Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 11-09-1987AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUKIL Monday, November 9, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held October 7.6, 1987. 3. Citizens CormnentslPetitions, Requests, and Complaints. 4. Consideration of Annexation Compromise Response. 5. Consideration of Final Payment on otter Creek Road Realignment and Liquor Store Parking Got Improvements. 6. Consideration of Purchasing Bleachers for Softball Fields. 7. Consideration of Accepting Revised Drainage Plan and Criteria Necessary Before Acceptance of Chelsea Road Project. 8. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting for the Purpose of Establishing 1988 Salary/Wage Policy. 9. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONfICELL0 CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 26, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grin=*, Fran Fair, Bili Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Bill Fair, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 13, 1987. voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen. Abstaining was Fran Fair due to her absence at the last meeting. 3. Citizens Comments. Mr. Bill Block, Consulting Engineer for the Chelsea Road Project owned by Jim Boyle, appeared before the Council to update the status of the Chelsea Road Improvement Project. Mr. Block noted that he has been working with the City's Consulting Engineer in redesigning the drainage for the road and noted that they are currently working on the final stages of the construction, including ditch grading along with seeding, etc. Mr. Block noted that they are working on changing some of the drainage plan from the original concept and are hoping to get the project completed before frost this fall in order for the City to be able to accept the street and utility construction. Mayor Grimsmo advised Mr. Block to continue working with the City Engineer and City staff, and if Council action is needed on any changes, the items should be presented to the staff for presentation at the next Council meeting. Consideration of Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide an Existing unplatted Lot into Two Unplatted Lots. Applicant, Debbie Kramer. Debbie Kramer requested final approval to subdivide approximately a 3 -acre parcel of land along Minnesota Street into two separate parcels containing approximately 2.07 acres and .92 acres. The Planning Commission recently approved the simple subdivision request, but the City Engineer brought to the attention of the Council that the surrounding property owner, Tom Brennan, is currently in the process of submitting a preliminary plat which indicates the extension of a frontage road/collector road that would lead from Minnesota Street to Elm Street. The preliminary plat proposed indicates that a portion of one of the lots owned by Debbie Kramer would be used for a road easement and thought this may be the appropriate time to obtain the easement from the Kramers before the subdivision was approved. -f Council Minutes - 10/26/87 Ms, xraomr noted that at the present time they are not interested in dedicating any land for a street extension and have no plans for developing the rear portion of their property and felt it would be inappropriate to hold up their subdivision because of another land owner's desire to subdivide. After further discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the simple subdivision request creating two parcels as described contingent upon a certificate of survey being presented. S. Consideration of Granting an Increase in the Individual pension for the Volunteer Firefighters Relief Association. Representatives of the volunteer Firefighters Relief Association were present to request Council approval to increase their retirement benefit from $800 per year of service to $875 payable after 20 years of fire department service. The fire department previously submitted to the City staff an amortization schedule showing that they would be able to fund the increase in benefits based on anticipated income from state aids and interest income earnings. The increase as proposed would not result in a City tax levy to support the Retirement Association benefits at this time. Council members questioned whether the City would ever have to tax its residents to support the Retirement Association benefits if the Relief Association should ever lose state aids or not meet its anticipated annual income requirements. It was noted by the City Administrator that it seemed highly unlikely that state aide would ever be eliminated; but if they were, state statutes would require municipal support to sustain the benefits established. It was noted that unless a major catastrophe occurred whereby approximately 10-12 members were eliminated in one year, the fund should be self sustaining and have sufficient assets to cover its liabilities. Cauncilmember Slonigen noted thst he felt it was more appropriate for the Relief Association to grant increases in its benefits only when it could do it on its own by having its own assets greater than its liabilities and that the City should not support increases that could potentially result in taxpayers levy to support. After further discussion, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to approve granting an increase to $875 per year of service to the volunteer Firefighters Relief Association. voting in favor was Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. 