Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
City Council Agenda Packet 05-11-1987r AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
1 Monday, May 11, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimemo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Hold April 27, 1987.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
New Business
0. Consideration of a Request for a Partial Subdivision of a Residential
Outlot, Outlot H. Meadow Oak Addition, to be Known as the Meadow
Oak Fourth Addition. Applicant, Dickman Knutson.
5. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Bonds for
Tax Increment District V.
6. Consideration of a Resolution from MN/DOT Approving Plane and
Specifications for Highway 25 Improvements from River Street
to Bridge.
7. Consideration of a Resolution Entering into a Cooperative Agreement
with MN/DOT Regarding City Participation in Sidewalk Cost - Bridge
Improvement.
8. Consideration of Authorizing the Public Works Director and Finance
Director to Visit DMDI Headquarters.
9. Consideration of Sealing Leake in Sanitary Sever on Linn Street
Between River and Front Streets.
10. Adjourn.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 27, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith,
Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the regular minutes of the meeting held April 13,
and the special meeting held April 20, 1987.
a. Public Hearing on a Proposal to Apply for a Small Cities Economic
Development Grant.
on April 13, 1987, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing
the execution of a Small Cities Economic Development Grant for the
NAWOO Minnesota, Inc., and set a public hearing for April 27, 1987.
The grant applied for will be used to assist the Norwegian window
Company in establishing their business venture in Monticello. The
grant request was for $250,000 which will be loaned by the City to
the window Company at a low interest rate over approximately a 15
year period.
Hearing no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed
and the grant application will proceed.
5. Public Hearinq on Tax increment District 47 and Finance plan.
NAWCo Minnesota, Inc., proposes to construct a 28,600 aq ft office/
manufacturing facility on Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial
Park. The City of Monticello is proposing to establish a tax increment
district for these parcels which, according to the finance plan,
is estimated tO capture tax increments from the now project which
will be sufficient to retire a bond indebtedness of $155.000. The
proposed finance plan for the district indicates that the NRA will
purchase the two lots in Oakwood Industrial Park and in turn sell
the property to the NAWCO at a reduced price of $15,000. The difference
between the estimated project cost of $170,000 and the $15,000 sale
price would be received over the district life of eight years from
tax increments generated by the new construction.
Hearing no comments from the public in regards to the proposed Tax
Increment District 17, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by
Dan Bionigan, and unanimously carried to adapt a resolution establishing
the Tax Incrament District 17 and adoption of the finance plan for
the said district. Bee Rasolution 87-11.
Council Minutes - 4/27/87
6. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding Sale of $365,000 G.O. Tax
Increment Bonds.
Springsted, Inc., the City -s Bond Consultant, received bids for the
sale of $365,000 in Tax Increment Bonds on Monday, April 27. Eight
bide were received for the bond issue ranging in a net interest cost
of 7.4856 percent down to a low of 7.1477 percent. The low bidder
for the bonds was First National Bank of St. Paul.
The bonds are to be used for improvements that will be made in the
Construction 5 Subdivision including extension of sewer and water
and street improvements. The bonds are anticipated to be fully retired
by the tax increments generated by the construction of multiple family
dwellings within the Construction 5 Subdivision.
Although the interest rates during the past month have started to
increase, Mr. Jerry Shannon of Springsted. Inc., felt that the rate
of 7.1477 percent received from the ?first National Bank of St. Paul
was very competitive with recent bond sales and recommended the sale
be awarded.
Bidder Net Interest Cost 6 Rate
The First National Bank of St. Paul $197,872.50
�) (7.1477%)
Norwest Investment Services, Incorporated $198,166.67
(7.15831)
Dain Bosworth Incorporated 5198,605.42
(7.18141%
American National Bank St. Paul 5199,019.00
Juran 6 Moody, Incorporated (7.1891%)
Piper, Jaffray 6 Hopwood Incorporated $199,455.83
(7.2049%)
Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand 6 Yost. Inc. $200,129.99
(7.2292%)
Moore. Juran 6 Company, Incorporated $202,395.57
(7.3110%)
Allison -Williams Company S207,227.23
(7.4856%)
A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution authorizing and awarding the sale of
the 5365,000 Caneral Obligation Tax Increment Bonds to the low bidder,
-2-
Council Minutes - 4/27/87
First National Bank of St. Paul, at a net interest rate of 7.1477 percent
and authorizing the Tax Increment Pledge Agreement between the City
of Monticello and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for tax
increments to cover the payments on the bond. See Resolution 87-12.
7. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing the Execution
of a Contract for the Making of Public Improvements in Construction 5
Subdivision.
On March 17, 1987, the City received bids for the construction of
improvements within the Construction 5 Subdivision to be known as
the 86-7 project. The low bidder on the project was S 6 L Excavating
from St. Cloud, Minnesota, at a bid of $280,436.60. City Engineer,
John Badalich, has reviewed the bids and recommended that the contract
be awarded to S 6 L Excavating.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to adopt the resolution accepting the bids and authorizing
a contract be entered into with the low bidder, S 6 L Excavating
of St. Cloud. See Resolution 87-13.
B. Consideration of Authorizing the Preparation of Topographic Maps.
As part of the requirements for a preliminary plat and final plat
for those individuals wishing to develop property in the City of
Monticello, the developer must prepare a topographic map of the area
which would include vertical contours of not more than two feet.
The information supplied by topographic maps is utilized in determining
proper development for a piece of property. Recently, the City has
boon approached by Mr. Jim Boyle and Mr. Bill Block, his engineer,
in regards to topographic information for the Boyle property. The
developer has found it to be very expensive to gat topographic information
on such a large piece of property and requested that the City obtain
this information and charge the developers for use of the information
pertaining to their property.
The City Engineer, along with the Public works Director, have recommended
that the City engage a firm to prepare topographic maps of a large
area of the City of Monticello and the surrounding Orderly Annexation
Area which could be accomplished cheaper than individual property
owners acquiring this information themselves. The City Engineer
requested quotes from three firms covering two areas, one of 2,000 acres
and the second of approximately 3,200 acres. Both of the areas were
primarily south of the city limits of Monticello covering the Boyle
property. Monte Hill, and further southwest covering the Kjellborg
property. The quotes received ware as follows:
Council Minutes - 4/27/87
AREA A (3,200 ACRES) AREA B (2,000 ACRES)
Martinez Corporation $10,465 S 6,550
Horizons, Inc. $10,570 $ 7,400
Mark Hurd Aerial Mapping $21,000 $15,000
It was recommended that the City staff would determine an acreage
charge to charge developers when they request the topographic information
from the City that wauld enable the City to primarily recover its
cost over the next five to ten year period of time as the property
is developed. It was also recommended by the Public Works Director
that due to the economy of scale, the larger area of 3,200 acres
be mapped and that the quote from Horizons, Inc., for $10,570 be
accepted, as they have recently flown the area and have aerial photography
already that should provide adequate information for the topographic
maps.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously
carried to authorize the expenditure of $10,570 for topographic maps
from Horizons, Inc., for the larger area of 3,200 acres. An additional
expenditure of approximately 52,000 would be necessary by the engineering
firm of OSM to cover ground control for the project. Staff was also
directed to establish a per acre charge that would recover the cost
when the information is sold to developers, etc.
I k. 9. Consideration of Bills for the Month of April.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously
—carried to approve the bills for the month of April as presented.
10. Consideration of Granting Temporary Easement on East Bridge Park
Land to MN/DOT.
Administrator Eidem informed the Council that MN/DOT has requested
a temporary construction easement on an area in the East Bridge Park
for the purposes of the proposed Highway 25 Bridge construction scheduled
for start during the summer of 1987.
Motion van made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to authorize the City Administrator and Mayor to sign the
necessary documents granting a temporary easement to MN/DOT for the
Mississippi bridge construction project.
R ck wolfateller
Assistant Administrator
-4-
Council Agenda - 5/11/87
0- Consideration of a Repeat for a Partial Subdivision of a Residential
Outlot, Outlot H, Meadow Oak Addition, to be Known as the Meadow
Oak Fourth Addition. Applicant, Dickman Knutson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Dickman Knutson will be present at the Council meeting to discuss
the possibility of a partial platting of Outlot H to be known as
the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition. Mr. Knutson will be explaining that
his reasons for platting only 16 of the proposed lots is purely on
the economic standpoint that Mr. Knutson, as the developer, will
be bearing all of those costa for improvements. As you are well
aware, the Meadow Oak development assessments have been a continuing
problem plaguing this entire development.
Mr. Knutson has full intentions of developing the entire Outlot H
to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition as explained to City
Council members at their August 26, 1985, meeting.
Enclosed you will find a letter from City Attorney, Mr. Gary Pringle,
regarding the applicant's request. His comments are right to the
point in that it is not good planning to allow part of an outlot
to be platted, not knowing what is going to happen with the rest
of the outlote and not taking the chance of the entire area to be
platted and recorded; in essence, so another property owner could
not take advantage of land which he owns adjacent to this. The sole
reason for the other property owner, Mr. Boyle, to take advantage
of it is that he has been and still is paying a special assessment
towards this sower lift station.
