The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007 [01] Jan 18 {Book 39} CITY Of ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com St. Joseph City Council January 18, 2007 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Agenda Administrator Judy Weyrens 3. Consent Agenda a. Bills Payable - Requested Action: Approve check numbers 038309- 038367. b. Minutes - Requested Action: Approve the minutes of December 21, 2006. c. Easements - Requested Action: Authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute the easements for the 2007 Storm Sewer Replacement. d. Mayor Appointments - Requested Action: Accept the 2007 Mayor Appointments as presented. Mayor Richdrd Carlbom Councilors Steve Frank AI Rassier Renee Symanietz Dale Wick 4. Public Comments to the Agenda 5. 7:00 PM St. Joseph Political Action Group - Phil Welter 6. Legislative Update - Larry Hosch 7. City Engineer Reports a. Water Tank Evaluation b. 2007 Jade Road Improvements 8. Mayor Reports 9. Council Reports 10. Administrator Reports a. US Cable Agreement for Services b. Legislative Concerns c. Southwest Beltway - Consultant Hire d. Liquor Ordinance Amendment 11. Adjourn 2.')" College Avenue North, PO Box 66s . Saint. Joseph, Minnesota ')"6)74 Phone ,2.0.,6,.72.01 Fclx ,2.0.,6,.0'42. ST. JOSEPH CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 18,2007 FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS NAME ~:~~ 3. '1Jif1.rdA 8U1.ltUJt I \ I n 1,~"ta 1\ 1)1' (; ! O/:.,!& 4. $71.... 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. t~4'i/~d>dJ\"l ~ 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. ADDRESS /~~ ~. t!!..t. ~- kj~, ~ftfl3 tttCv,.~~ sr'~r~., r , , . \ ~ t " ~ &.r"'" "'4~_, q>;""~ _____ '''''"", DV\l.iJ&o (}, t,,)i\, ,d "<___ 'tX: ,...."'" -""\. /. ,?"" , #\$, :z,:f)., , lv5 pj".'t.., k-t/!.4:.. S(~ .N'ote's . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . · · · · . . · · . · · . . · · . . Sales Tax JP A The Area Cities have agreed to amend the JP A as requested by S1. Joseph. It was determined by the S1. Cloud City Attorney that the amendment did not change the intent of the agreement and was not significant enough to require Cities to take the JPA back to their City. The JP A should be fully executed within the next couple of weekS. Grant Erdahl The City has received all the fines and fees for 29 East MN Street. The rental-housing inspector will be issuing a temporary Rental License as all the repairs have been made with the exception of the driveway. The City has received a $ 3500 escrow for the driveway and it is scheduled to be completed in Spring. As soon as the driveway is completed we will issue the Rental License. Non Union Wages The Mayor and Councilor Rassier will be completing the reviews of the Police Chief and Administrator on Wednesday. Typically the Committee makes a recommendation to the Council as if the reviews were satisfactory and presents the wage for the current year. This information will be forwarded to the Council after the reviews are complete. Minutes You will notice that the minutes for December 21, 2006 have been . added as a separate item. Since Councilor Frank was not in office for that meeting I have not included the same on the consent agenda. Intergovernmental Just a reminder of the Intergovernmental Meeting on January 30 at the Sauk Rapids Fire Hall. City of St. Joseph Bills Payable Page 1 January 16,2007 Check # Search Name Comments Amount FUND . DEPART OBJ 038309 POSTMASTER permit #25 - 2007 $53.33 602 49490 322 038309 POSTMASTER PO Box 668 - 2007 $70.00 101 41430 410 038309 POSTMASTER PO Box 268 - 2007 $38.00 101 42120 410 038309 POSTMASTER permit #25 - 2007 $53.33 601 49440 322 038309 POSTMASTER permit #25 - 2007 $53.34 603 43230 322 038310 EFTPS Reg pp 1 Medicare $939.16 101 038310 EFTPS Reg pp 1 SS $2,293.46 101 038310 EFTPS Reg pp 1 $3,126.80 101 038311 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Reg pp 1 $1,411.47 101 038312 PERA retirement pay-Reg pp 1 $5,228.66 101 038313 ING LIFE INS & ANNUITY COMPANY deferred comp pay-Regpp 1 $225.00 101 038314 EFTPS Reg pp 1.1 $197.05 101 038314 EFTPS SS-Regpp1.1 $558.00 101 038314 EFTPS Medicare Reg pp 1.1 $130.50 101 038315 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Reg pp 1.1 $112.56 101 038316 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration-Dee Services $3.70 603 43230 137 038316 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration-Dee Services $3.70 602 49490 137 038316 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration-Dee Services $3.3.35 101 42120 137 038316 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration-Dee Services $11.11 101 45202 137 038316 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration-Dee Services $11.11 101 41530 137 038316 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration-Dee Services $14.81 601 49440 137 038316 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration-Dee Services $22.22 101 41430 137 038317 ACCLAIM BENEFITS.REIMB Daycare Reimbursement-#498 $185.00 101 038317 ACCLAIM BENEFITS-REIMB Medical Reimbursement #1455 . $58.99 101 ,038318 AFSCME COUNCIL 65 dues-January 2007 " $365.50 101 038319 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES Dee Service $68.90 101 45202 384 038319 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES Dee Service , $68.90 602 49490 384 038319 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES Dee Service $68.90 105 42220 384 038319 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES Dee Residential Service $14,982.84 603 43230 384 038320 AUTO VALUE PARTS STORES - Hydro Filters $62.83 602 49450 210 038321 AVENET, LLC 3 year registration of City Domain Name $135.00 101 41430 321 038322 BANYON DATA SYSTEM 2007 Annual Support Propert Management $1,605.00 101 41430 215 038322 BANYON DATA SYSTEM Violation Software $800.00 101 42120 215 038322 BANYON DATA SYSTEM Software-Permit, License Assessments Fixed $7,475~00 101 41430 215 038322 BANYON DATA SYSTEM Bill/Invoice support $395.00 101 41530 215 038322 . BANYON DATA SYSTEM pet licensing support $202.68 101 42700 300 038323 C & L EXCAVATING 8th Ave Project pay app #3" $11,962.21 440 43120 530 038324 C & L EXCAVATING, INC 2006 Str Improvement pay app #6 $29,438.89 438 43120 530 038325 CAMERA TRADER camera $435.59 101 42120 240 038326 CITY OF ST. CLOUD sewer rental charges-Dee "$12,846;04 602 49480 419 038327 COALITION OF GREATER MN CITIES 2007 Membership dues $7,313.00 101 41110 433 038328 DOUBLETREE PARK PLACE HOTEL League Conf - D Wick $101.32 101 41110 331 038329 GRAINGER air filters $329.45 601 49420 220 038330 GRR ENTERPRISE 2007 Salt Shed Rental $600.00 101 43125 410 038331 HACH COMPANY water testing supplies $492.70 601 49420 210 038332 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT Lead Sample $32.00 602 49480 312 038332 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT Influent Bod Test $91.20 602 49480 312 038332 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT Phosphorus Test $40.20 602 49480 312 038332 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT Azone 15, Hydroflocilieiei Acid $631.55 601 49420 210 038332 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT Buffer solution $136.96 601 49420 210 038333 INSPECTRON INC building inspection services-Dee $8,100.00 101 42401 300 038334 JM GRA YSTONE OIL CO., INC fuel - Dee $44.50 105 42220 210 038334 JM GRAYSTONE OIL CO., INC postage - Dee $17.39 602 49490 322 038334 JM GRAYSTONE OIL CO., INC fuel - Dee $247.17 601 49440 210 038334 JM GRAYSTONE OIL CO., INC fuel - Dee $247.17 101 45202 210 038334 " JM GRAYSTONE OIL CO., INC fuel - Dee $247.17 602 49490 210 038334 JM GRAYSTONE OIL CO., INC fuel - Dee $247.16 101 43120 210 038335 JOHN T JONES Water Treatment Plant Pay App 10 $210,633.04 434 49440 530 038336 KEEPRS, INC/CY'S UNIFORMS J Klein-clothing $191.50 101 42120 171 City of St. Joseph Bills Payable Page 2 January 16, 2007 Check # Search Name Comments Amount FUND DEPART OBJ 038337 KLN DISTRIBUTING, INC 2007 Service Contract $929.00 101 41530 215 038337 KLN DISTRIBUTING, INC 2007 Service Contract $4,225.00 101 42120 215 038337 KLN DISTRIBUTING, INC 2007 Service Contract $930.00 101 41430 215 038337 KLN DISTRIBUTING, INC 2007 Service Contract $929.00 101 43120 215 038337 KLN DISTRIBUTING, INC 2007 Service Contract $929.00 601 49440 215 038337 KLN DISTRIBUTING, INC 2007 Seniice Contract $929.00 602 49490 215 038337 KLN DISTRIBUTING, INC 2007 Service Contract $929.00 603 43230 215 038338 LAKE REGION FIREFIGHTE;RS ASSOC 2007 Membership dues $40.00 105 42240 433 038339 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR dues-January 2007 $276.50 101 038340 LEEF BROS Dec Service $58.72 101 42120 171 038340 LEEF