monday's meeting to see what can be accomplished ahead of time. D. SUPPORTING DATA; Map from Mr. Block showing new ditch ponding; Updated copy of construction fund balance. -g. 0 Council Minutes - 11/9/87 purchase the bleachers and benches for the new softball complex from Stadiums Unlimited in the amount of S7,332 and to authorize the purchase of fencing for the Fourth Street Park from Trojan Fence in the amount of S3,584.71, including the seasonal fence sockets. 7. Consideration of Accepting Revised Drainage plan and Criteria Necessary Before Acceptance of Chelsea Roac Prosect. At the previous Council meeting, Mr. Bill Block, the engineer for Jim Boyle on the Chelsea Road project, appeared before the Council to request a modification in the ponding requirements for Chelsea Road. Mr. Block noted that he had been working with John Badalich, City Engineer, on an alternate method for providing drainage within the street right-of-way along Chelsea Road rather than developing a pond within the adjacent property, as currently the owner was uncertain as to how the property would develop and where an actual drainage pond should be located. Mr. Boyle and his engineer had requested City approval of the ponding modification in an effort to proceed with closing out the project so that the City could accept the road and utilities and take over maintenance as soon as possible. A staff meeting was held with Mr. Block and City Engineer, John Badalich, concerning additional problems that were needed to be corrected before final acceptance by the City. Although there were some minor construction problems that had to be completed by the contractor, two areas were discussed which the City requires before acceptance of a pro}ect, including lien waivers indicating that all suppliers and contractors have been paid in full and a one-year warranty bond on the improvements. Currently, Mr. Boyle has not received lien waivers from the prime contractors on the project because of disputes over final pay quantities and also indicated that it may be difficult for him to provide a warranty bond as required by the City. As a result, the Council continued to discuss whether the modification to the drainage pond allowing for ponding in the street right-of-way is acceptable as a temporary solution. It was the general consensus of the City staff and consulting engineer that although it is not an ideal situation, the temporary use of the right-of-way for ponding could be acceptable provided the City had drainage easements that would allow for an outlet from the right-of-way to some other permanent drainage location. It also appeared to be the Council's opinion that the City should not get involved in accepting the project as is until all of the requirements normally required of a developer are provided, including warranty bonds, lien waivers, and other criteria. In regards to the modification in the pond requirements, motion was made by Bill Pair, seconded by warren Smith, to approve as a temporary modification ponding in the right-of-way provided the easement for the original ponding area remains intact until the property is developed 9 Council minutes - 11/9/87 and a plan is provided for proper drainage of the entire area. Additional discussion was then held by the Council, and City Attorney, Tom Hayes, noted his concerns over the City accepting an alternative ponding modification at this time without being willing or ready to accept the entire road and project as constructed. He recorsended that possibly the City should be informing the developer that the City in the future would consider an alternate ponding modification when the developer is ready to meet all of the other requirements for City acceptance of the street and utilities. As a result, the motion to approve the ponding modification was opposed 5 to 0. After further discussion, it was also recommended that the City staff or City Attorney notify the property owner, Jim Boyle, along with the school district and the Sheriff's Department, that Chelsea Road has not been accepted and is not a public street and that the sewer line is considered a private service at this time until accepted by the City. 8. Consideration of Setting a Special meeting for the Puroose of Establishing 1988 Salary/Wage Policy. A special meeting by consensus was set for 6:30 p.m., December 7, for the purpose of reviewing and creating salary increases for non-union personnel for 1988. Rick wolfstei;er City Administrator C City o/ Monticello office of the Phone: (61 2) 2952711 City Aommevator Mevo: (612) 3335739 March 17, 1988 Mr. Jim Boyle 5010 East Shea Boulevard Suite D-202 Scottsdale, A2 85254 Re: Chelsea Road Improvement Project, Acceptance Criteria Dear Mr . Boyle: As you may recall, at the regular Council meeting of November 91 1987, the City Council rejected acceptance of your plans for using the ditches along Chelsea Road for temporary ponding. The Council and City Attorney asked that you address all other aspects of the completion of this project prior to formal Council action on the ponding requirements. Since many meetings, letters, and conversations have been held since this time, I felt it would be best to refresh your memory as to where the City feels the project noir stands and what is necessary for completion. The following are those issues as we see it. 1. Ponding Requirements As discussed at some of our meetings, the City is concerned about the use of the ditches for temporary best City, if they \,�� drainage. We informed you that at the rb did accept such a condition, would not release the ponding 0 easement, as it may be necessary to take steps to excavate this area for ponding. This question was confirmed earlier this spring when water came within a few inches of overflowing the road. At one of our last meetings you indicated that you were going ahead with plans to develop a ponding area and ditch system on the southern portion of your property that would handle the immediate needs of the roadway ditches and address an area to be developed in the northwestern corner of your plat. We have yet to hear from you as to your firm plans for ponding or drainage. 2. Completion of the Project There are several items yet to he completed on the project. The following is a list of those items. 