The only access Mr. Boyle has to his property would be through Outlot
H to start to develop his outlote into residential city lots.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Deny the request to plat only part of Outlot H to be known as
Meadow Oak Fourth Addition.
2. Approve their request to caplet only part of Outlot H to be known
as Meadow Oak Fourth Addition.
3. Approve the partial platting of Outlot H to be known an Meadow
Oak Fourth Addition with the recorded covenant with the property
that no other Iota in the unplatted outlot could be sold until
all improvements are in and paid for.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff in recommending, from the planning standpoint and also
from the advice of our city attorney, to deny the applicant's request
for partial platting of Outlot H to be known as Meadow Oak Fourth
Addition. City staff acknowledges that the applicant only
20
Council Agenda - 5/11/87
Cvents to put in what he can afford to do, as he is the one that
is paying for the full amount of the assessments. But staff recognizes
from a planning aspect that it is not good planning not to approve
the whole plat as presented for Outlot H.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed platting of a residential outlot
request; Copy of the 8/13/85 Planning Commission Minutes; Copy of
the 8/26/85 City Council Minutes; Copy of letter from Gary Pringle;
Copy of the proposed replat of Outlot H to be known as Meadow Oak
Fourth Addition; Copy of the replat of Outlot H in its entirety.
-2-
Request for final stag* Plan Of a
planned Unit Development-
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/13/85
7. Public Hearing - Request for a Final Stade Pian Aoproval of
a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, Ultra Homes, Inc.
Zoning Administrator Gary Anderson indicated to the Planning
Commission members that due to a conflict of interest the
owners from Ultra Homes, Inc. could not be present to propose
their request. He did, however, indicate to Planning Commission
members the background information which was supplied
to them in.their agenda supplement. The Meadow
Oak Third Addition, also known as Outlet G. to be platted is
ready for development stage approval subject to some written
agreements as to the final grating, as per grating plan for
this Outlot G and an agreement as to when the curb and gutter
and asphalt surface would be put in. The properties have
currently been assessed for storm sewer, water and sewer improvements
(which are already in). However, the rough grating, the curb
and gutter, and the hard surfacing of the street, these improvements
are to be at the developer's expense.
At the development stage, the Outlot H. which is the Meadow
Oak fourth addition; Outlot C, which is the Meadow Oak Estates
second addition; Outlot D, which is the Meadow Oak Estates
third addition are before you, the proposed platting of these
Iota. The staff however, fools that the Outlots, C. D. 6 H
be approved at the development stage approval only and not
be passed on for proposed final approval. The reasoning behind
this is that should the developer decide to sell off these
platted lots with no improvements into them whatsoever, the
individual property owner or owners could at some point in
time, in the near future, come into the City to request improvements
be put in to service their vacant lot properties.
At that time, should the City approve putting in the public
utilities, we would have to bond for them. with the last
two additions that have tomo into the City, all the public
improvements for these subdivisions, and the cost for these
have been borne by the developer himself in its entirety.
Chairman Elect Richard Carlson opened the meeting up for any
input from the public. There being no input from the public,
he rose aloud a letter submitted from consulting planner John
Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban and Associates. Having heard
the above information, a motion was made by Joyce Dowling,
seconded by Richard Martis to:
1. Approve the development stage of a Planned Unit Development
for Outlot G to be known as the Meadow Oak Third Addition.
a. Contingent upon the written agreements being approved by the City
of Monticello, they would also recommend approval of the
final stage of a Planned Unit Development for Outlot G
to be known as the Meadow Oak Third Addition.
3. That they also approve the development stage of Outlet C,
Meadow Oak Estates second Addition; Outlot D to be known
an the Meadow Oak Estates Third Addition; and Outlot N
to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition.
The motions carried unanimously with Jim Ridgeway absent.
l
City Council Minutes - 8126/85
7. Consideration of Development Stage Approval of Planned Unit
Development - Ultra Homes, Inc.
Mr. Dickman Knutson, owner of the Meadow Oak development,
request that a development stage approval for outlots C, D,
6 H. The outlots will be known as Meadow Oak Estates 2nd
Addition, Meadow Oak Estates 3rd Addition, and Meadow Oak
4th Addition.
It is noted that the proposed plats for the above outlots
meet all requirements except that the lots do not yet have
utilities installed such as sewer, water and street surfacing.
It was recommended that before final approval is granted,
the developer must supply a written contract for the utility
construction or actually install the utilities before approval.
A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
. carried to approve the development stage of the planned
unit development for outlots C, D, 6 H. to be known as Meadow
Oaks Estates 2nd Addition, 3rd Addition, and Meadow Oak 4th
Addition with final approval for the subdivisions contingent
upon developers supplying a contract indicating that utilities
are or are about to be installed.
8. Consideration of Development Stage Plan Approval and Final
Approval of a Planned Unit Development - Apolicant, Ultra
Homes Inc.
Mr. Dickman Knutson, owner of the Meadow Oak development also
requested development stage and final stage approval of outlot
G which will be known as the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition.
It was noted by the staff that the planned 3rd addition does
meet all City requirements of the PUD except that hard surfacing
of the street has not yet been constructed and recommended
that final approval be subject to the improvements being completed.
A motion was made by 8111 Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the development stage for outlot
G to be known as Meadow Oak 3rd Addition.
A motion wan also made by Maxwell, seconded by Fran Fair,
and unanimously carried to approve the final plat for outlot
G as submitted, subject to the requirement that all improvements
be contracted for or installed prior to recording of the plat.
:D
SMITH, PRINGLE Q HAYES
MONnc[uo ornc(
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
iOT SOUTH WALNUT STREET
R" —1. plrgC[
P.O. 50[ edd
GREGORY V. SMiTN, JO.
OLOCQUATNC.Se dt"LOING
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 35382-0885
GARY L. "RINOLE. J.O
326 LOWELL AVENUE
1
{
THOMAS O, HAYES. JO
EUa RIVER- MINNESOTA 33530
r[TRO IM[ iLIL A]I1830
_
O�itC[ pvOM -L uI, ][DD
April 9, 198T
Monticello Planning Commission,
T Attn: Cary Anderson
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Proposed Partial Replat of Outlot "H" to be Known as Meadow Oak 4th Addition
Dear Gary:
Pursuant to our teleph-ne c-nversation about the possibility of splitting up
Outlot "H" Tor the, replating with the Easterly 14 Lots being developed on an
immediate basis with the Westerly part of it to be done later, it is my opinion
that this would not be a proper approach.
From a planning standpoint the only sensible approach is to develop the entire
Outlot. The only reason a split development would make any sense for the deve-
loper is because it might force the neighboring property to the weal. to put
water and sewer lines across the remaining part of that Outlot "H" which would
create a hardship for the westerly property owner and would create a windfall
for the owner of Outlot "H".
A lift station has been Installed in that area to benefit all of these proper-
ties including the Outlot "H" and the property to the west of it. All of the
properties have been assessed for the benefit of this lift station. To
force the westerly property owner to put a free line across the westerly part of
Outlot "H" in order to benefit from that lift station would not be fair to the
westerly property owner.
It just dosen-t make good planning sense from the city standpoint for this
Outlot to be divided up as proposed.
For the owner of Out Lot "H" to run the services thru the 14 lots on the easterly
Pan of Out Lot "H" and then stop, with a later construction of the service
lines from that point over to the westerly boundary of Outlot "M" would not make
good sense, even for the developer of Outlot "H". It would cost more money to
do it that way.
��%%
You�truly, nle .ry L. -j
CLP /t km
File No. 87-15802
R
Le
I
J+ s •
e
, Yi w M WY �
'•�f•�'
OI�M• YYIYM1 •YwY�y W�¢rw
Yt.a w iCM OR YOYI! i a Yw� NY >e.
�•j
l
O
ra.Y. w.r raw ..r•.'.�r.w
�,� � YwY Y p.YW Y W 41Yi r•IIY W � i.
a
L��
j
,� � � 'w n m� c w,w., Yew.i ✓.
t
�•y
I ! / y'v O.M.
O
... .'i� +�' 7 .:$ J ..
••�=y,:.: i Y • , I'''
till ' s
Skis'!''
_
�
••�If�
ll
�I'Q
•�.J s.M ..
•w
J1. •J G.� •o � t
"
MOCOT -xv TION •tBONa;�, fNC.
...fie .. . • • .. .. - '
• I' .'S u. .. CL/
%
• 0
__ _ nee Jt - "♦ _ r.fti tib L�
2 c;
r' R
r �.
5 ;6 R��i 7r�-��► `� �R 10s'1°;1 J;;,q= 12
__.-_- g.
:ops
3 R;;6
5 i„F 9 R ,� 7 �, •{ v , +$
Y .': ," , �a•er ,r• nnm _ ��—i rr'`n• , (M4 1 •°tl.rwtq i•"
ou;�/♦�`.,• •••: - " Y� .l- . ♦ t, at '� flat � Af1 ♦ ♦�+a.t• �
COMBS
Adoit! Q k=KN�tSON 4SS
. V A oct4r fs ;
SNC, :rb ri
(Juf jot Add; f�.
