Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP December 28, 1978 · - - ~ 01 ANDOVER sr<:CIAT" CITY C0UUCIL MEETINr' - TJ<:CEMBBP 28, 1978 MI'TUTES A Snecial Meetin~ of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Wtndschitl on December 2~, 1978, 7:33 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Grosstnwn Boulevard 1\n~r, Anok,g" Minnesota.. Gonncilpersons 'Or-esent: Lachinski, McClure (until 9:22 p.m.) Orttel, VanderLaan Councilpersons absent: "'10ne Also 'Dresent: City Clerk, p. K. Lindquist; City Engineers, John Davidson and Dewey Kasma;_and others. A~enda Anr>roval ~ MOTION by McClure, Seconded by Orttel, that the Council approve the Agenda as printed. Motion carried unanimously. Ar>proval of Minutes ,geptember 5. 1978, Re~ular and Sr>ecial Meetin~s; September 19. 1978: Correct as written ,geptember 20. 1978. Special Meetin~: Pa~e 1, Second to last paragraph, Bud~et, diseased trees, Miscellaneous .401: Add: "agreed to change from ~3,OOO to ~l,OOO and increase the personnel expenditures by an equal amount..f' Pa~e 3, 6 lines dOVln, bep.:inninp, with tlthen the vast A.mount of the bond issue..." add: "...and now an additional ~7,500 is bein~ sou~bt." Ser>tember 27. 1978, Meadowcreek ~¡blic Hearin~; Ser>tember 27. 1978, Sr>ecia1 Meetin~; 0ctnber ? 1978, Pe~lIlar Meetin~; October 4. 1978, Special Meetin~; October 4. 1978, Rel;!'lllR:J"'~ ·nctober IO. 1978; October l? 1978, Pe~ular; October 18. 1978: Correct as written. October 18. 1978, Capital Imr>rovements Public Pearin~: PaS';e 1, bottom, sentence beRinnin~ "Mayor Windschitl stated...tt DELETE "and now the State Legislature." ~rovember h , 1978, Special Meetin~: 1'ae;e 3, last sentence: INVERT words We are to read: Are we lookin~... }Tovember 9 , 1978, Ree;l1lar Heeting: Pae;e 1, 3/4 page, MOTION by Orttel, third line, SPELLING: Roanoke November 21. 1978, Sr>ecial; November 21, 1978, Regular Meetin~; Decemb~r 5. 1978, Ree;ular Meetine;: Correct as written. December 19. 1978, Pee;u1ar Meetin~: Page 5, under Fire TJri11 , correct: "Mayor Windscñit1 asked if the matter regarding the County Attorney's report might have previoæ1y (at a Council meeting he missed) been taken care of as to whether there should be any further action. December 20, 1978. Sr>ecial Meetine;: Correct as written. MOTION by Orttel, Secnnded by McClure, that the Minutes for the following meetine;s be aTITIroved as corrected: ~eptember 5, Regular; September 5, Special; September 19 Meeting; ~eptember 27 Pee;u1ar Meeting; September 27 Special Meeting; October 3 Meeting; October 4 SneciA1 MeetIng; October 4 ¡¡e~nlar Meeting; November 6 Special Meeting; and November 21 ~r>ecial and Re~ular Meetin¡;s. Motion carried unanimously. Special City Council Meeting 'December 2R, 1978 - Minutes Page 2 (Apvroval of Minutes, Continued) '"!I)'1'I(1'! by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, tha t the following Minutes be approved as corrected: September 20 and December 5. ']r)')'?' (11" M0TIO",: YES-Lachinski, McClure, orttel, VanderLaan; ABSTAIN - Windschitl Mott('m carried.. M0'J'TO", by Orttel, Seconòed by Lachinski, that the following Minutes be approved as corrected: October 10, October 17, December 19, and December 20. VOTE 0'< MOTION: YES-Lachinski, McClure, Orttel, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-VanderLaan Motion carried. MO'J'ION by Oròtel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the following Minutes be approved as corrected: ctober lR, Regular; and October lR, Special Meeting. VOTE O'! }IOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-McClure, VanderLaan Mo tion carried. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Minutes of November 9 be approved as corrected. VOTE 0'< MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ort tel, VanderLaan, "finds chi tl; ABSTAIN-McClure Motion carried. County Road q Realignment - Discussion County Representatives Paul Ruud, Lee Añderson, Bud Redenpenning, and Ralph Kishel; County Commissioner Ed ~ields; plus interested residents were present. Mr. Andersop presented exhibits to the Council which were used to explain the proposed road improvement at the Public Hearings on December 12, 1978, in Anoka County. The road improvement is for that portion of County State Aid Highway No. 9 between County Poad llG and County State Aid Highway 20 east. Mr. Anderson reviewed the main points presented at the ~]blic Hearing: 1- Existing conditions and location -- 3.2 mile segment of road, presently a 24- foot wide roadway, bituminous surface with very little shoulders in need of major repair _" and maintenance, with both vertical and horizontal curvature to be im"Proved. Quite a number of accidents have occurred on this roadway; safety improvement would reduce the problems in that area. Several alternates were considered with two main alternates being considered for the improvement at this time -- upgrading the existing road on the existing alignment or making the improvement on a new alignment to the east of the present alignment. 