The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12.21.87 Council Packet AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR DECEMBER 21, 1987 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES a. December 7, 1987 4. CITIZENS COMMENTS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Set Public Hearing to Amend Ordinance Regulating Hours of Sunday Liquor b. 7:15 P.M. - Consider Reassessment of Terra 2nd Addition - Continued from November 16, 1987 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. Resolution Designating the City's State Aid Roads b. Resolution - Bridge Replacement Program 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Park Naming/Donation Policy b. Paving Project on County Road 64 c. Compensatory Time for Police Officers d. Wage Adjustment - Police Department 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Sidewalk Repair b. Set 1988 Firefighters Salary 10. MISCELLANEOUS a. Personnel Action - General Services 11. CONSENT AGENDA a. Request to Attend School - General Services b. Budget Adjustment - Fire Department - Rescue Budget c. Budget Adjustment - Fire d. Street Sign Replacement Program e. Budget Adjustment - Sewer Department f. Transfer to Revolving Capital Projects Fund - Park and Recreation g. Hose Dryer Sale Proceeds - Fire Department h. Capital Outlay Request - Fire Department - Typewriter i. Approve Payment of the Bills 12. ADJOURN THE AGENDA IS CLOSED OUT AT NOON ON THE TUESDAY PRECEDING THE MEETING. MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEMS, DECEMBER 21, 1987 DATE DECEMBER 18, 1987 5 a. Ken LaBeau dba Long Branch has requested the council consider changing the Sunday hours of operation to 10:00 am. b. Memo enclosed 7 a. General information enclosed b. Memo enclosed 8 a. Policy and Park and Recreation minutes b. Memo enclosed c. I have not received any information on this item at this time. d. I have not received any information on this item at this time. 9 a. Memos enclosed b. Memo enclosed 10 a. Memo enclosed. I would concur with Mr. Kaldunski's recommendation. 11 a. Request enclosed b. Adjustment enclosed c. Adjustment enclosed d. Request enclosed e. Request enclosed f. Request enclosed g. Request enclosed h. Request enclosed i. Copy enclosed Larry f.mpso;79(1--------- City A.ministrator MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMS DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1987 I have prepared applications forms for the MnDOT Bridge Replacement Funds for the four City bridges on Flagstaff Avenue. (See attached map.) I have been discussing our bridges with Mr. Roy Hanson, State Aid Engineer, and he feels that our projects would qualify for funding through this program. Mr. Hanson has assisted me in completing the applications. (See attached.) In order to complete the application process, it is necessary for the Council to pass a resolution prioritizing our projects. (See attached resolution.) I recommend that the Council assign their priorities to each project based on the following: 1. Condition of the Bridge and current status. 2. RPC rating of structure (The larger the value, the greater the replacement need.) 3. Costs for replacement. 4. Other possible funding sources. Based upon these criteria, I would rank the bridges as follows. BRIDGE # CURRENT STATUS RPC RATING EST. COST OTHER FUNDS PRIORITY L-3272 Closed 32.88 $ 93,500 N/A 1 L-3271 Closed 32.88 93,500 N/A 1 L-3270 Open 32.13 66,800 Mn. State Aid 2 L-3269 Open 31.38 66,800 Mn. State Aid 3 Our top priority has to be the two bridges on Flagstaff south of T.H. 50. These structures must be designed concurrently due to the topography of the drainage area and proximity of both bridges. Their sufficiency rating is the worst, which has resulted in the official status of "closed". It is also unlikely that we will be able to utilize other sources of funds to replace these bridges, for example Bridges L-3270 and L3269 will probably begin accruing some