0
Council Agenda - 5/11/87
5. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Bonds for Tax
Increment District 07. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Jerry Shannon of Springsted, Inc., has indicated that a motion
authorizing the sale of bonds for the Tax Increment Finance Plan
relating to District #7 (NAWCO Minnesota, Inc.) should be initiated
if the project is to proceed on schedule. According to the Tax Increment
Financing Plan recently adopted for the Norwegians, a total budget
relating to the land purchase in the Oakwood Industrial Park along
with additional cost associated with issuing bonds, etc., will total
$170,000. It is presently proposed to sell the land to the window
Company for $15,000 necessitating a bond sale of $155,000. According
to a schedule prepared by Springsted, Inc., on April 23, 1987, a
5155,000 bond issue at an estimated interest rate of 85 percent would
be entirely supported by the tax increments to be generated from
the Norwegian Window Company project. It should be pointed out that
the BS percent interest rate is what is anticipated at this time;
but if the interest rate should come in higher than this, the amount
charged for the land sale to the Window Company may have to be increased
to enable the tax increments to sufficiently cover the debt.
Mr. Shannon has indicated that because the amount of the bond sale
is under $300,000, Springsted, Inc., would negotiate the sale on
our behalf seeking over the next few weeks Quotes/bids on the placement
of those taxable tax increment bonds. This same process was used
when the City cold tax increment bonds for the FSI District and results
in lower bond consultant face rather than going through the full
formal bidding process.
Springsted, Inc., proposes to have the sale date of the bonds June B,
1987. It should be noted that this resolution authorizing the sale
is not the came as the resolution awarding the bond sale, but is
primarily to establish a paper trail and to confirm that Springsted
is to pursue the placement of the bonds for us. If, by chance. Tom
or 011ie, upon their return from Norway, have information that would
indicate the project is not continuing on schedule, the authorization
for Springsted to proceed should be adopted.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution authorizing the sols --this would give Jerry
Shannon explicit direction to secure proposals for the placement
of these bonds.
2. Do not adopt the resolution --this would again essentially stop
the tax increment finance project since the sale of bonds is
integral to the workings of the plan.
-3-
C
Council Agenda - 5/11/87
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution authorizing the sale of bonds as stipulated
in the Tax Increment Financing Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution authorizing the sale of bonds; Maturity schedule
for issue prepared by Springsted.
-4-
RESOLUTION 87 -
RESOLUTION RELATING TO $155,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION
TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987
DETERMINING THE EXPEDIENCY OF ISSUING THE BONDS
AND PROVIDING FOR THE SOLICITATION OF BIDS THEREFOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota (the 'City') as follows:
1. Authorization. It is hereby found, determined, and declared
that it is necessary and expedient for the City, in accordance
with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71
through 273.78, forthwith to borrow money by the issuance
of its general obligation tax increment bonds in the principal
amount not to exceed $155,000, which amount is within the
limitations specified in Chapter 475, Minnesota Statutes,
for the purpose of financing public redevelopment costs
of a redevelopment project undertaken by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello.
Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 662.
2. Sale Terms. In order to expedite the sale of said bonds,
the City Administrator of the City, in consultation with
apringsted Incorporated, bond consultant to the City, is
authorized to prepare and circulate to one or more prospective
bidders information relating to the terms and conditions
of the bonds and relating to the financial condition of
the City and to solicit bids from said prospective bidders
for the purchaser of the bonds. This Council shall meet
on such date as it may deem expendient to consider bids
for the purchase of the bonds and take such action thereon
as is deemed appropriate.
Adopted by the City Council this 11th day of May, 1987.
Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
O
City of Monticello,
Minnesota
Prepared
April 23,
1967
$155,000 G.O. Taxable Tax Increment
By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
Bonds, Series 1987
Dated: 7- 1-1987
Mature: 2- 1 -
Total Capital-
Tax
Year of Year of
Principal
irod
Not
1051
Increment
Annual Cumulative
Iavy Mat. Principal
Rates
Interest
6 Interest Interest
Iavy
of Total
Revenue
Surplus
Surplus
(1) (2)
(3)
(a)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
1987 1989
0
0.00%
19,763
19,763
19,761
0
0
0
0
0
1988 1990
15,000
8.50%
11,175
28,175
0
26,175
29,584
30,688
1,104
1,104
1989 1991
15,000
8.50%
11,900
26,900
0
26,900
28,245
30,574
2,329
1,413
1990 1992
15,000
8.504
10,625
25,625
0
25,625
26,906
30,452
1,546
6,979
1991 1993
20,000
0.504
9,150
29,150
0
29,150
10,018
30,321
0
6,464
1992 1994
20,000
8.50%
7,650
27,650
0
27,650
29,033
30,186
1,153
7,637
1993 1995
20,000
8.50%
5,950
25,950
0
25,950
27,249
30,041
2,793
10,430
1994 1996
25.000
8.50%
4,250
29,250
0
29,250
30,713
29,887
0
9,604
1995 1997
25,000
0.50%
2,125
27,125
0
27,125
26,481
29,723
1,242
10,846
TOTALS:
155,000
04,786
239,788
19,763
220,025
231,028
241,874
10,646
Bond Year*:
997.50
Annual
Interest:
84,788
Ave. Maturity:
6.44
Plus Discount:
2,000
AVG. Annual Rate:
8.5004
flat Interest:
86,788
N.I.C. Rata:
6.701%
interest rates are
aatimatesr
changes
may cause
significant alterations
of this schedule
The actual Underwriter's discount bid
may also
vary
Council Agenda - 5/11/87
6. Consideration of a Resolution from MN/DOT Approving Plans and Specifications
for Highway 25 Improvements from River Street to Bridge. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
When a Minnesota Department of Transportation Highway project falls
within the city limits. MN/DOT is required to have city approval
of the proposed construction.
They have asked that we approve the plane, including all the elevations
and grades and consent to such changes. In addition, they ask that
we prohibit parking on the highway. I have asked John Badalich to
review the plans I sent to him earlier this week. It is my understanding
that neither John nor Chuck Lepak will be available for Monday's
meeting, so a letter will be forthcoming to go with the agenda to
approve the plans. MN/DOT will have representatives at Monday's
meeting to go over the proposed project with us.
We had made an agreement with MN/DOT staff that they would landscape
the elope areae along the bridge. They further agreed to have their
landscape architect contact the City prior to final design of that
landscaping so that we would be able to have it bland into the surrounding
park area. MN/DOT did not do thio. The plane show that their landscape
design consists only of mulch with low lying Sumac planted every
four feet. I spoke about this with Gary Nfemi, the District Engineer,
�1 and indicated 1 felt the State had used very little imagination in
the landscaping design. Gary indicated that they would be contacting
us and that they may be able to make some modifications to this design.
The plans made no mention of fencing the right-of-way to provide
separation between the construction project and the parks. I have
boon informed by Loo Elshiro, a MN/DOT representative, that the State
will fence the right-of-way when the project begins. Leo also discussed
with me the possibility of the City renting the perk property to
the contractor. I indicated to him that that was a possibility,
but it would be a decision by the Council after knowing further details
as to who the contractor wan, how he wanted to use the park, and
what typo of room the City would recover from the contractor. I
also talked with Loo about the restoration that Twin City Testing
had not performed in those areas of the park they damaged. Leo indicated
that it may be boat to leave those areas unrestored until we determine
whether or not the City will allow the contractor to use the park.
One other item of concern with the project involves the dewatering
that will be done during the bridge construction for installing the
piers. I have spoken with Davo Hills, the Regional Hydrologist for
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, about the possible
effect of these dowatering wells located only IN blocks from our
municipal water supply wells. Dave indicated that we should be monitoring
the draw down on our wells prior to the start of the bridge project
and constantly during the project. The likelihood of drying up our
wells is very small. There is, however, a potential that the draw
down may be pulled beneath the depth at which the pumps are sot into
our wells. The pumps in our wells aro not at relatively shallow
depths, as the draw down in the past many years has been very limited.
-5-
Council Agenda - 5/11/87
Mr. Hills indicated that if we were monitoring and there was evidence
to indicate that our draw down was being affected by the bridge project
wells that the City's municipal wells would take precedent over the
bridge construction wells. At this time we don't feel it will be
a problem, but City staff will closely monitor it.
We have received word from Robert Nibbe of the Minnesota Department
of Transportation that the Brainerd office is processing a request
for payment for the bandstand in the amount of $28,000. A copy of
the letter is enclosed for your review.
I received the comments from the City Engineer on Friday morning,
May S. I met with Chuck Lepak to discuss his comments. The letter
is enclosed for your review. Two items, I believe, are of importance.
In item number two, the storm sewer outlet to the river does not
appear to be adequately supported if maintenance is to be taken over
by the City. In these cases, the City installs these outlets on
steel shoot piling and ties the structure back into several of the
adjoining pipe. In addition, we then grout all of the riprsp in
the area of the outlet. The plane do not show this type of construction.
-6-
Item number four on OSM's comments involves the fencing along the
sidewalk under the bridge. On October 14, 1986, we were notified
by Northatar Risk Services, Inc., working for our insurance company
that the areas whore the city parks adjoin the river should have
protection fence erected. They indicated the fence will help reduce
the possibility of people inadvertently falling into the swift current.