0 Council Minutes - 10/26/87 6. Consideration of Renewing the Contract for Animal Control Officer - Dave Stromberg. The City of Monticello last renewed its Animal Control Contract with Mr. Dave Stromberg in July of 1986 which established a monthly contract fee of $575 for his services. Mr. Stromberg had requested an increase in his contract amount because of the extra time he has had to put in on his part in an effort to save as many animals as possible from being euthanized through adoption procedures. In negotiating the renewal of the contract with Mr. Stromberg, the City staff recommended that the base contract be increased 5 percent and that an additional incentive be included in the contract which would provide for an additional $4 for each animal placed through the Humane Society rather than being euthanized and an additional $10 for each animal Dave directly adopted out. Currently, the City of Monticello incurs a cost of approximately $14 for each animal that is being euthanized; and it was recommended that the savings be passed on to the Animal Control Officer for his extra work involved in finding a home for the animals through adoption or through the Humane Society. In reviewing the past two years' history of animals at the dog pound, it was apparent that the number of animals being euthanized over the past year has decreased substantially and that the City of Monticello has seen a decrease in its euthanization fees because of the Animal Control Officer's efforts. As a result, motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to approve renewal of an animal control contract effective July 1 at a base monthly fee of $604 and starting January 1, 1988, the Animal Control Officer would receive $4 for each additional animal placed through the Humane Society and $10 for each animal adopted by the Officer. 7. Consideration of Proposal for Replatting Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park. In December 1986, the City obtained ownership of Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, and Lot 4 in Block 3 of Oakwood Industrial Park. Each of the lots contain approximately five to six acres; and 011ie Roropchak, Economic Development Director, has noted that there are currently no small lots available within the industrial park in the one to two acre range for small developers. As a result, the City staff had prepared a preliminary sketch of how the Lots 9 and 10 containing approximately ten acres could be subdivided into six parcels ranging in size from 1 1/4 acres to 2 1/2 acres in size. The subdivision would require extension of sewer and water services and the construction of a cul-de-sac road to provide access to six parcels at an estimated cost of approximately $75,000. The City cost per acre at this point is approximately $6,900, and with the improvements, the City could sell the land for approximately $15,000 an acre for the smaller parcels. 9 Council Minutes - 10/26/87 Councilmember Bill Fair questioned whether the City itself will ever need any of this property for the Public Works Department, etc; and staff noted that the City still owned two lots in the industrial park that could be available for City purposes if needed in the future. As a result, potion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the concept of subdividing Lots 9 and 10 into six individual parcels and authorize the staff to prepare the replattimg and process the application through the Planning Commission and City Council. Consideration of Service Road Construction for East County Road 39. Because of the proposed County Road 39 and County Road 75 intersection relocations, the Council previously voted to build a service road at an estimated cost of $20,000 to service the MacArlund Plaza Subdivision and to assess only some additional curbing that may be needed on the north side to minimize encroachment. This decision was contingent upon Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund giving up the necessary property and/or trading right-of-way turnback for the service road construction. The Hoglunds have consulted with their attorney and were reluctant to give up the property necessary for the service road and still be faced with an assessment for curbing cost. The Hogl und's primary concern was that the service road would encroach onto some of their lots and may hurt future resale of their property but indicated a willingness to provide the property for the service road in exchange for a turnback of property not needed for the right-of-way if the city agreed not to assess ary cost of the service road construction including curbing to their property. The approximate land area needed for the service road would be 8,200 sq ft, and the amount of right-of-way that could be turned back to the property owner would be approximately 4,100 aq ft. Council —' Blonigen felt the City had already shown good faith in agreeing to construct the service road at no cost except for the curbing and was reluctant to also agree to no assessments for the curbing cost. After further discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to approve the City constructing the service road with curbing with the Hoglunds not being required to pay any assesamerst for the service road construction cost provided the Hoglunds provide the necessary right-of-way and the City would release and turn back any right-of-way not needed from the present intersection of County Road 39 and 75. voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith. voting in opposition was Dan Blonigen. Council Minutes - 10/26/87 Consideration of water Tower Cleaning and Inspection Contract. The water tower cleaning and inspection contract with Water Tower Paint and Repair Company of Clear Lake, Iowa, has recently expired; and it was recommended by the Public Works Director that a new 5 -year contract be entered into that would provide for cleaning and inspection services only at the rate of $575 per year. Due to the possibility of the tank coming down in 1988 or 1989, it was recommended that the contract did not include the reapplication of the wax coating that is done every five years and that the service be for cleaning and inspection only. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the new 5 -year contract with Water Tower paint and Repair Company at an annual cost of $575 per year for cleaning and inspection. 10. Consideration of Bills for the Month of October. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Bill Fair, and unaninousiy carried to approve the bills for the month of October as presented. Rick Woltste er City Administrator l 01 Council Agenda - 11/9/87 Consideration of Annexation Compromise Response. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: By now, all Council members should be aware that the City did receive a response from Monticello Township on our counter proposal, which they feel is unacceptable. It certainly appears from their response that at the present time they are unwilling to consider a compromise unless it contained a much smaller area for immediate annexation. As I indicated in a previous memo to all Council members, the option still exists to continue with negotiations or reaffirm your past decision to have City Attorney, Tom Hayes, notify the Municipal Board that a compromise settlement cannot be reached and that the Municipal Board should act on our petition as soon as possible. I have asked Mr. Hayes to attend the Council meeting to further discuss the pro's and con's of any settlement attempt if the Council wishes to pursue further discussions. If the Municipal Board is requested to rule on our petition, I believe Mr. Hayes could write the letter and indicate what our counter proposal was in an effort to reach a settlement and note which property owners in our compromised area actually have petitioned in the past or requested to be annexed into the city. Although I believe the Municipal Board does not have to act on anything other than our original 5,000 plus acre request, it certainly won't hurt to remind the Board of the property owners who desire to be annexed. I will be attempting to contact all individuals who have previously petitioned for annexation or indicated their desire to be annexed to see if any property owner has changed their mind since the hearings started. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Having received a response from the Township, the Council could reaffirm its previous decision to notify the Municipal Board that a compromise will not be forthcoming and that the Board should act on our request. 2. Continue pursuing a compromise with the Township. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As I indicated in my previous memo, there are naturally pro's and con's to any action the City takes. Unless the City Oouncil is willing to consider settling on a much smaller area for immediate annexation, it doesn't appear that an agreement with the Township will be reached. As a result, it appears our only choice is to request the Municipal Board t a place our petition on its next available agenda for a decision. I have also been recently contacted by Rent Rjellberg and his attorney, Jim Metcalf, inquiring as to the status of the annexation proceedings and reaffirming their desire to have a decision made as soon as possible. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Annexation mean and copies of our counter offer and Township's response were previously sent. Council Agenda - 11/9/87 Consideration of Final Payment on Otter Creek Road Realignment and Liquor Store Parking Lot Improvements. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Both projects were recently completed by Buffalo Bituminous. The Otter Creek Project construction cost totaled $9,652.30, while the Hi -way Liquors Parking Lot Project totaled $24,867.07. The grand total for both projects is $34,519.37. The construction costs were approximately $3,000 less than those in the original contract. The primary reason for the reduction in cost is in the bituminous quantities. The actual in-place quantities amounted to less than the estimated quantities for these materials. We currently have paid $25,964.47 to Buffalo Bituminous, leaving a balance due of $8,554.90. we are currently awaiting delivery of lien waivers from subcontractors and other required state reports. The final cost for Tom Bolthaus for his share of the Otter Creek Realignment Project will be calculated upon receipt of final engineering bills from OSM. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorize final payment to Buffalo Bituminous after receipt of lien waivers and other appropriate data in the amount of $8,554.90. 2. The second alternative would be to not make final payment to Buffalo Bituminous. At this time, we know of no reason not to final out the project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the City Council opt for alternative number one and make final payment to Buffalo Bituminous in the amount of $8,554.90. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of final construction payment voucher from OSM, Final approval letter from OSM if it arrives in time, otherwise available at Monday evening's meeting. -2- COVSTWION PA1TW VOMI R Estimate Voucher No. 2 6 Fin41 ---------------- Date October 22, 1967 For Period Ending t Octooer 15, 1907 ----------------------- -------- —------------ ------ olect Number 87.1 6 87-2 Class 04 wort Street Construct ton and Appurtenant Dors ----------- -----------------•.-...-....._.------...--.----- Lotation Reali At 04 Otter Crete Road To 81104108itmioays, Inc. --------------------------------------------- ------- Bot 337 Hi -Way Liquors Parting Lot Buffalo, Mo. 55313 ............».___.._....__. ........................ (612) 682-1271 For City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota --.-•-----------------------------------------------.. A. Original Contract Amount 4 37754.00 .............»---.. _... B. Total Additions 1 0.00 ---------------- C. Total Deductions 1 0.00 ------------------- 0. Total Funds Encumbered 1 37750.00 ------------------------ E. Total Value of York Certified to Date k 34519.37 ----------------------- F. Less Retained Percentage 0 % 1 0.00 ............ ----------------------- 6. Less Total Previous Paiaents 1 25P64.47 ----------------------- R. -----.»«.--.. --.. .N. Approved for Patment, This Report s 8554.90 ........................ 1, Total Payments Including This Voucher 4 34519.37 ------------------- ----- J. Balance Carried Faward 4 3230.63 APPRO ^S ORR-SCXELEM-NNYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Pursuant to«our field observation,. as per4ormed in strhrdamcr with aur contract, toe hereby certify that the materials art satis4attcry and the work properly per4orew o in atcordanco with tot flaks 690 sPttificstibes and that the total wort is t00--•- % (Moleted as of ottober 15, 1987 , We hereby recoaund pinunt 04 this voucher. --------------- ------` ----------------------- ---- Signed t Signed Construction Observer U ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ This -------------».----------------_-•.-- This is to certify that to the bast of my knowledge, io4orastion, and beliwl, the 490titits and 900e104 worts wt14ito herein ,s a fair IPProtiasto estimate for the PetioO t00e1`416by Ibis voucher. Contractor t OU444I0 Bi lw nous, Inc. Signed By ----------------------- Date i Title ....................... ........................ . —. city ori Monticello Approsed far leaPkikest �.bar----.__.»..............—�.....__._.»_....—..—....-».._—..�......__..r... t..,rcted It c Anfhoriy►d Reoressstittee —_....r —..... Date a Date t .--...._..—_....-...�. � Qv 1 of 2 - 17�p.4D stimate Voucher No. 2 8 Final ate : October 22. 1997 treet Construction and Appurtenant York ealisnoent of Otter Creek Road - City Project No. 37-1 i -Saar Liquors Parkins Lot - Pr6ect No. 87-2 or the ity of Monticello. l:ritht County. Pdrinesota ontract Date ori Completed : October 15. 1937 Contractor : Buffalo Bituminous. Inc. Box 337 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 1612) 682-1271 York Started Completion Date : tvm Cont. -act :ork Completed �. item Quantity U,iit Unit Price Total ?rice Month This lonth Quantity Total Price M Gradins and Mobilizatiao Lump Sum Bid Item I -A I L.S. --A.00 :500.00 0 0.00 1 :500.00 )21 Remove Curb and Utter 150 L.F. 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 )31 Granular Fit) (Loose Volaael l00 C.Y. 6.00 600.00 0 0.00 63 378.00 i;) Class 5 Astretate 200 Ton 6.00 1200.00 0 0.00 211.4 1260.40 )51 12341 Modified Bituminous Warins Course Inc]. Bituminous Material for Mixture 150 Ton 24.50 3673.00 108.2 2650.90 103.2 2650.90 )61 Sod (incl. 4' of Topsoil) 700 S.Y. 2.00 1400.00 755+1 1500.00 750 1500.00 )71 Remove Concrete Pavement 5 S.Y. 30.00 150.00 0 0.00 16 480.00 )31 Remove Bituminous Pavenent 400 S.Y. 1.50 600.00 0 0.00 450 675.00 )9) Valve Box Adjustments 1 Ea. 125.00 125.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 10) Manhole Adjustments 1 Ea. MOO 200.00 1 200.00 1 200.00 Total for Schedule 'A' 1!tees 1 - 10) ..........................1 10.450.00 t 4.3'.0.90 f 9.652.30 11) Gradins and Mobilization 1 L. S. 1900.00 1900.00 0 0.00 1 .1900. 00 121 Granular Fill (Loose Volume) 10 C.Y. 5.00 50.00 0 0.00 0.00 131 Class 5 Assretate 800 Ton 6.00 4300.00 73.5 441.00 537.9 5027.40 1.1 12341 Modified Bituminous Warint Corse Incl. Bituminous Material for 'ivture 400 Ton 23.50 9400.00 0 0.00 SM M 7055.17 15) 8610 Curb and Gutter 450 L.F. 6.00 2700.00 40 240.00 359 2130.00 i61 Concrete Driveway Entrances 181 Thickness) 90 S.Y. x.50 2025.00 9.2 207.00 100.2 '-"54.50 171 Sod (incl. 4' of Topsoil) 700 S.Y. 2.00 1400.00 975 !950.00 975 1950.00 I81 Concrete Sidewalk (Incl. Stool Mesh and Integral Curb) 600 S.F. 2.51 1500.00 0 0.00 630 1625.00 1I1 Remove B)tumnous Pavement !200 S.Y. !.00 1200.00 0 0.00 1:'S 1::5.00 201 Valve Boy Adjustments 1 Ea. 125.00 125.00 0 0.00 0.00 :I) Manhole Adjustments 1 Ea. 200.00 200.00 0 0.00 1 200.00 ::1 Coeaon Evcavation 200 C.Y. 5.00 1000.00 0 0.00 100 500.00 231 Catch Basin i Ea. 500.00 500.00 0 0.00 1 500.00 ;4) 12' RCP Class iV 25 L.F. 10.00 500.00 0 0.00 25 500.00 Total For Schedule '8' ( Items 11 - 24 1 ........................1 27.300.00 1 2.839.00 f 24.867.07 w+aapaap mo®o .wasp Total for