City Council Agenda Packet 07-14-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 14, 1966 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimemo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Heid Juno 23,
1986.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Public Hearings
8. Public Hearing to Consider the Vacation of Property Line Easements
within the Construction 5 Addition.
Old Business
5. Consideration of Awarding Contract to the Lowest Responsible
Bidder for the 1986 Seal Coating Project.
6. Consideration of a Recommendation from the Wastewater Treatment
Plant Contracting Subcommittee to Commence Negotiations with
PSG.
7. Consideration of Authorizing Negotiations for the Acquisition
of the Northern States Power Maintenance Building.
Nov Business
S. Consideration of Granting Approval for a Simple Subdivision -
Applicant, Moi Wolters.
9. Consideration of Awarding the Contract for the Sealing of the
Interior Beams and Docking for City Hall.
10. Consideration of Approving the Specifications for Refuse Hauling
Contract and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids.
11. Consideration of Change order Nos. 1, 2, and 3 for the Interceptor
Sever Project.
12. Adjournment.
L
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 23, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair.
Members Absent: Dan Blonigen, Jack Maxwell.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 9,
1986.
G. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive
Plan.
The public hearing was hold to consider adopting amendments to the
Monticello Cooprehansive Plan which was recently revised. The proposed
amendments consisted primarily of three areas, including updating
the inventory of existing City facilities including the graphs and
maps in the plan along with statistical changes to reflect the most
recent data available. An additional amendment proposed concerned
changing the number of multiple unite of housing that will be allowed
as a percent of total single family unite within the City. It was
recommended that the multiple housing percentage of single family
units be increased to 65% as a guide rather than the current 30%
figure.
An additional amendment to the Comprehensive Plan relates to the
future extension of City boundaries and annexation. It was recommanded
that the annexation position be clarified to indicate that the City
has no desire to enter into conflict and confrontation with the Town
Board regarding the Orderly Annexation Area established and recommended
substituting a new position on annexation that would allow for areas
outside the City to petition for annexation in the future but set
a policy that the City would not continue to develop and plan for
utility extensions to areas that may never become part of the City.
Hearing no comments from the public regarding the proposed amendments,
the public hearing was closed; and then a motion was made by Fran
Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt the
proposed 1986 amendments to the Comprehonsivs Plan as submitted.
See Exhibit e1.
5. Public Hearing to Consider the Makin of Public Improvements Appurtenant
to the Interceptor Saver and in Conjunction with the Rehabilitation
of Trunk Highway 25.
fAND
Council Minutes - 6/23/86
6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Ordering the Making of Improvements,
Assessing the Cost, and Setting a Bond Sale.
A public hearing was held on the interceptor sever appurtenant work
and the Highway 25 improvement project so that the City could combine
both improvement projects under a single bond issue. The work appurtenant
to the construction of the interceptor sever is the extension of
sever and water to specific sites and the construction of street
improvements along such areas as Fifth Street, Chestnut Street, and
Locust Street. The assessments against the benefiting parcels would
range from a low of 20% for certain street improvements to 1001 depending
on the area.
In regards to the Highway 25 improvement project, it was recommended
that parcels abutting Highway 25 be assessed a portion of the cost
of installing new curb and gutter and sidewalk based on the City -s
participation in the project. The recommendation was that 20% of
the City -s cost be assessed against parcels that receive replacement
curb and gutter and sidewalk which is estimated at approximately
$2.00 par foot. For those properties that have never had curb and
gutter and sidewalk, the recommended assessment would be approximately
S4.00 per foot, and the balance of the City -s share of the project
would be picked up by ad valorem taxes.
The public hearing also addressed the proposed installation of water
main on Chestnut Street between Broadway and River Street as part
of the street improvement project. It was recommended by the public
works Director that the City install a water line on this street
now that the street in being improved to eliminate long individual
services for three homes that have connected to either River Street
or Broadway. The installation would eliminate future problems that
may require the street to be torn up to replace these water services,
and the cost was recommended to be assessed to the three benefiting
property owners. If only three parcels ars assessed. the assessment
would be approximately $3,200.00 per parcel if accessed at 100♦ of
the cost. The assessments would be lover if a different formula
was used for assessing. In addition, It was noted that Mr. Dal Emmel,
who owns property on Chestnut Street. had previously requested a
lot split to create a new housing site; and if this request was approved
in the future, Mr. Emmol would share in the cost of the water line
extension for the newly created lot. The request had been withdrawn
at this time, but may be considered at a later data.
After the close of the public hearing, motion was made by Bill Pair,
seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution
ordering the improvement. See Resolution 86-15.
Motion was also made by Fran Pair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution setting a bond sale for the cost of
the project. Sao Resolution 86-17.
-2-
Council Minutes - 6/23/86
7. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Adjusting the Territory Proposed
to be Annexed to the City of Monticello.
At the previous Council meeting, Mr. John Sandberg requested that
34 acres of land he owns adjacent to the easterly City limits be
included in the territory proposed for annexation. The Council recently
adopted a resolution proposing to annex approximately 400 acres south
and east of the present City limits. A portion of the property initially
proposed for annexation was petitioned for by Mr. Jim Boyle, who
owns approximately 230 acres, of which 60 acres is proposed for the
new middle school site. Mr. Sandberg requested that since he has
development plans for his 34 acres he be included in the initial
annexation procedure.
Some land owners in the proposed annexation area were in attendance
and questioned whether annexation of their lands would cause their
taxes or assessed valuations to increase being in the City, and they
were informed that if no changes occurred to the property, their
taxes or assessed valuation should be similar to their present conditions.
In addition, it was recommended by the Administrator that individual
property owners in the proposed annexation area could meet with the
City staff to discuss their individual concerns at any time. A public
hearing would be hold by the Municipal Board after receipt of the
annexation resolution.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution amending the area proposed to be annexed
to include the 34 acres owned by Mr. John Sandberg. See Resolution 66-16.
8. Consideration of AdoetinR an Ordinance Regulating and Controlling
Open Burn£nq within City Limits.
In order to provide for better enforcement of the open burning violations
that occur within the City, it was recommended that a now ordinance
be adopted that regulates and controls open burning that would allow
for the City to site a violator and Charge them with a misdemeanor.
The proposed ordinance amendment had been reviewed by the City Attorney;
and as a result, a motion was made by B££1 Fair, seconded by Fran
Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt the ordinance amendment regulating
and controlling open burning within the City. Seo Ordinance Amendment No. 151.
9. Consideration of Finencin.9 Alternatives for Construction Cost Overrun
for the Improvement of sixth street.
Mr. Chuck Lopak of the City's consulting engineering firm reviewed
with the Council the cost overrun that had occurred on the construction
of Sixth Street between Highway 25 and Cedar Street. Mr. Lopak explained
that soil borings taken in tho area apparently weren't indicative
of what the actual conditions were; and as a result, extra fill material
was needed to provide a proper base for the street. And the coat
overrun on the initial $66,000.00 construction cost is now 618,000.00.
Ir Since this improvement project was part of the tax increment district
Council Minutes - 6/23/86
for the Raindance Property development, it has been determined that
the City would have sufficient funds in the original bond sale to
cover the cost overrun and additional financing at the present time
would not be needed.
It was also recommended that because of the extra work involved on
the Sixth Street improvement, the contractor requested additional
time to complete the project from June 15 to June 30, 1986.
As a result, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair,
and unanimously carried to approve a change order for the construction
project extending the completion date to June 30, 1986.
10. Consideration of Authorizing a Replacement of a Section of Force
Main.