We informed our insurance company that we would install temporary
snow fencing along the embankment as a physical barrier, which we
did. We then also informed the insurance company that we would review
the need for any physical barriare during the bridge replacement
project. The plane currently call for only fencing 126 feet of the
sidewalk immediately under the bridge. Mr. Gary Niomi, in a February 6,
1987, latter, has indicated that he would extend the fence along
the entire state highway right-of-way if the City plans to fence
portions of the park also. The Council will have to address this
fencing question as to what they would require.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the plans as proposed
making note that the City would like to see MN/OOT work with
us on the landscaping design, storm sewer outlot, fencing the
park and possibly river -9 edge, and processing payment for the
bandstand.
2. The second alternative would be not to approve the plans. I
don't feel this alternative is applicable in this case, as we
have tomo too far with this project to turn back now; and not
approving the plane would cause many unnecessary delays of the
d
project.
-6-
Council Agenda - 5/11/87
CC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council approve plane
as outlined In alternative number one.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution provided by MN/DOT; Copy of the letter from
Robert Nibbe; Copy of letter from OSM.
-7.
State Project 7106-10 (2525)
Ped. Proj. 1® 089-1 (76)
u+ R 8 8 0 L U T I O R
At a meeting of the City Council of the Cl ty o1 Montfcallo, bald an
the _ day of , 1987, the fol lw ins Resolution was offered by
; seconded by
, to wit:
BHERFAH the Comissioner of Transportation for the State of Itionesot• has
prepared: plans, special provisions, rad specifications for the improvemnt of
Trunk Highway 1o. 27, renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 25, within the corporate
limits of the City of Monticello, from River Street to No. Corp. limits; And
seats the approval thereof;
101, 1. 18 IT 11L9ID that aria plans nod spacial provisions for the
laprov sett of .id Truax ei lhray rithim uid eor pone Ii. it• of tM City, be
and ht:raby •n approved ioeluding the elevations sad Indo• a ehwn and couent
Ir M— , given to may ssd all changes is grade oecaa iomd by •rid tromatructioo.
11 IT ?U1THHR IMCIL92D that the City does hereby agree to require the patios of
dl vashl clan, if soeb park int is pant tted within thecorporate limits of saidCity, ova said Trunk ei Abs.y, to bs panl lel with the curb adjacent to the
bislorap, and at lent 20 feet from any crosswalks on all public sumacs
(ouryect/ng add trunk higMRy.
Upen the cell of the roll, the follwing council amber. voted in favor of the
9 A.wlution:
and, the following council embers voted against the adoption of the Resolution:
whereupon the mayor and/or the providing officer declared the Rmaolutlom Adopted.
Dated: 1987.
Mayor
Attest
City Clarb
Bill?% t1 MLM11BOfA )
)
COLWTY U7 wR1CHT )
)
CITT CIV MUITICELID )
1 do hereby cern Py that at aid maetlog (of which due and legal notice was given)
of the City Council of the City of Monticello. Minnesota. on the day of
1967; at which a majority of the mothers of said Council
were present, the foregoing Raoolut(on was adopted.
Clven under cep bud sod seal this � day of 1917,
City Clark
IM000795870 )IR
a
Minnesota Department of Transportation
SOF TOO District 3
301 Laurel St., P.O. Box 978
Brainerd, Minnesota 58401
Quality Service Through Individual Commitment
April 27, 1987
Mr. Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway Street
:4onticello, MN 55362
In reply refer to:
S.P. 7104-10
Monticello
Dear Mr. Eidem:
(218) 828-2460
This letter is to let you know that the Department of Transportation is
rrorking on its commitments to the city of Monticello concerning the band-
stand in Cast Bridge Park. I hope to see everything finalised by the end
of May.
The district is recommending to our Central Office that the city of
Monticello be paid $28,000 as the recovery price for the bandstand.
If you have any changes to make or have any questions please call me At
(218) 828-2477.
Sincerely,
.11.� ,✓Q-1,
Robert Nibbe
District Right of way Engineer
cc:
W. N. Yoerg - Brainerd
Bob Ehrich - Brainerd
R. J. Dinneen - Room S11
RN: rjn
An EOuai 0AXrrunlry EmOloylr
.410.0OI ® l�
I
ks
TOF T10
May 1, 1987
Mr. Tom Eidem
City Administrator
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 83A
Monticello, MN 55362
Minnesota Department of Transportation
District 3
301 Laurel St., P.Q. Box 978
Brainerd, Minnesota 58401 (218) 828.2480
Quality Service Through individual Commitment
In reply refer to:
S.P. 7104-10 (TH 25-25)
Dear Mr. Eidem:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation is going to let a contract for
grading, bituminous surfacing, curb b gutter, channelization and bridge
construction on May 22, 1987. The proposed construction is on TH 25 be-
tween River Street in Monticello and 0.39 mile east of CSAH 11.
When a construction project on a trunk highway falls within the city
limits, it is required that we have city approval of the proposed
construction.
Enclosed is a plan and a proposal of the proposed construction and a reso-
lution (2 copies) for the approval of the plan.
Would you please present the resolution to the city council for action and
signatures at your next regular scheduled meeting. It is also necessary
to have the official seal of the city affixed to these forms.
if you would like a representative from Mn/DOT present at your council
meeting, please inform we ahead of time so the proper arrangements can be
made.
Please return to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, before May
15, 1987, the original copy of the resolution. The plans, proposal and
the carbon copy of the resolution are for your records.
Sincerely,
ba�c�.:�.� 1+
Gary N 1
District Pre -Letting Engineer
cc:
W. N. Yoerg/.1. ¢oivisoto - 8rd.
Jimv Lobo - 8t. Cloud
CN: rjn
An Esusr 0APonunuy Employer
.1120"9
: ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON It ASSOCIATES, ING
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
May 7. 1387
city of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Attn: Mr. John Simola
Director of Public Works
Re: T. H. 25 Bridge Approach
Plan Review
OsM comm. No. 1748.43
Dear John:
Our office has reviewed the Mn/DOT plans for the T.H. 25 project and have found
the following:
1. The temporary and permanent traffic flow patterns and geometry of the inter-
sections are satisfactory.
2. Stormwater run-off is handled in an adequate manner. The 24" RCP outlet at
the river is one foot above ordinary high water level. However, the City
may wish to require a more substantial structure at the outlet if it will be
taken over by the City. I am concerned about the flared end being undermined
by water.
3. The inslope on the west side of the approach is rather steep (2-1/2:1). Is
this okay with the City or could more temporary easement be obtained for
slope purposes? (See Sheets 32 and 33).
4. The sidewalk beneath the bridge as shown on Sheets 7 and 12A will have a
fence for 126 feet. Would the City like to have the fence extended to the
water line?
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-i4AYERON
8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
9&14,
Charles A. Lepak, P.E.
Project Engineer
CAL:Mlj
2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Mirtneepotis, Minnesota 55413 • 6121331- 8660 (Do
Council Agenda - 5/11/87
7. Consideration of a Resolution Entering into a Cooperative Agreement
with M/DOT regarding City Participation in Sidewalk Cost - Bridge
Improvement. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In January of this year, the City received a request for a cooperat 1ve
construction agreement between MN/DoT and the City in regard to the
now bridge construction. we had been asked to pay for portions of
the storm sewer, manhole castings, the sidewalk leading to the bridge
from River Street, and the new sidewalk under the bridge, as well
as all the fence under the new bridge. The resolution that came
with the proposed agreement indicated that we would obtain at our
own expense all necessary right-of-way easements and construction
permits for the work to be performed outside the limits of the trunk
highway or established city streets and roads. Tom and I rejected
the proposed agreement at that time, as some of these items had been
previously negotiated when the State acquired rights to a portion
of our park; and we certainly didn't wish to be responsible for hidden
costs or obtaining special permits, which was also in the proposed
agreement.
After several discussions, Gary Niami met with some of his staff
who were cognizant of our earlier agreements and revised a cooperat 1ve
construction agreement. Mr. Niami indicated that NN/DOT needed thl e
cooperative construction agreement immediately but that they had
not yet drafted it. He indicated that they would attempt to gat
the agreement to the City in time for review and action at the Council
meeting. As of noon on Friday, we have not yet received the proposed
agreement. I, therefore, will include only copies of the original
resolution requested and follow-up letters regarding that agreement .
Hopefully the agreement will come in time so it can be included in
your package or at least for Monday evening's meeting.
There are no alternative actions or staff recommendations for this
item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of January 16 letter from MN/DOT; Copy of first proposed reao Tutton;
Copy of memo of January 22, 1987, to Tom Eidem; Copy of Latter from
Gary Niami, February 6, 1987.
-8-
#�HNESO)O
OO yO
s a
r
oc Tad'ya'
January 16, 1987
Mr. Thomas Eiden
City Administrator
250 East Broadway
,Monticello, MN 55362
Minnesota Department of Transportation
District 3
301 Laurel St., P.O. Box 978
Brainerd, Minnesota 56401 (218) 828,2460
Quality Service Through Individual Commitment
In reply refer to:
S.P. 7104-10 (TH 2S)
Bridge 71012 over Mississippi River
Dear Tom,
Attached is a proposed form of a resolution for the cooperative construc-
tion agreement on the above referenced project. Estimated cost for the
city of Monticello is $9,000.00. The estimated cost includes:
1) 24" storm sewer pipe, apron and riprep.