BROS Dec Service $25.11 101 43120 171 038340 LEEF BROS Dec Service $153.94 601 49440 171 038340 LEEF BROS Dec Service $153.93 602 49490 171 038340 LEEF BROS . Dec Service $25.11 602 49450 171 038340 LEEF BROS Dec Service $68.02 101 41430 171 038341 MEDTRONIC L1FEPAK Def- software $20.45 101 42120 215 038342 MILLS FLEET FARM fuel filters, water block filters $49.35 602 49450 210 038342 MILLS FLEET FARM fuel filters, water block filters $49.35 101 43125 210 038342 MILLS FLEET FARM fuel filters, water block filters $49.35 101 43120 210 038342 MILLS FLEET FARM fuel filters, water block filters $49.35 101 45202 210 038343 MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE 2007 Membership $130.00 101 42120 433 038344 MINNESOTA CRIME PREVENTION 2007 Membership dues $40.00 101 42120 433 038345 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR, INC service-January $82.57 101 41942 220 038346 MINNESOTA GFOA 2007 Membership dues $40.00 101 41530 433 038347 MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC. 2007 Membership dues $100.00 601 49440 433 038347 MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC. 2007 Membership dues $50.00 602 49480 433 038347 MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC. 2007 Membership dues $50.00 602 49490 433 038348 MINNESOTA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT vehicle lease 6073 $1,009.98 101 42152 414 038348 MINNESOTA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT vehicle lease 5556 $903.96 101 42152 414 038348 MINNESOTA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT vehicle lease 5244 $919.15 101 42152 414 038348 MINNESOTA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT vehicle lease 6002 $1,009.98 101 42152 414 038349 MN MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOC 2007 Drug & Alcohol Testing $50.00 101 43120 433 038349 MN MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOC 2007 Drug & Alcohol Testing $50.00 602 49490 433 038349 MN MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOC 2007 Water Member Dues $366.00 601 49440 433 038349 MN MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOC 2007 Drug & Alcohol Testing $50.00 601 49440 433 038350 MN SMOKE-EATER 2007 subscription $18.00 105 42240 433 038351 MN STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSN 2007 Membership dues - 8 $305.00 105 42240 433 038352 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INC notification-December $18.13 602 49490 319 038352 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INC notification-December $18.12 601 49440 319 038353 POSTMASTER PO Rental 2007 $26.00 105 42210 322 038354 POWERHOUSE OUTDOOR EQUIP oil, bar & chain lube $9.51 101 45202 210 038354 POWERHOUSE OUTDOOR EQUIP oil, bar & chain lube $9.50 101 43120 210 038354 POWERHOUSE OUTDOOR EQUIP saw chain $13.90 101 45202 210 038354 POWERHOUSE OUTDOOR EQUIP saw chain $13.90 101 43120 210 038355 RESOURCE TRAINING & Membership fee 2007 $25.80 101 43120 433 038355 RESOURCE TRAINING & Membership fee 2007 $25.80 101 42120 433 038355 RESOURCE TRAINING & Membership fee 2007 $25.80 601 49440 433 038355 RESOURCE TRAINING & Membership fee 2007 $25.80 602 49490 433 038355 RESOURCE TRAINING & Membership fee 2007 $25.80 101 41430 433 038356 SAFETY TRAIN, INC 2007 Safety Program $412.50 601 49440 212 038356 SAFETY TRAIN, INC 2007 Safety Program $412.50 602 49490 212 038356 SAFETY TRAIN, INC 2007 Safety Program $412.50 101 43120 212 038356 SAFETY TRAIN, INC 2007 Safety Program $412.50 101 45202 212 038357 SAUK RIVER WATERSHED Marthaler & Donabauer Registration $20.00 101 43120 331 038358 SCHIFFLER INSURANCE Chevy Truck 2006 $62.25 101 45202 446 038358 SCHIFFLER INSURANCE Chevy Truck 2006 $41.50 602 49490 446 038358 SCHIFFLER INSURANCE trailer $9.50 101 43120 446 038358 SCHIFFLER INSURANCE Chevy Truck 2006 $41.50 101 43120 446 038358 SCHIFFLER INSURANCE Towmaster trailer $25.50 101 45202 446 City of St. Joseph Bills Payable January 12, 2007 Pa,ge 3 Check # Search Name Comments Amount FUND DEPART OBJ 038358 SCHIFFLER INSURANCE Chevy Truck 2006 $41.50 601 49440 446 0.38358 SCHIFFLER INSURANCE Chevy Truck 20.06 $62.25 10.1 43120. 446 0.38359 SCHWEGEL COMMUNICATIONS INC down payment on communication system $10.,0.0.0..0.0. 434 49440. 530. 0.38360. ST. CLOUD TIMES Truth & Taxation Ad $1,0.76.40. 10.1 41530. 340. 038361 ST. JOSEPH NEWSLEADER Skating Rink Attendent ad $24.0.0. 10.1 43120. 340. 038361 ST. JOSEPH NEWSLEADER Ordinances , $66.60. 10.1 41130. 340. 0.38362 STEARNS COUNTY AUDITOR-TREAS annexatoin #121580.9 $46.0.0. 10.1 41910. 431 038362 STEARNS COUNTY AUDITOR-TREAS Precinct 3 $66.35 10.1 41410. 210. 0.38362 STEARNS COUNTY AUDITOR-TREAS PreGinct 1 $34;Q1 101 41410 210 0.38362 STEARNS COUNTY AUDITOR-TREAS Precinct 2 $94.84 10.1 41410. 210. 0.38363 STEARNS COUNTY ENVIROMENTAL Erosion Control Training $20.0.0 10.1 43120. 331 0.38364 STEARNS COUNTY SHERIFF'S citation bookd $42.60 10.1 42120. 210. 0.38365 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE disability insurance-Feb $533.0.5 10.1 0.38366 VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $122.28 10.5 42250. 321 0.38366 VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $35.42 10.1 43120. 321 0.38366 VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $560..27 10.1 41430. 321 0.38366 VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $38.85 -60.2 49490. 321 0.38366 VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $226.25 10.1 42151 321 0.38366 . VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $35.41 10.1 4520.2 321 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $7.0.5 10.1 4250.0. 326 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $153.29 60.1 49410. 383 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $250..42 60.1 49435 381 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $29.56 10.1 42610. 386 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $1,112.32 60.1 ~ 49410. 381 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $388.77 60.1 49420. 381 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $47.98 10.1 43120. 381 038367 XCELENERGY December Service $273.85 10.1 43120. 383 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $182.56 10.1 4520.1 383' 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $15.0.0. 10.1 43120. 381 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $10..0.0. 10.1 4520.1 381 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $53.88 10.1 43120. 381 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $35.92 10.1 4520.1 381 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $829.55 10.1 41942 383 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $689.61 10.1 41942 381 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $970..97 10.1 41941 383 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $333.22 10.1 41941 383 0.38367 XCEL ENERGY December Service $23.16 10.1 45123 383 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $11.0.9 10.1 45123 381 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $2,085.65 10.1 43160. 386 0.38367 XCELENERGY December Service $28.79 10.1 4520.2 381 $364,232.26 December 21, 2006 Page 1 of 3 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Thursday, December 21,2006 at 6:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Mayor Richard Carlbom. Councilors AI Rassier, Dale Wick, Ross Rieke, Renee Symanietz. City Administrator Judy Weyrens City Representatives Present: City Engineers Tracy Ekola and Kate Minier. Others Present: Ken Hiemenz, Mike McDonald, Margy Hughes, Sr. Thomasette, Sr. Maritrese Woida, Sr. Kara Hennes, Sr. Paula Revier, Bob & Ellen Wahlstrom, Gary Sneide St. Joseph Transportation Plan: Carlbom stated that, over the past year, SEH has been working on a Transportation Plan for the City of St. Joseph. He stated that the plan will be officially delivered at this meeting, however it will not be adopted until a Public Hearing is held by the Planning Commission to include the Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Council and Stakeholders were given a copy to review prior to being presented. The purpose of the Transportation Plan is to give the City a tool to use when planning future developments. Kate Minier, SEH, approached the Council to present the City's Transportation Plan. She stated that SEH began the process last year to provide the City with a tool to guide future development. Cities develop Transportation Plans to be proactive and guide development in the best interest of the City. If a City does not have a Transportation Plan, the City is forced to be reactionary, looking at only the current needs. This type ()f planning leads to fragmented roads or lack of collector streets. Miner commended the City for having