Public Works Director, John Slmola, reviewed with the Council the
problems the City encountered in testing of existing force mains
along Elm Street, Third Street, and Chestnut Street. During the 1977-3
Improvement Project, a segment of force main was installed for the
purpose of connecting to a future interceptor sewer that is currently
being constructed. In testing the force mein, the pipe would not
hold pressure and numerous areae were excavated to find the cause
of the problem. Portions of the pipe had ruptured as the result
of water being in the shallow line and freezing. Public Works Director,
John Simola, recommended that a portion of the force main on Third
Street between Chestnut and Elm be replaced at a cost of approximately
$15,000.00 since it had already been repaired a number of times and
the integrity of the pipe was in doubt. In addition, after this
repair, the balance of the pipe would be again retested and the hope
was that the pipe would be repairable and not require the replacement
of the entire line, which would cost approximately $60,000.00.
Consulting Engineer, John Badalich, noted that their firm plane to
work with the City to correct the problems with the existing force
main and indicated that they would take responsibility for the cost
of repairing or replacing the force main since they were the engineer
who inspected the project when it was initially installed in 1977.
As a result of the discussion and the engineer's willingness to take
responsibility to correct the problem, motion was made by Bill Fair,
seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the replacement
of the force main at an estimated cost of 815,000.00 along Third
Straot, and to authorize further testing of the balance of the force
main along Elm Street not to exceed 55,000.00.
11. Consideration of a Cooperative Agreement with Wright County for Construction
of West County Road 39 from I-94 to Elm Street.
The County has recently received bids on improving west County Road 39
and Wright County wishes to enter into an agreement with the City
that would cover the City's 30% cost sharing of the grading, blacktopping
Council Minutes - 6/23/86
and restoration of County Road 39 within the City limits. The estimated
cost of the City portion based on the bids received would be $86,747.00,
with the City's cost for the street construction along with engineering
and miscellaneous costs at $40,053.00. in addition, due to problems
with slopes of the right of way. additional storm sewer in the neighborhood
of $5,000.00 would be borne by the City and bring the City's cost
to approximately $45.053.00.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by B£11 Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve entering into a cooperative agreement with Wright
County for the City's share of the West County Road 39 construction
project from I-94 to Elm Street.
12. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use to Allow Multiple
Dwelling Structure in Excess of 12 Units, and Ordering the Preparation
of Plans and Specifications for Fublic Improvements in and near Construction
5 Addition.
Construction 5, Inc., requested a conditional use permit to allow
for the construction of one 24 -unit and one 30 -unit apartment buildings on 5 lots
in Block 1 of Construction 5 Addition. since the apartment structures
would overlap lot lines, the City would be required to vacate the
drainage easements currently platted. As part of the request, off-street
parking spaces for the development would be placed within the 30 -foot
easement along the west side of the property, and it was recommended
by the staff and Planning Commission that the developer agree to
ti be responsible for replacement coat of any asphalt or repairs that
would be necessary if the City is required to enter the utility oasament.
The request was approved at a public hearing hold by the Planning
Commission with conditions attached regarding landscaping and screening
plane and a condition that a play area be established prior to occupancy.
Motion was mads by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to grant a conditional use permit to Construction 5 for the
one 24 -unit and one 30 -unit apartment buildings contingent upon the
following conditions.
1. An approved landscaping/screening plan be submitted prior to
building permit application.
2. Relinquishing of casement rights between Lots 1. 2. 3, 4, and 5.
3. Allow construction of 36 off-street parking spaces within a 30 -foot
utility easement right-of-way with the condition that the City
is not responsible for placement of any of the parking lot within
the right-of-way if the City needs to got in to do some work
within the 30 -foot right -mf -way.
4. A designated play area be established and put in before a Certificate
of Occupancy in granted for the second building.
The motion also included holding a public hearing on the vacating
of the utility easements around Lots 1-5. Block i. Construction 5 Addition.
Council Minutes - 6/23/86
A motion was also made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to order the preparation of plans and specifications for
public improvements in the Construction 5 Addition to include the
extension of Lauring Lane with curb, gutter, storm sever, and sewer
and water utilities. See Resolution 86-18.
13. Consideration of an Appeal for a variance to Allow Placement of Entrance
Lights and Sign within a Street Right-of-way. Applicant, Monticello
Americ Inn.
Mr. W. J. Murphy, owner of the Monticello Americ Inn Motel, withdrew
his request for a variance to allow for the placement of a sign and
lights in the street right-of-way and has indicated he will be relocating
the sign and lights to his own property.
14. Consideration of a Request to Respread Assessments in the Meadows/Kealy
Heights Subdivision - Applicant. Dan Frio.
During the fall of 1985, Mr. John Sandberg purchased the Meadows
Subdivision and requested that the delinquent special assessments
for the years 1984 and 1985 be re -assessed to allow for the property
to be replatted into a combination of multiple housing sites and
single family sites to be known as Keely Heights Subdivision. The
assessments were respread and the property was sold to Mr. Dan Fria
and Dayle Vachon, who ware now in the process of recording the new
subdivision plat. As part of the recording procedure, the County
requires that all current year taxes and assessments be paid, which
amounted to approximately 530,000.00, and the new developer's requested
again that the City lift the assessments and respread after the plat
is recorded. The developers indicated they did not have sufficient
funds to bring the assessments current at this time, but felt that
they would be able to complete enough homes in the near future to
pay off the assessments entirely within a year or two. Council members
noted that they certainly understood the situation the developers
were in, but since they had already ro-assesaad the delinquent assessments
approximately six months ago, they felt they should not continue
to respread assessments for a project they already have done. It
was noted to the developers that the original plat known as the Meadows
is still the legal property description and that if they did not
wish to record the now Kealy Heights plat, the property could be
developed as originally platted with all single family homes, etc.
As a result, it was the consensus of the Council that no action would
be taken to re -assess any of the assessments against this property.
15. Consideration of Accepting the Annual Audit Report for the Financial
Condition of the City of Monticello.
Mr. Kim Lillehaug of Gruys Johnson 6 Associates, the City Auditors,
was present and reviewed briefly with the Council the 1985 Audit
Report recently completed. Mr. Lillehaug noted that the report would
be submitted to the State Auditor by July 1 and noted that if the
council wished to review in detail the Audit Report at a later date,
they would be available.
-6- 0
Council Minutes - 6/23/86
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to accept the 1985 Audit Report as presented and that a further
discussion of the financial report may occur at a later date after
all Council members have had a chance to review the report.
16. Consideration of Api2roving the Plans and Specifications and Ordering
a Request for Bids for the Annual Sealcoating Project.
Public works Director, John Simola, proposed that seven areas in
the City be seal coated during 1986 that totaled approximately 35,756 sq yds.
The estimated cost of the seal coating program would be approximately
$21,000.00.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the specifications for seal coating the seven
areas totaling 35,756 square yards and to authorize advertising for
bids for the annual seal coating project, with bids returnable July 14,
1986.
17. Consideration of a Proposal to Acquire Lawn Mower Replacement.
The Public Works Director, John Simola, recommended that a new riding
Lawn mower be purchased for use by City ground maintenance employee,
Tom Schumacher. In addition, Mr. Simola proposed to purchase a small
trailer that the mower could be transported on to different locations.