2) Casting assembly for M.H. No. 93.
3) Sidewalk, along TH 25 from River Street to
the new bridge and under the new bridge for
the park.
4) Fence under the new bridge.
Please present this to the city council for action as soon as possible so
as not to delay the agreement process. The project is scheduled for letting
on May 22, 1987, The agreement must be fully executed prior to that date.
Sincerely,
Gary Nie
District Pre -Letting Engineer
cc:
Clarence Michalko - Room 712
W. N. Yoerg/J. Koivisto - Brainerd
J. Labo/L. Olmscheid - St. Cloud
GN: rjn
C
An Equal Opoor/unity EmploVar
®0
0
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota. Department of Transportation, proposes to make
certain improvements on a portion of Trunk Highway No. 25 located in the City of Monticello
in Wright County, upon and along Pine Street, and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City that such improvements of said roadway along
said street be extended to greater width and capacity than is necessary to accommodate normal
trunk highway traffic, from River Street to the Mississippi River (a distance of approximately
}00 ft.),
BE IT RESOLVED by the council of the City of Monticello that the State of Minnesota,
Department of Transportation is requested to provide for improvements on the aforesaid
portion of Trunk Highway No. 25 consisting particularly of curb, gutter, base, surfacing,
storm sewer, etc., in which the City will share in the cost.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that following approval by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation of plans and specifications for said improvements of said trunk highway and
before a contract is awarded for the construction of said improvements, the City shall enter
into an agreement with the State which shall provide that the City shall pay its share of
the cost of the requested improvements as determined by the State in keeping with its latest
edition of Mn/DOT Policy Guideline ( a copy of which has been received from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation's District Engineer) and, that if the State lets the construc-
tion contract, the municipality will deposit with the State upon demand, after the execution
of the agreement and before the start of construction, a sum equal to an estimate of the
City's.,share as prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
The City shall, in addition to paying its proportionate share of the cost of the
proposed work, obtain at its sole cost and expense all necessary right of way easements and
construction permits for the work to be performed outside the limits of the trunk highway or
•atablished city streets and roads, together with all drainage outlet rights where necessary.
ueh easements, permits and rights shall be obtained and certified copies of them furnished
the Department of Transportation before any contract for the proposed work is awarded.
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution presented to and adopted by the City of Monticello by the city council at a
meeting thereof hold in the City of Monticello. Minnesota, on the day of
, 19 _ as disclosed by the records of said Lity in my possession.
Dated this day of 19
(Seal)
City Clerk
Lounty Auditor
(NOTE; Furnish Minnesota Department of
Transportation two copies.)
C D7
a. The agreement states that the City shell obtain at its sole
cost and expense all necessary right-of-way easements and
construction permits for the work to be performed outside
the limits of the trunk highway or established City streets
and roads together with all drainage outlet rights where
necessary. I believe that this area of the agreement should
be stricken. It is our understanding that no additional
work will be performed outside the right-of-way. If it
should become necessary to perform work outside the right-of-way,
I foal it is within reason to allow the City to negotiate
or wall additional right-of-way or temporary easements rather
than have this an automatic turn over. In addition, if
there are soma DNR permits or Corps of Engineers permits
or PCA permits required for relocating the storm saver,
it should be the State's responsibility to obtain these
permits, not the City -s.
If you have any questions, please contact ma.
250 Ent BrIod-sy cc: ES ridge Construction Pile
ti
Mon5362.9245
2a5
L'7
MONTICELLO, MW 55362.9245
January 22, 1987
Phone ;6 t 2) 295,2711
Memo Ie 121333.5739
TO: Tom Eidem, City Administrator
FROM: John Simola, Public Works director
Maya:
Arne Grwnama
City cou co
RE: January 16, 1987, letter and agreement from
Dan sta+gen
Gary Niemi concerning construction of Highway 25 bridge
Fran Feu
Wiamm Fm
over the Mississippi River
Jack Ma—ell
I have reviewed the letter and proposed cooperative construction
Ad-AMretar:
agreement. I make the following comments or notations.
Tom E'wera
FihwceOlr ctor:
X11tatlet
1. The City should have detailed plans and a list of quantities,
Rick
including the estimated costs of those quantities and the
Public Wbn'°'rcentage
Jour Singb
cost sharia
De 9 for each.
Plennmg a Zorurp:
Gary Ar+aeraa+
2. I question the fencing along the river, specifically the
Econornrc 0eretotaaent:
length of it, should it not be a requirement to fence the
OmeKoroachae
entire right-of-way along the Mississippi River? This would
limit the State of Minnesota's liability as well as the
r
City's.
3. It van my understanding that come of the costs for such
things as a sidewalk under the bridge, fencing, or pathways
were to be considered as part of a trade off for the City
giving up a portion of its park for the highway and bridge
right-of-way.
a. The agreement states that the City shell obtain at its sole
cost and expense all necessary right-of-way easements and
construction permits for the work to be performed outside
the limits of the trunk highway or established City streets
and roads together with all drainage outlet rights where
necessary. I believe that this area of the agreement should
be stricken. It is our understanding that no additional
work will be performed outside the right-of-way. If it
should become necessary to perform work outside the right-of-way,
I foal it is within reason to allow the City to negotiate
or wall additional right-of-way or temporary easements rather
than have this an automatic turn over. In addition, if
there are soma DNR permits or Corps of Engineers permits
or PCA permits required for relocating the storm saver,
it should be the State's responsibility to obtain these
permits, not the City -s.
If you have any questions, please contact ma.
250 Ent BrIod-sy cc: ES ridge Construction Pile
ti
Mon5362.9245
2a5
1p,%"Esorq
nQ
10
Minnesota Department of Transportation
,per
4 District 3
ytOF T;kW 301 Laurel St., P.O. Box 978
Brainerd, Minnesota 56401
February 6, 1987 Quality Service Through Individual Commitment
Mr. Thomas Eidem `4�
City Administrator &VA
250 East BroadwayCOPY�,�NUX
Monticello, MN 55362 {� VI
In reply refer to:
S.Y. 7104-10 (7111 2S) EV•"�
Bridge 71012 over Mississippi River
(218) 8262460
Dear Tom.
I*m writing in response to your letter dated February 2. 1987 and as a
follow-up to our telephone conversation this morning. Below are individual
answers to each of the concerns you voiced:
1. The resolution I sent you gives bin/DOT the okay to proceed
�. with the plans and specs. and indicates the city will share
in the cost. We are currently preparing the agreement which
will detail the city's involvement. I have enclosed a pre-
liminary plan which details all the construction on the
project.
1. We intend to fence under the new bridge where the walkway's
proximity to the river is an apparent danger. As we dis-
cussed on the phone, it is possible to extend the fence to
the R/W line if the city has plans to fence their portion
of the park. Let me know as soon as possible what your
intentions are.
1. A portion of the cost for sidewalk, fencing and pathways
is definitely not a trade-off for the portion of the city
park we acquired as right-of-way. we mitigated this taking
by buying additional property for park purposes. On the
phone you mentioned the possibility of replacing these
items and Mn/DOT bearing all the costs or the city parti-
cipating in only a portion thereof because they were
inplace under the old bridge. We will discuss this ano
gat back to you.
An Eeua+Oppo.runny fmproya �ry ,
.010110.0f
Nr. Thomas Eidem
February 6. 1987
Page 2
4. The portion of the resolution which refers to additional
right-of-way is a "canned" statement and probably does
not have a bearing on this project. You may delete it
from the resolution if you wish.
M/DDT has either obtained or applied for all necessary
permits required by other agencies.
We would like to get the signed resolution back as soon as possible. Contact
me at your earliest convenience if you have additional questions or coaments.
Sincerely.
J `-1 iw
vrrllyy N mi
District Pre -Letting Engineer
�- Enclosure:
Preliminary Plan
cc:
M. N. YoergjJ. Koivisto - Brainerd
Ray YanGeest - Brainerd
CN:rjn
DESIGN STATE OF MINNESOTA AGREEMENT NO.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT 63961
S.P. 7104-71012 (T.H. 25.25)
S.P. 7104-10 (T.H. 25-25)
Fed. Proj. BRF 089-1(36)
Agreement between
AMOUNT ENCUMBERED
The State of Minnesota
Department of Transportation, and
(None)
The City of Monticello
Re: City cost concrete walk and storm
ESTIMATED AMOUNT
sewer construction by the State
RECEIVABLE
on TH 25 (Pine Street) from River Street
to the south end of the T.H. No. 25
Mississippi River Bridge No. 71012
57,974.87
in Monticello
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the State of
Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as
the "State" and the City of Monticello, Minnesota, acting by and
through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City".