2. Design __ traffic volume is approximately 6,000 to 7,000 in 1978 and projected to about 11,500 in approximately 1998, which dicffites certain guidelines used to apply State Aid standards in designing the road. Mr. Anderson explained the road design shown on the exhibits presented, those being l2-foot travel lanes, 10-foot shoulders, bituminous lip through the boulevard section, by-pass lanes where needed, generally using 120 feet of right of way throughout the entire roadway, intersections with Bunker Lake Boulevard with right and left turn lanes plus through lanes, and a proposed signal system for the intersection. Ronnie 'F'rancis. l42GO Pound Lake Boulevard - asked if bituminous shoulders are necessary in order to get State Aid money. People are already breaking the law by speeding through the area. !!r. Anderson stated it is not needed, but felt there are less problems with maintenance in bituminous birm. It has been the County's experience tbat people do not use the bituminous birm shoulders as another driving lane. The road is striped as a two-lane road. }!r. Ruud also explained that bituminous shoulders are better to maintain and can be used for bicycling. ~pecial City ~ouncil Meeting T)ecember 28, 1'1711 - Minutes P:=¡t;e ~ U~ol1nty Po:=¡d q "Reali,q:'!1ment - Discussion, Continued) Bev ~hristenson. ~4l'1 ,<;outh Coon ~reek Drive - asked if a signal light will be at Pound Lake ~oulevard and Bunker TÂke Boulevard. (Yes) She disagreed with the traffic projection by 199A. ~ecause of the increase in the cost of gas, more car pooling will be done. Also, in 20 years alot of people in the area will be retiring but still living in the area. Mr, Anderson stated the traffic projection is taken from a State-derived projection factor and is somewhat of a ballpark figure based on research, past history, growth trends, ete. Their figure is less than double the traffic in 20 years, Mayor Windschitl stated that at the Public Hearing it was noted of the Payton-Hudson develo~ment south of this intersection, the proposed rezoning of 9 and Bunker, the rezoning that has already taken place on the Anoka corner, and the neighborhood business rezoning by the Lutheran church; 'and some people felt that the traffic would be higher than what is being projected, This item was discussed at quite some length at the Public Hearing. trOe Lawrence. 14516 Pound Tßke Boulevard - stated in F.urope, where gas is at a high price and there is a good transportation system, people are still using their cars as they still want to be independent, He felt that car pools would be used minimally, especially in this country and in the midwest area, 3, Summary -- various areas are affected by the project, including social, economic, environmental areas, and increased safety. Mr. Anderson also reviewed the time table of construction for the improvement and the project costs includin~ ri~ht-of-way costs for both alternates, Mr. Lawrence - stated the sneed limit is the problem with the road, Right now it is unsafe. He noted the improvement of Highway 52 from Anoka to Osseo still has accidents, Mr. Anderson stated the improvement in design lends itself to safe travel. If people exceed the speed limit, control through enforcement is the answer, Right now it would be hazardous to pull someone over on the road because of the lack of shoulders, Discussion was on comparing Highway 52 to this proposed road improvement in that Highwa~ 52 does not havethe continuous la-foot shoulder, has steep ditches, and was only a STIot improvement. The differences between the two roads was explained. Ms. Prancis - felt that Highways 47 and 65 should be made attractive enough to carry the throu~h traffic, and that No, 9 is carryin~ through traffic where it shouldn't. !'r. Ruud stated the !!nDot Plan, which is to be adopted in 1979, indicates that the trunk highway system in Minnesota should be reduced by about 50 percent, and that re- maining mileage should be the responsibility of the County, cities, and townships. ~rom what the County is hearing, Highway 47 from Anoka to Mille Lacs may well be reverted back to a county road, ~~. Puud also stated there has not been any plans to reroute Hi~hway 47 across the Rum River north of the high school. The Rum River Crossing will complete the Bunker Lake Boulevard link east and west across the County to cross Highway 1+ 7 near Kano. Mr. Pedenpenning stated it has al~ays been the County's intention that No, 9 will be a two-lane hi~hway with shoulders, and there is no intention of making it a 4-lane hÍl,hway. The extension of Hanson Boulevard to Nightengale, somewhere in that area, is to be a major hi~hway that is ultimately expected to be a four-lane highway, Mayor ~indschitl Questioned