Two quotes were received for a replacement mover, one from Moon Motor
Sales for a Honda in the amount of 51,709.00, and a Snapper Riding
Mower in the amount of $1,599.95 from Seitz Hardware. It was the
recommendation of the Public Works Director and Street and Park Superintendent
that the Honda mover be purchased from Moon Motors in that the engine
had, in their opinion, batter lubrication which would provide a longer
life than the other model, and that the Honda mower would not need
any alterations to allow the ground maintenance person to use the
machine. In addition, it was recommended that a utility trailer
at approximately 5200.00 be purchased to transport the mower. The
present Cub Cadet mover would be sold rather than traded in.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to authorize the purchase of a Honda riding mower from Moon
Motors in the amount of $1,709.00 and to purchase a trailer in the
amount of approximately 5200.00. In addition, the motion included
the authorization to sell the present Cub Cadet mower.
18. Consideration of a Proposal to Acquire an Automatic Blower for the
wastewater Treatment Plant.
The Public works Director, John Simola, recommondod that an automatic
control device that would control the air blowers at the wastewater
Treatment Plant be purchased in the amount of $2,020.00. The automatic
controlling of air blowers would eliminate Plant personnel from being
present to control the air blower operation and should result in
annual alsctrical cost savings of approximately 51 440.00 per year.
-7- D.-)-
Council Minutes - 6/23/66
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to authorize the purchase of automatic air blower equipment
at a cost of $2,020.00.
19. Consideration of Pursuing Negotiations for the Acquisition of the
Northern States Power Maintenance Building.
Northern States Power Company representatives have indicated the
company may be interested in selling their maintenance facility and
relocating to a larger area. Since the property is adjacent to the
City's maintenance garage, they have approached the City to see if
the City has any interest in acquiring their property.
After discussing the proposal, it was the consensus of the Council
to have Council member Jack Maxwell estimate the approximate value
of the property and to further pursue negotiations with Northern
States Power for the purchase of their property.
20. Consideration of Approving the Location of the Sherburne/Wright County
Cable Commission's Administrator in Monticello.
Recently, the SWC4 has hired a full-time Cable Administrator who
will beginning work for the Cable Commission on July 1, 1966. The
Cable Commission members have indicated a desire to have the Administrator
Located in Monticello if the City Hall could accommodate her. It
was noted by City Administrator, Tom Eidem, that no additional expense
would be incurred by the City other than allowing the Cable Administrator
to be located in City Hall with all equipment, supplies needed by
the Cable Administrator being paid by the Commission, including salaries.
After further discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded
by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the location of
the SWC4 Administrator in Monticello City Hall and to order the execution
of an agreement that would allow for the City to make payment for
personal services on a reimbursement basis with the SWC4.
21. Consideration of Membership Renewal in the Coalition of Outstate
Cities.
Currently, the City of Monticello is a member in the Coalition of
Outstato Cities, but Administrator Eidem informed the Council that
the Coalition's position regarding local government aid distribution
would be a detriment to the City of Monticello and recommended that
the City no longer remain members of the Coalition of Outatate Cities
and pay a membership fee that would, in effect, support an organization
that may cost the City money in the long run. An a result, a motion
was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried
to terminate the City's membership in the Coalition of Outstate Cities
organization.
22. Consideration of Ratifying the Union Contract.
After a recent mediation session with the City and the Union representatives,
the City's final offer on a now Union contract did not change from
_6_ 00-
Council Minutes - 6/23/86
its original offer, which would grant language changes, along with
additional dental insurance and holidays, plus 604 per hour pay increase
the first year and 624 per hour the second year of the contract.
Initially, the Union rejected the offer; but after the mediation
session, the Union did accept the City's final offer.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the new Union contract for the 2 -year term as
initially presented and accepted by the Union.
23. Consideration of Bills for the Month of June.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of June as presented.
Rick Wolfateller
Assistant Administrator
9- 0
Council Agenda - 7/14/86
4. Public Hearing to Consider the vacation of Property Line Easements
within the Construction 5 Addition. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Over a year ago, the City Council gave final approval to the Construction
Addition plat and it was duly recorded. In accordance with the City's
design standards, the plat created interior property line easements
for public utilities. These easements were not specifically designed
to meet public utility needs of the City but were put in place primarily
because of a minimum design standard in our subdivision ordinance.
Two meetings ago, Construction 5 was granted approval for a conditional
use to construct two buildings containing a total of 54 multiple units
spread across the five easterly lots of Construction 5 Addition.
The buildings, as laid out on the site, will lay on top of lot lines
and consequently across the easements. In order to build according
to the site plan, these easements need to be vacated.
Vacating easements is the identical process of vacating streets.
A public hearing must be held. A finding must be made that the vacating
of the easements are in the beet public interest. I believe the finding
of public interest can be made in that the proposal is converting
blighted, substandard lands and is creating quality affordable housing
for the general public. Further, there is no conflicting City interest
since there are not specific proposals to run utilities through these
easements.
Construction 5 development has met with City staff on the timing to
construct the extension of Lauring Lane and the installation of Bever
and water in Lauring Lane. It appears that construction will be delayed
to the spring of 1987 primarily because this does lie within a tax
increment district and there are some time constraints as a result
of utilizing tax increment financing. Mr. LaFromboise wants to be
absolutely certain that he can begin renting unite aB soon as construction
is completed. I think in order to facilitate the development plane
for Construction 5 Addition, the Council's wisest motion would be
to vacate the easements contingent upon a final development agreement
being entered with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and further
that the City Administrator record said vacation of easements only
after the final execution of the development agreement. The motion
stated in this way simply allows for the easements to stay intact
until the development project is, in fact, underway. If, for any
reason, the project should not come to fruition, we will not have
vacated the easements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Upon closing of the hearing, adopt a motion vacating the easements
immediately and ordering the action recorded at the County.
2. Upon closing of the hearing, adopt a motion vacating the easements
contingent upon the execution of a development agreement between
Construction 5 and the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
ME
Council Agenda - 7/14/86
3. Do not vacate the easements - this would be somewhat inconsistent
since the City granted a conditional use to the project and the J
layout at an earlier meeting. Not vacating the easements would
tend to negate the earlier action of the Council.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Council adopt the vacation motion contingent
upon the execution of the development agreement.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map showing easements to be vacated.
'2-
TAYLOR LAPID SURVEYORS INC.
230W. BAOAOwwv. P.O. BOX 179. MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA S$362
PHONE 18/21 299.3388
0ENN16 V. T -LOP
•aan*a•ao _0 w•vna•
Proposed vacation of the drainage and utility easements across the following
described property:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; CONSTRUCT101 5 A0n1T.IOl, Wright county,
Minnesota.
Said easements being d feet in width and adjoining the lot lines between
said Lots I and 2, Lots 2 and 3, Lots 3 and 4 and Lots 4 and 5
The side lines of said easements are to be orolonae-i or shortened to
terminate on the inside line of the outside perimeter drainage and utility
easement of said Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and S.
85234
U
CONSTRUCTION
5 ADDITION '
' ��'�
m W .. r Y•n awm•.. ereri., . +srr. • rr,. owe+. r u P
r+rr wWearerrarN.YW MrrYr��
���_��
•
r r r ♦
� a �
r
r1r •ben�re itWln nW'sra`•m�rd�.•� �.n r~• �• ��r�e! w •'a�� ..
...1, YJ1. ��r �mW a • tl m 1 � �1yLea«i e• ��
r..tl•. r r.w
• ,wr � ra r
r
Y /r tl- r _• (j
:r r�i.d .� •,µ. uw��w.: a ar w•�
WY rem be` V Wer rIrY11 nrl.
�
•� I J �
e`r +•. •+►�.. r s�r�o`r�..r�wr .arw�rn...' :. �� i..`.� er r'
_ �y
�
PP a•rs r W w.r• •r a r rrr Mw. awe.• M� 'L-.
