City Council Agenda Packet 11-09-1987AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUKIL
Monday, November 9, 1987 - 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 October 7.6, 1987.
3. Citizens CormnentslPetitions, Requests, and Complaints.
4. Consideration of Annexation Compromise Response.
5. Consideration of Final Payment on otter Creek Road Realignment and Liquor
Store Parking Got Improvements.
6. Consideration of Purchasing Bleachers for Softball Fields.
7. Consideration of Accepting Revised Drainage Plan and Criteria Necessary
Before Acceptance of Chelsea Road Project.
8. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting for the Purpose of
Establishing 1988 Salary/Wage Policy.
9. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONfICELL0 CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 26, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve Grin=*, Fran Fair, Bili Fair, Warren Smith,
Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
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 Blonigen. 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.
Mayor 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 should be presented to the staff for presentation
at the next Council meeting.
Consideration of Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide an Existing
unplatted Lot into Two Unplatted Lots. Applicant, Debbie 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, Tom 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
one of the lots owned by Debbie Kramer would be used for a road
easement and thought this may be the appropriate time to obtain the
easement from the Kramers before the subdivision was approved.
-f
Council Minutes - 10/26/87
Ms, xraomr noted that at the present time they are not interested in
dedicating any land for a street extension and have no plans for
developing the rear portion of their property and felt it would be
inappropriate to hold up their subdivision because of another land
owner's desire to subdivide.
After further discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by
Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the simple
subdivision request creating two parcels as described contingent upon
a certificate of survey being presented.
S. Consideration of Granting an Increase in the Individual pension for
the Volunteer Firefighters Relief Association.
Representatives of the volunteer Firefighters Relief Association were
present to request Council approval to increase their retirement
benefit from $800 per year of service to $875 payable after 20 years
of fire department service. The fire department previously submitted
to the City staff an amortization schedule showing that they would be
able to fund the increase in benefits based on anticipated income from
state aids and interest income earnings. The increase as proposed
would not result in a City tax levy to support the Retirement
Association benefits at this time.
Council members questioned whether the City would ever have to tax its
residents to support the Retirement Association benefits if the Relief
Association should ever lose state aids or not meet its anticipated
annual income requirements. It was noted by the City Administrator
that it seemed highly unlikely that state aide would ever be
eliminated; but if they were, state statutes would require municipal
support to sustain the benefits established. It was noted that unless
a major catastrophe occurred whereby approximately 10-12 members were
eliminated in one year, the fund should be self sustaining and have
sufficient assets to cover its liabilities. Cauncilmember Slonigen
noted thst he felt it was more appropriate for the Relief Association
to grant increases in its benefits only when it could do it on its own
by having its own assets greater than its liabilities and that the
City should not support increases that could potentially result in
taxpayers levy to support.
After further discussion, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by
Warren Smith, to approve granting an increase to $875 per year of
service to the volunteer Firefighters Relief Association. voting in
favor was Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair. Opposed:
Dan Blonigen.
0
Council Minutes - 10/26/87
6. Consideration of Renewing the Contract for Animal Control Officer -
Dave Stromberg.
The City of Monticello last renewed its Animal Control Contract with
Mr. Dave Stromberg in July of 1986 which established a monthly
contract fee of $575 for his services. Mr. Stromberg had requested an
increase in his contract amount because of the extra time he has had
to put in on his part in an effort to save as many animals as possible
from being euthanized through adoption procedures. In negotiating the
renewal of the contract with Mr. Stromberg, the City staff recommended
that the base contract be increased 5 percent and that an additional
incentive be included in the contract which would provide for an
additional $4 for each animal placed through the Humane Society rather
than being euthanized and an additional $10 for each animal Dave
directly adopted out. Currently, the City of Monticello incurs a cost
of approximately $14 for each animal that is being euthanized; and it
was recommended that the savings be passed on to the Animal Control
Officer for his extra work involved in finding a home for the animals
through adoption or through the Humane Society. In reviewing the past
two years' history of animals at the dog pound, it was apparent that
the number of animals being euthanized over the past year has
decreased substantially and that the City of Monticello has seen a
decrease in its euthanization fees because of the Animal Control
Officer's efforts.