that if the alternate improvement of No, 9 were done, it would make ~ood sense to make it a 4-lane hi~hway, as the City's problem with traffic on that road is that coming down from St,Francis and Oak Grove. The extension of Hanson through ~ightengale still doesn't pull the traffic off of No, 9 unless Nightengale were extended further north to catch that northern traffic. ~~, Redepenning stated it would be possibÈ to TIlan for a four-lane in the new alignment, but it is only about a I-mile stretch of tbe road, and what would be done north of that?' One would amost be looking at a total realignment to the northern limit of Anoka County, Snecial City Council Meetin~ TJecember 2~, 197~ - Minutes Pa ge 4 (County Road 9 Realignment - Discussion, Continued) Torn HcClusky. 14545 Round Lake Boulevard - noted that if the road is widened, some of the homes will be less than 50 feet from the road, which is required by City Ordinance. What hap-pens to those homes? Why is the alignment the County chose so far west that it comes by homes? Mr. Ruud stated the cost of right-of-way acquisitions tries to take into account the affected individual parcels. The setback problem is faced on every improvement, and there is always a few homes that end up being closer to the right-of- way line than the setback requirements of the City. At times, the right of way is varied for an individual lot to work for some resolution of that problem. The alternate was purnosely drawn on the edge of some open property rather than through the middle of it to try to corne up with some alternate that is realistic in cost. Ta move farther east would Mean severance da~a~es, which would increase costs for right-of-way acquisitions. Hayor "'indschitl stated the principal objection encountered at the Public Hearing carne out of Quickstrorn's Addition with the closeness of the way the road was pro}Dsed to the nark and homes. Some of the peojJle he talked with after the Hearing felt it would be less objectionable if the realignment could be moved farther east. Mayor Windschitl felt the acquisition costs estimated tended to be low. Mr. Kishel stated the costs include àama,~es by reason of severance, and older homes aren't damaged as severely by sever~nce as a modern house would be. ~~. Ruud stated that he didn't feel any homes would need to be taken, as the actual traffic won't be driving any closer to the house after the irnnrovernent than it is today. The figures are based on comparable projects around the County. Mr. McClusky - noted it was brought out at the Public Hearing that a line-of-sight easement is needed, which is that no fixed objects can be within so many feet of the road. Some of the houses that would be only 15 feet from the right of way are elevated off the road. By keeping the road flat, maybe it would be even lower than it is now, which creates a steep drop-off in front of the homes as well. This would also increæ e the noise level. Hr. Ruud stated there is a requirement of the Federal Safety Standard when designing a rural section of a road that everything within 30 feet from the edge of the driving lane, which is 42 feet from center line, be cleared. In all projects, the County looks at the effect of the design grade of the new road on the developed property, matching driveways, etc., according to elevation. This detail needs to be looked at no matter what alignment is selected. On curbs and gutter sections or birm sections, the State does not hold as tight to that requirement and some exceptions are made. Mr. Ruud explained how the State arrived at their recommendation to increase the speed limit on P.ound Lake Boulevard, the speed the people are driving/?~e road used as the main factor. Hr. RedeDpenning stated there is nothing in the law that allows the County to do any posting of sneed-limit signs without a written order except advisory. Ronald Hulk. 3426 South Coon Creek Drive - stated the new alignment would be one house away from his nroperty. The problem with that is that there would be traffic noise corning from the side of the house and there would be no buffer from it. He felt it would be better to nut the road farther east, leaving enough room to put in lots facing the road. If there was a setback and buffer, it would be a lot better to live there. Mr. Anderson exnlained that in the technical presentation was the fact that along that easterly site they talked about widening the right of way to about 160 feet to allow an additional 40-foot buffer on the easterly line, but to build within the 120 feet. Mrs. Christenson - felt if the new road comes in, there is going to be a lot more tra ffie on it. Mayor Windsehitl stated that that problem exists on either alignment. He pointed out that unless there is some complete plan of bringing Nightengale through to pull traffic off of 9, 9 is going to get that much worse and worse. He