'
I
e•arYM • rraV•rr
. w
t
1
�� � '
� �
�r rrr r rrrrp wr+ tl erg r •I • rr r. wr
r ra r, r� r ..� a mr,er • rtlrrr, •rrr e.i+:r...rw .. m n
I
`� '�:� �
r• .u... �.•+., rrr
lj'
�. i I .i) •
� ..
•
w ^ ' •
� O Z,�ia • • ,
`J
1
r
w. !
_
e w..rw an a Y..arrrgr, r r ..Pr r.r r r .s. a wswers • rr...
r�W ._r m• r.�rs4 ,Y, �• .�• r .�. �rri YY.r m�.tlW r s
rrrr YYrrrY,rrr+a er •.w
rl � �
�
•
•JI
rrre_rYrr�,re.
v, r 1 ••~ ,': �I 1 '�iti
a
wy..r•. 1",i�.w.w«uei `.r
tMIX
1 � S
/ e � �i I✓ ,/��r �
{ Y f • 11 �
e.n w
"'r" r.r,�•• �.WI+. r r.�r.w rw r .��r u ..�. � ti•+
• I �
r
! `
� �• 9'� � • .
� « 1. � ` •� 1�
rr.r r r r_ •.r... r r w a rwW --- •_ q +�•�r....
• ^'
/: f!!1
,
• �.
;4 •
�, �\ �,\��
r_Ym Yry rrJu rw w�rMr rrr=,
•�wR'��
•�•
*� •__ _c,
t�a
are
er�.r r rrr a rw m.�.r r . ••_
..� P
�4�°�`/
�
u
rY re P W _ ..► ww..:M rrgr rrr/ rrr M�� 11
,�•.
--"r�L
•.w.w.wrarr•r.
'�! `�'�/•��4��•v 'rr t
r.�.a ..ter
-� .�. s :.. ��.�i r�
M '4l�yr �
�
•
• a• rreir.� irr�irm••�: r�r a r ar rrr. �n . w..�r
�II L. �� 4LWi JL 'V...nr
r0rfya, r.sn
Al • Ya
rP •rr r.�
Council Agenda - 7/14/86
5. Consideration of Awarding a Contract to the Lowest Responsible Bidder
for the 1986 Seal Coating Project. (R.M.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On Thursday, July 10, the City received bide for this year's sealcoating
project. A copy of the bid tabulation is enclosed for your review.
As you can see by this tabulation, the low bidder was Allied Blacktop
Company from Maple Grove, in the amount of 517,127.12 with the City
doing all the sweeping, and $19,272.48 with Allied Blacktop doing
the sweeping.
The amount budgeted for sealcoating this year was $20,100.00.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Alternative 01 would be to award the bid to Allied Blocktop Company
with the City doing the sweeping for an amount of 517,127.12.
2. Alternative ®2 would be to award the bid to Allied Blacktop Company
with them doing the sweeping for an amount of $19,272.48.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the bid be awarded to Allied
Blacktop Company with them doing the sweeping as outlined in Alternativw 12.
This bid puts us $827.52 under budget.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Bid tabulation for Sealcoat Project SC86-1; Tabulation from the specifications
of the areae to be saalcoated this year.
BID TABULATION
1986 SEALCOATING PROJECT
July 10, 1986 - 2:00 p.m.
1. Batzer Construction Coapany
P.O. Box 1025
St. Cloud, MN 56301
2. Allied Blacktop Company
10503 89th Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN 55369
3. Buffalo Bituminous, Inc.
Box 337 - Hwy. 55 west
Buffalo. MN 55313
(City Sweeping)
BID I Sq.Yd. Bid II Sq.Yd.
$21,096.06 5.59 $18,736.14 5.524
$19,272.48 5.539 $17,127.12 $.479
$19,487.02 5.545 $17,987.00 5.5030
0
TABULATION OF AREA TO BE SEALCOATED
Sandberg Road
7,971 eq.
yda.
Oakvood Drive
3,389 eq.
yda.
Cedar Street
2,978 eq.
yda.
Hart Boulevard
8,186 sq.
yds.
Parking lot vest of Flickers
3,630 sq.
yda.
Commuter lot
6,659 sq.
yds.
wastewater Treatment Plant
2,963 eq.
yda.
TOTAL
35,756 sq.
yda.
Council Agenda - 7/14/86
6. Consideration of a Recommendation from the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Contracting Subcommittee to Commence Negotiations with PSG. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The issue of whether or not to contract services at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant has been under review for many months. In mid -winter,
the City Council appointed a subcommittee comprised of the Mayor,
Councilmember Bill Fair, John Simola, John Badallch, Tom Eidem, and
one independent consultant to be selected by the other members of
the committee. John Simola, after extensive research and discussion,
prepared the Request for Proposals. They were sent out to a number
of reputable firms�°�d three major firms responded. Those firms
are Metcalf s Eddy:. 1`'Services Group (PSG), and Water Environment
Technologies (WET). The subcommittee, after considerable discussion,
Selected an Illinois firm to serve as the consulting engineer, that
firm being Baling&Associates. Baling 6 Associates has a substantial
history of assisting in wastewater contracting evaluations and analysis.
During the latter month of May and early part of June the members
of thecommittee visited a plant in Virginia, Minnesota, a plant in
Souix City, Iowa, a plant in Spencer, Iowa, and a plant in Peru, Illinois,
to observe tho functioning of contract operations under each of the
firms showing interest in Monticello.
On Juno 26, the committee, along with the engineer from Baling 6 Associates,
met in an all day session to evaluate the proposals submitted by the
three contractors. Interviews of approximately 1% hours were conducted
with the representatives of each of the firms. At the conclusion
of the entire process, individual rankings were compiled, and the
subcommittee unanimously ranked PSG on top. It was also the finding
of the committee that based upon the proposals submitted, it would
be the most effective for the City to commence negotiations for contract
operations of the wastewater Treatment Plant.
The details of each proposal, being rather lengthy, are not being
submitted with this supplement. The proposals are available for individual
review hero at City Hall. Further, we have asked Baling 6 Associates
to supply us with executive summaries and professional recommendations
on contracting operations. As of this writing, those documents have
not yet arrived, but we will provide them to you by meeting time.
If you find that the documents have boon included with your agenda
supploment, please ignore the previous sentence.
The pro sea as schoduled is for the Council to authorize the subcommitteo
to commence negotiations toward a final contract document. We anticipate
being able to arrive at an agreement by the first meeting in August,
at which time we would request the Council to move the execution of
the contract. Upon signing, the firm would begin to mobilize and
assume contract operations effective October 1, 1906.
-4-
Council Agenda - 7/14/86
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept the recommendation of the committee and order the negotiations
of a contract to commence.
2. Do not accept the committee recommendation, and elect to continue
to operate the Wastewater Treatment Plant with City staff.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This recommendation is not from City staff, but rather from the Wastewater
Treatment Plant Contracting Subcommittee. Based on the evidence and
the professional recommendation of Baling 6 Associates, the subcommittee
recommends that the City contract its Wastewater Treatment Plant operations,
and that the City attempt to negotiate said contract with PSG.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
That documentation submitted by Baling 6 Associates.