0
63961
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS the State is about to award a contract for grading,
bituminous surfacing, concrete walk, storm sewer and bridge
construction and other associated construction work to be performed
upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 25 from Engineer
Station 17+45 (River Street) in the City to Engineer Station 35+00
(0.39 of a mile east of County State Aid Highway No. 11 in
accordance with state plans, specifications and special provisions
therefor designated as State Projects No. 7104-10 (T.H. 25-25) and
No. 7104-71012 (T.H. 25.25) and in the records of the Federal
Highway Administration as Minnesota Project BRF 089-1(36); and
WHEREAS City cost participation is required on State Project No.
7104-10 (T.H. 25.25) for concrete walk and storm sewer facilities
construction and associated construction work to be performed along
and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 25 from River Street to the south
end of the Trunk Highway No. 25 Mississippi River Bridge No. 71012
within the corporate city limits: and
WHEREAS the City has expressed its willingness to participate in the
costa of said construction as hereinafter set forth.
IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
L'
63961
'-_ ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE
The State shall, in connection with the award of the construction
contract, administration of said contract and the performance of
construction engineering for State Projects No. 7104-10 (T.H.
25=25), and No. 7104-71012 (T -H. 25.25) do and perform the
following.
Section A. Contract Award
Duly advertise for bids and award a contract to the lowest
responsible bidder for the Trunk Highway No. 25 grading, bituminous
surfacing, concrete walk, storm sever and bridge construction and
other associated construction work in accordance with state plans,
specifications and special provisions bearing the above state
project number designations and which are on file in the office of
the Commissioner of Transportation at St. Paul, Minnesota, and are
made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as
though fully set forth herein.
Section B. Direction and Supervision of Construction
Direct and supervise all construction activities performed under
said state projects, and perform all construction engineering and
inspection functions necessary for the satisfactory completion of
said state projects construction.
63961
` Section C. Plan Chanoes, Extra Work, Etc.
Make such changes in plans or in the character of the work for said
state projects construction,, including the city cost participation
construction hereunder, which are reasonably necessary to cause said
state projects construction to be in all things performed and
completed in a satisfactory manner, and to that end and as
supplemental to any contract let for the construction of said state
projects, to enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements
with the state's contractor for the performance of any extra work or
work occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable changes
in plans. However, the State's District Engineer at Brainerd or his
duly authorized representative will inform the City Administrator or
other appropriate city official of any proposed change order or
supplement to the construction contract which will affect the city
cost participation hereunder.
Section D. Satisfactory Completion of Contract
Do and perform a:l other acts and functions necessary to cause said
state contract to be completed in a satisfactory manner.
ARTICLE II - BASIS OF PAYMENT BY THE CITY
Section A. Construction Costs
The City shell pay to the State, as the City's full share of the
costa of the construction to be performed in accordance with Article
-a-
N4
CD
63961
` I hereof, the costs of the construction described below under "CITY
COST PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCTION" and of the costs of any contract
change orders or supplemental agreements which may be necessary to
complete said city cost participation construction and the cost of
any settlements of claims made with the state's contractor in
connection with said city cost participation construction.
Said payment by the City hereunder of the City's share of
construction costs shall be based on the final quantities of city
cost participation construction work items performed or the final
payment quantity in the case of plan quantity items multiplied by
the appropriate unit prices contained in the construction contract
to be awarded by the State in accordance with Article I hereof
and/or multiplied by the appropriate unit prices contained in any
supplemental agreements to the state's contract which provide for
city cost participation construction.
Attached hereto, made a pert hereof by reference and marked SCHEDULE
"I", is a preliminary construction cost estimate form which lists
all of the anticipated city cost participation construction and
construction engineering items to be performed hereunder.
It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all liquidated
damages assessed the state' s contractor in connection with the work
performed under said state contract shall result in a credit shared
by the State and the City in the same proportion as their respective
63961
total cost share of construction contract work is to the total
contract cost without any deduction for liquidated damages.
CITY COST PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCTION
All of the following construction to be performed along and adjacent
to Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street) from River Street to the south
end of the Trunk Highway No. 25 Mississippi River Bridge No. 71012
within the corporate city limits under State Project No. 7104-10
(T.H. 25-25).
44.2 PERCENT CITY COSTS
The salvaging of the casting for storm sever Manhole No. 93 located
17 feet right of the Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street) northbound
roadway centerline at Engineer Station 17+44, all of the
construction of storm sever Manhole No. 95 located 70 feet right of
the Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street) northbound roadway centerline
at Engineer Station 19+60, all of the construction of sever pipe
leading from said manholes and all casting assemblies, pipe aprons,
and riprap associated with said manhole and pipe sewer construction.
10 PERCENT CITY COSTS
All of the construction of concrete walk to be performed along and
adjacent to Trunk Highway 25 (Pine Street) at the following
locations. 1
-6- "- U
CU
63961
1. Along the left side of the Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street)
roadway from southbound Engineer Station 17+27 (River Street) to
southbound Engineer Station 19+70 (south end of the Trunk Highway
No. 25 Mississippi River Bridge No. 71012).
2. Along the right side of the Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street)
roadway from northbound Engineer Station 17+27 (River Street) to
northbound Engineer Station 19+80 (south end of the Trunk Highway
No. 25 Mississippi River Bridge No. 71012).
Section B. Prorated Construction Costs
In addition, said payment by the City shall also include an amount
equal to the City's final total share of construction costs as
determined in accordance with Section A. above multiplied by the
City's prorated shares of the contract costs of Items No. 2021.501
"Mobilization", No. 2031.503 "field Laboratory", No. 2051.501
"Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads" and No. 563.601 "Traffic
Control". The formula by which said additional payment shall be
0
determined is set forth in said attached SCHEDULE "I". Said
additional payment represents the City's proportionate shares of the
mobilization, field laboratory, maintenance and restoration of haul
roads and traffic control costa incurred in connection with the
aforesaid city coat participation construction.
-7-
0
63961
Section C. Construction Enqineerinq Costs
In addition to payment of the aforesaid construction costs including
the prorated cost shares of "Mobilization', "Field Laboratory",
"Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads" and 'Traffic Control",
the City shall pay to the State a prorated share of the construction
engineering costs for field engineering and inspection, preparation
of progress and final estimates reports, record sampling, and
material testing and inspection which will be incurred by the State
in connection with said city cost participation construction. Such
construction engineering costs shall consist of charges made by
state personnel assigned to said state projects and of a
classification no higher than "Principal Engineer" (Resident
Engineers assigned state district offices and placed in charge of
construction projects are classified as Principal Engineers) as
recorded under the state construction coat accounting work item code
numbers appropriate for such construction engineering activities on
the "Time Report" (Form TC 30) and the "Cost Distribution" (Form TC
32) forms. Said City prorated cost share shall be determined using
the method and formula set forth in said attached SCHEDULE "I".
(Note: For the purposes of estimating the City's share of said
construction engineering costa as shown in the attached SCHEDULE "I"
construction cost estimate form, the State has used an amount equal
to 8 percent of the estimated amount computed as the City's total
share of the aforementioned construction costa which includes the
-8-
c
City's cost shares of the items of "Mobilization", "Field
Laboratory", "Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads" and
"Traffic Control".)
63961
ARTICLE III - PAYMENT BY THE CITY
Section A. Estimate and Advancement of the City's Cost Share
It is estimated, for accounting purposes, that the City's share of
the costs of the construction work to be performed by the State
hereunder which includes the City's shares of the prorated items
"Mobilization", "Field Laboratory", "Maintenance and Restoration of
Haul Roads" and "Traffic Control" plus the 8 percent construction
/ engineering cost share (used for estimating purposes only) is the
l sum of $7,974.87 as shown in the attached SCHEDULE "I". The State
shall, when a construction contract is awarded which includes the
city cost participation construction work to be performed hereunder,
prepare a revised SCHEDULE "I" based on the construction contract
unit prices and submit a copy of said revised SCHEDULE "I" to the
City. The City agrees to advance to the Commissioner of
Transportation an amount equal to the City's total cost share as set
forth in said revised SCHEDULE "I" be it more or leas than said sum
of $7,974.87 forthwith upon the execution of this agreement and upon
receipt of a request from the State for such advancement of funds.
0
63961
q Section B. Final Payment by the City
It is contemplated that all of the construction work to be performed
under said state construction contract is to be done on a unit price
basis. Upon the completion and acceptance of the work provided for
in said contract let by the State and the preparation by the State
of a final estimate computing and determining the amount due the
contractor performing the work, the Commissioner of Transportation
shall determine and compute the amount due the Trunk Highway Fund of
the State of Minnesota from the City for said city cost
participation construction work as set forth hereunder. After the
Commissioner of Transportation determines the actual amount due from
the City, he shall apply on the payment thereof as much as may be
necessary of the aforesaid funds advanced by the City. If the
amount found due from the City is less than the amount of the funds
advanced, then, and in that event, the balance of said advanced
funds shall be returned to the City without interest. If the amount
found due from the City exceeds said amount of funds advanced, the
City agrees to promptly pay to the State the difference between said
amount found due and said amount of funds advanced.
Pursuant to Minn. Stet. 15.415, the State waives claim for any
amounts less than $2.00 over the City payment funds earlier received
by the State, and the City waives claim for the return of any
amounts less than $2.00 of such funds advanced by the City.