As a result, motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Bill Fair, and
unanimously carried to approve renewal of an animal control contract
effective July 1 at a base monthly fee of $604 and starting January 1,
1988, the Animal Control Officer would receive $4 for each additional
animal placed through the Humane Society and $10 for each animal
adopted by the Officer.
7. Consideration of Proposal for Replatting Lots 9 and 10, Block 2,
Oakwood Industrial Park.
In December 1986, the City obtained ownership of Lots 9 and 10,
Block 2, and Lot 4 in Block 3 of Oakwood Industrial Park. Each of the
lots contain approximately five to six acres; and 011ie Roropchak,
Economic Development Director, has noted that there are currently no
small lots available within the industrial park in the one to two acre
range for small developers. As a result, the City staff had prepared
a preliminary sketch of how the Lots 9 and 10 containing approximately
ten acres could be subdivided into six parcels ranging in size from
1 1/4 acres to 2 1/2 acres in size. The subdivision would require
extension of sewer and water services and the construction of a
cul-de-sac road to provide access to six parcels at an estimated cost
of approximately $75,000. The City cost per acre at this point is
approximately $6,900, and with the improvements, the City could sell
the land for approximately $15,000 an acre for the smaller parcels.
9
Council Minutes - 10/26/87
Councilmember Bill Fair questioned whether the City itself will ever
need any of this property for the Public Works Department, etc; and
staff noted that the City still owned two lots in the industrial park
that could be available for City purposes if needed in the future. As
a result, potion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and
unanimously carried to approve the concept of subdividing Lots 9 and
10 into six individual parcels and authorize the staff to prepare the
replattimg and process the application through the Planning Commission
and City Council.
Consideration of Service Road Construction for East County Road 39.
Because of the proposed County Road 39 and County Road 75 intersection
relocations, the Council previously voted to build a service road at an
estimated cost of $20,000 to service the MacArlund Plaza Subdivision
and to assess only some additional curbing that may be needed on the
north side to minimize encroachment. This decision was contingent
upon Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund giving up the necessary property and/or
trading right-of-way turnback for the service road construction. The
Hoglunds have consulted with their attorney and were reluctant to give
up the property necessary for the service road and still be faced with
an assessment for curbing cost. The Hogl und's primary concern was
that the service road would encroach onto some of their lots and may
hurt future resale of their property but indicated a willingness to
provide the property for the service road in exchange for a turnback
of property not needed for the right-of-way if the city agreed not to
assess ary cost of the service road construction including curbing to
their property.
The approximate land area needed for the service road would be
8,200 sq ft, and the amount of right-of-way that could be turned back
to the property owner would be approximately 4,100 aq ft.
Council —' Blonigen felt the City had already shown good faith in
agreeing to construct the service road at no cost except for the
curbing and was reluctant to also agree to no assessments for the
curbing cost. After further discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair,
seconded by Warren Smith, to approve the City constructing the service
road with curbing with the Hoglunds not being required to pay any
assesamerst for the service road construction cost provided the
Hoglunds provide the necessary right-of-way and the City would release
and turn back any right-of-way not needed from the present
intersection of County Road 39 and 75. voting in favor was Arve
Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith. voting in opposition was
Dan Blonigen.
Council Minutes - 10/26/87
Consideration of water Tower Cleaning and Inspection Contract.
The water tower cleaning and inspection contract with Water Tower
Paint and Repair Company of Clear Lake, Iowa, has recently expired;
and it was recommended by the Public Works Director that a new 5 -year
contract be entered into that would provide for cleaning and
inspection services only at the rate of $575 per year. Due to the
possibility of the tank coming down in 1988 or 1989, it was
recommended that the contract did not include the reapplication of the
wax coating that is done every five years and that the service be for
cleaning and inspection only.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and
unanimously carried to approve the new 5 -year contract with Water
Tower paint and Repair Company at an annual cost of $575 per year for
cleaning and inspection.