-5-
Council Agenda - 7/14/86
7. Consideration of Authorizing Negotiations for the ACcuisition of
the Northern States Power Maintenance Building. (T.EJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Two Council meetings ago, the Council briefly discussed the possibility
of acquiring the NSP service station garage located adjacent to the
City Public Works property. At that time, the Council asked if Councilmember
Maxwell would lend his expertise to the Council in determining a
value. It is my understanding that Councilmember Maxwell has had
an opportunity to review the site and building and has arrived at
a general value. It seems appropriate at this time to discuss with
Mr. Maxwell what a reasonable offer would be to make to Northern
States Power. This could be done in one of two ways. Either the
Council could discuss the proposed offer this Monday evening and
confirm a figure which the City should submit to NSP as its opening
offer. The other alternative is to select a negotiating subcommittee,
provide some general negotiating guidelines, and meet with Northern
States Power.
The first option offers the endorsement of the City Council so that
if the offer is accepted by the City Council, an agreement can be
entered into immediately. The subcommittee option leaves negotiations
more open, but would require the committee to come back to the City
Council to ratify any agreed upon sale price. Both methods have
their advantages and disadvantages, and that primarily in what needs
a to be evaluated.
If the Council opts to appoint a negotiating subcommittee, I recommend
that one staff person be assigned to that subcommittee for the sole
reason of being a contact person for NSP. The real meat of the nagotiations
and any recommendations coming out of the committee should come from
the elected officials who can carry their recommendation to their
colleagues on the Council.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Evaluate the benefit of the NSP property and determine an amount
to offer Northern States Power for that property.
2. Appoint a negotiating subcommittoe and provide general guidelines
to prepare a first offer to NSP.
3. Dispense with the notion of acquiring the property and have staff
inform HSP as such.
Tharp is no staff recommendation, nor supporting data for this issue.
L. clot 000,
LJ5 L)00-
-6-
Council Agenda - 7/14/86
S. Consideration of Grantin43 Approval for a Simple Subdivision -
Applicant, Mel Wolters. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Mel Wolters is proposing to subdivide an existing residential
lot on West River Street into two residential lots. If the lot split
is allowed, the lot as noted on the enclosed site plan, which is
called Parcel #2, would be approximately 14,405 sq. ft. of lot area,
which exceeds the minimum 12.000 sq. ft. requirement. With the lot
split as shown on the enclosed site plan, the existing lot will have
only 33 feet of frontage or lot width along West River Street, which
is less than the minimum BO foot lot width or frontage as required
by ordinance. The object of simple subdividing residential lots
is to create smaller lots from existing large residential lots into
rectangular type lots, not lots of irregular shape as presented.
Our new City ordinance has addressed this type of lot configuration
in that we do not allow this type of residential lot subdivision
with a lot created as Parcel #1 is created. However, you may want
to approve a subdivision of this large residential lot into two residential
iota with both lots, when split, meeting the minimum lot square footage
requirement, with Parcel Y1 needing a variance on the minimum lot
width or frontage. An additional water and sewer line would have
to be run into the property to service Parcel 01. If a simple subdivision
is approved, the developer in this case would have to bear all costs
of a now water and sewer line installation into the property. The
relocation of the existing driveway would be to the Center of the
33 foot lot width. With the relocation of the new driveway, it would
allow for adequate area for snow removal and adequate area to construct
swalas for storm water runoff from the driveway and from the existing
lot.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to allow one residential
lot to be split to two residential lots, and approve the variance
request to allow one of the residential lots to be split with
lose than the minimum lot width required.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to allow one residential
lot to be split into two residential lots, and deny the variance
request to allow one of the residential lots to be loss than
the minimum lot width as required.
3. Approve the simple subdivision request splitting one residential
lot into two residential lots, and approve the variance request
to allow a residential lot with less than the minimum lot width
as required with the devolopor bearing all costs of a now water
and sewer stub into the property.
p
-7-
Council Agenda - 7/14/86
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff would like to take a neutral position on Mr. Wolters' request.
The request for the lot subdivision as presented on the enclosed
site plan with Parcel 01 is in direct violation of our newly adopted
ordinance, allowing a lot to be subdivided with less than the minimum
lot width. However, Mr. Wolters' request does have some merit in
that the newly created lot with a 33 foot width along West River
Street would allow construction of a driveway on this 33 foot width
of property and also allow for snow removal and storm water drainage
from this existing driveway and both sides of the newly created driveway.
With the lot itself as platted being a rather large lot does present
some difficulties in trying to market the property with that much
land area.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision and variance
request; Copy of the site plan.
-e-
A simple a division request to
f— qv a res ntial lot to be subdivided
G 2 resid ia�l lots.
A r e req t to allow a new
xesi
lot v:.I:: tthan
r
th mi. tron14 required.
mel Wolters.
161*1
PARCEL 2
I"Os jo I". I
Li
PARCEL I
RIVER
7840
19 14 •
................
PARCEL 2
I"Os jo I". I
Li
PARCEL I
Council Agenda - 7/16/86
9. Consideration of Awarding the Contract for the Sealing of the Interior
Beams and Docking for City Hall. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
The interior roof decking and beams have been discussed at different
times over the past couple of years. Not much has become of our
discussion since the last time we talked; and now I have been able
to secure one bid and am hoping to secure an additional bid for resealing
interior roof decking and beams.
In looking back at the original specifications for this project,
and the copies enclosed in this supplement, it notes under the surface
sealer that the wood decking was suppose to receive one shop coat
of Olympic or approved equal clear seal prime. If this was applied,
we now note the finish is very dull and also the ends of the wood
grain are starting to dolaminate. This item was not a budgeted item
for this year, but with the time frame that we are in when it comes
to budgeting time and due to the condition of our existing wood decking
and beams, we would like your consideration of getting this work
done during the summer months which are upcoming, late July or early
August, to have the work done before the weather turns cool in the
fall.
One problem is trying to obtain another bid or bids from other contractors.
With the City being in operation during the daytime hours, the only
time to do it is in the evening hours or on weekends. The one bid
that we do have, the contractor is insisting on doing the work only
in the evenings when no one is in the building.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Consider resealing the interior beams and wood docking in the
City Hall building.
2. Do not consider resealing the interior beams and docking at this
time.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would like to see this interior sealing of the beams and docking
done as soon as possible. we are fast approaching the middle of
July; and this being a vary active construction season with many
of the contractors very busy at this time, it has been difficult
trying to secure one bid, lot alone other bids for this project.
In a very close examination of the endo and bottoms of our existing
roof beams, you will nota dolemination of the wood grain on the beams.
0. SUPPORTING DATA:
7 Copy of the one bid submitted at this time; and before City Council
meats, we hope to have another bid to present; Copy of the Monticallo
City Hall specification in regards to the original sealer to have
been applied to the roof decking and structural wood members.
.9-
r
PROPOSAL
t
Lindberg Painting & Wallcovering
EXPERr ass
(Since 1902)
178 East Broadway
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
PITTSBURGH'
Phone (612) 295-3030
PAINTS
To city Rall
D.%.
July 15, 1985 to
C
We are pleased to quote you on the following, subject to the conditions and terms Rated herein:
Job Address Monticello. Minnesota 55362
Description of wort:
Interior Beams: Beats to be cleaned, where needed, lightly Banded befsre
apalying one coat of PPG Rez sealer and two coats of PPG polyurethane satin
finish. All coats to be brushed and rolled in order to fill where wood has
started to aeperate.