—10-
O
63961
l Section C. Acceptance of City's Final Cost Share and of
Completed Construction
It is understood and agreed that the aforesaid computation and
determination by the Commissioner of Transportation of the amount
due from the City hereunder shall be final, binding and conclusive.
It is further agreed that the acceptance by the State of the
completed construction work provided for in said state plans
designated as State Project No. 7104-10 (T.H. 25=25) and performed
under contract let by the State shall be final, binding and
conclusive upon the City as to the satisfactory completion of said
work.
I
ARTICLE IV - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section A. Plan Chanoes
The City may request a change or changes in the plan by a duly
adopted City Council resolution for State Project No. 7104-10 (T.H.
25-25) construction to be performed hereunder in order to
satisfactorily complete the aforesaid city cost participation
construction, and if the State determines that said requested plan
change or changos are necessary and/or desirable, the State will
cause such change or changes in plan to be made and appropriately
alter the affected construction.
-11-
�"b''
63961
Section B. Maintenance
It is hereby understood and agreed that, upon the satisfactory
completion of State Project No. 7104-10 (T.H. 25.25) construction,
the City shall thereafter provide for the proper maintenance,
without cost or expense to the State, of all of the storm sever
facilities, constructed within the corporate city limits under said
state project and that neither party to this agreement shall drain
any additional drainage into said storm sever facilities that is not
included in the drainage for which said storm sever facilities were
designed without first obtaining permission to do so from the other
party.
It is hereby understood and agreed that, upon the satisfactory
Ccompletion of State Project No. 7104-10 (T.H. 25.25) construction,
the City shall thereafter provide for the proper maintenance,
without cost or expense to the State, of all of the concrete walk
constructed within the corporate city limits under said state
project. Said maintenance shall be understood to include, but not
be limited to, snow and debris removal and any other maintenance
activities necessary to perpetuate concrete walk in a eafe and
usable condition.
-12-
C
63961
Section C. Claims
It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all employees of the
State and all other persons employed by the State in the performance
of the construction and/or construction engineering work or services
required or provided for under this agreement shall not be
considered employees of the City and that any and all claims that
may or might arise under the worker's Compensation Act of the State
of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any
and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act
or omission on the part of said state employees while so engaged on
any of the construction and/or construction engineering work or
services to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or
responsibility of the City.
It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all employees of the
City and all other persona employed by the City in the performance
of any of the maintenance work or services required or provided for
under this agreement shall not be considered employees of the State
and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the
worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of
said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any
third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of
said city employees while so engaged on any of the maintenance work
or services to be rendered under this agreement by the City shall in
no way be the obligation or responsibility of the State.
-13-
63961
The City at its own expense will defend, indemnify and save harmless
the State and all of its agents, officers and employees of and from
any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action of
whatsoever nature or character arising out of or by reason of the
City's negligent acts or omissions in connection with the
maintenance work covered by this agreement including an action or
claim which alleges negligence of the State, its agents, officers or
employees.
Section D. Nondiscrimination
The provisions of Minnesota Statute 181.59 and of any applicable
ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be
considered part of this agreement as if fully set forth herein.
Section E. Aqreement Approval
Before this agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall
be approved by resolution of the City Council of the City and shall
also receive the approval of such state officers as the lav may
provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or his
duly authorized representative.
-14-
63961
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this agreement
by their duly authorized officers and caused their respective seals
to be hereunto affixed.
(City
Seal)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Rec� en
68
Director - Agreement
Services Section
By
District Engineer
By
Deputy Division Director
Technical Services Division
Approved as to form and execution:
By Specja4 Assistant Attorney General.
-15-
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By
Mayor
Do to
By
City Administrator
Do to
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By
Deputy Commissioner
of Transportation
Do to
(Date of Agreement)
Approved:
Department of Administration
By
(Authorized Signature)
Do to
_J
SCIi EDULE "1"
Ageeement No. 63961
PRELIMINARY CONSIRUCTION COSI ESTIMATE
S.P. 7104.10 (T.II. 25.25)
Fed. Pro]. BAF 089-1(36) City of Monticello Date:
Grading. Bituminous Surfacing. Curb 6 Cutler. Channelisation and Bridge construction performed under
State Contract No. with
located on T.H. 25 from River Street in tlonticello to 0.39 of a mile east of C.S.A.II. II
Type and location of City cost participation construction coveted under this agreement Is described
in Article 11 of the agreement. and the construction work Items are listed on the following sheets.
SUMMARY t
Flom Sheet No. 7
Flom Sheet No. 3
Sublotall
Subtot al
Prater a Percentage (5.4974021)
Subtotal
-Cons ta uction LnRineet ing (rat. B%)
Total - State and City
DIVISION OF COST PARIICIPAIION
902 55.8%
SIAIE SI ATE
$3.954.83
8.281. 56
$3.954.63 18.281.56
$12.236.39
672.68
$12.909.07
$12.909.07
*Final Based on Actual Couattuetion Engineetlnit Costa
C
NON FLDLRA1.-AID
10% 44.2%
C 11 Y C 111
$439.42
$6.559.94
$439.42 $6.559.94
$6.999.36
384.78
$7.384.14
590.73
$7.974.67
63961
SPEC.
QUANTITY
COST
ITEM
S.P. 7104-10
UNIT
ESTIMATE
NO.
WORK 17EM
UNIT PRICE (1)
(1)
2521.501
4" Concrete Valk
Sq. Ft. 1.75 2,511
4,394.25
Total $4,394.25
(1) 90% STATE - 53,954.83
10% CITY - $439.42
. g.
63961
SPEC.
QUANTITY
COST
ITEM
S.P. 7104-10
UNIT
ESTIMATE
N0.
VORR ITEM
UNIT
PRICE
(2)
(2)
2104.523
Salvate Castings
Each
100.00
1
100.00
2501.515
24" RC Pipe Aprons
Each
277.00
1
277.00
2503.541
24" RC Pipe Sever DES 3006
Lin.
Ft.
43.00
194
8,342.00
2503.541
24" RC Pipe Sewer CL IV DES 3006
Lin.
Ft.
50.00
74
3,700.00
2506.506
Const. Manholes, DES A or F
Lin.
Ft.
125.00
13.7
1,712.50
2506.516
Cast ink Assemblies
Each
265.00
2
530.00
2511.501
Random Riprap CL III
Cu.
Yd.
30.00
6
180.00
Total $14,841.50
(2) 55.8% STATE - 58,781.56
44.2% CITY -
$6,559.94
. g.
r
63961
PRORATA ITEMS
2021.501 Mobilization Lump Sum $ 253,000.00
2031.503 Field Laboratory, Type D Each $ 2,500.00
2051.501 Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Ronde Lump Sum $ 1.00
563.601 Traffic Control Lump Sum $ 33,000.00
TOTAL PRORATA ITEMS AMOUNT
$ 288,501.00
Formula for determining the prorate percentages of prorate items Is listed below and shall be applied as
shown on the front sheet of this form
A - Total Contract Amount
T - Total Prorate Items Amount
P - Prorate Percentage
T r (A - T) a 100 - P
After the project has been awarded, unit bid prices will be used to compute a new prorate percentage.
63961
ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING COMPUTATION
(S.P. 7104-10)
COMPUTATION N0. I (Based on Total Project Coate)
C • Total Construction Amount
E - Total Construction Engineering Coat Amount Incurred
P - Prorsla Percentage
(E r C) x 100 - P (Percentage for Construction Engineering)
Council Agenda - 5/11/87
8. Consideration of Authorizing the Public Works Director and Finance
Director to Visit DMDI Headquarters. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part of the ongoing process in the acquisition of a computer system
for the City, representatives from DMDI have visited with City department
heads to review the progress being made to accommodate the installation
of the computer. In addition, DMDI representatives have been discussing
with myself and Roger Mack and John Simola initial information to
enable them to prepare and implement the software necessary for the
public works system and some finance packages.
DMDI does not have immediately available some of the software they
are proposing for the Public Works Department but will be tailoring
and developing the software to fit Monticallo-a situation. DMDI
has recommended that John Simola and myself visit the DMDI facilities
in Reston, Virginia, so that they can show us several different operating
systems they currently have available which may allow us to better
indicate what parts would be suitable for our needs. This, in turn,
should save time in developing the final software for the City.
We have tentatively eat May 27 and May 28 as the dates that would
be suitable to both ourselves and DMDI. The estimated cost would
be in the neighborhood of $600 assuming airline tickets can be purchased
�... In advance, etc. An part of our current contact with DMDI, the City
is responsible for ail travel expenses for DMDI personnel who come
to Monticello for pre -installation meetings and also for future training
when the system arrives. Because of this, our visit to DMDI headquarters
may eliminate future travel expenses on the part of DMD1 which would
be billable to the City.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the Public Works Director
and myself to visit the DMDI headquarters for the purpose of
viewing other software packages available for both finance and
public works sectors. Hopefully, this would enable the City
to obtain a better software package for the Public Works Department
and speed up the development of the software for the City.
2. The second alternative would be to not authorize the visit but
to continue to have DMDI representatives come to our location
to meet with the Public Works Department and other staff relating
to the development of specific software. If additional visite
by DMDI personnel are required, the City would stili be responsible
for their travel expenses.