also felt Special City Council Meeting December 28, 1978 - Minutes Page 5 (County Road 9 Realignment - Discussion, Continued) a new 9 is going to bring more traffic to the area than the old one, but that problem is going to be the same on either alignment. Councilperson Orttel stated it was explained at the Public Hearing that should the County decide to build the easterly alignment, there would be some design feature to discourage people from taking the old Round Lake Boulevard and to stay on the new alignment. I~. Ruud didntt expect any sound barriers would be needed on this type of road. Wes Mand. 3457 l4lst Lane - asked if l42nd is going to be tied into the new road. He felt the kind of traffic pattern generated in the winter when the City doesn't plow its streets until the next day would be the shortest route to the major road. If llf2nd is not tied in, he is going to have to drive 1/4 mile on an unplowed City street to get to a nlowed road which is only 300 yards from his house now. People coming from Round Lake would be driving through Quickstrom's to get to the new alignment. Mr. Ruud didn't know whether 142nd would be tied into the new road and felt oæethe alignment decision is made there will be a lot of contact with the City relative to the accesses needed. Councilperson Orttel stated that the distance is about the same going through Quickstrom's or continuing south to catch the new alignment, and they would probably have a smoother entrance enterin~ the improved roadway on the southern end. Mrs. Christenson - asked how long Round Lake Boulevard has been in existence and stated that it has been an historical road. Discussion that the road was in existence long before anyone could remember. Discussion was again on the County's estimation of right-of-way acquisition costs, with County staff explaining how they arrived at their figures. Discussion was also on the safety factor with the old alignment, with }æ. Redenpenning stating that the old alignment could be built as safely as the new alignment. In fact, the old alignment has only two curves in it which can be made less severe, where the new alignment calls for four curves. The biggest safety problem on the old alignment is the numerous driveways. The best way to handle that is to have turn lanes and widened shoulders. He felt it would be very difficult to build service roads in that area, if not impossible, because of the closeness of the homes. He also explained that at this point they don't anticipate getting any federal monies for the construction of this road, but they meet federal requirements in any road they construct because there may be a chance for federal funds in the future. If federal requirements aren't met on any portion of the roadway, then they stand the possibility of losing funds on any portion of it. There is no State moni~ that this road is eligible for other than the normal allotments; however, State re- Quirements are followed during construction. Mr. Redenpenning also cautioned not to confuse tbe right-of-way limit with the construction limit. If possible, they are looking Clt keeping the 60-foot easement on either side of the roadway. Nonwe basically have two l2-foot lanes. Ten-foot shoulders will be added where the ditches are now in most cases, and the lawns of the residents would not necessarily decrease, and some times even increase. Ms. Francis - stated she read a traffic study that felt that semaphoreswere more hazardous than the four-way stop, and she felt there is no reason to go to the expense of uuttinR in the signal li~hts. }~. Anderson explained there is a set of rules they must follow to determine when signals are warranted, and today signals are warranted there. He also explained the problems with a four-way stoP. !1r. Mand - asked if it were possible fÅ“either the City or County to provide turn- around spaces on the people's properties so they could drive rather than back onto the road. Mr. Ruud stated he didn't feel there would be any objections to residents using the rir.ht of way to provide turnaround lanes, but he didn't think the County would build service roads, turnarounds, etc. Special City Council Meeting December 28, 1978 - Minutes Page 6 (County Road 9 Realignment - Discussion, Continued) !Irs. Christenson - stated that many of the people have circular driveways; and with the new alignment, there would still be driveways coming out onto the road, so that problem would not be alleviated. Many of the people on Round Lake Boulevard have room on their yards to make turnarounds so they do not have to back onto the road from their drivewA.Ys. ~~. Ruud stated that on a new alignment they would expect the developers to orient their lots away from the County road. Mr. McClusky - felt if there is going to be a new alignment, it should be designed so there is a frontage road as a buffer zone. He felt the