10. Consideration of Bills for the Month of October.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Bill Fair, and
unaninousiy carried to approve the bills for the month of October as
presented.
Rick Woltste er
City Administrator
l
01
Council Agenda - 11/9/87
Consideration of Annexation Compromise Response. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
By now, all Council members should be aware that the City did receive a
response from Monticello Township on our counter proposal, which they
feel is unacceptable. It certainly appears from their response that at
the present time they are unwilling to consider a compromise unless it
contained a much smaller area for immediate annexation. As I indicated
in a previous memo to all Council members, the option still exists to
continue with negotiations or reaffirm your past decision to have City
Attorney, Tom Hayes, notify the Municipal Board that a compromise
settlement cannot be reached and that the Municipal Board should act on
our petition as soon as possible.
I have asked Mr. Hayes to attend the Council meeting to further discuss
the pro's and con's of any settlement attempt if the Council wishes to
pursue further discussions. If the Municipal Board is requested to rule
on our petition, I believe Mr. Hayes could write the letter and indicate
what our counter proposal was in an effort to reach a settlement and note
which property owners in our compromised area actually have petitioned in
the past or requested to be annexed into the city. Although I believe
the Municipal Board does not have to act on anything other than our
original 5,000 plus acre request, it certainly won't hurt to remind the
Board of the property owners who desire to be annexed.
I will be attempting to contact all individuals who have previously
petitioned for annexation or indicated their desire to be annexed to see
if any property owner has changed their mind since the hearings started.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Having received a response from the Township, the Council could
reaffirm its previous decision to notify the Municipal Board that a
compromise will not be forthcoming and that the Board should act on
our request.
2. Continue pursuing a compromise with the Township.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As I indicated in my previous memo, there are naturally pro's and con's
to any action the City takes. Unless the City Oouncil is willing to
consider settling on a much smaller area for immediate annexation, it
doesn't appear that an agreement with the Township will be reached. As a
result, it appears our only choice is to request the Municipal Board t a
place our petition on its next available agenda for a decision. I have
also been recently contacted by Rent Rjellberg and his attorney, Jim
Metcalf, inquiring as to the status of the annexation proceedings and
reaffirming their desire to have a decision made as soon as possible.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Annexation mean and copies of our counter offer and Township's response
were previously sent.
Council Agenda - 11/9/87
Consideration of Final Payment on Otter Creek Road Realignment and Liquor
Store Parking Lot Improvements. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Both projects were recently completed by Buffalo Bituminous. The Otter
Creek Project construction cost totaled $9,652.30, while the Hi -way
Liquors Parking Lot Project totaled $24,867.07. The grand total for both
projects is $34,519.37. The construction costs were approximately $3,000
less than those in the original contract. The primary reason for the
reduction in cost is in the bituminous quantities. The actual in-place
quantities amounted to less than the estimated quantities for these
materials.
We currently have paid $25,964.47 to Buffalo Bituminous, leaving a
balance due of $8,554.90. we are currently awaiting delivery of lien
waivers from subcontractors and other required state reports.
The final cost for Tom Bolthaus for his share of the Otter Creek
Realignment Project will be calculated upon receipt of final engineering
bills from OSM.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to authorize final payment to Buffalo
Bituminous after receipt of lien waivers and other appropriate data
in the amount of $8,554.90.
2. The second alternative would be to not make final payment to Buffalo
Bituminous. At this time, we know of no reason not to final out the
project.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council opt for alternative
number one and make final payment to Buffalo Bituminous in the amount of
$8,554.90.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of final construction payment voucher from OSM, Final approval
letter from OSM if it arrives in time, otherwise available at Monday
evening's meeting.
-2-
COVSTWION PA1TW VOMI R
Estimate Voucher No. 2 6 Fin41
----------------
Date October 22, 1967 For Period Ending t Octooer 15, 1907
----------------------- -------- —------------ ------
olect Number 87.1 6 87-2
Class 04 wort Street Construct ton and Appurtenant Dors
----------- -----------------•.-...-....._.------...--.-----
Lotation Reali At 04 Otter Crete Road To 81104108itmioays, Inc.
