Loading...
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.