second most hazardous thing about the existing alignment is the great number of school buses that come down there everyday. The alternate alignment with a frontage road would take care of that. He also said the traffic volume on the road didn't seem intolerable at all until construction be~an on Seventh Avenue. And it hasn't gone down yet. And in view of the proposed construction in the area, he didn't think it will decrease. He also noted the Eafety problem with the road in its present condition, and wanted to see something done about school buses picking up children. Mr. Lawrence - felt the big problem with the people affected is that basically everyone loves the new road, but they hate the speed limit. It was his understanding that it is a State law that vehicles are not allowed to back out onto a County road and noted, the hazards and limitations of backing out onto the highway. He also noted the in- consistency in the State's control of speed limits, as at 35W branching into 94, the traffic travels at 55 mph and it is posted for 35 mph. Mrs. Christenson - felt that widening Round Lake Boulevard would make it easier for residents to back onto the road because they would have the shoulders to back onto. She also felt there would be better patrolling of the road, as now there are no shoulders for stalled vehicles, pulling cars over, etc. Recess at 9:22; reconvene at 9:45 p.m. Council person McClure left at this time. ~myor '"indschitl noted the petition from residents opposed to the proposed realignment of the road and the letter from Rosella Sonsteby. Engineer Davidson then explained their review of the County's sur,~estions for the road improvement of Highway 9, giving a brief location and descript5_on analysis of the two proposed routes, soil conditions, utility plan, etc.. (Reference the December 22, 1978, TKDA memo to the City Council noting the advanta~es and disadvantages of each alternative) Further discussion was on tbe accuracy of the traffic projections, which alignment would be better if further imTIrovernent on the road would be needed five years from now, the effect of upgrading Hanson on this roadway, other improvements being made on other roads to take the traffic burden off 1-)0. 9, and that Round Lake Boulevard south of Bunker Lake Boulevard will accommodate four lanes of traffic. Mrs. Christenson - noted that with the realignment to the east, lights from cars would shine directly into the house as they go around the curve. ~~. Redenpenning stated that in lookinG at the County's thoroughfare's map, the use of No.9 south of Bunker Lake Boulevard would be and should be of a different status tha~ north. Four lanes north of Bunker Lake Boulevard is contrary to the total overall picture. He stated that rep,ardless of what the alie,nment is, the design of that roadway of two--lanes versus four lanes our,ht not to be any different because they are looking at projected traffic all the way through, plus the anticipated development on the southern end. Mr. Hand - stated that people are creatures of habit. Vfuen 7th Avenue was under construction, traffic increased on County Road 9. It would seem that it will reverse when Gou~ty Road q is upgraded and the traffic count may drop. Special City Council Meeting December 28, 1978 - Minutes Page 7 (County Poad 9 Realignment - Discussion, Continued) y..~rs . Christe~son - stated the þo~ulation is decreasin~ because of birth control etc., so why go through all the eXDense of building a four-lane road when it might not even be ~eeded. If a four-lane road is made, it takes extra land that could be used for hOll'> il1f; a!1d tax dollars. Council~erson L~chinski stated he wanted to make sure we are adeouately considerin~ future development, and felt that people are finding this area desirable to live and are moving out here. Mr. Ruud noted that hìs Department will make a recommendation to the County Board on which alternate to use in upgarding the road, and the County Commissioners will make the final decision. His office will then be working with Andover staff to meet the City's requirements in the road improvement. The Andover City Council approves the road gr<J.de plans. A recommendation will be made within the next few weeks. !IT. Redenpenning also noteâ that in the event tbe realignment is the alternate picked, the next step is to Rat ~ermits from the D~æ. And there is a possibility that they would not issue those permits, which would change minds and the road improvement would have to be done on the existing roadway. prairie Road Settlement Mr. Davidson reviewed the events on the Prairie Road construction project, the EnRineerfs report of final acceptance, a model resolution, the 'final certificate for payment of contract, and report of final estimate. (Reference letter from John Davidson of Enp,ineerts Report of Final Acceptance, December 28, 1978) He stated