funding through the Mn. State Aid Program, once we designate Flagstaff Avenue from T.H. 50 to the north City limits as a local state aid road. The only problem we have at this time is that the State Bridge fund is currently depleted. The State Legislature has not refunded the program since 1986. The City should encourage its local representatives to introduced legislation to fund the program in 1988. If the Legislature would pass a funding bill, we would be in business. Other groups such as the Mn. Counties Association are seeking this funding bill also. In the mean time, Mr. Hanson has encouraged the City to apply and he will use this information to show the Legislature that there are bridges which need replacement and he will also encourage them to appropriate more funding on our behalf. The best thing the City can do is to take an active approach to bridge replacement, apply for the funding, perhaps prepare plans and specifications • and talk to our State representatives about our dilemma. We should be ready to proceed with the projects in the event of a new funding bill. Tom Kaldunski City Engineer cc: file Larry Thompson Wayne Henneke TJK 1 F4 " • ayYi I 4 NI X ( V Q' 0 f N z a O W . W e, J W •I re m Y• a•� a 3 11 2 O N a x us W J K 2 a2 u \I. E 1aJ n J r aJ •]] �-(1 3 Y 4 W W W W W W W W WW W W W W O O 0 0 4 0 O , 6000 E 500o D 4000 7000 F ,10Or L•.,VIL1, ______.....--___I____. _..---.. .... ..._. .. -Y1 -- – ---T— tti,•I4I�•nrm_aminlmuU.% 4 gum I �.3269 ] ,ip� mix , 111111� ` F11UUUllI 6Q Blinn . . nmm, in, A..,I ti Mrd inti If3fil0 i nm lit° I ttiva i . 11 000jIlSU ----------1 — - - 18 • ( I J • 5 • •eM.1L• I I --i_ _ _... .__ I -.--- _—.._--__--_.--__ ._ ....._ -.-.. ( • �V I \....� RIDGE I` , L i I -3270 ) �'� s 11WJ11_ • ' ( ae�'��I I�� E 1111 II �- eoo 'Zs ...___-- 3 CATTLE 'II � — �..../ I PASS 1 ♦ 1 I �• --...I .. II LI / l�,: • . Il L Eli , . • 1 - '%% - t kili ' r `� / r � , I I ,�• � ` • 3.5111 D•- .--• - 30 I /l i Ii 111 l II IkI 1 ` • nISI O • I W1110 ,.II.. \ _ ...�'" •--_Ori— -.._ --1---_.1 ; ',,� �'t• �1 �. �Ic y:I 1 is ) :I _�_ --_ . • 1.41.,1. ----'I -_ • ___•77/ --_ __-�- -812.1 % fS , •� • JLI1111IJll11J \ . I -__.._—_ –..–__—_- IPINK .' ��1.0 .. . I �' I, J D.alitr II gnI Ir! i 1` 11• ,�.rri IIr, �� dm •:d1U111 :111�,/11P1I111111Jll,-.� 'U ;I .,.»" 1t1i11. II •':!:?.:14::..L741111.1. Call. X1111111111 " N{1111�1111111111111 HOSPITAL- I ':1;°AAK''': i1IID A.Ill GlJ Fll IIVI In -- •---__ • I I ``":` ) 111111ID�I19 'u11111111111111II lilt it 1111111111 ,11_-_ I - •-.---- ----•--35 �I 36 j ( r Ir 1 III r _( 1 I zaoo 34 •--•••�t . .-------•-- :I [11 [ I I'/�7�� r �.l II11111 Ri111lU 1 ...o .• ICE ARENA tlililL LY 1 111111�1�I1• 11 I nnlIl� Irn 11 TIr ��11n( 11-�_SCHooL 4 Laval I•\ 1 / SCHOOL 111pr-n `_E1f�I1 ' 6R1 DGE .�–•••�.....✓ T -- i LEI 1 i I I \ 141-3271 �.... -- -... . — -- -r' PARK .• IIIII I llll•Ir(�JJl Ii \\ ., •,. t LLJledcsl SCHOOL I r1- ' _.-�SRI DG E• ; 'il /ftwwi [fill'J 011.1 L. 3 27 2 - _ „Or r•11.1111010� _ - - - t'n �7� �7. �. { - - - ..1,..-.. r- 0111[7• IOWIsHir I I -(• Iz..1i I. (51 li J I 1.11• BRIDGE 1 • I L- 3233 I ! tt. f' ,.:5 .III /' DAKOTA ,Q•41•.f�j11) I .••••• I LAI 1 i • COUNTY (um , Uflj- --- Li ,...1 1 6 J1IJ ll LLll11_ -- $ 0-� FAIR GROUNDS qtt r 31 - • M '•••M.. w I " 1 ..•" 1 ff/f/ 11,1'1", _ _ H W ' ~ ~ a a �, a QQQ v .4:7 J r _ y : a - 1- ' : .r a=_ 7 g of i ,., + :..-1-17.-i- - .,WV01•, .VO ;77.--; -VO --\ +x4.111_ I OF �i��M �I�101► 1.�1.1:L.y..,.11.0 ob I . CITY .�.1.1.. . .,.....11. ..... 1 .1 1•R•••11•,_\.WI• •...1,111-�— I -i. ^. {. t GE¢FJip, • FOR PRIOR , I l rimt)I 1 I xUIUII MIIK)r, AIIR 111111 • .,1+1-'JI 4GA 1"17 ._--_ .m_...