The URL can be used to link to this page

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