he felt they have negotiated costs with Alexander Construction Company to the bare costs, recommending a balance due of ~56,676.00 with final contract price of $233,192.96. All costs, includin~ those for the chan~e orders, have been aþproved by the District 5 State Aid Bn~ineer and are totally recoverable from State Aid funds. normally the Stat e will allow only 5 percent of the final cost of construction for construction engineering; 'however, in this cAse, because of the circumstances that lead to the increase in costs and the problems relative to right of way, the State Aid Engineer indicated that they can approve up to 10 ~ercent. In this case, engineering costs ran 9.8 percent, which are fully recoverable from State Aid funds. The ~233,192 fi~ure was used in the five- year State Aid Improvement Plan presented severri weeks ago, so this settlement will not impact that. The attorney costs that might be incurred in District Court relative to this project would not be eligible from State Aid funds. If additional costs are allowed by the Court for the right of way, that money would be eligible from St~te Aid funds. Althou~h his original requests were considerably higher, the contractor has agreed to all costs as stated in the change orders. Mr. Kasma stated that TKDA did not bill anything over~156,900 for basic design services. Engineering costs were 8~~percent. There is $8,000 normally billable under the general agreement which nill.,not be billed. He then reviewed the engineering costs and billings for the Prairie Road project. The Engineers then reviewed the Change Orders on the Prairie Road Project: Change Order #1: Changed the completion date. Change Order f2: mobilization for equipment, ~2, 820 .00. They were required to come back in the sprin~ because of the delay in construction. Chan~e Order #3: July, 1978, seed m.ixture, sodding, hand-placed rip rap, additional sodding of ditch bottoms and steep banks, '\1,780.00. S~ecial City Council Meetin~ T)ecember. 2,~, lq7~ - Hinutes 1JA:ge 8 (T'rairie PoadSettlement,Continued) Chan~e Order #4: "'otal, ~24,243.59. l. ~ence materials lost durinß construction, n64.35. 2. Grout for rip raþ at four intersections, $289.28. 3. Erosion repair due to heavy rains, repair of seeded areas based on hourly rates, ~5.688.75. There was concern expressed by Councilperson Lachinski that this problem occurred because the contractor continually delayed. He just didn't get in there to get that project done, and why is this the City's cost? , The Engineers stated that the State has said it is their policy that' any reæed~ of areas eroded after seeding is added as a supplemental agreement to the contract. Discussion was on what had happened on the project relative to this point. Engineers stated this argumont was given to the Sta te. but they were overruled by the State. 4. Granular borrow, $14,607.03. Contractor had originally asked for ~18,ooo. The contractor sUpplied actual facts and figures of the cost of the granular overrun, which the Engineers reviewed. Discussion was on the payment }~. Holasek received for that borrow and on the price bid for ~ranular borrow. It was the Engineers' feelin~ that $2.JD per yard for fill was a reasonable fiRure. The State Aid En~ineer felt the contractor should be uaid for all the granular borrow as the amount of overrun and problems incurred in building the road generally changed tbe scope of the project. Discussion was on how contractors bid projects and why the costs for the borrow increased. Rn~ineers reported the State said that under the specifications, if any Quantity increases by ryore than 20 percent, it should be renegotiated. TKDA deletes that from their specifications; however, the State felt it is the thing to do with the contractor. Concern was expressed by some of the Council that the contractor was told in the field by the engineering firm that the overrun would be at tbe price bid, and it was understood that they agreed. ~ow they are asking for a higher price. Councilperson Lachinski disagreed with paying him for something other than the unit price agreed when origiMlly bid. He felt that he'd like to see the costs incurred for the soil erosion and repair, because he felt the contractor should absorb that. And for the extra dirt, he felt the contractor should also absorb more than he has. Hr. Kasma stated that it may have been agreed to at the unit price, but nothing was'put in writing. They tried to hold the contractor to the original price for borrow, but the State has said the contractor was entitled to the costs be incurred. Mr. Davidson stated that the contractor has justified to his satisfaction that these costs were actually incurred and that ~2.10 for this material is not out of line. Discussion was on what seQuence of events occurred during road construction relative to the dirt overrUn. 