C1
-9-
Council Agenda - 5/11/87
tC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As noted above, the primary purpose for visiting DMDI headquarters
is to see in operation other program systems they have available
that relate primarily to the public works areas. In an effort to
tailor a system to meet Monticello -s needs, DMDI representatives
felt it would be easier for City staff to actually view systems they
currently have operating which may help us in selecting parte that
will meet our needs. John and myself are certainly willing to visit
DMDI in an effort to speed up the development of the proposed software
for the City.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of DMDI status report, April 23, 1987.
-10-
1 ' M£ M 0 R A R D U M
TO: Tom Eidem. City of Monticello
FROM: Ms. Lucile Fauber
f DATE: April 23, 1987
SUBJECT: Status Report (MTCSTATRPT)
- .............................................................................
J
Installation Statue:
■
- o, Lucie Fauber and Guy Pardoe were on-site at your facilities on April
8, 1987 to review the pre -site status and meet with department
managers.
y The following were in attendance:
Tom Eidem
John Simola
Rick Wolfateller
011ie Koropchak
Roger Mack
- Lucie Pauber
- Guy Pardoe
Items under discussion:
- Maintenance Agreements
Gannt Chart
Team implementation approach
- Points of contact for each system
Point of contact for system start-ups and back-ups
- On -Site Performance Reviews
Visits to DMDI
DMDI Action Items
i o Guy Pardoe and Mike Brady will visit the City on April 29th a 30th,
1987 to meet with the department manager* and discuss necessary
- preparations for implementation of each system and determine a more
specific set of milestones to become part of the project plan.
o DHDI will delay the shipment of the Wang PC requested for the liquor
*tore.
o DMDI recommends John Simola end Rick Wolfatellor visit our office in
- Virginia and will schedule those visits at your convenience.
■
Monticello Action Items
o The City will select an internal point of contact to be responsible
for system start-ups and back-ups.
o Tom will review his records for previously existing maintenance and
sub -license agreements or execute the agreamonts delivered on April 8,
1987 to insure the appropriate coverage is in place.
���
Council Agenda - 5/11/87
9. Consideration of Sealing Leake in Sanitary Sever on Linn Street Between
River and Front Streets. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
After completion of the interceptor sever and the new Chestnut Street
lift station, we were able to reduce the flows on the Front Street
sever enough to visually Inspect those lines with closed circuit
t.v. cameras.
The inspection revealed that most of the pipe is in fair to good
condition from the corner of Linn and Front Street to the lift station
in the park. The block from River Street to Front Street on Linn,
however, contained several leaks and some cracked and quartered pipe.
Based upon the t.v. inspection by Viking Pipe Services, I asked Visu-Sever
Clean 6 Seal, Inc., of Mirnneapol is for a quote to teat and repair
the leaks in this 607 foot stretch of sanitary sever. A copy of
their quote is enclosed for your review.
Based upon Visu-Sewer's quote, I would expect the cost to be in the
neighborhood of $1,700 for the repairs to this section of sever.
If successful, this sealing operation should allow many years of
service of the main before reconstruction would be necessary.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to authorize the sealing of this
block on Linn Street at an estimated cost of $1,700.
2. The second alternative would be to do nothing. This does not
appear to be in the beat interest of the City, as infiltration
of water and sand into the sanitary sever can result in higher
wastewater treatment plant operation costs and an ultimate failure
of the pipe or street surface in the future.
7. The third alternative would be to replace the bad sections and
leaking sections of pipe with now pipe. In this area where ground
water is encountered, this construction world be vary expensive
and would require a new street surface. At this time, it is
reasonable to believe that we can repair the pipe in place, and
this would ultimately be lose costly than the replacement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that you authorize
repair of this section of sever as per alternative number one.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the quote from Visu-Sswsr; Copy of the television inspection from
Viking Pipe Services.
MM
C
VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL, INC.
2849 Hedberg Orive. Minneapolis. Minnesota 55343
(81 2)593-1 907
May 4, 1987
Mr. John Simola
City of Monticello
350 East Broadway
P.O. Box 83A
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Dear Mr. Simola,
Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. is pleased to submit a quotation for the
Chemical Sealing of specific sewers within the City of Monticello. Our
price is $105.00 per hour and a material charge of $4.10 per gallon of
material pupped.
We anticipate that the sewer line in question on Lynn Street would
take 8 to 12 hours to completely test and seal the joints.
If you have any questions or need other information, please contact us.
Very Truly Yours,
VISU-SEWER CLEAN 6 SEAL, INC.
o�Gr
District Manager
9ervin0•MuniClpelives, Ut'I'ves end Industry
member of
QQ.
V
�� VIKING PIPE SERVICES CO.
TELESPECTICN REPORT
TAPE NO. 1-87 COUNTER 323-582 JOB A 10-87 CLIENT Monticello
DATE 3-25-87 SEP UP #3 AREA STREET Lvnn St.
PIPE CONDITION Several sections INSPECTOR Howard H. Nord
cracked. quartered. S fractured PIPE SIZE 10".x V
ZLne. Several ioints with TYPE OP PIPE Vertified Clav pipe
Infiltration- 2 offset joints- TYPE OF JOINT Bell 6 Spigot
Several sags.
MANHOLE CONDITION ( ) N/A DIRECTION OF FLOW NE
QC ) See Attached Sheet REMARKS
DIRECTION FROM CENTER
OF MEASURINENT OF MANHOLE
E-01LO
(i)
River St. Front St. NoDIRECTION OF FLOW 18
6
LOCATION
IN PIPE
TV INSPECTION
DISTANCE
LOCATION
PHOTO' DISTANCE
FROM
IN
NO. FROM
UPSTREAM
PIPE
DOWNSTREAM
MANHOLE
MANHOLE
3
4
2
7
40
106
11
108
2
141
.uili"PTION OF IJEFEOT
OR WYE LOCATION
Good pipe•vith 2"-3" water -Sag
Infiltration through joint-�-lqt/min.
1" 2" water -end of soQ
Slow drip at joint
We
Wve
Infiltration through ioint-k-laallon
per minute.
i9�
b
7
JOB # 10-87 TAPE # 1-87
DISTAI:CE
LOCATIO11
PHOTO DISTAICE
FROM
IN
NO. FROM
UPSTREAM
PIPE
DOWIISTREAII
1A.A-17110LE
MAIIROLE
142
2
171
1
175
9
176
11
197
7-12
217
10-1
I
221
12-6
229
7
239
.245
8-4
249
1
256
258
1
264
11 jl
270
I
I
275
303
308
334
12
335
10
336
11,12,1
338
342
11-3
344
12
345
12 6 2
346
DATE 3-25-87 SET DP 03
DMCRIPTION OF DEFECT r
OR WYE LOCATION
Wve
Light mineral at ioint. 2"-3" water
Light mineral at ioint. 2"-3" water
Wve. 1"-2" water
Trace mineral at ininr
Joint ia_ drinnino alncr Aran
Of ept joint-nffaPt i with trace mineral
Trace mineral at ioint
2"-3" water
Offset joint, offset. 4 - 1"-2" water
Joint is dripping
2"-3" water-Sak J
Wye, 3"-4" water
Wve
2"-3" water
1 "-?" wnrpr-F•nr1 of ana
2"-3" water -San
1"-2" water -San
Toa crack
Wve
Ton is webbed with rrnrkq
Good nine
Fractured rile with I filrrntinn
Tan.
Cracked the only
Sood nine with 1"-2" wrltpr
4
I
uvps--,�
VIKING', PIPE SERVICES CO.
TEL.ESPECTION REPORT
TAPE NO. 1-87 COUNTER JOB # 1-87 CLIENT Monticello
DATE SEP IIP 03 Cont . AREA S13;EEP
PIPE WNMITION IRSFECTOR
PIPE SIZE
TYPE OF PIPE
TYPE OF JOINT
MANHOLE COMITION ( ) N/A MRELMCN OF FLOW
( ) See Attached Sheet REMAM
DIRECTION _0 FROM CENTER
OF MEASUREMENT OF PW(HOLE
MANHOLE Ir
,LE
I
DIRECTION OF FLOW
6
tACATION
IN PIPE
TV INSPECTION
DISTANCE LOCATION PHOTO- DISTANCE D i=P'11UN OF' DEFT
FROM IN NO. F1ia4t OR WE LOCATION
=117TAM PIPE DOWSTREAM
MANHOLE Y ti.`IF.O L E
398 2"-3" enter - Sne
399 3 Wvn
401 9 Wvp 1"-4" vntor
402 6-9 ,mint cracked
403 1 End n4 4nn -1"-Z" vnZlJ
407 1 tinter of mnnhnlr a 1A
f2----' - 92
-{{- _ --4- ---- i
49 a 56
4 F[�
11 N ! ! • � i
iG
�5.
.'.,............--..mac. ......��...�.�....,�.«�... Y �.� -._ :.rz._rL. Lc: lirr�.�.�._....�.�...._i, y.«-.-.-.-.-. .+
....... ..........
....4..r....�
li W 1 10
50 � J s:
RffO ■ --j
.:.i .... ■MEFT 11