--------------------------------------------- ------- Bot 337
Hi -Way Liquors Parting Lot Buffalo, Mo. 55313
............».___.._....__. ........................ (612) 682-1271
For City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota
--.-•-----------------------------------------------..
A. Original Contract Amount 4 37754.00
.............»---.. _...
B. Total Additions 1 0.00
----------------
C. Total Deductions 1 0.00
-------------------
0. Total Funds Encumbered 1 37750.00
------------------------
E. Total Value of York Certified to Date k 34519.37
-----------------------
F. Less Retained Percentage 0 % 1 0.00
............ -----------------------
6. Less Total Previous Paiaents 1 25P64.47
-----------------------
R.
-----.»«.--.. --.. .N. Approved for Patment, This Report s 8554.90
........................
1, Total Payments Including This Voucher 4 34519.37
------------------- -----
J. Balance Carried Faward 4 3230.63
APPRO ^S
ORR-SCXELEM-NNYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
Pursuant to«our field observation,. as per4ormed in strhrdamcr with aur contract, toe hereby certify that the materials
art satis4attcry and the work properly per4orew o in atcordanco with tot flaks 690 sPttificstibes and that the total
wort is t00--•- % (Moleted as of ottober 15, 1987 , We hereby recoaund pinunt 04 this voucher.
---------------
------` ----------------------- ----
Signed t
Signed
Construction Observer U
------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
This
-------------».----------------_-•.-- This is to certify that to the bast of my knowledge, io4orastion, and beliwl, the 490titits and 900e104 worts
wt14ito herein ,s a fair IPProtiasto estimate for the PetioO t00e1`416by Ibis voucher.
Contractor t OU444I0 Bi lw nous, Inc. Signed By
-----------------------
Date i Title
....................... ........................ . —.
city ori Monticello Approsed far leaPkikest
�.bar----.__.»..............—�.....__._.»_....—..—....-».._—..�......__..r...
t..,rcted It c Anfhoriy►d Reoressstittee
—_....r —..... Date a
Date t .--...._..—_....-...�. � Qv 1 of 2 - 17�p.4D
stimate Voucher No. 2 8 Final
ate : October 22. 1997
treet Construction and Appurtenant York
ealisnoent of Otter Creek Road - City Project No. 37-1
i -Saar Liquors Parkins Lot - Pr6ect No. 87-2
or the
ity of Monticello. l:ritht County. Pdrinesota
ontract Date
ori Completed : October 15. 1937
Contractor : Buffalo Bituminous. Inc.
Box 337
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
1612) 682-1271
York Started
Completion Date :
tvm Cont. -act :ork Completed
�. item Quantity U,iit Unit Price Total ?rice Month This lonth Quantity Total Price
M Gradins and Mobilizatiao
Lump Sum Bid Item I -A I L.S. --A.00 :500.00 0 0.00 1 :500.00
)21 Remove Curb and Utter 150 L.F. 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
)31 Granular Fit) (Loose Volaael l00 C.Y. 6.00 600.00 0 0.00 63 378.00
i;) Class 5 Astretate 200 Ton 6.00 1200.00 0 0.00 211.4 1260.40
)51 12341 Modified Bituminous Warins Course
Inc]. Bituminous Material for Mixture 150 Ton 24.50 3673.00 108.2 2650.90 103.2 2650.90