the foresight to plan for the future. Miner stated that a Transportation Plan considers the full build-out of the City. She stated that the development of the Transportation Plan included the following items: . Public Meeting - Purpose: To give residents a brief overview of the project. . Stakeholder Group - Purpose: A Stakeholder group consisting of citizens, business representatives, City Staff, City Council and Planning Commission and other interested groups was put together to provide guidance throughout the process. Three stakeholder meetings were held at which stakeholders were asked to draw transportation routes on maps. Those maps were then put together for the draft plan that was presented. · Public Input Meeting - Purpose: To get input from residents and other interested persons. . Traffic Forecasting - Purpose: To look attuture traffic amounts to help in determining how each roadway should be classified. Minier stated that they worked with the St. Cloud APO regional traffic forecasting model to include future land use. They also used work done during previous corridor studies. Minier added that the City also requested that trails be included in the Transportation Plan. As a result, she stated that they worked closely with the Park Board to include a future trail map as part of the plan. After holding multiple stakeholder meetings, public input meetings and meetings with the APO and the Park Board the Plan was developed. Part of the Transportation Plan includes a Recommendation Table. This table provides a right-of-way footprint for each future minor arterial and collector roadway within the City, again considering full build out. The purpose of this table is to provide a short and useable table for City Staff to use when looking at new developments within the City. Carlbom raised some questions regarding the possible Field Street Corridor and what impact that decision will have on the Transportation Plan. He stated that the design of College Avenue will change depending on the outcome of the Corridor Study. 1. Carlbom questioned the change in College Avenue as follows: · College Avenue from North Corridor to Field Street · College Avenue from Field Street to east of Jade Road 2-3 lane 4 lane December 21, 2006 Page 2 of 3 Minier explained that Field Street is the breaking poiht as the area north of Field Street leads to developed areas within the City and, based on traffic forecasts, there will be less than half ofthe amount of traffic extending from Field Street to east of Jade Road. 2. If Field Street does not actually get built, what happens to the traffic to the west of College Avenue? Minier stated that if Field Street does not happen, College Avenue would be classified as a collector road rather than a minor arterial roadway. She stated that the firm working on the Field Street Study will provide options as to where traffic will be directed if Field Street is not constructed and this can be reviewed again once that study is complete. There were some questions raised by Councilor Wick as well. 1. Wick questioned the access spacing guidelines as presented. He stated that the changes to the specifications in the 20/30 plan have not been reflected. Wick advised Minier that there were some chahges made to the speed limits for differeht types of roadways. 2. There was also some disappointment regarding the changing of several streets from neighborhood streets to community collectors. These streets include: Iris, Elm, Ash, 2nd, 1ih, Pond View, 3rd and 2nd Avenue NW. Ekola stated that these streets may not be widened as there are houses currently along most of these roadways. Minier added that it is hard to define a neighborhood road versus a community collector. Wick stated he is most concerned with 12th Avenue as there are many driveways along 1ih. When people built those homes, it was a neighborhood street. Rassier stated that 1 ih Avenue is a difficult roadway in that it already has a stop light at the intersection of CR 75. Minier added that traffic volume will increase along 1 ih regardless of how it is classified because of where it is located. In the study, it is proposed that 1ih become a future 3-lane road to provide for a middle turn lane. Wick stated his main concern with 12th Avenue becoming a community collector is the increase in truck traffic. In his opinion, the City should design streets to go around neighborhood streets rather than through developments. Carlbom advised Wick that this is an issue that the City will need to deal with to create flow throughout the City. Minier added that if 1 ih Avenue is not extended, the City may look at this not being a truck route, but the City needs another North-South Collector within the City. Carlbom added that if Field Street is not approved, traffic will need to be re-directed somewhere and Minnesota and 1 ih would be the most likely spot for that traffic to go. Wick stated that he is not concerned with the extension of 1 ih rather the change from a neighborhood roadway to a community collector. Rieke stated that this Transportation Plan is a tool to help the City in the future. As an option, he questioned the possibility of the traffic being directed east to the future 20th Avenue which will probably be developed as commercial. Rassier stated, however, that 12th Avenue is the easiest route because of the existing intersection with CR 75. Minier advised the Council that the re- location of the school is contributing to a lot of the changes in traffic patterns. Wick stressed that he is most concerned with the re-classification of those streets that were developed as neighborhood streets. From a City standpoint, Rieke stated that people who built homes in the affected areas were able to look at plats prior to building homes. On the other hand, he also stated that it was a mistake on the City's part to allow driveway access to 1ih Avenue. Carlbom stated that as the City grows, neighborhood roadways will also change. Rassier agreed. He added that the City tries to make the best decisions, but there are examples such as December 21, 2006 Page 3 of 3 Graceview Estates when a decision is made to allow for curvy roads and cul-de-sacs and the City must decide if it was the right decision for the future of the City. Ekola concluded by stating that the City must determine which level of service is acceptable for each neighborhoods. Minier advised the Council that it would be best to update the Transportation Plan as the Comprehensive . Plan is updated. Carlbom stated that he hopes to get conclusion on the Field Street Study early in 2007. Carlbom stated that a good Transportation Plan focuses on both Transit and Transportation Corridors. He questioned whether Transit was considered during the stUdy process. Minier stated that when the plan was started, Transit was considered. However, since the Council made the decision to not participate in Transit, it was no longer considered. Miner stated that a good Transportation Plan is reviewed similar to the Comprehensive Plan and at some point Transit will be added. Carlbom questioned how the Stakeholder Meetings were structured and whether or not there was enough public input. Minier stated that the stakeholders were divided into three groups, each of which worked on putting roadways on the map. She stated that an additional stakeholder meeting was added and, in her opinion, another public meeting could have been added. Carlbom stressed that this is a big decision for the entire community. However, Minier stated that, since the document is so technical in nature, it is hard to be technical with a large amount of citizen input. Rassier questioned the trails as shown on Figure 9. He clarified that the goal was to connect the trails throughout the City. Minier stated that there are some neighborhood sidewalks that are not shown, but they are part of the trail connection within the City. Ekola stated that City Ordinance requires that developers connect future trails with the existing trails within the City. Rieke addressed the Council as one of the members of the stakeholder group. He stated that the group was divided into three and each group was asked to draw the various roadways on the maps. He said it was interesting to see how common the maps were among the groups. In his opinion, the meetings accomplished what they were supposed to do. He added that the extension of 1 ih Avenue was shown on 2 of the 3 maps. Carlbom concluded by stating that the Transportation Plan will be reviewed in depth by the City Council, but he urged businesses and citizens to provide input regarding the document to ensure that the Council can make informed decisions regarding future transportation in the City. Adjourn: Symanietz made a motion to adjourn at 6:50 PM; seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. . Judy Weyrens Administrator December 21, 2006 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St.Joseph met in regular session on Thursday, December 21,2006 at 7:0.0. PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: MayorRichard Carlbom, Councilors AI Rassier, Dale Wick, Ross Rieke, Renee Symanietz, City Administrator Judy Weyrens City Representatives Present: City Engineer Tracy Ekola, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich Others Present: Ken Hiemenz, Mike McDonald, Margy Hughes, Sr. Thomasette, Sr. Maritrese Woida, Sr. Kara Hennes, Sr. Paula Revier, Bob & Ellen Wahlstrom, Gary Sneide Approve AQenda: Symanietz made a motion to approve the agenda with the following changes: Move 3(i) AFSCME Labor Contract - to be discussed prior to City Engineer Reports The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Consent Aoenda: Symanietz made a moti()n to approve the consent agenda as follows: a. Bills Payable - Approve check numbers 038198 - 038241. b. Minutes - Approve the minutes of Novernber 30 and December 7, 2006 c. 2007 Budget - Approve Resolution 2006-046 Adopting the 2006 Tax Levy, Collectible in 2007. d. Ordinance Amendments - Clarify that the Amendments to the Ordinances 52.11, 52.21, 52.09,54,51,56,52.27,52;34,52.12,52.32,52.33,84 and 44 were approved on December 7, 2006 and the same was to be published. e. Ordinance Amendments - Clarify that Resolutions 2006-040, 2006-041, 2006~042, 2006- 043 and 2006-044 were approved on December 7, 2006 authorizing that the amendments to Ordinances 52.11, 52.21, 52.09, 51 and 84 be published by summary publication. f. SCAWAC Report - Requested Action: Clarify that the City supports the St. Cloud Area Wastewater Treatment Facility - Facilities Plan Completed by Black & Veatch Corporation by City Council Resolution 2006~045 rather than 2006-050 as approved on December 7,2006. g. Application for Payment - Authorize the Mayor to execute Pay Application #3 for the Centennial Park Pavilion Project and authorize payment to W. Gohman Construction in the amount of $22,874. h. Liability Insurance - Authorize the Administrator to execute the LMCIT Liability Coverage Waiver Form, verifying that the City does not waive the monetary limits on tort liability. i. Moved for discussion before City Engineer Reports. j. Data ViewOn Line - Authorize execution of the contract between the City of St. Joseph and SEH for Data View On Line. k. Donation - Accept the donation of an AED from the Central MN Heart Center. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE AGENDA Margy Hughes, 128 Able Ct. E, approached the Council to speak in reference to the Transportation Plan that was presented earlier. She stated that she was selected as one of the citizen stakeholders. In her opinion, the process was very technical in nature and she did not feel as though she had enough opportunity for input. She added that although Field Street was included on the maps, she was not in favor of Field Street and felt that if Field Street is not approved, that road be classified as an East-West Collector rather than a Minor Arterial. Hughes also stated that more public inpLJt was needed during the process. December 21,2006 Page 2 of 4 Hughes made reference to Page 36 Section 6.2,7 of the Transportation Plan which states: "The City of S1. Joseph began collecting a portion of the S1. Cloud Area Y2-cent sales tax in 2006. This tax revenue can be used by the City for regional transportation projects, as well as other regional type projects within the City. Based on the regional requirement, the streets th!3t are eligible for utilizing this method of financing include arterial and collectors streets." Hughes advised the Council that when the sales tax was voted on, citizens were asked what they would like the City to spend that money on. In her opinion the results indicated that roads were not the number one priority. She also added that S1. Joseph is a low priority area for funding from MN Dot and questioned how the construction of future roads will be funded. Steve Frank, 606 Birch Street W, approached the Council as well. He had two questions: 1. Transportation Plan - He clarified that there will be a formal public hearing before the Transportation Plan is adopted by the City. 2. Bills Payable - Frank questioned some bank fees as listed on the bills payable. Weyrens explained that when a check is returned for insufficient funds that check is then turned over to a collection agency and they collect the money as well in addition to the funds needed to cover the bank costs incurred by the City. She also stated that if a contract requests that payment be made electronically, a fee is charged, but that fee is charged back to the contractor. Michael McDonald, 213- 1jh Avenue SE, addressed the Council regarding the proposed Transportation Plan. McDonald stated that he too was a citizen stakeholder for the Transportation Plan and in his opinion, there was plenty of public input. McDonald clarified the difference between an opinion being included on the map and one that is not. He stated that one of his suggested roads did not make it in the Transportation Plan but that does not mean that he did not have the opportunity for input. He agreed that the process was very technicarin nature and he stated that he did not understand all of the traffic modeling. He was hoping that the College and Monastery would have provided theirJuture plans to the Stakeholders as their plans will have a huge impact on the City. Carlbom advised McDonald that the College is currently doing some master planning and it is anticipated that those plans will be shared with the Community. Rieke thanked all those who participated in the adoption of the Transportation plan. include stakeholders and residents who attended the public input meetings. AFSCME Labor Contract: Weyrens reported that the negotiating committee met with the Union and a tentative deal was made prior to the results of the Springsted Study. Since then, the City has requested to amend the contract to add two more maintenance employees to work weekends. The Union has not approved the amended contract. Carlbom added that with the new Water Treatment Plant coming online in February or March, two of the current maintenance employees will be dedicating most of their time to learning how to run the new plant. With the possibility of snow in February and March, it is disappointing that the Union will not approve the hiring of the two new employees simply due to the weekend requirements. He also stated that there seems to be some confusion between the City and the Union as to the original contract. Rassier stated that the implementation of the Springsted Study was also addressed during the original contract negotiations. Tom Jovanovich, City Attorney, was also present. He stated that he was under the understanding that both the Springsted Study and the weekend maintenance employees were part of the original negotiations. Due to the fact that the contract was never negotiated to conclusion, it is unfair for the Union to claim Unfair Labor Practices as the Council must also approve the contract, rather than just the Union. He believes that the outstanding issue is that of the weekend maintenance employees and how that language should be added to the contract. Rassier stated that, on behalf of the negotiating committee, the negotiations are not completed. December 21, 2006 Page 3 of 4 Rassier made a motion to reject the contract as proposed by AFSCME The motion was sec,onded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. CITY ENGINEER REPORTS Water Treatment Plant: Recently, the Council was taken on a tour of the new Water Treatment Plant to see the current progress. The Plant is ahead of schedule and it is anticipated that they will begin making water in mid February. . Symanietz made a motion to authorizeSEH to prepare a revised Feasibility Report and the Design Plans and Specifications for the 2007 Jade Road Improvements. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. MAYOR REPORTS Mavors/Administrators Meetina: Carlbom reported that he and Weyrens attended a meeting for the area Mayor and Administrators at which they discussedupcoming Legislative issues and LGA changes. He added that Sartell's City Administrator is going to prepare a document to be distributed to the area cities regarding the priorities for the legislative session for the St. Cloud Area. APO Executive Committee Meetina: Carlbom stated that they discussed the ability to lobby Washington DC and Congress for the Sauk Rapids Bridge. Mavors Luncheon: Weyrens, Jansky and Carlbom met with the Deans of Students from St. Johns as well as the College of St. Benedict to discuss issues surrounding Senior Farewell. EDA Meetina: Carlbom reported that he attended the last EDA meeting. School: Carlbom stated that he met with Weyrens and the School District to discuss the Storm Water Fees for the School Site. SYMANIETZ - No Report WICK - No Report RASSIER - No Report COUNCIL REPORTS RIEKE St. Cloud Area Economic Development Group: Rieke reported that he attended the St. Cloud Partnership Annual Meeting at which time they presented the year-end report. The meeting also included representatives from Artie Cat. December 21,2006 Page 4 of 4 EDAMeetinq: Rieke stated that he was present for the final EDA meeting at which they did their end of year wrapup as well as began looking at their goals for 2007. ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS Sales Tax - Joint Powers Aqreement: Recently, the City has been reviewing the Joint Powers Agreement for the Y2 cent Sales Tax. Due to some vague wording in the agreement, the City is suggesting a proposal to St. Cloud in either Section 7.2 or 5.3 to state "once funds are distributed, they are the sole property of the Participants. Wick made a motion to authorize execution of the agreement by the end of the year with the proposed changes. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Proposed LiQuorOrdinance Update: Weyrens advised the Council that the Meeting Grounds is requesting to begin selling wine and beer; however, based on the current Ordinance, they must pay half of the intoxicating liquor license fees. The current Ordinance also states that 70% of sales must come from food. Based on information provided by the City Attorney, coffee is not food. Therefore, if a wine license is issued, the Meeting Grounds must meet the food sale requirement. The attorney has prepared a proposed Ordinance change, but the City must first decide if they want to consider reducing the fees to make these items more readily available. This matter is information at this time and a final draft will be prepared for Council review whel1 all outstanding issues are resolved. Outdoor Events: Weyrens stated that the City has received two requests for outdoor events to extend beyond the Ordinance ending time of 9:30 PM. The current Ordinance states that all Outdoor Events must be over by 9:30 PM and recently, there have been more and more requests for events to extend beyond that time. Most recently, the College has contacted the City regarding an outdoor event with approximately 5,000 people to last until 11 :00 PM. The Church of St. Joseph has also requested to hold the Bobby Vee Concert again this summer. According to Chief Jansky, if the City is going to keep making exceptions to the Ordinance, it may be better to change the Ordinance to allow for some outdoor events. Weyrens stated that there would need to be objective criteria set up as to when these events should be allowed. Rassier stated that if the Ordinance relating to outdoor events is changed, the noise ordinance would need to be amended as well. Wick stated that it is a balancing act as there are some events that are good for the City and others that are not. According to Carlbom, we need to make decisions which are in the best interest of the City. Jansky stated that, in the past, staff had been working with some establishments such as the Stonehouse for outdoor events. Weyrens stated that she would take the matter back to the staff to develop a proposed Ordinance Amendment for review at a later meeting. Colleqe Coffee Shop: Carlbom questioned whether or not underage students can be in the Coffee Shop past 9 PM since they now have a full liquor license and are selling wine. Jansky stated that they can be there if they are accompanied by an of-age person and they are there for the purpose of eating. If not, they must be out by 9:00 PM. Jansky assured the Council that the College will be included in the alcohol compliance checks. SW Beltwav: Weyrens reported that the APO has received four proposals for the SW Beltway. Proposals were submitted by SRF, WSB, Ahres, and Edwards and Kelcey. A TAC group has been formed to review the proposals and each area city will have a representative. Adiourn: Symanietz made a motion to adjourn at; seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Judy Weyrens Administrator I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Easements - 2007 Storm Sewer Replacement DATE: January 18,2007 ORIGINA TING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Easements - 2007 Storm Sewer Replacement PREVIOUS ACTION The City Council has authorized the replacement of the storm sewer from Cypress Drive to the Millstream Monastery. The plans include placing the new storm sewer line along the road right-of-way. During the design it was noted that additional area is needed. Therefore, the City Engineer has met with the affected property owners to secure the needed easements. It is my understanding that they are agreeable to providing the needed area. Therefore, the City Attorney has drafted the easement documents and the Council will need to authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute the same. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute the easements for the 2007 Storm Sewer Replacement. FISCAL IMPACT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS 11 Seventh Avenue North P.O. Box 1433 St. Cloud, MN 56302-1433 320-251-1055 Toll Free 800-445-9617 Fax 320-251-5896 rajhan@rajhan.com www.rajhan.com Frank J. Rajkowski." Gordon H. Hansmeier Frederick L. Grunke Thomas G. Jovanovich" Paul A. Rajkowski" Kevin F. Gray William J. Cashman Richard W. Sobalvarro . LeAnne D. Miller Peter J. Fuchsteiner Susan M. Dege Sarah L. Smith-Larkin" Troy A. Poetz Gregory J. Haupert Jason T. Bretto Matthew W. Moehrle Melissia R. Christianson Kristi D. Stanislawski "IIWRajkOWSki _ · r - tA~~~~~~I lid. January 15, 2007 Judy Weyrens City Administrator P.O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 RE: City of St. Joseph - Easements Our File No. 26177 REceIVED JAN 1 6 2007 CITY OF ST. JOSEPH Enclosed please find three Easements. We have prepared the Easements based on legal descriptions from Bob Klein of S.E.H. You are to obtain the signatures from the owners of the property and inform Bob Klein when this has been done. The Easements will have to be recorded with the Stearns County Recorder. ElMember of American Board of Trial Advocates. ~Oualifjec; .ADR Neutral. 1. 2. 3. Angeline Turbes - Permanent Drainage and Utility Easement; Thomas and Shelly Thomas - Permanent Utility Easements; and Sisters of the Order of Saint Benedict - Permanent Utility Easement. There is also an existing Easement on the Thomas property that will need to be vacated after the Utility Easement is relocated. Frank J. Rajkowski and Jason T. Bretto are admitted to practice in North Dakota, Gordon f-i. Hansmeier in North Dakota._ South Dakota and Wisconsin, Paul A. Rajkowskf and Sarah!... Smith-Larkin in VlJisconsin, '0/illiam 1. Cashman in South Dakota, and Richard Vt< ScbaivarrD in NOrdl Dakota and South Dakat;.; Dear Judy: The Easements are as follows: If you have any questions regarding the above, please advise. Sincerely, TGJlbaw Enclosure c. Bob Klein 1 RAJKOW HANSME~~ rJr / I / 6 ..A / . ,^ , . ; f By I / Thomas G. Jovanovich / 1/---/ I v PERMANENT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT This agreement is made this _ day of , 2007, by and between Angeline Turbes, a single person, hereinafter called "Grantor," and the City of St. Joseph, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "Grantee." That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, paid this date by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey to the Grantee and its assigns, forever, a perpetual easement for drainage and utilities, through and under the following described premises situated in the County of Steams, State of Minnesota, to-wit: A perpetual drainage and utility easement over, under and across that part of Outlot A of Hollow Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Steams County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of Lot Eleven (11), Block One (1), of said Hollow Park; thence South 52 degrees 13 minutes 14 seconds East, plat bearing, along the northeasterly line of said Hollow Park, 66.00 feet to the north comer of said Outlot A and the point of beginning; thence southerly a distance of 66.25 feet along the westerly line of said Outlot A and along a curve concave to the east and not tangent with the last described line, said curve has a radius of 101.95 feet, a central angle of 37 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds, and the chord of said curve bears South 19 degrees 09 minutes 43 seconds West; thence South 00 degrees 32 minutes 40 seconds West, along said westerly line, 98.85 feet; thence South 53 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds East, 18.60 feet to a point 15.00 feet east of said westerly line as measured at right angles; thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes 40 seconds East, along a line parallel with and 15.00 feet east of said westerly line, 109.84 feet; thence northerly along a line parallel with and 15.00 feet easterly of said westerly line and along a tangential curve concave to the east, radius 86.95 feet, central angle 37 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds, 56.51 feet to the northeasterly line of said Outlot A; thence North 52 degrees 13 minutes 14 1 seconds West, along a line not tangent to said curve a distance of 15.00 feet to the point of beginning. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD UNTO said Grantee, its successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto executed this document the day and year first above written. GRANTOR Angeline Turbes STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on Turbes, a single person, Grantor. , 2007, by Angeline NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL GRANTEE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA By Richard Carlbom, Its Mayor By Judy Weyrens, Its City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF STEARNS ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2007, by Richard Carlbom and Judy Weyrens, the Mayor and the City Administrator respectively of the City of St. Joseph, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation, Grantee. NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL 2 TAX STATEMENTS FOR THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE SENT TO PREVIOUS OWNER THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY: Thomas G. Jovanovich - 5284X Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. 11 Seventh Avenue North P.O. Box 1433 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Telephone: (320) 251-1055 3 PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT This agreement is made this _ day of , 2007, by and between David A. Thomas and Shelley A. Thomas, husband and wife, hereinafter called "Grantors" and the City of St. Joseph, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "Grantee." That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, paid this date by Grantee to Grantors the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey to the Grantee and its assigns, forever, a perpetual easement for utilities, through and under the following described premises situated in the County of Stearns, State of Minnesota, to-wit: A perpetual utility easement over, under and across that part of Lot Eleven (11), Block One (1) of Hollow Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Stearns County, Minnesota. Said easement lies northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Lot 11; thence North 89 degrees 27 minutes 20 seconds West, plat bearing, along the north line of said Lot 11 a distance of 37.83 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 55 degrees 46 minutes 18 seconds East, 31.49 feet to the easterly line of said Lot 11 and there terminate. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD UNTO said Grantee, its successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto executed this document the day and year first above written. GRANTORS David A. Thomas Shelley A. Thomas 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF STEARNS ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on Thomas and Shelley A. Thomas, husband and wife, Grantors. , 2007, by David A. NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL GRANTEE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA By Richard Carlbom, Its Mayor By Judy Weyrens, Its City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) .) ss. COUNTY OF STEARNS ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on ,2007, by Richard Carlbom and Judy Weyrens, the Mayor and the City Administrator respectively of the City of St. Joseph, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation, Grantee. NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL TAX STATEMENTS FOR THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE SENT TO PREVIOUS OWNER THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY: Thomas G. Jovanovich - 5284X Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. 11 Seventh Avenue North P.O. Box 1433 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Telephone: (320) 251-1055 2 PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENTS This agreement is made this _ day of , 2007, by and between the Sisters of the Order of Saint Benedict a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "Grantor" and the City of St. Joseph, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "Grantee." That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, paid this date by Grantee to Grantor the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey to the Grantee and its assigns, forever, perpetual easements for utilities, through and under the following described premises situated in the County of Stearns, State of Minnesota, to-wit: . Utility Easement 1: A perpetual utility easement over, under and across that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 124, Range 29, Stearns County, Minnesota. Said easement lies southwesterly of the southwesterly right-of-way line of County Road 75 and northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast comer of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 52 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 660.16 feet to the point of beginning of said line; thence North 59 degrees 03 minutes 40 seconds West, 304.26 feet; thence North 69 degrees 03 minutes 41 seconds West, 72.21 feet; thence North 30 degrees 08 minutes 14 seconds West, 62.81 feet; thence North 71 degrees 12 minutes 34 seconds West, 122.51 feet; thence North 10 degrees 33 minutes 54 seconds East, 22 feet more or less to said southwesterly right-of-way line and there terminate said line. 1 Utility Easement 2: A perpetual utility easement over, under and across that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 124, Range 29, Steams County, Minnesota. Said easement lies easterly of the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, southwesterly of the southwesterly right-of-way line of Old T.H. No. 52 and northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 52 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 660.16 feet to the point of beginning of said line; thence South 56 degrees 47 minutes 50 seconds East, 145.89 feet to the north line of Lot 11, Block 1 of Hollow Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Steams County, Minnesota; thence North 89 degrees 31 minutes 08 seconds East, along the north line of said Lot 11 a distance of 37.83 feet to said southwesterly right-of-way line and there terminate. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto executed this document the day and year first above written. GRANTOR SISTERS OF THE ORDER OF SAINT BENEDICT By Kara Hennes, Its Treasurer ST ATE OF MINNESOTA) . ) ss. COUNTY OF STEARNS ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2007, by Kara Hennes, the Treasurer of the Sisters of the Order of Saint Benedict, a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf ofthe corporation, Grantor. NOT ARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL 2 GRANTEE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA By Richard Carlbom, Its Mayor By Judy Weyrens, Its City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF STEARNS ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2007, by Richard Carlbom and Judy Weyrens, the Mayor and the City Administrator respectively of the City of St. Joseph, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation, Grantee. NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL TAX STATEMENTS FOR THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE SENT TO PREVIOUS OWNER THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY: Thomas G. Jovanovich - 5284X Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. 11 Seventh Avenue North P.O. Box 1433 St. Cloud,MN 56302 Telephone: (320) 251-1055 3 12/1512006 2=38=05 PM n 0 0 :I: "'. :tl '" VI >>0 n '"' '" " z '" z '" 0 0 '" '" :tl -< VI '" ;; ~ Z -i '" -i :tl :tl >>0 '" ,.. " < '" '" % p:\pt\&\stjoe\070BOO\cad\pJot\sj708tc.dgn o z ? '" -< o >>0 -i '" :tl '" < VI o Z VI ~~~~;!!o f;-<UI~~~ actl1a'o P'lZ % ZO;::o CA.. ':0.... C 0.. :O-4-;D:a:..... tI1%CIlIao_.