Schedule 'A' and 'B' .................................1 37.750.00 6 7188.90 1 34.519.37 too 2 of 2 - 1748.40 O Council Agenda — 11/9/87 Consideration of Purchasing Bleachers for Softball Fields. iJ.S.l A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The new softball fields located near the NSP Training Center will be ready for play early in 1988. As part of the project, the City has proposed to purchase bleachers and benches for the fields. Since these things were not funded through the LCM Grant, we placed an amount in the 1987 Budget of $7,000. The Park Superintendent, Roger Mack, has obtained two quotes for the benches and bleachers. The low quote was from Earl F. Anderson, Bloomington, Minnesota, for $8,121. his is over our budget by approximately $1,100. Roger has informed me, however, that when the figures were given at budget time, Tom Eidem made a cut of $1,200 in this portion of the budget. The choice now is to purchase equipment of lesser quality, delete some of the equipment for the ballfields, or go over budget and purchase as originally planned. With the reconstruction of the 4th Street Park, the bailfield, which is used predominantly by the Girls' Softball Association, was enlarged and a parking lot installed. Our plans for 1987 included establishing permanent line fences but utilizing seasonal outfield fencing. The outfield fencing would be removed in the winter to use this as a free skating area. We would use wedge type of sockets to enable us to remove and replace the chain link fence seasonally. Our original thoughts were to utilize salvaged fencing from the NSP ballfields. Upon our recent examination and removal nf this fencing from the old NSP ballfields, we found it to be in only fair to poor condition and not suitable for a very visual, recently updated city park. This fencing could be used in other more remote locations in the future. The Park Superintendent and myself are of the opinion that new fencing should be installed at the 4th Street Park. The Park Superintendent, Roger Mack, obtained two quotes for fencing for the softball field. The low bid came from Trojan Fence of St. Cloud, Minnesota, for $3,097.71. The seasonal sockets for the fence would cost $487, bringing the fencing cost to a total of $3,584.71. There are some excess funds left in the budget for the 4th Street Park work. This work has been coming out of the capital outlay revolving fund. We originally expected to spend in the area of $11 ,000 this year. We are still just under that figure. Through some number transposing, Tom's figure that got into the capital outlay revolving fund for the 4th Street Park this year was $24,400. You could, therefore, say that the $13,400 of excess money left is more than enough to cover the additional fencing of $3,584.71. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The first alternative would be to authorize purchase of the bleachers and benches for the new softball complex from E.F. Anderson in the amount of $8,1211 and to authorize the purchase of the fencing for the 4th Street Park from Trojan Fence for $3,097.71, and authorize the additional $487 for seasonal fence sockets. .3. Council Agenda - 11/9/87 2. Alternative number two could be to either delete some of the equipment for the new softball complex, or go to a cheaper, less durable type of equipment. Alternate number two could also include the deletion of the new fencing for the 4th Street Park and utilizing the old fencing salvaged from the old NSP ballfields. C. STAFP RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Park Superintendent that the Council opt for alternative number one. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of tabulation of quotes and pictures of the bleachers and benches. -4- PARK 6 BALLFIELD EQUIPMENT QUOTE TABULATION Fence (4th Street Park) Century Pence, Forest Lake $3,109.00 Trojan Fence, St. Cloud 53,097.71 5 Bleachers and 8 Benches (Softball Field Complex) Earl F. Anderson, Bloomington, MN $8,121.00 Stadiums Unlimited, Grinnell, Iowa 58.250.00 - •NOTE: Estimate. Final quote due prior to Monday's meeting. i :.{''6'�=^rear: v�' � �!_v��;:l•+:'�i j Huw N. Unc Llruclwo 10 R:rtv U—nuf W.:n Q]rvi--Pa G:00 lln=rc:ruLluro Tno STANDARD CL EAC HER ccc Con of our catalog I::uGtratoo our B. 10 or t Brow ar,010 framo Oloac horn Ct rmr.n aro ovatlatlo In anaar0 IcnMmo Gf 15 0', `' 1'O", or 27 O' (Otho- lonGtmo aro ova::atlo upon ro- avCGI ) Our GTANDARD CLEACHEHS Oro, of Couroo. GOnCy. COCUM OnO totally nla:ntonanco rroo ThoGo clOaCllora arc ova::at:o In titin c:eva[Ca ono non C:ova:eC CC --Ono AnO:o unOoretructurco of O:u- m:num. net O:CPcn O7:vamzorl ctocl (after I:OnCOtu;n), Cr wCathCrinq UOoI Oro Offoroa. GTADIUMII L 1NL IMI71 D'a AL UMN A• PLANK b urea far tno Goato ano tWOaarao. (:,Co Pa3o 40"r GOrIOo 102 %.GO PLANK oetion ) GTAO:UMG UNL IMITED'o STANDARD 0 CACHC $45 are a :a ovao:at:o In tram:;p-,MaO:o me=:b (L$caGc coo R1GO ZO (C,00 P3 o 43 1,)r GTANUA14U BLEACHER CPECIF (CATIONS) - y1.;l q:.T 11K.•,n i=e[q T T r ;R..' sl ISP [,M* C�•o} I le.v 1 I.rl!L I �Rp:[L I IOP+r.Tpl alM I (iply + I,r[rl r�i n��ra ?I t?+i •F eiir�iaa YI * 41 I :•'Jlm :'.rol r'1 )I11. nva Il .) :.q-1 •J .1111 1 tl l X11 I l:l ''.�e 1.�'i te) rr:;ll'1 1or;t� 1 i'. 11 I LJ I1,5lLJ fL]Il:J rOJ ,,. ,.' 