5. Lower ing of 48-inch culvert, $952.00. Lowered after discussion with adjacent nroperty owners to provide for maximum ditch ~rades for upstream use of aRricultural land. 6. Remobilize and additional þavinR, ~2. 542 .18. 1','as done to make larger radi at the intersections and bituminous near the 48-inch culvert at the request of the ~ity. Hayor ~indschitl felt that these should have been provided in the plans and specifications. As there has been ~roblems with the radi at intersections previously, he asked }~. Kasrna to review their specifications at the corner cutoff. He also felt the design should have a bituminous flume on top of the riD rap. Mr, Davidson stated that in any future work, he has anything to do with in the City, there will be a written change order at the time. - Special City Council Meeting Decem'het" 2R, 1978 - Minutes Pa~e 9 (prairie poad Settlement, Continued) ~han~e Order #5: ' Total, ~8,360.79. 1. Class 5 Aggre~ate Distribution, %,250.76. \Vas the result of the bituminous surface not bein~ done until the next year. Class 5 was put in the urban area to protect the curb. In the spring, this ag~re~ate was picked up and haulted for use on the shoulders. This type of work was time-consuming as a lot of handw~rk needed to be done around the curb. Mayor Windschitl found this to be an unbelievably high cost. Discussion was on why this was done, the amount of material used and costs. 2, Increased Material and labor costs for contractor, ~4,110.00. A lengthy discussion continued On the amounts of the change orders and what was done for these costs. Concern was expressed by the Council that the change order costs were still very high. The Bngineers stated all the contractor's costs have been documented and neRotiated and that the State has authorized these supplemental agreements. ~ouncilpersons Orttel and VanderTAan agreed that it was an unfortunate situation and that the supplemental agreements are excessive; however, rather than looking at a court nrocess if these are not paid, we didn't have a choice but to accept them as negotiated by the Bn~ineers. Gouncilperson Lachinski felt that the State should be willing to back the City relative to the additional costs for seeding and additional fill as we had indicated to the contractor there would not be a change in price, He wanted to see something in writing as to why what the City did was incorrect in any way and why we are not on ~ood le~al basis for substantiating our case. Mr. Davidson stated that the ~tate Aid F.n~ineer would not put in writing as supporting any position, but putting his si~nature on the sup~lementary agreements in effect ~ives his approval. ¡-Iayor 11'indsch:1tl felt that some of the items negotiated were unreasonable and wanted to sit down with the numbers to work them throu~h himself to see how the hours and costs were arrived at. Mr. Davidson noted that the change orders and costs were ~ailed to the Council earlier. Ee also noted that payment to the contractor is 6 months overdue, and the contractor has threatened court action. It was suggested that Councilperson Lachinski talk to the State Aid Bngineer to try to resolve the questions he has relative to the gtate's uolicy and position on this uroject. HOl'T'T011,T 'by VanderLaan, Seconded by Orttel, Introducing the Resolution accepting work of ~lexander Construction Company, Inc., and authorizin~ final payment for City Project 1\Tf'). 1~~4l, MgAD 108-101-02... (in the amount of $56,676.00) (See Pesolution R138-8) AHB'TD',ffi"'!' '!'O HO'!'TO'! by Lachinski, Seconded by "'indschitl, to amend the Item 2105.521, Granular borrow from an a~ount of '\14,607.03 to ~7,500.00:and that all Change Orders discussed in this motion would be contingent upon the contractor accepting this alternate. Totalamount of contract is ~49,568.97. Discussion: was on what this does to the contract. Councilperson Lachinski felt there was some legal basis of support for thiß item. It was also asked what would happen if the contractor doesn't accept this. Mr. Davidson stated that the contractor has already given up about $10,000 in this prOject through negotiations. Mayor Windschitl and Councilperson Lachinski withdrew the Second and Motion. VO'!'E 0'1 MOTIO'!: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, VanderLaan; NO-Windschitl Hotion carried. ~~ayor ~indschitl - I think some of the items are excessive, and I would have liked to have the opportunity to review the supporting material on each of the items before I made a decision. ~uecial City Council Meeting December 2B, 1978 - Hinutes Page In (T'r~irie Poad Settlement, Continued) ~ouncil~erson L~chinski - I feel that we have been put into an uncompro~ising situation on this project in several matters and really have no alternative but to terminate the full uroblem at this !Joint. Counciluerson VanderLaan - that the Council was mailed supportive materials by the