250 East Broadway a Monilcello. MN 55362.9245 U Mr. Jim Boyle March 17, 1988 Page 2 A. Final Grading of the Ditches. When your earthwork contractor, Busey Construction, pushed black dirt into the ditches, no care was taken to fine grade those ditches beforehand. The ditches had been allowed to sit for several months since Rehbein completed the grading, and in many areas erosion had taken place which caused the grades to change. Prior to any further additional work, the ditches will have to be fine graded and this grading verified with the proposed plans. B. Turf Restoration. After fine grading of the ditches as per City standards and your project specifications, the topsoil depth should be checked to verify that it is 4 inches in thickness and free of debris and contains a liberal amount of humus to support turf establishment. The seed mixture is to be as sold by Northrop King and shall contain 30 percent Fultspuccinelliadistans, and 30 percent Dawson Red Fescue, and 30 percent Park Kentucky Bluegrass, and 10 percent Pennfinn Perennial Ryegrass. This mixture shall be applied at a rate of 120 lbs per acre. In addition, prior to application of the seed, fertilizer shall be applied in all areas within the right-of-way to receive seed at the rate of 200 lbs per acre. This fertilizer shall be 10-10-10. After the fertilization and seeding, Type I mulch utilizing disc anchoring shall be applied. The area then shall be watered and guaranteed to grow for a period of one year. Any washouts occurring during that year will have to be corrected. It will be necessary for you to provide verification at the proper ditch grading and turf establishment as done according to specifications. C. Gate Valve Adjustment. There are numerous service and hydrant gate valves located outside the pavement and in the ditches. It is necessary for these gate valves to be adjusted and they must be verified that they have not been damaged during the grading operations. D. Manhole Adjustment. Many of the manholes were improperly adjusted by the paving contractor, Bauerly Brothers. Bauerly Brothers OV Mr. Jim Boyle March 17, 1488 Page 3 was informed prior to the start of the project the correct method to utilize for adjusting the manholes. During the paving operations, they were informed that the manhole adjustments were incorrect. After the project, they were informed that the City would not accept the manhole adjustments as constructed. Current estimates are S200 per manhole for adjustments. in addition, during the final grading operations, many of the manhole covers may have been pushed aside allowing numerous amounts of gravel to find its way into the inverts of the manholes. A recent inspection revealed that these amounts could be detrimental to the service flow from the new school. These manholes should be cleaned prior to opening of the new school. if allowed to remain, these materials will find their way into the sanitary sewer lines, and the removal at that time of these materials will be much more expensive. it should be noted that at the time of our inspection, there were appreciable amounts of cleaning materials in the sanitary sewer lines, probably from operations at the school. It would be necessary for anyone entering these manholes to use proper ventilation and safeguards for workman protection. 3. Easements A. Revocation of the Existing Pond Easement. As discussed earlier, the revocation of the existing ponding easement would only occur if you were to establish a new drainage easement and construct more permanent ponding or ditching arrangements. B. 60 -foot School Sanitary Sewer Easement. The City has no interest in this easement at this time, as upon completion we would consider the sanitary sewer running south of Chelsea Road to be a private service. C. Additional Easement for School Sewer. During the construction process, the sanitary sewer for the school was mislocated for reasons which differ between the school architect and your engineer, Mr. Block. The school may wish to have additional easements at this time for that portion located on the southern boundary of your property. i Mr. Jim Boyle March 17, 1988 Page 4 D. Maintenance of a Portion of the School Service. if the School District wishes to have the City maintain that portion of sanitary sewer between Chelsea Road and the southern boundary of the Boyle property, we would do so if an easement was granted between that point along the southern boundary of the Boyle property to County Road 118 for a future force main connection. 4. Payment A. We request that you settle your dispute with the L 5 G Rehbein Company. As we discussed during our many meetings, the most appropriate way to do so would be to take the matter to court and put into escrow the proper funds needed by the court system. B. Baueriy Brothers. vie ask that you settle up with Baueriy Brothers concerning the overrun, final payment, and manhole adjustments and/or the cleaning of the sanitary sewer lines. If necessary, an escrow fund may have to be established for the completion of Baueriy's work. C. City Supplied Topo Maps. The topo maps have currently been paid for. D. Bill Block and Associates. we would wish to have Mr. Bill Block sign a lien waiver for the project to indicate that he has been paid. E. Busey Construction. it is understood that Busey Construction has been paid and the City has received a lien waiver from him. 5. Sign Off A. City Engineer. The City Engineer must sign off that all work has been completed as per City standards. lV Mr. Jim Boyle March 17, 1988 Page 5 B. Block and Associates. Mr. Block must sign off as the registered engineer that all work has been completed as per plans and specifications and provide as builts of the work completed. C. School. The Independent School District must sign off that the road was completed as per their agreement. 