10oJ1U .S:J II::) .t/J1LJ a"I-I r,t l[.i Lel1 c.1li �La•u._, R.l rn-•'rG(K:n. m —ntr:C-n lf' I S.'11 l'I l:�) 7 I„• r_.t l( I I1.11I I oJl l_1 111-.l atl la -I .1l i.'11,• 11 tli i'1t:' 1 Ql �..1,; i •1111=L^1l1-Ii Oe/I l'1 � X11 ':,Inr11_-11 1� 23 FIDE TEAM BEINCH STADIUMS UNLIMiTED's WIDE TEAM BENCH is -extra- wic0l (1916'). It allows injured players to Ile Comfortably or equipment re- pairs to be made quickly and efficiently. This bench features an all aluminum Construction which eliminates maintenance, replace- ment, snags and splinters. it is lightweight and portable. The WIDE TEAM BENCH Can be used indoors or out. I MOOiL LF.HGTn WEYQNT 1 Taws 11'O• so Las, TBW -t s T'6' ST Las, TBw.IS Y510• 110 LaS TBW^?Y ?t'O• Ye7 LOS 9 • :40 4 .AVER / LOCKER BENCHES 17.1 Our PLAYER&OCKER BENCHES are OCOnOmicai and Ideal for use in tacker 'moi f�4:.'.'4': ' ✓ rooms, as wall as Outdoors at your r— tennis Courts W swimming pool. All Haver AL knr M008IS are rugged, tong lasting and erlc an 4aoweols sanitary• PLAYER/LOCKER BENCHES are available In portable models fur• nl5hOd with elthar rubber Oruch tips or mrL ! Lctioe.. wruo»+ ground 6019 (Loge i4 and 115). 1r you eo• ?e X04, may wish to order the permanent 00. ��re te• W103 s 1eo• mua4 sign wfiich inGiude taQit to Concrete, ^'+1Y V, a, 117 Lao embod into concrete, Or wall mounted (Legs 01, a2 or 1r3). .2 PI8yV1L0Cker Bench POrMWTOr11 Y.YOOt.`L LLWaTIn WLYpHT i La's 11o: ?O L03 LaP•% 4 TD' 31 Las ,15-11 no• 114168. Ino.71 ole• aoLm, Council Agenda - 11/9/87 7. Consideration of Accepting Revised Drainage Plan and Criteria Necessary_ Before Acceptance of Chelsea Road Project. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At our last Council meeting, Mr. Bill Block, the Civil Engineer for Jim Boyle, came before the Council under citizens comments to request a modification in the ponding requirements for Chelsea Road. The Council requested that Mr. Block meet with staff and bring this item back to the Council as a formal agenda item. On Friday, October 30, City staff, Rick and myself, met with Bill Block and John Badalich at City Ball. Mr. Block was concerned with meeting the ponding requirements but also finaling out the project so that the City would take it over for ownership and maintenance. The following is a list of those items which were discussed. Ponding Requirements. Mr. Blocks proposal is to widen out the ditches in the area of a culvert in the central portion of the project. The majority of the water from the central portion of Chelsea Road would flow down the ditches into this area of street right-of-way and sit until it was evaporated or soaked into the granular soils. The rationale for ponding the water on the street right-of-way rather than a pond for the development is the uncertainty of how the property will develop. Mr. Block intends to berm all of the property draining to the road ditch so that the road ditches only carry the water from the road itself. In our discussions we informed Mr. Block that if the City were to allow this temporary ponding of water on the right-of-way that certain precautions would have to be taken to see that water did not sit in these areas for long periods of time. The precautions taken could be utilizing a sandy topsoil and/or utilizing a strip of crushed rock in the ditch bottom so that the ditches would not become sealed. In addition, we talked about the need to still require an easement for an outlet and an easement for a pond so that this temporary ponding in the ditch right-of-ways could be drained at some future time without the City being forced to purchase or condemn property. Completion of the Project. A. bitching. Prr to acceptance, the ditching would have to be completed. B. Erosion Control. We discussed the need to place black dirt, seed, and mulch in the road ditches and back elopes for erosion control. It was the general consensus of the group that the seeding and mulch should wait until next year; but the City should be provided prior to acceptance the necessary funds to con@lete this work. This could be in the form of an escrow account. Council Agenda - 11/9/87 C. Gate Valve Adjustments. There were a number of gate valves sticking up in the ditches that could be hazards, and these valves need to be adjusted prior to acceptance by the City. D. Manhole Adjustment. There is a problem with the manhole adjustments made by Bauerly Brothers on the project. The manholes were left lower than specified; and to correct this, Bauerly Brothers made a large dish around the manholes. This dish causes a rougher riding surface as well as collection of water and ice. The City of Monticello public Works Director and the inspector for Orr-Schelen-Mayeron both informed Bauerly Brothers prior to the start of the job how the manholes were to be set. The inspector for OSM informed Bauerly Brothers during the job that the manhole adjustment was unacceptable and discussions with Bauerly Brothers' Superintendent after the job again pointed out the manhole adjustments were unacceptable . If this work is not rectified prior to completion, an escrow fund should be established to have this work completed in the spring. Easements. A. Revocation of the Existing Ponding Easerent. There is an existing pond easement to the north of the culvert in the central portion of the project. This pond was not utilized at this time. It is the consensus of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and I believe the City Engineer, that we should not revocate this ponding easement without having alternate easements or ponds for futu re draining of the road ditch ponding, one scenario that