This concern agrees to furnish ell labor and material workmen's compensation insurance
for the above work and will do evarything In a nest workmanship manner for the cum of
'11ao thousand cine hundred eighty four dollars and sixty cents (,2,964.60 j
Exceptions:
�—arms Paid utor. comletion Delivery
Date of acceptance
I hereby agree to accept the proposal as heroin stated. Accepted by: CHARLES LINDBERG
,
Purchaser
MONTICELLO CITY HALL
7616
SECTION 0617 PREFABRICATED STRUCTURAL WOOD
Extreme fiber in bending 2,400 psi
Tension parallel to grain 1,600 psi
Compression parallel to grain 1,500 psi
Compression perpendicular to grain 385 psi
Horizontal shear 165 psi
Modulus of elasticity 1,800,000 psi
B. Appearance Grade: Architectural.
2.2 LAMINATED WOOD DECKING
A. Laminated wood decking shall be manufactured by Boise Cascade.
B. Laminated wood decking shall be select grade Douglas Fir -Larch (E a
1,400,000 psi and Fb o 2150 psi) decking consisting of 1.1/2" net thickness,
face width 15" net.
C. Face Grade: Architectural Grade. One face shad be so graded.
0. Face Surface: Smooth surfaced.
E. Pattern: Standard Vee. Decking shall have heavy tongue -and -groove ends
i and edges, precision manufactured.
2.3 ADHESIVE
i
A. Adhesives for all prefabricated structural wood shall be bonded with a
waterproof adhesive which conforms to the test requirements of PS 56-73 for
wet -use adhesive.
2.4 SURFACE SEALER
A. Ends of prefabricated structural wood members shalt have one Coat of end
sealer applied immediately after trimming. All other surfaces shall have one
coat of clear penetrating sealer.
B. The laminated wood decking shall be given 1 shop coat of Olympic (or
approved equal) clear seal prime.
2.5 HARDWARE
A. The structural wood fabricator shall furnish connection steel and hardware
for joining timber members to each other and to their supports exclusive of
anchorage embedded in masonry, setting plates. and items field -welded to
structural steel. Metal shapes to have one coat of shop applied paint con-
taining rust inhibitor.
PART 3: EXECUTION
3.1 GLUE -LAMINATED TIMBER
A. Erect laminated structural members strictly according to approved shop
I drawings. Erect members plumb, level and true to lines and dimensions with
full bearing. install temporary bracing as necessary during erection and
0617-309
Council Agenda - 7/14/86
10. Consideration of Approving the Specifications for Refuse Hauling
Contract and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City's current contract with Corrow Sanitation for garbage removal
will be expiring on August 1, 1986. Corrow Sanitation has contracted
with the City since August of 1980, initially under a 3 -year contract
which has been renegotiated and extended to August 1, 1986. As you
may recall, Corrow Sanitation requested last May and received a $1,080.00
per month increase in their basic contract to cover additional dumping
charges and other cost increases in their operation.
In reviewing the present contract agreement, a few minor changes
are recommended by the staff, including a paragraph requiring the
hauler to document the total cubic yards or tonage hauled during
a month, a paragraph that would allow for an increase in the contract
if the hauler has to pay an increase in his dumping chargee because
of County or State surcharges, etc. Other minor changes are in regards
to additional City facilities where refuse should be picked up and
the additional fees that would be added each month for additional
new homes and apartments, etc.
A decision will have to be made at this point whether the City should
go out for bids on a new one or three year contract, or to negotiate
with Corrow Sanitation on a new extended contract. As 1 am sure
you will agree. Corrow has provided excellent service over the peat
eight years, and the City staff has had very few problems in working
with this company. I have briefly discussed a new contract with
Corrow Sanitation, and Mr. Al Corrow has indicated a willingness
to meat with the City staff to renegotiate a now contract. At the
present time, it appears that Corrow will not be seeking a large
monetary increase in the contract but are only concerned about a
few minor areas regarding compensation for now residences added each
month and a contract stipulation that would allow for some increase
in their contract if Wright County requires the Monticello garbage
to be hauled to Elk River. Currently Corrow primarily dumps the
City's garbage in Yonaks Land Fill, and if County regulations would
require the City to haul its garbage to Elk River, Corrow would like
to be able to renegotiate to cover their extra cost that would be
Involved. Until the City staff is able to meat with representatives
of Corrow later on in July, we are unable to provide anymore information
on a renegotiated contract with Corrow, but do feel that this is
en alternative the City should pursue prior to actually soaking advertisement
for bids. Mr. Al Corrow did indicate that due to the time constraints,
they would have no problem in continuing service past August 1 under
the present contract allowing City staff ample time to negotiate
with them and/or to seek advertisement for bide.
-10-
Council Agenda - 7/14/86
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the basic contract
agreement which includes minor contract language changes and
to authorize the advertisement for bids.
2. Approve the basic contract agreement but authorize the City staff
to negotiate with Corrow Sanitation on a now extended contract
and bring back this information to the Council prior to actually
advertising for bids. It is assumed that the new agreement would
be the same one used on a contract extension with Corrow or a
new contractor if the City does soak bide.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since the City staff has not had the opportunity to meet with representatives
of Corrow Sanitation to discuss a new contract prior to Monday's
meeting, it is recommended that the Council approve the new basic
agreement and authorize the City to advertise for bids, but to first
have a meeting with Corrow, to negotiate a now contract. The City
has had excellent service from Corrow, and it may be to the City's
benefit to continue with Corrow provided an agreeable contract can
be negotiated. Since Corrow has indicated a willingness to continue
service poet August 1 until a decision is made, the Council can decide
after negotiations with Corrow whether to seek other garbage haulers
under the bid process. One possible advantage to advertising for
bids in that there may be a new operator who may be willing to undercut
Corrow'a current price to get the City of Monticello contract similar
to what happened to Yonak's six years ago when Corrow underbid them
to get established in the City. Although dollar cost of a contract
is an important factor, the present service of Corrow should also
be considered if it in decided to seek other bidders.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed contract agreement; Advertisement for Bids; Bid
Proposal Forme.
:M
�l
SAMPLE CONTRACT
AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, a governmental
subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as CITY,
and , hereinafter referred to
as HAULER.
WHEREAS, the CITY desires garbage and refuse pick-up and hauling
for its residents on a contract at a monthly rate for orderly and reliable
pick-up service and disposal of refuse, etc., thereof, without the responsibility
of the CITY maintaining equipment for said purpose and a dump for said
disposal; and
WHEREAS, the HAULER is organized to and desirous of, carrying out
such CITY wants and desires, and has adequate equipment, assistance
and know-how to carry out said project;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED, in consideration of the mutual promisee
of the CITY and HAULER:
1. PAYMENT
A. That CITY shall pay HAULER the sum of
starting on the
last pick-up day of 1986, and each
and every month thereafter, on the last collection day
of each said month, for the term of this AGREEMENT, unless
the AGREEMENT is terminated by either party an eat forth
in this AGREEMENT, said sum shall be for the number of
dwellings stipulated in the Appendix attached hereto.
The monthly payment shall include all current surcharge
or dumping fees incurred by the HAULER.
B. The contract shall, upon proper documentation to the CITY,
provide for an increase in the monthly payment to cover
any increase in surcharge fees or other special processing
fees incurred by the HAULER during the term of the AGREEMENT.
C. Prior to each monthly payment, the HAULER shall provide
to the CITY documentation of total cubic yards or tonago
hauled during the previous month.
-1-
D. Any additional residences picked up by the HAULER upon
the request of the CITY will be added to monthly payment
at per single family residence with apartment
units added at the rate of per unit. Additional
residences and apartments will be added to the monthly
payment at the and of the month and will be determined
by the number of certificates of occupancy issued during
the month. Duplexes, triplexes, and 4-plexes shall be
counted as single family residences per dwelling unit.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT shall remain in force for a period of
years beginning on the first day of , 1986, and
ending on the 31st day of 198`, unless
otherwise terminated in accordance with this AGREEMENT. This
AGREEMENT may be renewed at any time before its natural termination,
by the written mutual consent of both parties and resolution
by the CITY.