6. Bonds A. one Year Warranty Bond. As we have discussed on many occasions in the past, the City of Monticello requests a one-year warranty bond for the amount of the entire contract to protect the City against liability for any repairs on the project for a period of one year. We have suggested possible alternatives to you would be in the form of a letter of credit or some other type of guarantee. At this time, we have no indication whether the City Council would accept less than the full amount. But until we have a written proposal from you as to what you can supply, we cannot take it back before the City Council. B. Lien Waiver Bond. We discussed the possibility of escrowing funds or providing of bond for lien waivers if you cannot get this project settled with the prime contractors and obtain such lien waivers. Again, we have not had a written proposal from you indicating how you would solve this. The City of Monticello does not wish to accept the road with any loose ends whatsoever. Your letter of March 8, 1988, indicating that liens filed on this project would be subordinate to the intent of the City establishing the right-of-way has been forwarded to our City Attorney for his opinion and recommendation. Even if the Citi is not technically responsible for the lien, the City may still be forced to defend itself and incur legal expenses relating to the lien. As a result, the City may still require the lien issue to be settled before acceptance of project, G) Mr. Jim Boyle March 17, 1988 Page 6 or may require sufficient guarantees to cover any legal expense the city incurs. Again, a letter of credit for the amount of the lien may be a solution to this problem. 7. Escrow Funds Remaining As of March 15, 1988, the escrow funds being held by the City total $28,775.39. I hope this summarizes our position for you. We wish to have a comprehensive, complete, written plan from you as to how you will complete the above items so that we may take it back to the City Council and get this project approved. If you have any questions, or if we may be of any further assistance, please contact us. rely, -- Rick Wolfs Ile[ City Administrator RWAd cc: John Simola, PWD John Badalich, City Eng. Bill Block, Block 6 Assoc. Sheldon Johnson, IDS #882 Jim Metcalf, Attorney, IDS #882 Arve Grimsmo, Mayor File . V April 7, 1988 Mr. Rick Wolfateller City Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MM 55362 Dear Mr. Wolfsteller: tiiE10111 / 81DIX ASSOU11713,NC. 367 East Ketuxn Blvd. • St. Pow, MN. 55101 • 612.229.956.1 Chelsea Road Improvement Pro iect This letter is in response to your March 17, 1988 letter which outlines issues the City deems necessary to be addressed prior to mcceptance of the project.: Pendine Requirements Plans for ditch ponding have been prepared in coliaboration with the City consulting engineer, OSM. The ditches were widened on both sides of the road at the low point. The ditch capacity is sufficient to retain a 100 year storm from the contributing area of 2.8 acres. At the November 9, 1987 meeting the Council merely stated that plans would have to be submitted to the Council for review before acting on the proposal. The plans were not rejected as you have implied in your letter. We are confident that the ditch plan will work. However, we will provide for an easement Lo the south for the inatmilation of a pipe line that could be used to remove water from the ditches if necessary. Regarding plane fur a pending area and ditch system to the south of Chelsea Road. we have stated that plans for such a system will bu required in conjunction with the development or thaL area. We do not inland to develop plans until the land use is determined. 2. CompIntion of Prn,J"ct. A. Final Cradina of Ditches We agree that further work is necessary to final grade the ditches prior to saoding. This will occur as soon as possible this spring. A. Turf Restorntion Seeding and fertilization will be accomplished after the final grading in accordance with the specifications for this project, ENGINEM • LAND SUAVMFS • LANDSCAPE ARCHMECTS 9 April 7. 1988 Mr. Rick Wolfsteller Page Two C. Cate. Valve Adiustment Cate valves will be adjusted to the new grades. Should damaged valves be found it would be difficult to determine when or how they were damaged. Since they have been in the ground long before the Chelsea Road Improvement Project was initiated, we cannot assume responsibility for damage. D. Manhole Adiustment Bauerly Brothers have agreed to make the adjustments requested by Mr. Simola. They have advised however, that cutting and patching around the manholes will result in higher maintenance costs to the City. We have retained a total of $1500 from Bauerly's total contract amount to complete this work. Regarding the gravel in the sanitary sewer, this matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of Mr. Simola. 9. Easementn A.. Drainage of the ditch areas will in all probability go to the south. Therefore we request that the present easement north of Chelsea Road be eliminated. We will provide a pipe line easement and drainage area easement south of Chelsea Road. B. We would prefer that the City take control of the entire sewer line. However we do not believe a 80' easement is necessary to maintain a sewer line 8' deep. A twenty foot easement would be more appropriate. C. The connecting manhole for the school was installed exactly as shown on the drawings. The school was inadvertently moved by the architect without notifying the engineer. The architect has agreed to pay for the new manhole and additional sewer. The new sewer and manhole are located on the property line. We will grant a 10 ft. easement to the school or the City on the north side of the property lino. D. We are certain that the school will want the City to maintain the sewer. Therefore we will provide a 10' wide easement from the original school connecting manhole to County Road 118. The 10' easement would be parallol to and north of the property line. /( April 7, 1988 l Mr. Rick Wolfateller Page Three 4. Payment A. L A C Rehbein We feel that Rehbein has no basis for filing a lien on the property. It will definitely be litigated before any payments are made to Rehbein. As this may be a length process we are willing to execute a hold harmless agreement with the City that will in effect cover any and all conte incurred by the City during the litigation. We will not agree to place into escrow any funds for this frivolous action. B. Bauerly Brothers Dauerly Brothers has already cleaned the sanitary sewer and will adjust the manholes later this year. We have agreed on a final settlement price for all work. We have requested the release of 116,808.19 as n partial payment to Bauerly Brothers and the retainage of 11500 until the manholes are adjusted. The total amount of the Bauerly contract will be $126,885.35. C. Others A contractor will be hired to final grade and seed the ditches. Payment will be made upon completion. Melcbert/Block Associates Inc.. wi 11 be paid the balance of the remaining escrow funds plus any overrun by Mr. J. T. Boyle. A lien waiver will be provided. LZMEN1ltiZI4A Sign offs by OSM. MBA and school will be provided. As builts will also be submitted. 