could exist is that Mr. Boyle could sell off all of the property along Chelsea Road in five acre increments, and the City could be left without a method to deal with its road ditch ponding. B. Narrowing of the Sewer Easement for the School. Currently, there exists a 60 -toot wide easement running from Chelsea Road southerly to the school property. Mr. Badalich felt that this easement could be narrowed to 30 feet. C. Additional Sewer Easements. Since there was a change to the sewer plans, an additional section of sewer was put in for the school on Mr. Boyle's property. Mr. Boyle needs to grant the school an easement for this line to exist. In addition, the City would wish to have an easement along the southerly line of 9oyle's property toward County Road 118 so that we could utilize the sewer system in the future by installation of a force main along this property line. If this is done, the City would maintain the sewer on the 30 -foot easement from Chelsea Road to the school property line. Council Agenda - 11/9/87 4. Payments. city staff has informed tor. Bill Block that it has been past policy not to accept a project for City ownership and maintenance until the project is completely free and clear and that all people owed money from the project have been paid. Mr. Block contends that the City should not worry about this and that it is really Mr. Boyle -s problem and not the City's should some of the suppliers or contractors not get paid. The following is a list of those individuals we know of owed money on the project. A. L S G Rehbein. There currently exists a dispute between L 6 G Rehbein Company and Bili Block in regard to final pay quantities and change orders on the project. The L 6 G Rehbein Company has not paid several of its suppliers of materials and supplies for the job. B. Bauerly Brothers. There currently is a dispute with Bauerly Brothers Construction, who performed the Class 5 and blacktop work on the project. There was an overrun of approximately 35 percent in the Class 5 quantities due to some type of error in elevations on the project. Mr. Block and Bauerly Brothers have yet to meet and finalize the quantities on the project. In addition, the manhole adjustment problem is Bauerly's. C. Topographic Ma?s Provided by the City. Via City of Monticello provided topographic maps to Mr. Boyle and Bill Block so that they could determine the ponding requirements for the project. There is an outstanding balance awed the City of $1,994.22 for these topographic maps. D. Bill Block and Associates. Mr. Block has performed the engineering for Boyle's project and has not yet been paid. There nosy be enough funds in the construction fund to pay Mr. Block depending upon the final outcome of the disputes with the contractors. If not, the City would require a lien waiver from Mr. Block. E. Busey Construction. Busey Construction was hired to complete the ditching and black dirt, seeding, and mulching on the project. There was a contract with Bauerly Brothers to complete the pond and all of the black dirt and seeding. it is my understanding that Bauerly Brothers refused to do this work, and Mr. Block and Mr. Boyle hired Busey Construction to finish the job with exception of the ponding. There should be evidence provided that Busey Construction has been paid. .7. Council Agenda - 11/9/87 5. Sign Off. T e Toowing sign-off's or approvals are necessary before the City accepts the job. A. City Engineer. The City Engineer should indicate in writing that he has inspected the job and it meets the minimum requirements and standards set forth by the City of Monticello. B. Bill Block. Mr. Block, as the engineer, should provide a complete set of as builts detailing all of the existing elevations on the sanitary sewers, manholes, ditch bottoms, etc. Mr. Block should provide information as to the correctness of his as builts and that the project is properly constructed. C. School District. It would be in the best interest of the school and the City of Monticello if the school would sign off on the project giving their acceptance of the road and that it meets the conditions of their agreements with Mr. Boyle. D. Bonds. Itis the City's policy at the final acceptance of a project to obtain a one-year warranty bond from those contractors or developers involved in the project. All of the specifications which we approve prior to the start of any project which the City may take over have this bonding and warranty requirement built in. The specifications for Chelsea Road have such requirements in that performance bonds are required which must remain in effect for one year after acceptance of the project. It is my understanding, however, that Mr. Boyle decided not to require these bonds at the last minute from his contractors in order to save money. We have informed Mr. Block that we must have one-year warranty bonds from the contractors or from the developer prior to acceptance of the project. Both the City Administrator and myself feel very strongly about this issue. Our final discussion of the meeting centered around the problem of the bonds and obtaining lien waivers from such parties as L 6 G Rehbein, who are currently having some financial difficulties and were in dispute with Mr. Block. we informed Mr. Block that the City had accepted a lien waiver bond in the past on a project and the City Attorney found it acceptable, as it protected the City against future liens. Mr. Block again reiterated his feeling that the City should not require final payments and that it would be Mr. Boyle's problem. Mr. Wolfsteller indicated that he would check with the City Attorney on this matter; but in all likelihood, the City would not change its policy for a single project. -a- Council Agenda — 11/9/87 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to accept the road and sewer system for ownership and maintenance by the City of Monticello at the completion of those items and conditions as listed in the text of this agenda supplement. 