- VIa "zr- ?~;g~a6 ~f;t~~~~ ~OQjTlO~ -f~::t;=~~ ~~~:~~ ~2) ~gG ~~ffl~iR~ ~fi:r2!GNO' l"1~-4~o 0.-10:"" "r-J:_ -4r-Pl1i~ :CZI"1 -< 1"10)(0 ~:~i~ lI:I"1UlCP1 .. "'-ig ~~!~;o -"'O-:a.P1 ~~~~~ .. -zo o~g ~ '" z .... "'" :r g~ in -i o o ...... C/) ~b ":n oS: C/) mC/) ~~ ~g:J Z_ zs: m-o C/):n 00 );!r;;j s: m Z cr.l /_.... ./ ; I / / ! / / ! i I I / I I / f I / .. ""7" I I I I / I I / ; / / ; I ; ; f ; ! ; / <)/ ~/ ~/ -J....; i I . 'v I Uti / f f f / i I i " ) / i / I m --< ;u >>0' n -< "'"">-i:- fflgP1~ ~~gm :IE c:-< ~~~~ ~3;:U~ ~",-.~,,' ",",,1'T1i:~ fflo",<-< ~~~~ ?i~~"" I"1U1....... O~tI);;!; ..,OC,U) i:.~~~ ~",$~ ;Jiz~ U)ClO:E 8~z~ ,..~~~ c-a!t: ~;!; "'....'" _0 ..,.~ CDN X~ ""0 CDX N -lC-l ::OVl-< FTlFTI-o Z FTI O~ ::I:::I:Ul FTI FTI OZCII :I> :I> ::0-::0 00::0 ::0:1>- 000 VI :I> VI-O VlFTI n r::o 00 VI ]> /"1"10 o / / i / / f I I I / / / .. i I I / I I / I ; / f / o ~I~ ~~ ~~ ~~ f / ; / ; ; ; ! ! D "'Ul ~a zz ...... "'-i oc: '" ~~ ~ '" o >>0 f I OIU11"'O"''''O G'l-toN:I: (.001000.. o . 0 Nn ~ lr-CONN -00010 -.;lex...... "'0 %N .......... N ........ i::~~ "'0 o / I I i i ! / / / / / / I / ! / I / , I / i o ! / / ! ! i ! ! i ! / ! ! l / I / i j' -l :n )> TI TI o () o Z -l :n o r -0 S; Z / / / ! ! i ! ! / -', , / , , ! I / I I Attachment:. Yes or No.1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Consent Mayor Appointments DATE: . January 18, 2007 Administration ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Mayor Appointments - Requested Action: Accept the 2007 Mayor Appointments as presented. PREVIOUS ACTION RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Accept the appointments as prepared by Mayor Carlbom FISCAL IMPACT COMMENTSIRECOMMENDATIONS Annually the Mayor prepares the Council appointments, which need to be ratified by the City Council. ....: ttl cn~ ...."'0 c:~ (I) '(3 Q) E~ ....0 c:c .- ~ 0<:: Q..!!5 Q.,S <C~ "'0 -<:: nsttl s..c o~ ~1ij ns~ ~ :~ Q) .......0 0'" E O~ N~ Q) ;,.., Q) @ ~ 'ti ~ o <:: Q) ,~ ~ Q) .s o '" '" ..se <:: ::> .s OJ <:: ..se ,S .... ttl ~ Q) <:: o @ <ll '" E ~ ~ ~ .... ~ <l) ;> <l) U5 .r::r <l) 'I Ul <l) <l) !:: <l) ~ a s" c.i '" ..8..8.E .!iJ~~s 5 '00 U U.l:l ~ tI) l- "'"" U ~~~~~ d CIj ~ :;c:~~..s ..c ~ '" ...l 5 .. '" ,... !:: o '00 '~ a o u .... <l) 'S 8 <<"l I E'" ~g t;j~ ~g <<"l<'l '" ... ..s ~ ~ = " '" ~ ~ .. .. ::; ~Oil l'::i::r: ':::';>.. ~.-=: "Ou :=:0... ~~ "~ ~o... 0... 00 ~~ v;r-- " :>; ~'" "0"0 l'::i ~ o ;:l :E!5 ~ -E <'1";- .... a.> u lEi o <l) u fa ~ a.> ~ ,~ :;; E fa o .... l'::i U"'O .s .~ Z <l) aU'" .. ....0 ,::; 0 ~'~ t~gC013E ~:E~"3 ~8 =gf~~:aa.> u'Eg~~:g ........-<o:lU '" 5 " o a ~ -a.....l Z [) a ~ o 0 f-<Z [) l'::i ';) ::r: I ~ 'Sn c ..o~ t>ll0 "'t:Cd~roU)~ "'-ao><..g7il u..><:;~ufa arJ:);;>_~~ ~a~~[)2 :E ~ Ci,U :.::: ~ .f' .... o ..c ~ .... <l) 'S 8 r-- <'I o Z r-- l=l" 0'1 00 <'I ..... 0 <l) o~oo.......--tJ fl2flflflflflfa J.., a..J J-, ~ ~.A s= g ~g g g g g ~ <'1"'<'1<'1<'1<'1<'10 v; ::a ::r: .c U :E 0... o 9- <<"l ~ "0 I': o ;: M .c 'C o <5 ;:l -< 'E1 (l) S 0.. o o ;> <l) Ci U '13 o I': o U ~ a e.o~",_ ~ ge.o O::::I':~ 0 -0 -€a~'a -€01':0-8 oU~E;~O~.l:lO f-< "0:> >, '" f-<.....l u f-< ;>..a"'Ul~^~;>..~ ;>.. ]-5.s1il~] l:: 11] ~~~:EC:SP2~.sP2 00 <5 I': o .... S <l) t>ll'S I': <l) ,- ;> ~ 0 ~z :B~ <l) ;:l -B ~:E ~-<o... ~~g 1il:E-.o (l) " " -B ~::a (l) ;:l::r: ~ .... <l) t; ~.!:: -~~ .... 8 u <l) .... is '" <l) u ';; .... <l) Ul ;>.. u I': <l) t>ll ~ ~ "0 a o o:l ;>.. .... o '" ';; "0 -< <l) .... ~ "0 I i '0 8 .9= '<:) .... ,9 S ~~8 ~ ~ s" o 0 ,- f-<~~ -a~G3 <l)l'::i..... '" <l) ell ~~a ii5ii5~ 4-< <l) :.2 U .~ ~ 4-<~..c ,!=! 'E1 ~ .... 6~:E~ ~'oo ~ ~ ~~~~ Ci ~ l'::i N ~~ ~ ,~ ~ <l)-8 ::!2 ..><~ :@ zo.....a~a~iJ'" ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ Ofa[)~~~[)~~ !5~:.::::ECiU5~-<:E ] o ~ [; 'E \0 " <"l E OM :z: " "Eo,ooo ~~go8 c::....r-;t~~ ._ ~ _ r- 'q' "E ~g88 OM<"l<"lN "0 a o o:l <5 'a a.> ::r: "0 '" <l) ::r: 'E1 <l) E .... '" 0.. <l) Cl 4-< o <l) .... :.2 .... <.E: '" "t <l) S ;>.. "'2 o <l) ~ '13 E 8 OJ) ~ ';: :E 0.. :.2 ..... '" I': I': '0 ::: ..., 0 iJf-< ~ en "O"t I': (l) '" a "'0 (l) ~~ ~ 'E = E '" 0 ~u - OJ) 6,5 ..... = ~@= :E0::I! o(j OJ) = '2 ~ '" 0: tl '.5 '" is = o '~ ,f:' >< .... <l) 0 =..c = ..... <~ bOJ) ~.5 "0 = .... 0 ON E = N o 0..... .o~=' ..... <l) <l) a "0 Cl iJ U =..... ,- ;.... ~ ~ ~ ~-c-5P2 '" '" ,- :E:E:E:;;( ..c 0.. <l) '" o ..., ii5 "tij "0 <l) "0 <l) <l) == ~:t ;>"0.. "'2:.2 o '" ..... ~ ~ g :Ef-< (l) ~ E? E ,~ o"tij U >< OJ)<l) = ~ ,- = E-< '" ;>.. o::~ 'E~ '00 ..., '-' ...: co U>~ ...., c:"2 4111' 13 .", Q) E:S .... ....0 c:~ ._ <t'l o~ c...!!l c.'S <C~ "0 -t:: COCO L..~ ogJ -.t:: ""'..!!l CO .t:: II:::: .;; '::::0, ......15 0'" o~ N~ ~ Q) @ ~ "ti ~ o t:: Q) en .~ Q) .s:: o en '" ~ t:: ::J :S Ol t:: ~ .S .... III ~ Q) t:: o @ CO en ~ ~ ~ .g, ~ ~ o 0 ; ~ 008~ ~ ~ .~~ ~ ..,:.: ...:: 'C (l) en a ~tl8u~ ~~ 8]~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ t;j co 'R .S 1:: 'E .Q ~:ga~~8u5 ..c ~ .. ...l e .. .. Eo< .. .. .. 5: "C = .. .. ~ ~ i .. ~ '" .. (l) e 'C .. .8 Z ';ji ~ 8- -= v eO g] Us a ~ .~ ~ ~~ --e ~Q.. ~,s I~ .... 0 Cl):t= c..o [2 ~'t5 v c:: z 8 ~~ u::;o o~ 00 E E= "0 ::l o o ...... 00 ....:j:j o 0 t"5h..o v......o :a~< D;.l v.2 cu~ o 2 S UCO...:l U5 ] o ..0 tl 'E E t- d' 0 0 00 00 0'\ 0'\ t::............oooo 2000000 t-,~~C'i'~-~~ ~ t- t- "'" .::1""1" "'" >.000000 000000 "" (',l (',l (',l (',l (',l (',l CU -5 (;j 00 '0 cu 5 ..c i:: o 5 ...::::E alP-. CUo '09- >.t- c<l . "0= s:: c<l .g:r:: ""'>' ~G ~ ,~ ~ --..~ .... ::: ~\ll \ll ~ .....:) ;;>. I C .... ~ 8..~ c<l '- ~~ ~ ::: Z'~ ] " 0 tili.:co 06 C;i i8:::~ aSp-. co r/.l a :.;;a ~ o .S 5 N ~~ 5 c..i 0.115 ~ ~ ..8 [) = d::9 a] ,t:ltlS::CU<l) ....;::;~-$!i'l5-.: :::l"O ~ ~ :> 0 <l) '" ';:'~ S :::l U >. c<l <l) I'; - <l) ~ '" 'r;; U -.t: c:l "0 r/.l U 0<1:;-50::....300....&5 u f-;.... <l).... <l)~ c<l '" c.:> c<l ~ <l) ~ '" <l) 0 ~ @ ::.:: '" 5..0 ~ ~'~ ~ u '5 [3 ~ ::E ::E u:i ciL=: ~ :;;: ::E u .E is 0:: ~ ::E -tS 'S (1) "'~ <l) '" ...:l ::l .2 ::E S~ '5 g ::EO ~ <) ~ <l) til o s::: .S: '1 o <) tl 'E E t- s:::" 0'\ 0'1 0 00 00 0 t::oo-oo- <l)000000 ...... (',l (',l (',l (',l (',l (',l a~~r-!.-'+.o::}.r!- <l)000000 >'000000 <"\ (',l (',l (',l (',l (',l (',l ~ u ::E P-. o o ~ .s s:: o 5 ...:: u c<l <l) "-' o ~ "0 s:: o ::E::: c<l ~:r:: ~ o s:: '0; o 00 3 '~ o "Ou @ !>O ~ .S ..,:.: ~ @] P-.P-. - - (',l <"\ ci ci zz <l) <l) u <) Iii a c ~ ~=E 00 s:: o 00 '@ ;.::s .~ '0 > c .... o <l) :; :1 u ~ ~U '2 ~ ]:a P-.P-. c.. :E 00 .... <l) ~ P-. i:: <l) 5 c.. til ~ ~ B ~ <+-< u 0 o ~ <) tl ;g S's ..o-~o 5 ~ c ~ ::l .-:a 0 Z~scil .~ ~ 8 11 '5 c;j >...9 g.E~U C::~~u5 til :r:: ~ ~~u OO~ r;) r;) >, t'r-"!: ~~~ 1l1lg! <l)<l)(Y .f3.f3::E <l) <l) p-. ~~o Egr;) <"\<"\"'" "0 @ o co t) '5 00 is !>O c '2 s:: c<l ~~ E a'J ~< <"0 p-. ::l 0..9 D;.lU i/li/5 ..,:.: s:: ro .... LL. <l) :> <l) U5 til ::c ~ U p-. ~ >, -.: <l) ~ ::l (Y ::E p-. o <"\ ..;t <l) (;j s:: .... 2 :;: o p-. < U r/.l "0 (l) ::: .~ E (l) "0 (l) ..0 o f-; E o ..0 -.: C\S [) U '" .... '" o c<l ~~ ::E::i: vi ::: .2 (;j u ..9 OJ) s:: .... .~ .2 '0 6. ......,:.: ~~ 13 ~ ~- g!"E (Y:;::: ~E "0 '" ~~ ~ !3 ~~ ~ E (l) <) "'" c;j 6 00 .~ u '- o <l) ::l OJ) ro <l) ..J >. C ::l o U >< ro f-; 00 <l) c;j r/.l '" Q) .::: IS ::: 00 Q) ::: '" .... (l) ro .... <l) fr i/5o::: ...: ctl cn~ ....."tJ C.l!l CI) '(3 Q) E::: .....0 Ce- ._ ctl o~ c.-Z5 c.,5; <(~ "tJ -t:: (Octl s..e- O~ ~~ (O~ :Ei Q) t--..Q 0'" o~ N~ ~ Q) ~ ~ 1:i Q) '0 t:: Q) '" '~ Q) J:: '0 '" '" ..se S :S Ol t:: ..se ,5; .... ctl ~ Q) t:: o ~ ctl '" E .l!l ~ >, N N C ~^ S...l<: C d) ,d)_ ~ l::" 0 sg S...... 00 ",,o_O~ ,oCU,oa!::a ... _ -"""-8<1.lo ~80~a~a~~_~ e U f- ,S:! U <I.l U r:/l <I.l r:/l :l:S>'~5e:S<l.l~<I.l .e >,'0 <I.l >,<I.l >,<I.l >,<I.l CU a"@ t':l:.E CU 5'0 5 ::E~Q::Eu::E~~~ ..c %l <ll ...l e ... <ll ... "@ 03 ::I: ::I: v5 C C ...... U U , 0 ...I<: ...I<: ..... 1;1 C t':l U 0... 0... ...c: 2 2 'E <I.l '0;; '0;; <ll -5 " ~ ~ ~ .. >, is: .0 .b .b "Cl .g 13 ..... ..... = <I.l <I.l .. <I.l ::a ~ ~ <ll ...... e 0 <.> :::l :::l !=< >, '0" 0 0 t':l <I.l ::E ~ '0 '0 ::E I::: ~"'O 0... 0... :::l <ll r:/l !:: :::l 0 0 <ll ",.E: <;: <;: ~ - <t::U ..... ..... ..... <I.l !:: ,S! '" l:i '~'" ,~ .... ~ l1) 'u l:i 0 0 <I.l o U '" <.> 'Vi "0 <.B <ll '; E,~ ~ ~o8~f- ;z;u'O~>' <I.l <.> !:: ~"O ~..':l @ :;:.b;:>~ ~ e g ...c: 1;1 eu~fr::I: e"01n~"'@ U Q) 'en ~ '0 ~<iIl~ ~ o ::a o t':l '2' o r:/l 0' '0 1;1 ...c: 1: .~ o ..... u~13...c: _'_'- t.) ~ ~ Q ~ ..<:: <I.l'~ ~ ,S:! 03 E <I.l ::EQ~.Q <I.l <I.l ] -1 <I.l o 0 2.. 'E CO u .....~ <I.l 8 8 '~~ ~ ::I:::I: 8'~ <i ::5 ::5 ~l:iu5b~ ~ ';; .E ~ = '00 Q .~ ,~ ~ :~ .~ ~ ~ g g 0 t':l S CU 0 ::I:<I.l::I:<I.lu~e-e~ <I.l~<I.l~i=Oo...:J~ :DE:DE~ t':l <I.l CU <I.l 0 ~~ ~~ ~ . . . . @<t::@<t::~ <t:: <t:: Q 8 o '" ::e 5 1;1 ~ !>. u.- <I.l .....