•_, 1n/DOT 30803 ( , /86) STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF STATE AID * To be on newly designated local MSA System Application for Bridge Funds * PROJECT NUMBER. OLD BRIDGE NUMBER L-3269 NEW BRIDGE NUMBER 96586 OVER Stream COUNTY OF Dakota ROAD NO. MUNICIPALITY OF Farmington STREET NO. Flagstaff Avenue TOWNSHIP OF ROAD NO. DOES THE STRUCTURE QUALIFY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS? DOES THE STRUCTURE QUALIFY FOR STATE FUNDS? Yes Estimated Cost Structure (Include Slope Protection) $ 47,800 Approaches 5,000 Removal Items 3,000 Guard Rail 5,000 Engineering 6,000 Total $ 66,800 Date of Council/Board action prioritizing this bridge 12/21/87 ./C/0,' al/ 7 County/City Engi)ieer Date • Recommendation of District State Aid Engineer Replace Defer District State Aid Eng. Signature Date RDC OR MET COUNCIL REVIEW REQUESTED RECEIVED STATEWIDE PRIORITY NUMBER of BRIDGE APPLICANTS STATUS OF FUNDS PROPOSED FUNDING OF PROJECT TOWN BRIDGE $ STATE AID $ FAS/FAU $ BROS/ERRS/BRM/BRHS $ LOCAL $ AMOUNT OF GRANT (Fund 29) $ LETTPNG DATE TOTAL $ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * To be on newly designated OFFICE OF STATE AID local MSA System Application for Bridge Funds PROJECT NUMBER. OLD BRIDGE NUMBER L-3270 NEW BRIDGE NUMBER 96585 , OVER stream COUNTY OF - Dakota ROAD NO. MUNICIPALITY OF Farmington STREET NO. Flagstaff Ave. TOWNSHIP OF ROAD NO. DOES THE STRUCTURE QUALIFY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS? No DOES THE STRUCTURE QUALIFY FOR STATE FUNDS? Yes Estimated Cost Structure (Include Slope Protection) $ 47,800 Approaches - 5,000 Removal Items 3,000 Guard Rail 5,000 Engineering 6,000 Total $ 66,800 Date of Council/Board action prioritizing this bridge 12/21/87 County/City E gineer Date Recommendation of District State Aid Engineer Replace Defer District State Aid Eng. Signature Date RDC OR MET COUNCIL REVIEW REQUESTED RECEIVED STATEWIDE PRIORITY NUMBER of BRIDGE APPLICANTS STATUS OF FUNDS PROPOSED FUNDING OF PROJECT TOWN BRIDGE $ STATE AID $ FAS/FAU $ BROS/BRRS/BR`1/BRHS $ LOCAL $ AMOUNT OF GRANT (Fund 29) $ LETTING DATE TOTAL $ ,"n/uUL Juoui \i / oo) JL:i1L ur DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF STATE AID Application for Bridge Funds • PROJECT NUMBER 212-080-02 OLD BRIDGE NUMBER L-3271 NEW BRIDGE NUMBER 96584 OVER Stream COUNTY OF • Dakota ROAD NO. MUNICIPALITY OF Farmington STREET NO. Flagstaff. Ave. TOWNSHIP OF ROAD NO. DOES THE STRUCTURE QUALIFY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS? No DOES THE STRUCTURE QUALIFY FOR STATE FUNDS? Yes Estimated Cost • Structure (Include Slope Protection) $ 60,000 Approaches 10,000 • Removal Items 5,000 Guard Rail 10,000 Engineering 8,500 • Total $ 93,500 Date of Council/Board action prioritizing this bridge 12/21/87 `2. / . County/City -Engineer Date / Recorendation of District State Aid Engineer Replace Defer District State Aid Eng. Signature Date RDC OR MET COUNCIL REVIEW REQUESTED RECEIVED STATEWIDE PRIORITY NUMBER of BRIDGE APPLICANTS STATUS OF FUNDS PROPOSED FUNDING OF PROJECT TOWN BRIDGE $ STATE AID $ FAS/FAU $ BROS/BRRS/BRM/BRHS $ LOCAL $ AMOUNT OF GRANT (Fund 29) $ LETTING DATE TOTAL $ ✓v r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF STATE AID Application for Bridge Funds PROJECT NUMBER. 212-080-01 OLD BRIDGE NUMBER L-3272 NEW BRIDGE NUMBER 96583 OVER Stream COUNTY OF •tJakota ROAD NO. MUNICIPALITY OF Farmington STREET NO. Flagstaff Ave. TOWNSHIP OF ROAD NO. DOES THE STRUCTURE QUALIFY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS? No DOES THE STRUCTURE QUALIFY FOR STATE FUNDS? Yes Estimated Cost Structure (Include Slope Protection) $ 60,000 Approaches 10,000 Removal Items 5,000 Guard Rail 10,000 Engineering 8,500 Total $ 93,500 Date of Council/Board action prioritizing this bridge 12/21/87 -413 / ') /' //7/Q--7 County/City Engineer Date Recommendation of District State Aid Engineer Replace Defer District State Aid Eng. Signature Date RDC OR MET COUNCIL REVIEW REQUESTED RECEIVED STATEWIDE PRIORITY NUMBER of BRIDGE APPLICANTS STATUS OF FUNDS PROPOSED FUNDING OF PROJECT TOWN BRIDGE $ STATE AID $ FAS/FAU $ EROS/BRRS/BRM/BRHS $ LOCAL $ AMOUNT OF GRANT (Fund 29) $ LETTING DATE TOTAL $ PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PRIORITIZING BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND APPLYING FOR FUNDS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 21st day of December, 1987 at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) presently has a program for funding bridge replacement; and WHEREAS, The City of Farmington presently has a number of bridges which require repairs or replacement; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to apply for funding to repair/replace such bridges; and WHEREAS, MnDOT requires that the City prioritize the order in which bridges should be repaired/replaced. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council, that the following priorities be placed on bridge repair/replacement: (See attached map.) Structure Location Description 1. L-3272 Flagstaff Ave - Sec. 35, T114, R20 14.6' steel beam span 2. L-3271 Flagstaff Ave - Sec. 35, T114, R20 14.6' steel beam span 3. L-3270 Flagstaff Ave Sec. 23, T114, R20 13'span, Ei steel, Wi concrete 4. L-3269 Flagstaff Ave - Sec. 14, T114, R20 13'span, Ei steel, Wi concrete ' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to apply for such funds. This resolution is adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 21st day of December, 1987. Mayor Attested to the day of , 1987. SEAL Clerk/Administrator AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. 0-.. NAME: Tom Kaldunski DEPARTMENT: General Services DATE: December 14, 1987 MEETING DATE: December 21, 1987 CATEGORY: New Business SU3JECT: Sidewalk Repairs EXPLANATION: REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo - Tom Kaldunski/Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Wayne Henneke Finance Tom Kaldunski General Services , J SIGNATUR ' MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: SIDEWALK REPAIR DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1987 Attached, please find a memo from the City Engineer regarding the reimbursement for sidewalk repair. On the surface, the Engineer's request seems reasonable, but I am concerned about setting a precedent whereby the City may be backed into reimbursing for replacement of marginally bad sidewalks. I feel it is imperative that the City retain full control over prioritizing the repair of its sidwalks, and fitting them into the budget. Therefore, I would recommend that the City not reimburse Mr. Lundstedt for the work. If the Council does agree to reimburse Mr. Lundstedt, at a minimum, a list of sidewalks eligible for reimbursement and a rate for reimbursement (e.g. $2/sq.ft.) should be established so that property owners who are not on the list, would not expect a reimbursement. Larry Thompson City Administrator LT/mh cc: Tom Kaldunski Wayne Henneke file MEMO TO: LARRY THOMPSON LA-9 l:L:cycJie (/s- SUBJECT: SIDEWALK REPAIRS /O 0 1:) *-- 4-(21Za DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 1987 6 ( ��, 1, • Or In 1986, Mr. Gerald Lundstedt approached me to see if the City would repair some existing boulevard sidewalks at his 601 Elm Street address. At that time, I had already utilized the funds budgeted for "Street, Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk" on other projects. I informed Mr. Lundstedt that I had no funds available to repair the boulevard walks. He then proceeded in the fall of 1986 to have the repairs made at his own expense. In 1987, the City undertook a sidewalk maintenance project to repair sections of boulevard sidewalks that were in poor condition. Elm Street was included in the project. Had Mr. Lundstedt not repaired the boulevard walk at 601 Elm STreet in 1986, I believe we would have included it in our 1987 project. Since then, Mr. Lundstedt has asked me to consider a refund for the expenses incurred while repairing boulevard walks. (204 sq.ft. @ $2/sq. ft. $ .00) It is a reasonable request, however, I do not have the authority to grant the refund. Please look into this matter. / )-?4 A Tom Kaldunski City Engineer cc: file CU_ / /, -/ y/g7