2. The second alternative would be to negotiate with Mr. Boyle and Mr. Block on one or more of the above items and/or modify our existing policies in some way. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff would like to see a speedy completion of this project and acceptance by the City as soon as possible. There is a great deal of concern by the School District that the road be accepted and maintained by the City prior to the opening of the middle school in January or February. There are, however, a great number of loose ends on this project, many of which should not be overlooked. There is a consensus by the staff that if the road is accepted by the City with loose ends still existing that these loose ends will never be tied off unless done so at City expense sometime in the future. We, therefore, recoimnend that the Council follow alternative number one as closely as possible while keeping an open mind to the school's requests for a speedy acceptance by the City. We will meet with Mr. Block and Mr. Shelley Johnson prior to Monday's meeting to see what can be accompliahed ahead of time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map from Mr. Block showing new ditch ponding, Updated copy of construction fund balance. .g. l 1. Construction Sanitary Sewer Water Grading Topsoil Seed b Mich Road Base S Shoulder Bituminous Surfacing Retention Pond Construction Cost Contingency Total Cost Construction 2. Engineering CHELSEA ROAD PROJECT Escrow Contract Balance Amount Paid to pate Available $120,670.00 $117,231.00 19,700.00 19,265.00 36,500.00 38,500.00 3,500.00 -0- 43,250.00 34,318.75 80,495.00 74,258.41 10,000.00 -0- $314,115.00 $283,573.16 4,185.00 -0- $318,300.00 $283,573.16 Original Estimates Paid to Date Design, Construction Staking Construction Engineering Insp. And As Builts by Bill Block S 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 " Transfer from Contingency for Engineering Services 5,000.00 5,000.00 3. City Expenses for: Engineering, Testing, Inspection, Legal Fees, and Administrative Fees S 16,700.00 S 16,700.00 TOTAL ESCROW $350,000.00 $315,I73.16 Escrow Fund Interest Earned Through 11/9/87 TOTAL AVAILABLE 11/9/87 *Authorized by Farm Credit Services 4/27/87 5 3,439.00 435.00 (2,000.00) 3,500-00 8,931.25 6,236.59 10,000.00 $30,541.84 4,185-00 $34,726.84 -0- S -0- $34,726.84 S 9,088.80 $43,815.64 M] CHELSEA ROAD ACCEFrANCE CRITERIA 1. Ponding Requirements. 2. Completion of Project. A. Ditching, final grading B. Black dirt, seed, a mulch (spring escrow) C. Gate valve adj. ditches D. MH adjustment (spring escrow) 3. Easements. A. Revocation of existing pond easement. Establishment of new easement for draining temporary ditch ponds in the future. B. Narrow existing 60 -foot school sewer easement to 30 feet (request by Block). C. Establish additional easement for school for east -west sewer section (new section not on plans). D. If school wants City to maintain from Chelsea Road to school property, establish easement back to County Road 118 for future force main connection. a. Payment. (Lien Waivers) A. L 6 C Rehbein and suppliers and subs. B. Bauerly Brothers and suppliers. C. City supplied topo maps. D. Bill Block. E. Bossy Construction and suppliers. 5. Sign -off. A. City Engineer, all work completed as per City standards. B. Bill Block, all work completed as per plans and specifications (completed as builts). C. School - Road as per agreement. 6. Bonds. A. One-year warranty bonds from all contractors or developer. B. Lien waiver bond from developer if contractors not paid. Council Agenda - 11/9/87 8. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting for the Purpose of Establishing 1988 Salary/Wage Policy. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the past few years, the City Council has met with the Administrator in a special session to determine what would be an acceptable pool of money to be used in creating increases in wages and salaries for the non-union personnel. We are now nearing the end of the year; and if the Council so desires, a special session could be set up for the purpose of reviewing and creating salary increases for 1988. If the Council wishes to continue with the concept of establishing a salary pool with general guidelines that the Administrator can use to prepare new salary proposals that are returned to Council for final ratification, the last regularly scheduled meeting of 1987 would be December 14. A special meeting would have to be scheduled at least a week or more before the 14th to allow myself time to review and propose salary increases for the individuals. As an information note, I will be on vacation from November 19 through the 27th and would hope if a special meeting is established, it is some other date than this. The only action required at this meeting is a motion to set a special meeting if so desired at which time I will provide additional material and information. -10-