3. TERMINATIONS
This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party with or without
cause. upon a six -months written notice to the other party.
4. INSURANCE
That HAULER shall carry public liability insurance with a recognized
insurance carrier and keep in force at all times during this
AGREEMENT the following minimum of coverage:
A. 5100,000 per person.
B. 3300,000 per accident.
C. S 10.000 property damage.
D. Worker's compensation coverage.
5. SCOPE OF WORK
A. That HAULER shall not be required to pick up and dispose
of any refuse or garbage that is not placed in a container
by the resident and that HAULER shall not be required to
use shovels in the leading thereof. Further, the service
herein contemplated and provided for shall be furnished
only to the residents within the presant corporate limits
of the CITY.
-2-
0
B. That HAULER agrees to a weekly pick-up of
all garbage and refuse at curbside for each residence in
said CITY, including branches if cut into dimensions of
not longer than six feet (6-) and tied securely in bundles
weighing not in excess of 50 pounds and to dispose of same
at a dump. This service extends only to residential property
and not to commercial or industrial enterprise, except
for City property listed in Paragraph 5(0). If the HAULER
is providing twice weekly pick-ups, the days of service
shall be Monday and Thursday. The HAULER can negotiate
with any resident with regard to the placement of the garbage
and number of pick-ups per week. HAULER shall accept at
least six containers per household, per pick-up.
C. Garbage containers must not exceed 30 gallon capacity and
should be equipped with handles for ease of handling.
Plastic garbage bags are ideal for use of storing garbage.
Paper bags are not permissible. Sturdy cardboard disposable
cartons may be used for non -garbage refuse.
i
D. That HAULER shall be required to provide and maintain 1y
cubic yard garbage containers at the following locations:
1) City Maintenance Building - W. County Road 39 - Year Round
2) 4th Street Park - Year Round
3) West Bridge Park - Year Round
4) East Bridge Park - May i through November 1
5) Ellison Park - May 1 through November 1
6) Sewage Disposal Plant - Year Round
7) NSP Softball Yields - May / through October t
HAULER shall provide a garbage dumpster container for East
and West Bridge Parks on the 4th of July each year that
is at least 5 cubic yards.
The HAULER shall also provide weekly garbage pick-up at
the following city facilities:
t) Muasum/Information Center
2) City Hall
3) Library
4) Fire Hall
5) Senior Citizen Center
6) Old Fire Hall
/ and also empty the litter container• at various sidewalk
q~ locations in the downtown area, as needed.
-S-
The HAULER shall, in addition to the regular garbage/refuse,
provide pick-up of "screenings" at the municipal Wastewater
Treatment facility.
E. That the following Legal Holidays will be exempt from pick-up
if the HAULER is providing twice weekly service and one
(1) pick-up day falls on:
New Year's Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
If HAULER is providing once -a -week pick-up which falls
on one of the above Holidays, arrangements shall be made
by the HAULER for pick-up on another date that week.
F. The HAULER shall notify the City of each occurrence when
articles placed out for collection are not picked up due
to their being beyond the scope of this agreement (e.g.
mattresses, appliances, hot ash, etc.). HAULER shall,
to the best of their ability, provide address, name of
1 _ customer, and nature of article not accepted for pick-up.
HAULER may negotiate independently with customer for collection
of any articles that fall beyond the scope of this agreement.
6. PERFORMANCE BOND
HAULER shall furnish CITY as a condition to his receiving
consideration under this contract as sat out in Article 1,
a Performance Bond; said Bond shall remain in force during
the term of this AGREEMENT and shall be placed with a Bonding
Company, acceptable to CITY. Said Bond shell be payable
to the CITY OF MONTICELLO. and shall be in the amount of
Five Thousand Dollars (89,000.00)
DUMP
It is the obligation of the HAULER to obtain proper dumping
grounds for the refuse, garbage, etc., and pick-up matter
and there is no responsibility of any kind upon the CITY to
furnish said dumping facilities to HAULER.
-a-
/0
B. ASSIGNMENT
This AGREEMENT may not be assigned in whole or in part
without the written consent of the CITY.
9. GENERAL
This AGREEMENT contains the entire AGREEMENT between the
HAULER and the CITY and may be amended only by the mutual
consent of CITY and HAULER, in writing.
10. WAIVER
A waiver of one part of rights of either party is not a
waiver of all the rights that may accrue to either party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT
on the date of
(CITY SEAL)
I
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
BY:
_g—
f0
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOR
RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE REMOVAL SERVICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Monticello, Minnesota
will receive sealed bids for the service of providing garbage and
refuse pickup and hauling for its residents on a contract at a monthly
rate in accordance with the applicable specifications.
Bids will be received until 2:00 p.m., ,
1986, at the Monticello City Hall, Monticello, Minnesota, at which
time they will be publicly opened and read.
All bids shall be directed to the City Administrator, City of
Monticello, 250 East Broadway. Monticello, Minnesota 55362, and shall
be submitted on a proposal form included in the specifications.
Copies of the specifications and other proposal contract documents
are on file with the City Administrator.
All bids shall be accompanied by a cashier's check, certified
check, or bid bond payable to the City of Monticello for 5% of the
bids. The City of Monticello reserves the right to reject any and
all bide, to waive any informalities in the bidding, and to accept
C. any bidding to be in the best interest of the City of Monticello.
No bid may be withdrawn within thirty (30) days of the bid opening.
By Order of the City Council
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
TO BE OPENED
MONTICELLO CITY HALL
250 EAST BROADWAY
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
PROPOSAL OF:
ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE:
BID PROPOSAL
, 1986, 2:00 P.M.
For furnishing pickup and disposal of residential refuse and garbage within
the City of Monticello. Minnesota, in accordance with the specifications, fact
sheet, and Agreement which are attached:
Additional Residences
BID ALTERNATIVES LUMP SUM PRICE SINGLE FAMILY APARTMENTS
- (1) Year Contract: 4b per unit per unit
A. Once -a -week Pickup S per month S S
B. Twice -a -Week Pickup $ per month S S
(3) Year Contract:
A. Once -a -Week Pickup S per month S S
B. Twice -a -week Pickup 5 per month S $
PROPOSAL MUST BE SUBMITTED IN TRIPLICATE ON THIS FORM ONLYI
Include Certified Check or Bid Bond, payable to: City of Monticello, in the amount
of 5% of the Bid.
Signature of Authorized Representative
m
FACT SHEET
FOR GARBAGE CONTRACT - CITY OF MONTICELLO
The following information is provided for bidding purposes:
(as of 7/1/86)
Approximate number of single family residences 486
(includes duplex, tri-plex and 4-plax units)
Approximate number of apartment units 332
Approximate number of residences - River Terrace 75
Trailer park
14
6-0)
!0N'TICELLO COUNCIL IO:ETIMG
INTERCEPTOR SEVER PROJECT 86-1
JULY 14. 1986
CHANGE ORDER NO. i
This work is required to comply with the requirements of NSP concerning elec-
trical service to the lift station and also to modify power cables to the
submersible pumps.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
This work was previously ordered by the City Council.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
This changes the type of material to be used for bedding of the deep sewer pipe
and also increases the quantity from 500 cubic yards to 800 cubic yards.