)61 Sod (incl. 4' of Topsoil) 700 S.Y. 2.00 1400.00 755+1 1500.00 750 1500.00
)71 Remove Concrete Pavement 5 S.Y. 30.00 150.00 0 0.00 16 480.00
)31 Remove Bituminous Pavenent 400 S.Y. 1.50 600.00 0 0.00 450 675.00
)9) Valve Box Adjustments 1 Ea. 125.00 125.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
10) Manhole Adjustments 1 Ea. MOO 200.00 1 200.00 1 200.00
Total for Schedule 'A' 1!tees 1 - 10) ..........................1 10.450.00 t 4.3'.0.90 f 9.652.30
11) Gradins and Mobilization 1 L. S. 1900.00 1900.00 0 0.00 1 .1900. 00
121 Granular Fill (Loose Volume) 10 C.Y. 5.00 50.00 0 0.00 0.00
131 Class 5 Assretate 800 Ton 6.00 4300.00 73.5 441.00 537.9 5027.40
1.1 12341 Modified Bituminous Warint Corse
Incl. Bituminous Material for 'ivture 400 Ton 23.50 9400.00 0 0.00 SM M 7055.17
15) 8610 Curb and Gutter 450 L.F. 6.00 2700.00 40 240.00 359 2130.00
i61 Concrete Driveway Entrances 181 Thickness) 90 S.Y. x.50 2025.00 9.2 207.00 100.2 '-"54.50
171 Sod (incl. 4' of Topsoil) 700 S.Y. 2.00 1400.00 975 !950.00 975 1950.00
I81 Concrete Sidewalk (Incl. Stool Mesh and
Integral Curb) 600 S.F. 2.51 1500.00 0 0.00 630 1625.00
1I1 Remove B)tumnous Pavement !200 S.Y. !.00 1200.00 0 0.00 1:'S 1::5.00
201 Valve Boy Adjustments 1 Ea. 125.00 125.00 0 0.00 0.00
:I) Manhole Adjustments 1 Ea. 200.00 200.00 0 0.00 1 200.00
::1 Coeaon Evcavation 200 C.Y. 5.00 1000.00 0 0.00 100 500.00
231 Catch Basin i Ea. 500.00 500.00 0 0.00 1 500.00
;4) 12' RCP Class iV 25 L.F. 10.00 500.00 0 0.00 25 500.00
Total For Schedule '8' ( Items 11 - 24 1 ........................1 27.300.00 1 2.839.00 f 24.867.07
w+aapaap mo®o .wasp
Total for Schedule 'A' and 'B' .................................1 37.750.00 6 7188.90 1 34.519.37
too 2 of 2 - 1748.40
O
Council Agenda — 11/9/87
Consideration of Purchasing Bleachers for Softball Fields. iJ.S.l
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The new softball fields located near the NSP Training Center will be
ready for play early in 1988. As part of the project, the City has
proposed to purchase bleachers and benches for the fields. Since these
things were not funded through the LCM Grant, we placed an amount in the
1987 Budget of $7,000. The Park Superintendent, Roger Mack, has obtained
two quotes for the benches and bleachers. The low quote was from Earl F.
Anderson, Bloomington, Minnesota, for $8,121. his is over our budget by
approximately $1,100. Roger has informed me, however, that when the
figures were given at budget time, Tom Eidem made a cut of $1,200 in this
portion of the budget. The choice now is to purchase equipment of lesser
quality, delete some of the equipment for the ballfields, or go over
budget and purchase as originally planned.
With the reconstruction of the 4th Street Park, the bailfield, which is
used predominantly by the Girls' Softball Association, was enlarged and a
parking lot installed. Our plans for 1987 included establishing
permanent line fences but utilizing seasonal outfield fencing. The
outfield fencing would be removed in the winter to use this as a free
skating area. We would use wedge type of sockets to enable us to remove
and replace the chain link fence seasonally.