En~ineerin~ firm. At least I personally did receive them in the mail substantiating all of those items. If they v.ere over looked, that is simply unfortunate. Hayor Windschitl - The supporting material does not support each item. There is no support on the major items I was questioning. Mr. Kasma thpn stated he would be haupy to furnisb all of the documentation for the Mayor to review. Salary - Clerk/Treasurer MOTIor! by Lachinski to set the Clerk/Treasurer salary at $17,200 for 1979. Motion dies for lack of a second. MOTIO'T by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, setting the Clerk/Treasurer salary at $16,800 retroactive to July 1, 1978, and at ~17,200 for the year 1979. Discussion was what, if any, additional compensation is to be given for the position of acting administrator for 1978 and 1979. Councilperson Lachinski explained it wæ the Personnel Committee's recommendation that if more was needed to be paid, that some other alternative should be looked at, such as dividin~ the administrative responsibilities back to the three department he~ds. The idea is that the ~17,200 would include the administrative responsibilities that she currently has. If an Administrator were hired, it is pla nned to le~ve the salary as indicated in the motion, and that it would actually continue to 1';0 UP showinl'; a suiri t of cooperation and as she would continue to do many of the things she is presently doin~ ~s they would be deleg~ted to her. There is a question as to whether the additional 15 hours per week worked as Acting Administrator needs to be worked right now or is there some other way to alleviate that work load. Councilperson VanderLa~n stated this is dealing with assumptions and should be dealt with as a separate issue as it haupens. ~~enever an Administrator is hired, pay should be dealt with at that time. VOTE O~T MOTTO'!: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl: NO-Vanderlaan Motion carried. A lengthy discussion ensued on additional compensation for acting administrative duties and responsibilities, what that should be, and what extra duties are being performed. Five-minute break; reconvene at 12:50 a.m. Discussion continued on compensation for administrative functions for 1978, responsibilities of the Acting Administrator, on the possibility of dividing the res~onsibility among the Department heads, and referencing the Clerk's reèommendation on salary. Ms. Lindquist explained that in ber recommendation, ~l6,800 is an average 1979 salary for a Clerk/Treasurer for a 40-hour week. On that basis, she asked for the additional ~300 a month for Acting Administrator. All she was looking at was the additional hours at an avera~e of ~7 an hour. Sloe felt a definite separation in pay gives the Council more room to separate the positions of Clerk/Treasurer with that of Actin~ Administr~tor. Counciluerson Lachinski clarified that the intent of the ori~inal motion did include administrative responsibilities currently assigned. HOTIO~ by VanderIßan for ~500 for the additional administrative duties for the year 1978. !lotion dies for lack of a second. Special City Council Meeting Decembe!' 28, 1978 - Minutes Page II (Salary - C1e rk/Treasurer, Continued) MOTIO'! by VanderLaan to set $200 for the additional administrative duties for the year 1978. Motion dies for lack of a second. 110TIO~ by Orttel that the salary for the Clerk/Treasurer, Acting Administratorposition be set at $17,010 annually, retroactive to 7/1/78. Motion dies for lack of a second. MOTTO~ by Orttel, Seconded by VanderLaan, that the Clerk/Treasurer/Administrative salary be set at ~17,OlO annually effective July 1, 1978, and ~17,200 effective January 1, 1979. VOTE O'T MOTTO'!: YES-Orttel, VanderLaan, Windschitl; NO-Lachinski Motion carried. Councilperson Lachinski - asked if an Administrator is hired, is part of that salary going to be deducted. He did not think it should be reduced if an Administrator is hired. Anproval of Claims ImTTO~ by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the recorded tapes of those meetings that will not be approved by the current Council existing in December, 1978, become part and parcel of the Minutes of those meetings as part of the record. Motion carried unê\nimously. MOTTO~ by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, for approval of Claims 2262 throush 2290 in the amount of $20,248.20. !lotion carried unanimously. Adjournment Mayor Windschitl thanked Councilperson VanderLaan for her years of service here and all of the efforts put into the job. He also thanked Councilperson McClure for his years of service and the help provided with the Building Committee. MOTTO~ by VanderLaan, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn sine die. Motion carried unanimous~. Meeting adjourned at 1:21 a.m. Respectfully submitted,_ ~~~~ -c;2~l !larcella A. Peach Pecordin~ Secretary -