8. Bonds A. Warrantv Bonds Bauerly Brothers will provide a one year warranty bond on the road as of the date of acceptance. A bond will not be obtainable from Rehbein. However. since the sewer has been operation for more than one year we feel that it is not necessary. The sewer is constructed of heavy duty PVC pipe and backfilled with U ( April 7, 1988 Mr. Rick Wolfsteller Page Four sand. The likelihood of a problem with a gravity sewer of this type is very remote. Therefore, we request that the City Council waive the bond requirement for the sewer portion of this project. B. Lien Waiver Bonds As previously stated, J.T. Boyle will not be held hostage by a frivolous lien. We will provide a letter of indemnification relative to legal coats that may be incurred by the City if litigation becomes necessary. Jim Boyle and I will attend the Monday, April 11, 1988 Council meeting. We are hoping to obtain Council approval contingent upon satisfying the provisions outlined herein. Looking forward to seeing you at that time. Very truly yours, M&LCHSRTTA/BLOCK ASSOCIATES INC. W. R. Block, P.S. Vice President WRB/bb cc: J. T. Boyle J. Badalich S. Johnson J. Metcalf City Council I& Council Agenda - 4/11/88 Consideration of Concession Building Plans. W .S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACRCROUND: At the last Council meeting, staff was directed to develop plans and specifications for the construction of the concession stand/restroom facility and have firm quotes for the April 11 Council meeting. The direction was to have the block work, the roof construction, and the plumbing done through contract. with the exception of some excavation work, the remainder of the building was expected to be completed through a combination of volunteer labor and City staff time. As the plans were being developed, we had an opportunity to examine the concession stands built for the Monticello School as well as talk to the contractor who built the Otsego Park facility. After this investigation, the staff feels it more appropriate to use burnished block for the building construction, exterior and interior, rather than the break off block or textured block exterior with burnished block or painted interior. In doing this, it does present some advantages but also presents some problems. Other than sealer, this burnished type of block or polished concrete block requires very little maintenance; and thus, there are savings in painting and maintenance costs which could be substantial over the life of a building. The problems presented, however, are that the cost of the burnished interior and exterior building versus the break off block with combination burnished and painted interior could amount to between $1,200 and $1,500 additional material cost and $300 to $500 in additional labor costs due to more care and clean up needed during construction. In addition, there is approximately a 10 -day delay for the delivery of the burnished block. At this particular time, we do not know how much of a change would be expected in the original $8,700 quote for block work and labor. This bid was to have included originally glazed block. So, therefore, we still feel anmewhat comfortable with that price. The only difference we have seen so far is that we wish to add a drinking fountain on the exterior of the building. Adding this to our original figure for a concrete block building would come to a total capital outlay of $29,634.82. At this time, staff still feels somewhat comfortable with the original figures. we will continue working toward completion of the plans and spec's and obtaining bids. At the same time, the Softball Association is working feverishly to obtain as many pledges as possible for funds from local civic groups. This information will be available for Monday evening's meeting. If the City is committed to doing this facility, then time is of the essence as It is, we may wish to look at having the Council grant the staff permission to install the footings and below ground block work before granting final approval for this year's construction. This would be a very low coat type of operation and could EM Council Agenda - 4/11/88 be utilized next year if the building didn't go this year. The only other real hold up on the project is the burnished block, as it takes ten days to receive. The Council may wish to authorize the City to purchase the block for the exterior of the building and have it on hand. Again, those materials do not represent significant costs and could be utilized next year if the building was built then. I must apologize for not being able to complete the plans and specifications in time enough to get bids. But the current work load has prohibited me from having any spare time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be for the Council to consnit to building a block structure based upon staff's estimate and order the foundation work to be completed and the exterior blocks to be ordered. Estimated cost for all the underground work is about $4,700, which includes the underground block. The estimated cost for purchasing the exterior block is about $3,100, for a total expenditure of $7,800. Doing this would allow us to get a jump on the construction of the facility. 2. The second alternative would be to delay any action until all of the bids are received and we have total project cost. If we were not in such a hurry with this project, this would be the proper way to go. However, it would result in the building being 3-4 weeks later in construction than alternative number one. 3. The third alternative would be to do nothing this year. C. STAFF REC.'OMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that if the Council is committed to building this building now or in the future, they should opt for alternative number one, allow us to get started with the project, and yet bring all of the contracts to you for approval on April 25 for the roof, the plumbing, and the above -grade block work. It is my understanding that there are approximately 20 teams already interested in using this facility this year; and this would allow us to get that jump on construction but yet give the Council the option not to finish it this year or look at other alternatives at the April 25 meeting. D. SUPPt)RTING DATA: Please refer to the March 28 agenda supplement for the original cement block building cost estimates. Any other information obtained such as last minute bids or pledge data will be provided as a supplement to your agenda or be given to you at Monday evening's meeting. -12• Council Agenda - 4/11/88 Consideration of Awarding Bids on Liquor Store Landscaping. Q.