Our original thoughts were to utilize salvaged fencing from the NSP
ballfields. Upon our recent examination and removal nf this fencing from
the old NSP ballfields, we found it to be in only fair to poor condition
and not suitable for a very visual, recently updated city park. This
fencing could be used in other more remote locations in the future. The
Park Superintendent and myself are of the opinion that new fencing should
be installed at the 4th Street Park. The Park Superintendent, Roger
Mack, obtained two quotes for fencing for the softball field. The low
bid came from Trojan Fence of St. Cloud, Minnesota, for $3,097.71. The
seasonal sockets for the fence would cost $487, bringing the fencing cost
to a total of $3,584.71. There are some excess funds left in the budget
for the 4th Street Park work. This work has been coming out of the
capital outlay revolving fund. We originally expected to spend in the
area of $11 ,000 this year. We are still just under that figure. Through
some number transposing, Tom's figure that got into the capital outlay
revolving fund for the 4th Street Park this year was $24,400. You could,
therefore, say that the $13,400 of excess money left is more than enough
to cover the additional fencing of $3,584.71.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The first alternative would be to authorize purchase of the bleachers
and benches for the new softball complex from E.F. Anderson in the
amount of $8,1211 and to authorize the purchase of the fencing for
the 4th Street Park from Trojan Fence for $3,097.71, and authorize
the additional $487 for seasonal fence sockets.
.3.
Council Agenda - 11/9/87
2. Alternative number two could be to either delete some of the
equipment for the new softball complex, or go to a cheaper, less
durable type of equipment. Alternate number two could also include
the deletion of the new fencing for the 4th Street Park and utilizing
the old fencing salvaged from the old NSP ballfields.
C. STAFP RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Park
Superintendent that the Council opt for alternative number one.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of tabulation of quotes and pictures of the bleachers and benches.
-4-
PARK 6 BALLFIELD EQUIPMENT QUOTE TABULATION
Fence (4th Street Park)
Century Pence, Forest Lake $3,109.00
Trojan Fence, St. Cloud 53,097.71
5 Bleachers and 8 Benches (Softball Field Complex)
Earl F. Anderson, Bloomington, MN $8,121.00
Stadiums Unlimited, Grinnell, Iowa 58.250.00 -
•NOTE: Estimate. Final quote due prior to Monday's meeting.
i
:.{''6'�=^rear: v�' � �!_v��;:l•+:'�i
j Huw N. Unc Llruclwo
10 R:rtv U—nuf W.:n Q]rvi--Pa G:00 lln=rc:ruLluro
Tno STANDARD CL EAC HER ccc Con of our catalog I::uGtratoo our B. 10 or t Brow ar,010 framo Oloac horn
Ct
rmr.n aro ovatlatlo In anaar0 IcnMmo Gf 15 0', `' 1'O", or 27 O' (Otho- lonGtmo aro ova::atlo upon ro-
avCGI ) Our GTANDARD CLEACHEHS Oro, of Couroo. GOnCy. COCUM OnO totally nla:ntonanco rroo
ThoGo clOaCllora arc ova::at:o In titin c:eva[Ca ono non C:ova:eC CC --Ono AnO:o unOoretructurco of O:u-
m:num. net O:CPcn O7:vamzorl ctocl (after I:OnCOtu;n), Cr wCathCrinq UOoI Oro Offoroa. GTADIUMII
L 1NL IMI71 D'a AL UMN A• PLANK b urea far tno Goato ano tWOaarao. (:,Co Pa3o 40"r GOrIOo 102 %.GO
PLANK oetion )
GTAO:UMG UNL IMITED'o STANDARD 0 CACHC $45 are a :a ovao:at:o In tram:;p-,MaO:o me=:b (L$caGc
coo R1GO ZO (C,00 P3 o 43 1,)r GTANUA14U BLEACHER CPECIF (CATIONS) -
y1.;l q:.T 11K.•,n i=e[q
T T r
;R..' sl ISP [,M* C�•o} I le.v 1 I.rl!L I �Rp:[L I IOP+r.Tpl alM I (iply + I,r[rl
r�i n��ra ?I t?+i •F eiir�iaa YI * 41 I
:•'Jlm :'.rol r'1 )I11. nva
Il .) :.q-1 •J .1111 1 tl l X11 I l:l ''.�e 1.�'i te) rr:;ll'1 1or;t� 1 i'. 11 I
LJ I1,5lLJ fL]Il:J rOJ ,,. ,.' 10oJ1U .S:J II::) .t/J1LJ
a"I-I r,t l[.i Lel1 c.1li �La•u._, R.l rn-•'rG(K:n. m —ntr:C-n lf'
I S.'11 l'I l:�) 7 I„• r_.t l( I I1.11I I oJl l_1 111-.l atl la -I .1l i.'11,• 11
tli i'1t:' 1 Ql �..1,; i •1111=L^1l1-Ii Oe/I l'1 � X11 ':,Inr11_-11 1�
23
FIDE TEAM BEINCH
STADIUMS UNLIMiTED's WIDE TEAM BENCH is -extra- wic0l
(1916'). It allows injured players to Ile Comfortably or equipment re-
pairs to be made quickly and efficiently. This bench features an all
aluminum Construction which eliminates maintenance, replace-
ment, snags and splinters. it is lightweight and portable. The WIDE
TEAM BENCH Can be used indoors or out.