T.
i
9
L. & G. REHBEIN, INC.
6805 20th Avenue South
Centerville. MN 55038
612/426.1345
June 19, 1986
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron &
Associates, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin
Suite 238
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Attn: Chuck LePak
Re: Change orders No. and No. 2
Monticello Project No. 86-1
Dear Chuck
RECEIVED
0RX=HEUN-t9,.L*1V & ASSOI„-
COMNL F,
JUN 2 3 1966
We have reviewed your letter of June 12, 1986 concerning,
the referenced change orders and offer the following prices
for your consideration:
Chance Order 'No. 1 - Lift Station Modifications
Item No. 1:
Inc -ease length of submersible pump power cables (116/3-2-1)
to 50 feet.
I LS 3 $ 711.01
Item %o. 2:
Increase conduit size from 14" to 2" to accept power
cables.
No Charge
Item No. 3:
Set power pole to extend 20 feet above grade near control
panel and add S" conduit with 2 #12 wires from control
pai.el to alar -m light mounted 14 feet above grade. The
power pole is to take the place of the utility transformer.
I LS @ $1,025.57
Item No. 4:
Change concrete base of control panel to have dimension
of 4 ft. W x 3 ft. H x 2 ft. D with steel reinforcement
as shown on the attached sketch.
I LS @ $ 150.00
Total 'Change Order No. 1 $1,886.58
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
G)
I
I
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron
Chuck Le Pak
Page 2
Chance Order No. 2 - Waternain on Chestnut Street
Item No. 1:
Add 1 -inch Corporation Cocks
4 Ea. @ $45.00/Ea. $ 180.00
Add 1 -inch Curb Stop
1 Ea. @ $80.00/E. $ 80.00
Connect to Existing Curb Stop
3 Ea. @ $150.00/Ea. $ 450.00
Add 1 -inch Copper Service Pi?e
140LF @ $10.00/LF $1,400.00
Turn Off and Cap Existing Corps
2 Ea. @ $190.00/EA. $ 380.00
Total $2,490.00
Item No. 2:
Dry Tap 8" x 6" Tee into existing 6" DIP
on River Street 1 LS @ $ 350.00
Item No. 3:
Connect 6" DIP to existing Stub
1 LS @ $ 200.00
Item No. 4:
Install one (1) 4" Sanitary Service Connection
to existing 8" VCP, 1 LS @ $ 600.00
(Including 40 LF of 4" Service Pipe)
Total Change Order No. 2 $3,640.00
If you have any questions, please call me.
Yours truly,
L. & G. Rehbein, INc.
Laurence Gustaf on
Estimator/Manager
LEG/jb
0
V ORR•SCHELEN-MAYERON 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
2021 E. HENNEPIN AVE. • SURE 238
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.55613
CHANGE ORDER NO. .....1
x
......... RE: Project, No. 86-1
... .a.G..Rehben contractor
........i. ..... .........
.6805. -.201;0. Avenue. $otith.... . ............
Hugo, MN 55038
................................................
Dear Sir (I)
Under your contract dated ............ Apr1 1 .8 ............ .......... 1x 86• with
The City of Monticello Monticello
.................................................. Owner for .............
Interceptor Sewer and Apprutenant llork, Project 86-1
we are authorized by the owner to hereby direct you to • •. Increthlength
.. a52 ....... e ............ Of .. the ......
Submersible pump power cables to 50 feet, (2) increase the conduit size to
............................................................................................
;�, 2.inchest.l3l set a power pole with i inch conduit,•(4I_•change the ,concrete
.base. of..the..control . Pagel. S.o .4 •'..NX. 3.'.. HX .2' D...lSee .9ttached .letter ), ,. • , , • • • .
............................................................................................
and to add to (dethtet trate) the contract, in accordance with contract and specification, do aum of
One Thousand eight Hundred Eighty - Six and 58 rtoo Dollars
There will be an extension or .... ZerO days rot completion.
The data of compleuom of contract was 10/31 r986.. ad now a40 be 10131 19 86
a,nex,e of atakat cw"'actTavel ♦dditione Teiai oaductiant Canrnq to Oate
$435,720.75 1 $1 1 ze 1 $431,507.33
Approved la.... RapaeWNy Submitted.
...
t).n.. OWSCHElEN-MAYERON
.j%MI INC.
........................................ par ..... ... ...........
canirecter
11
i
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON d ASSOCIATES, INC.
2021 E. HENNEPIN AVE. - SUITE 238
MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. 55413
CHANGE ORDER IVO, ...... Z.
s...r.64(1.,Q0,.,.,,., RE project No. 86-1
L & G Rehbein Monticello, MN
..................... Contractor
6805 - 20th Avenue South
...............................................
Hugo, MN 55038
................................................
Dear SIT (a)
Under your contract dated April 8,
The city of Monticello Monticello
............................................... Owner for .............
Interceptor Sewer and Appurtenant Work, Project 86-1
............ .............................................................. ......... I........
we are authorized by the owner to hereby direct you to ... 8.. , ,four , 4.) ., , *p. . Stio.P. i.
F. & I one (1) 1" curb stop & box, connect to three (3) existing curb stops,
........................................... ......... ...................... I ............ I....
F & I 1" copper, abandon two (2) existing corp, stops. cut in 8 x 6 tee,
............................................................................................
connect to an existing 6 -inch stub.and,install, one.. (1)•4" Sanitary, Sewer....
Service (See attached letter)
.................. ....... ......... .......... ......................... I......................
............................................................................................
and to add to (deduct from) the contract in aceordAnce with t:0111110M and spKWORUM Uta am of
Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty and 00 /loo Dollars
There wU) be an extension of ...ie%Q ...... days for completion.
The data of completion of contract was .110./.31 19.86. and now tvul be 10/,31.... 19 86....
A,waurr of -Wool contractTobi Additiex. Tatty Doductlona c"I.aet t4 Dom
$935,120.15 1 5,526.58 1 zero I S941.247.33
Approved ......•................... it....
RsrsOactfully 9uEseltted.
t3.t.. Olt UMELEN4AAYERON
f ASSOCIATES, INC.
........................................... Per, .. .....• ; ...
Coor"ier
ORR-SCNELEN-MAYERON d ASSOCWTES, INC.
2021 E. HENNEPIN AVE • SUITE 238
MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. 55413
CHANGE ORDER NO. ...... 3.........
S.5 000.00 RE Project No: 66-1
L 8 G RehbeinMonticello, MN
....................................... Contractor
6805 - 20th Avenue South
...............................................
Hugor NN 55038
............................
Dear Sir (s)
Under your contract dated ....................................... 19..86 with
.. The .Gity..Of..Monti cello ... ................................. owner for .Morlti.ce),I.Q
Intercepfor Sewer and Appurtenant work,.Froject No.,86-1......................
we are authorized by the owner to hereby direct you to Lhange the granular bedding
material to 3/4 inch minus crushed rock with a unit price increase from
............................................................................................
�. 36.00 per C.Y. to 10.00 per C.Y. and to increase the plan Quantity from 500
r
.......................................................................
............................................................................................
and to add to (deduct from) the contract, b accordance witli contract and epetUkadon. the am of
Five Thousand and 00100 Doibw
.........................
There will be an extension of ....zero..... days for completion.
The date of completion of contract was . 10/31 19 86. and now will be 10/31 10 86
A,wautta of orialaal contract Total Addlllae. Total Ooducilae. Caetnct to nen
$935.720.75 $13.526.58 $3.000.00 $949,247.33
Approved.......................... 19....
ReapSettuUy Submitted,
...........................................
owaar ORR-SCHBE - "TERON
4CVft
red .......................... 19....ASSOCIATES, INC.
a
........................................... wr FR�LL�.7.. vG:. ..v ...
Canaan.