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As approved at the last meeting, the plans for the landscaping at the Liquor Store were sent to three landscaping contractors, one within the city and two from outside the city. At the current time, we have not received all three bids back, and there appears to have been a reluctance on at least one outside the city landscaping contractor to give the City a bid. That individual has indicated in the past he has not been awarded the low bid in Monticello when he was low. we have informed that individual that if there is a significant difference that justifies going outside the City that we will, and he has indicated that he will submit a bid, so we do anticipate receiving a third bid sometime late Friday. A firm time line for receiving the bids was not set. However, if the third bid is not received by Monday evening at close of business at City Hall, we will go on the basis of the two bids received. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Since the three bids solicited were from reputable contractors in the area, it seems most appropriate to take the low bid if it is within the price range anticipated by the City Council. �- 2. The second alternative would be to not award the bid to any of the contractors and change and modify the plan accordingly. This seems inappropriate at this time, as the Oouncil has approved the landscaping plan, and we feel confident the bids will come in under our price range of $10,000 to $15,000. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public works Director and Park Superintendent, who developed the plan, to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder who corpliee with the specifications and warranties for plant materials. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. Refer to your March 28 agenda supplement for design information. The bid information will be presented at Monday evening's meeting. _». C(A- (=,irv.L_ 4 cam., c� � C. L` - II cz i �• J AK-SAoBE� lr!ggLl 10099 R 48401110MA1110, ELK RIVER UN SSt70- jolt) 4T1*= SOLO TO: iMP TM P11W/Et '�fNlf.ii ��, x11 u+r,if•�ecWl• ✓urv.ir•la 4N I.WU{ ul" ~fllr.•�'.<E_t�c�,'n\r•ff"v''�r ,�1�z4• •..wu•w�u•fu fucuvan. dA'. l�w�.�u.wx uw�a «u rwf.rwx - ttgN iM mmmm, mSM txi Mr iM•17111� f Aii Y.iLLiii' • x f 7 - •�4k� •i1x•xiS iM•11Nl. fWw fVNi t1•i4lN lltf •YNWIMM4.lY44i Ni x► i•tq il4l fN ix•Ilipi MliFi�i YOiIMTS WiiMNtS � • sr�xa:xwa ti1"•t t11i W iOr x44 Nil" V IN•O Nwiser hiM4t4llOi ����/� •i•O dill /fKiSyfgA�tuYp 4RtipA#1MY {ISNtiT4Mf.f4i N1.w.++iLYS4. tiTY iffit- ~9 i1( 0ctir 3, I Black East of Stoplthro 201 East Broadway — Monticello, Minnesota 55382 Phone: (612) 295.2244 • OUOTATION, - CUSTOM LANDSCAPING 6 DESIGN COMMERCIAL — RESIDENrIAL TQ X171 r/,f '"„"' RA/N�BIRD� Underground Irrigation Systems QUANTITY SIZE VARIETY PRICE AMOUNT r / yri.tc;; o bee .47),t-^- f'3�tt �1rtt, ft'rl�' �t`>i!^! ?P. (./Z) _ ` yr.Z 'Z Nl�7. 7v^- Gov fc•' t1 i ` 4e AIV, r c /vz�, c/Z 1.1 I=/''yJ � .t•v /ciL?•di I-oll Ile. 10 7 4-0 s7, C 1zy, _ Sze), of A00+v4 500' 4 Elk River Nursery SW.Qbzwq in larldwave Landscape oesig"m - contractors comepts I RL 3, Hwy. 10, Elk River. MN 55330 rowdenuaf S ctonmerud Phone (612) 441-3090 Mt. x Nam Citylstweizo Address %Ptow - :3 V'� Cft/StM/bn M- FtWeWntW" t - - ,I Plani ustww Undsc.W Construction QTV OESCFOnX* UWT TOM On DESCFAMON UNT Irom 5NOW"" -- -S-,Iter" r 7.1Z 4j - 114f Pol P*4 7 TOTAL C6dST. foulp. TOTAL CONST. MAT. 4f2 -'I L MAT. A CONST. LABOR 1 3t -4 TAX 100 f, -= rf f TOTAL Ni., f-4, to SUBTOTAL PL MATEMAL ITOTAL JOD 70Y S I Two P" Umn ftww TOTAL PLANT #UTEWAL q n %pawn "of" P*VWAM TAX --f 9r TEAM& 1.5% ow Monet finance chmp TOTAL q - on OWDUCtS MM 30 dBYS. M."w sw wow W'~ 0, �Mwmwftfft— now tam -man am mawo a* ,so _6 me" .0 ft 0 000 !=Z:w gram, waxm=— 4=0=0"'S'm 6679" I oro uW this order u6jm to arms and warranty dolabod Mein. PUACNABER Arrr Mia IND ft. w~w Council Agenda - 4/11/88 9. Consideration of Walt Mack's Resignation and Matt Theisen's Appointment \� as Superintendent. O.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Walt Mack has given us his resignation as Water Superintendent for the City of Monticello. His resignation is effective June 30. However, with vacation tine accrued, he will be leaving on June 6, 1988. Walt has been employed by the City of Monticello for over 20 years, beginning in February of 1968. At one time, Walt was not only in charge of the water department but also was the wastewater treatment plant operator. With the construction of the new wastewater treatment plant, he became the Water/Sewer Collection System Superintendent. Matt Theisen has worked for the City since the summer of 1979 as Walt's right-hand man working in the water department and the sewer collection system. Matt is very knrnaledgeable about our existing water and sewer collection system and possesses a great deal of enthusiasm towards becoming Superintendent. Although his management skills and supervisory skills are yet to be developed, both Rick Wolfsteller and myself feel he is extremely conscientious, enthusiastic, and would make an excellent Superintendent. Walt Mack's current rate of pay is $28,723 per year. We have discussed the position with Matt and feel a starting salary for him of $27,000 per year would be proper. His six months' probationary period will be up just about the time for salary negotiations for 1989. At that time, his performance will be reviewed and a recommendation made to the City Council concerning any adjustments other than cost of living. Matt has indicated he would accept the position at $27,000 per year. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to accept Walt Mack's resignation and appoint Matt Theisen to the position of Water/Collection System Superintendent effective June 1, 1988. 2. The second alternative would be to accept Walt Mack's resignation but to advertise for filling the position. Rick and I both feel that this to unnecessary. 3. The third alternative would be to accept Walt Mack's resignation and hire Matt Theisen as Water/Collection Systems Superintendent effective June 1, 1988, but at a salary above or below the $27,000. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and City Administrator that the Council opt for alternative number one and appoint Matt Theisen to the position of water/Collection Systems Superintendent effective June 1, 1988, at an annual salary of $27,000. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -14- FOREMAN - SUPERINTENDENT Water System/Wastewater Collection System January 0, 1982 Job Description Responsible for operation and maintenance of the entire municipal water system and the wastewater collection system. Exercises direct authority over the water system and wastewater collection system functions and personnel in accordance with approved policies and procedures under the direction of the Public Works Director. Specific duties are as follows: 1. Plans, assigns, schedules, and works with departmental personnel; maintains time records and purchase records to appropriate accounts. 2. Coordinates data and prepares or reviews and approves operation reports and budget requests. 3. Recommends system improvements and additions. 6. Maintains inventory and related records in regard to parts, chemicals, equipment and other supplies. S. Maintains effective communication and working relationships with employees, government officials and the general public. 6. Coordinates man power requirements and lab work requirements with other department heads. 7. Maintains daily records and loge of daily inspections of all sewage lift stations, water wells, water reservoirs, water pumping stations and the like. B. Computea consumptions prepares required reports for submittal to State agencies. 9. Maintains a hydrant flushing and valve exercising program to include maintenance. 10. Notifies the public in advance of any planned outages or deficiencies in water pressure. 11. Takes meter readings, maintains a meter inspections calibration, in- stallation and replacement program. 12. Operates and maintains chemical feed systems. 13. Repairs water and unitary sever line breaks, leaks or obstructions end schedules outside assistance if necessary. 14. Repairs pumps, valves, pipes, meters, vehicles and a variety of equip- ment as required. Foreman - Superintendent Water System/Wastewater Collection System Page 02 15. Maintains a comprehensive sanitary sewer maintenance and inspection program, this includes responsibility for cleaning of lines, man- holes and lift stations. 16. Issues excavation permits ane regulations to contractors, inspects and records sewer and water service connections. 17. Assists contractors with sewer and water service locations. 18. Does other work as required. DESIPASLE QUALIFICATIONS Spacial Requirement Certification as a Claes C water works operator by the Minnesota Depart- ment of Health and certification as a Clas "S{" operator for Wastewater Collections Systems by the Minnesota pollution Control Agency. Formal Education rinimim high school graduate or equivalent with five (5) years practical experience in operation and supervision of municipal water systems and wastewater collection Systems. General Requirements A. Knowledge of processes and equipment, repairs, maintenance involved in municipal water systems and treatment, including basic chemical and bacteriological. R. Knowledge of the processes and equipment repairs and maintenance in- volved in wastewater collection. C. Understanding of managerical, administrative, and accounting practices and procedures involved in successful system operation. D. Ability to prepare or supervise preparation of clear, concise reports and budget recommendations. E. Ability to plan, direct, and evaluate system operations and maintenance functions. F. Ability to establish and maintain affective communication and working relationships. G. Skill in the operation of equipment and tools associated with the work. H. Knowledge of occupational hazards of the work and necessary safety precautions. 1. Ability to discipline and evaluate employees. Foreman - Superintendent water System/wastewater Collection System Page •3 General Educational Development A. Reasoning 1. Apply principles of logic to define problems, collect and analyve data, and draw valid conclusions. Deal with a variety of concrete and abstract variables. 2. Interpret a wide variety of technical instructions, in book, manual, and mathematical or diagrammatic form. B. Mathematical Perform ordinary arithmetical procedures in standard, practical appli- cations. C. Language 1. write and edit operation reports. 2. Evaluate and interpret engineering and other technical data. 3. Establish and maintain communications with employees, government officials, and the puhlic. D. Special Vocational Preparation. 1. Completion of operator training course or equivalent training and experience. 2. Five years experience in municipal water system and wastewater collection system operation, depending upon size and complexity of eyatems and educational background. E. Aptitudes - Relative to General working Population. Prefer individual with above average intelligence with high aptitudes in verbal, numerical and mechanical ability. In addition, higher than average coordination is preferred. F. Interests Prefer working with people in situations involving organization, auper- vision, and hands on work in varied activities. G. Temperament Prefer situations involving the planning of and participation in an antire activity. H. Physical Demands. Some sedentary work, however mostly inspection repairs and maintenance. I. working Conditions Mixture of inside and outside. occasional exposure to inclement weather, fumes, odors, dust, and risk of bodily injury. Possible exposure to toxic conditions. 0 Foreman - Superintendent Water: Syste rn/Wastewater Collection System Page i4 Entry Sources Assistant Superintendent depending on individual qualifications and size and complexity of the system. Proaression to: Similar position in larger or more complex system. V Council Agenda - 4/11/88 10. Consideration of Authorizing for Water Department Position and Posting of Opening with Union. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: If the previous item passes concerning Matt's appointment to Superintendent, we will need to find someone for Matt's old position. There currently is not a job description for Matt's position other than the Union classification of mechanic/operator. We will, therefore, need to sit down using the comparable worth information and draft such a job description. At the completion of that task, we would like to advertise for the position of Water and Sever Collection System Operator, as well as post the position with members of the Union currently employed by the City. B. AiTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to draft a job description for Water and Sewer Collection Systems Operator and advertise for the position and post it with the Union. 2. The second alternative would be to draft the job description and post the job advertisement with the Union only. This may not be in the beat interests of the City, as there is currently only one Union employee thatmaw have the minimum requirements for the jobr and it would be best t000Tc at a broader spectrum of applicants in this situation. C. STAFF RECOhPIENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director, the City Administrator, and the proposed new Water Superintendent that the Council opt for alternative number one to draft a new job description, advertise over a larger area, and post the position with the Union. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the existing operator/mechanic job description, which seems inappropriate at this time. -15- OPERATOR/MECMANIC FOR t_ STREET/PARKS DEPARTMENTS Nature of Work This is public works maintenance and repair work including a variety of duties ranging from unskilled manual labor to skilled mechanical work in the operation, maintenance, and servicing of vehicles and heavy equipment. Work involves responsibility for the safe and efficient operation of varied tools and equipment used in the performance of public works construction and maintenance. Mork also involves the performance of manual labor related to municipal street and park operations. Work of this class is distinguished by the variety of assignments undertaken, initiative required and equipment operated. Work is reviewed for acceptability in progress, through job performance evaluation$, and observation of results obtained. pork is performed under limited supervision of the Street/Parka foreman. Examples of Work - operate a variety of power operated tools, equipment, and vehicles engaged in public works maintenance, construction and repair activities. - Perform a variety of manual and skilled tanks including street sweeping, grading, digging, loading and snow removal. - operate a front end loador in loading trucks and "torials and snow, digging and shaping, assisting trucks with curb cleanup of residential areas and performing other tasks as required in the use of a leader as assigned. Operate a road patrol in grading operations or snow and ice removal. Overate a truck plow in snow removal activities. - Operate welding and related equipment, jack ha— rs, chain saws, comprossors and other parer equipments keep work areas clean and orderly. maintain stock room and inventory. 0 - operate a roller in tarring streets, lawn mowers and snow blowers, and park equipment. - Perform carpentry duties and mechanical repair, servicing and maintenance duties on all city equipment as required. - Repairs, adjust hydraulic systems; replace hydraulic motors, hoses and fittings. - Repair and adjust drive, brake, steering, electrical, cooling and related systems as required on light and heavy equipment. - Replace regulators, alternators, starters, wirirg, gauges and other components as required. - Perform minor tune-ups and rebuild equipment to meet special uses. - occasionally direct the work of temporary, seasonal, and other employees as required. - Attend training programs for mechanics, operators, and other public works related duties. - Perform other work as required. Desirable pualifications Traininq and Experience - A combination substantially equivalent to public works experience including the operation, maintenance and repair of a variety of heavy and light equipment used in municipal street and park operations. - Valid Class "B" State of Minnesota driver's license. - Relevant experience or training equivalent to a practical working knowledge of maintaining and servicing light and heavy equipment. - A high school education or GED equivalent. - Residency within the corporate city limits is not a requirement, but in tho event that all other qualifications are equal, added weight will be given to this factor. Knowlsdges. Abilities, and Skills - Considerable knowledge of the principles of operation and servicing of heavy equipment including the adaptations and specialised r ti 0 uses to which equipment can be put in meeting emergency or other unusual conditions. - Knowledge of the traffic laws, ordinances, and regulations involved in equipment operation. - Knowledge of the occupational hazards involved and the safety precautions necessary in equipment operation. - Knowledge of the practices, methods, tools and materials used in the maintenance and repair of automotive, maintenance, construction, and related equipment. - Knowledge of the operating principles of gasoline and diesel engines, and of mechanical Components of automotive, maintenance, construction, and related equipment. - Ability to perform welding, painting, and carpentry tasks incidental to other assignments . - Ability to perform manual labor associated with major mechanical work in related equipment. - Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships and to understand and follow oral and written communications. - Skill in the operation and servicing of a variety of public works maintenance equipment and to perform a variety of maintenance, repair and construction assignments related to street and park operations. Physical ReeUirements - The individual must be in excellent health as a variety of tasks at times can require heavy lifting, bending, climbing, and exposure to sever* weather conditions. Sound safety practices shall be a requirement for this position, along with an ability to perform for extended periods of time in emergency situations. C Council Agenda - 4/11/88 11. Consideration of Request for One (1) Day Set-up/3.2 Beer License for Ducks unlimited Banquet and one (l) Day 3.2 Beer License for July 3 Celebration - Lions Club. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AhD BACKGROUND: The Monticello Lions Club is again sponsoring the Ducks Unlimited Banquet scheduled for May 9, 1988, to be held at the Monticello Roller Rink. As in the past years, the Lions Club requested a 3.2 Beer License and a Set-up License for the one day banquet. The license fee for the two licenses would be $35. In addition to the Ducks Unlimited Banquet, the Lions Club also requested a 3.2 Beer License for the annual July 4th Celebration to be held July 3, 1988. The license fee for this event would be $10. There have been in the past no problems associated with the issuance of either license. A Certificate of Insurance has been presented showing the Lions Club has liquor liability coverage until October 1, 1988. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the issuance of the one day temporary 3.2 Beer and Set-up License for May 9, and a one day 3.2 Beer License for the July 3rd Celebration. The set-up license application would be submitted to the Liquor Control Division for their approval prior to issuance. 2. Deny the request for the licenses. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff's recommendation that both license requests be granted. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Certificate of Insurance: Flyer. .16- crLI/B •. v, t. • . i ... •MI ANO ADDRESS Or .CENCI A. PRICE AGENCY, INC. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGES 100 SHADY OAK ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE con", A E -Err TRANSr'ntJTTR1FNTAt rn MINNESOTA 55344 (612)944-8790 CO'"°AN• B lrl° .AML AND ADDRESS OF INSURED w CON•P•N• ■ LION'S CLUE OF MINNESOTA V C/O CORPORATE RISK MGRS. CaMP•N. D 7525 MITCHELL ROAD L '° EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 co•.P.N. E L[T na Na n tocarury wT polwn of Imurenu e,,W Dew• ... pearl nluaa to _R ab nomad apo•e anb ora m lona el Inn ume hoT.•Insumm�g any rac:Lamenl, Ir.m or Genu:ro• al any co _ or ww aoeanlant -nn raw! to .nen This c '.l IT., la nweo is, mar eanem, ma Inawenn anPraeo by :ne Delcma oew•Iow harem n wD1aC1 to toms, a.uuswna aw coadnwns o1 auto Do,w,ea, C]MPAN• POLq• I Limit% of Liability In Thousands (DOU I TIM OF INSURANo[ MlIIC•81. _LlllR NUM I•PiR•Igw pAll [•[� DCCURRIvC[ I •GGRLGAII GENERAL LIABILITY _ C3coMlm[N[Nsrvl rotor. eooxr r U2 1 g _ ❑ PRLr6[S—OP[R•Tlon5 PRonron 0•NaGL 1 a ❑ E+PLOSION AND COLLAPSE _ N L•RD ❑ UNDERGROUND +.LAND V.. ❑ P R ORRsIbN3 2�aD 1 11,1.• ❑ CaxTRACTUAI INSURANCE ❑ BROAD TOR•. PROPER" POOR• Nx•10 PoOM •11:111 COMBINED f DAMAGE ❑ INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS r ❑ MRaDN.I IN2un PL RSprrµ In IUM• a AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 'r Doon. Iw,uP. 1 ❑ COMPRENEN41A TORY uew P[rnoNl ggO011r IIIIIc 1 ICACw ACCID[NT) ❑ OAR Ib ❑ NIRLD I PROMPT• O.MAG[ a ❑eoonT Nowgw.ro IN,u. AND ' PROPER", DAMAGE nunlva C EXCESS LIABILITY DaDRT 1UP AND ElUMBIRLLA FORM ❑ Orxl PiwAN UMOM PRDM RTN DAMAGE / a LLA rpou COI.BINID :T WORACRS'COMPENSATION ar•rurpR• EI r ane EIWPLO, ERS•LIABIL IT, OTHER A L100011 CCP 180 63 93 10/01/03 *SEE I L1Art11 ITY [Ar•I nl.f •II.Y IY�Irr.IM.�.•Mw NI. •ill IF 11 a LLXRIxI qN OF OPLRAIWN4LpCAr•Owa YLwlCIEa I.. . .I IJ • I r I I I r.l INI iJu ii . -`x::00,000 DI EACIA PERSON; $300,000 DI EAC14 COMMON CAUSE; $500,000 PD EACH COMMON CAUSE; 4300,,000 LOSS OF MEANS OF SUPPORT EACH COMMON CAUSE; $5001000 AGGREGATE. Cancellations Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the elpirallon Cate thereof, ine Issuir,R com• pony --If endeavor to mad10 Coy% IM.Itten notice to the bolo. named Cortdlrate nolaer, but failure to mad Such notice ehDll Impobe n0 obi,poon Or IIaDdlty Of any Rind uoon the COmpanyr r pAML ANUADO"I S. a CERTegATt.0toER j - MONTICELLO LIONS CLUB AcoeD Re u.TS) `liffickissu II CdlYulll .111111 limit I lillll of ►ILLtIL�AIILk�,J111GI+Ii YI I:�LI III��i I➢Y 1 o.n naum 0/2S/37 _ _• E, 7 Nuxl�t. w awl 1. ei kWkaE.la ! eIL1)[�I►'L.,I�I.:tLLr.JC�11.r2�air...�:I.. =`V �'� Wrig�h�t County Ch pt �r •fJ 4 •••••T911LTRMMiB ANNUAL BANQUET••••• Monday, May 9, 1988 - Monticello Roller Rink - SOCIAL HOUR 5:30 PM (Beer G Set -Ups Available - BYOB) Served by The MONTICELLO LIONS DINNER i PROGRAM 7:00 PN ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ **DO= PRIE=8••BUCIB ECR DUCKS.P212318"ARN RAFFIA"SILENT AUCTION" ee SPSCIAL Bx=8 Fal DUCES •• AUCTION •• e•e FEATURED ITEBB eee • Ducks Unlimited Artist of the Year Print, "Marsh Hunters" by John Swan • Canadian Ducks Unlimited Artist of the Yoar Print, "Northern Squalls" by Brenda Carter • Special Raffles: Ducks Unlimited Weathorby Door Hunter Special Orion over/Under 12 Ga. Browning Citori Fishing Special Big Surprise Raffle Duck Hunter Special • Limited Edition Wildlife Art Prints ••• TICKET PRICE •15.00 ••• Your Ticket Price Includes: One Year's Membership to DUCKS UNLIMITED including Magazine, Decal, Ducks Unlimited Button, and a Delicious Dinnerll ++++++w+++++++++++++++++4-+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ eee EARLT BIRD 8011US eee DINNER TICKET Membership Applications received by April 15, 1988 will be Eligible for an exclusive EARLY BIRD Drawing for a 12 aa. SHOTGUN• TICKETS on a First Case - first Served Basis, Limit 150 NOTE: NO TICKETS WILL BE SOLD AT THE DOORII MAIL T0: Wright County Ducks Unlimited Rural Route I, Box 97A Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Council Agenda - 4/25/88 ADDITIONAL ITEM FOR TONIGHT'S AGENDA Consideration of Granting a Seasonal 3.2 Beer License to the Monticello Softball Association. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACRGRDUND: The Softball Association has again requested a 3.2 beer license to sell at the softball fields. With the exception of one year that we issued the license to the Jaycees, the Softball Association has been the holder of this seasonal license. The Softball Association will be presenting a letter of intent to acquire dram shop liquor liability insurance, but they cannot actually receive the insurance coverage until the City approves issuing the license. As a result, the Council can approve this license contingent upon receipt of the Certificate of Insurance for liquor liability and the appropriate fees, which last year were $125. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Grant the license contingent upon receipt of necessary insurance documents and fees. 2. Deny the license - Some rationale should be stated for denial. CC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the license be granted, again contingent upon propr insurance coverage being presented. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None.