I MOOiL LF.HGTn WEYQNT 1
Taws 11'O• so Las,
TBW -t s T'6' ST Las,
TBw.IS Y510• 110 LaS
TBW^?Y ?t'O• Ye7 LOS
9 • :40
4
.AVER / LOCKER BENCHES
17.1
Our PLAYER&OCKER BENCHES are
OCOnOmicai and Ideal for use in tacker
'moi f�4:.'.'4': ' ✓ rooms, as wall as Outdoors at your
r— tennis Courts W swimming pool. All
Haver AL knr M008IS are rugged, tong lasting and
erlc
an 4aoweols sanitary• PLAYER/LOCKER BENCHES
are available In portable models fur•
nl5hOd with elthar rubber Oruch tips or
mrL ! Lctioe.. wruo»+ ground 6019 (Loge i4 and 115). 1r you
eo• ?e X04, may wish to order the permanent 00.
��re te•
W103
s 1eo• mua4 sign wfiich inGiude taQit to Concrete,
^'+1Y
V, a, 117 Lao embod into concrete, Or wall mounted
(Legs 01, a2 or 1r3).
.2
PI8yV1L0Cker
Bench POrMWTOr11
Y.YOOt.`L LLWaTIn WLYpHT i
La's 11o: ?O L03
LaP•% 4 TD' 31 Las
,15-11 no• 114168.
Ino.71 ole• aoLm,
Council Agenda - 11/9/87
7. Consideration of Accepting Revised Drainage Plan and Criteria Necessary_
Before Acceptance of Chelsea Road Project. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE 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 Ball. 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.
Completion of the Project.
A. bitching.
Prr 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 elopes for erosion control. It was the
general consensus of the group that the seeding and mulch should
wait until next year; but the City should be provided prior to
acceptance the necessary funds to con@lete this work. This could
be in the form of an escrow account.
Council Agenda - 11/9/87
C. Gate Valve Adjustments.
There were a number 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. The 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. The 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.
Easements.
A. Revocation of the Existing Ponding Easerent.
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 futu re draining of the road
ditch ponding, one scenario that could exist is that Mr. 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.
B. Narrowing of the Sewer Easement for the School.
Currently, there exists a 60 -toot wide easement running from
Chelsea Road southerly to the school property. Mr. Badalich felt
that this easement could be narrowed to 30 feet.
C. Additional Sewer Easements.
Since there was a change to 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 9oyle's 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 on the 30 -foot
easement from Chelsea Road to the school property line.
Council Agenda - 11/9/87
4. Payments.
city staff has informed tor. 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 S G Rehbein.
There currently exists a dispute between L 6 G Rehbein Company
and Bili 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 Bauerly's.
C. Topographic Ma?s Provided by the City.
Via City of Monticello provided topographic maps to Mr. Boyle and
Bill Block so that they could determine the ponding requirements
for the project. There is an outstanding balance awed the City
of $1,994.22 for these topographic maps.
D. Bill Block and Associates.
Mr. Block has performed the engineering for Boyle's project and
has not yet been paid. There nosy 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. There 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.
.7.
Council Agenda - 11/9/87
5. Sign Off.
T e Toowing sign-off's or approvals are necessary before the City
accepts the job.
A. City Engineer.
The City Engineer should indicate 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.
Itis the City's policy 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 6 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. Wolfsteller
indicated that he would check with the City Attorney on this matter; but
in all likelihood, the City would not change its policy for a single
project.
-a-
Council Agenda — 11/9/87
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, recoimnend 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 accompliahed ahead of time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map from Mr. Block showing new ditch ponding, Updated copy of
construction fund balance.
.g.
l
1. Construction
Sanitary Sewer
Water
Grading
Topsoil Seed b Mich
Road Base S Shoulder
Bituminous Surfacing
Retention Pond
Construction Cost
Contingency
Total Cost Construction
2. Engineering
CHELSEA ROAD PROJECT
Escrow
Contract Balance
Amount Paid to pate Available
$120,670.00 $117,231.00
19,700.00 19,265.00
36,500.00 38,500.00
3,500.00 -0-
43,250.00 34,318.75
80,495.00 74,258.41
10,000.00 -0-
$314,115.00 $283,573.16
4,185.00 -0-
$318,300.00 $283,573.16
Original
Estimates Paid to Date
Design, Construction Staking
Construction Engineering Insp.
And As Builts by Bill Block
S 10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
" Transfer from Contingency
for Engineering Services
5,000.00
5,000.00
3. City Expenses for:
Engineering, Testing,
Inspection, Legal Fees,
and Administrative Fees
S 16,700.00
S 16,700.00
TOTAL ESCROW
$350,000.00
$315,I73.16
Escrow Fund Interest Earned Through 11/9/87
TOTAL AVAILABLE 11/9/87
*Authorized by Farm Credit Services 4/27/87
5 3,439.00
435.00
(2,000.00)
3,500-00
8,931.25
6,236.59
10,000.00
$30,541.84
4,185-00
$34,726.84
-0-
S -0-
$34,726.84
S 9,088.80
$43,815.64
M]
CHELSEA ROAD ACCEFrANCE CRITERIA
1. Ponding Requirements.
2. Completion of Project.
A. Ditching, final grading
B. Black dirt, seed, a mulch (spring escrow)
C. Gate valve adj. ditches
D. MH adjustment (spring escrow)
3. Easements.
A. Revocation of existing pond easement. Establishment of new easement
for draining temporary ditch ponds in the future.
B. Narrow existing 60 -foot school sewer easement to 30 feet (request by
Block).
C. Establish additional easement for school for east -west sewer section
(new section not on plans).
D. If school wants City to maintain from Chelsea Road to school
property, establish easement back to County Road 118 for future force
main connection.
a. Payment. (Lien Waivers)
A. L 6 C Rehbein and suppliers and subs.
B. Bauerly Brothers and suppliers.
C. City supplied topo maps.
D. Bill Block.
E. Bossy Construction and suppliers.
5. Sign -off.
A. City Engineer, all work completed as per City standards.
B. Bill Block, all work completed as per plans and specifications
(completed as builts).
C. School - Road as per agreement.
6. Bonds.
A. One-year warranty bonds from all contractors or developer.
B. Lien waiver bond from developer if contractors not paid.
Council Agenda - 11/9/87
8. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting for the Purpose of
Establishing 1988 Salary/Wage Policy. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For the past few years, the City Council has met with the Administrator
in a special session to determine what would be an acceptable pool of
money to be used in creating increases in wages and salaries for the
non-union personnel. We are now nearing the end of the year; and if the
Council so desires, a special session could be set up for the purpose of
reviewing and creating salary increases for 1988. If the Council wishes
to continue with the concept of establishing a salary pool with general
guidelines that the Administrator can use to prepare new salary
proposals that are returned to Council for final ratification, the last
regularly scheduled meeting of 1987 would be December 14. A special
meeting would have to be scheduled at least a week or more before the
14th to allow myself time to review and propose salary increases for the
individuals. As an information note, I will be on vacation from
November 19 through the 27th and would hope if a special meeting is
established, it is some other date than this. The only action required
at this meeting is a motion to set a special meeting if so desired at
which time I will provide additional material and information.
-10-