~~ ~~ >, t':l_'O ::E<t::~ . '0 <I.l '0 <I.l <I.l !:: < "g <I.l ::I: E <I.l ~ 0. <I.l Q I::: o Z I <I.l .1 o u <i l:i !:: o '" ..... <I.l 0... I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION St. Joseph Political Action Group - Phil Welter Field Street DATE: January 18, 2007 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM St. Joseph Action Group, Phil Welter - Field Street PREVIOUS ACTION RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION No action is being requested this item is informative only FISCAL IMPACT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS Phil Welter of the St. Joseph Action Group has requested to be on the City Council agenda to discuss alternatives for Field Street. Welter stated that he would like approximately 20 minutes for a presentation. We have invited WSB to be present at the meeting so that any information could be reviewed with the current study. WSB is not planning on speaking at this meeting, simply taking in the information. The City has been waiting for Cultural Resource to complete their review. WSB has meet with the Federal Highway representatives discussing the various options. Cultural Resource is waiting for some additional information from WSB. It was the intent to have WSB make a formal presentation to the City Council reviewing all the options that have been researched once a decision was forwarded from WSB. Since the St. Joseph Political Action Group has requested to make (:l presentation it made sense to wait with the formal presentation until after that presentation. WSB can take back the comments and review and alternatives. St. Joseph Action Group - Preserving Special Places January, 2007 Alternatives to the Field Street Corridor Introduction The St. Joseph Action Group acknowledges that our growing city will face the need to accommodate increased traffic in the coming years. It is our belief, however, that the official study undertaken thus far has not sufficiently assessed the proposed Field Street Corridor route relative to a broader range of important criteria. These include preserving the small town historic character of our city, the area water table, the impact ofField Street on the significant historic values ofSt. Benedict's Monastery and College property, especially of the intrinsically sacred nature of the Monastic property, the air quality and noise level, impact on downtown businesses, the impact on historic farmsteads and private property, and the potential cost savings of alternative possibilities. Additionally, in the Field Street study, future traffic needs are based on projections using standard methodology and have not utilized systems to reflect changes in air and noise pollution brought about by the loss of green space along with the substantial traffic increase. The Cultural Resources Unit of the Minnesota Department of Transportation has completed a study and has determined that many properties along the Field Street route are eligible for status as a historic district or historic property. Their report concludes that, indeed, the Field Street Corridor would have a negative impact on these sites. Additionally, over 1,100 individuals, mostly St. Joseph citizens, have signed petitions giving testimony to their opposition to Field Street. For many reasons, especially those cited above, the St. Joseph Action Group strongly urges the City Council to vote NO to the mapping/construction ofthe Field Street Corridor. This document presents a list of components which, in various combinations, provide a variety of viable alternatives for coping with the anticipated traffic growth in the south of St. Joseph. These alternative components, to one degree or another, offer the following advantages when compared to the proposed Field Street Corridor: . They are less costly because they make use of some existing roadways. . They are less invasive of private property. . They are more sensitive to environmental factors. It is assumed that in undertaking any of the components which require new construction, appropriate environmental studies would be conducted in determining exact routing. . They allow for the independent consideration of each individual component, enabling planning to be directly responsive to known and specific emerging . - ALTERNATIVE COMPONENT 1 CONNECTION FROM JADE ROAD TO FRONT AGE ROAD ALTERNATIVE COMPONENT 1 addressing the western half of the proposed Field Street (County 2 to County 121) Route Construct a connection from Jade Road immediately south of 1-94, extending northwesterly and parallel to 1-94, to connect with the existin2: fronta2:e road which connects to County 2, near its interchange with 1-94. AnParent Advanta2eS . uses some existing roadway . provides residents in the south of St. Joseph with access to 1-94 as well as anticipated commercial development around the 1- 94/County 2 interchange . offers the longer range possibility of adding an access to 1-94 from Jade Road . relieves traffic on College Avenue and Minnesota Street ALTERNATIVE COMPONENT 2 CONNECTION FROM CO. 121 (AT OR NEAR) 290TH STREET TO THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 20TH A VENUE ALTERNATIVE COMPONENT 2 addressing the eastern half of the proposed Field Street (County 121 to 20th Avenue) Route Construct a connection from County 121, at or near to what is currently designated 290th Street, running in an easterly direction to connect with the proposed extension of 20th Avenue, looping 20th sufficiently east to avoid the Rassier property. warent Advantaees . serves essentially the same purpose, only farther south, as the proposed Field Street, that is, providing an easterly route for those living in the south of St. Joseph toward St. Cloud while avoiding College Avenue and Minnesota Street . impacts significantly fewer private properties . avoids Historic Properties (Rassier and St. Isidore Farmsteads) . is proximate to the new St. Joseph school, positively impacting traffic flow to and from the school VARIATION ON ALTERNATIVE COMPONENT 2 INSTEAD. OF CONNECTING WITH 20TH AVENUE, TURN NORTHEAST BEFORE CROSSING THE RIVER FORMING A RIVER BOULEVARD CONNECTING WITH CO. 75 (WITH AN ADDITIONAL OPTION OF CROSSING THE RIVER AND CONNECTING WITH CO. 138 (AND 23?) ~ ?:. . " .:5...... ? Some Route Variations for Alternative 2 Instead of connecting with CSAH 75 via 20th Avenue, extend this road farther east, nearly to the Sa uk River, then turn north and, while following the contour of the river, become a "greenway boulevard" eventually connecting to CSAH 75. Then, there is an additional possibility of continuing east and crossing the river connecting with County 138. warent Advanta2eS . This variation offers a road which could protect the river from development and, along with walking and bike trails in a park- like setting, could become an attractive and environmentally sound component . Utilizing the additional option of crossing the river, this variation then offers access to west St. Cloud and points beyond without using the heavily traveled CSAH 75. AL TERNA TIVE COMPONENT 3 UPGRADE THE CONNECTION OF CO. 121 WITH CO. 138 (WITH THE ADDITIONAL POSSIBILITY OF IMPROVING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CO. 138 AND HWY. 23) ALTERNATIVE COMPONENT 3 addressing the eastern half of Field Street Route Upgrade the present County 121 connection to County 138, enabling through access north to County 75. An additional possibility could be to improve the existing connection between County 138 and Hwy 23, enabling access to west St. Cloud and points beyond without using the heavily traveled CSAH 75. AJ!parent Advanta2eS . uses existing roadways throughout . takes no private property . provides relief from congestion on CSAH 75 . provides an additional access to St. Cloud for residents in the south of St. Joseph AL TERNA TlVE COMPONENT 4 FIELD STREET FROM CO. 121 TO 7TH AVENUE ONLY ,("7 .~ ,.6,' II ::. ~ lu I" .u oJ oJ o V ~ "::> <t:: ~ c- AL TERNATlVE COMPONENT 4 addressing the eastern half of Field Street Route Construct only a portion of the Field Street, a connecting road from County 121 to 7th Avenue warent Advantae:es . offers residents in the south of St. Joseph access to existing east- west streets some of which could become through streets and provide access to CSAH 75 . uses some existing roadways . relieves traffic on College Avenue and Minnesota Street Conclusion If current plans to construct the northern connection between CSAH 2 and Hwy 75 remain the first project/component to be undertaken, we strongly recommend that at this time it be the only component to which a commitment/mapping be made. This would enable its impact on all area traffic patterns to be carefully studied and clearly determined. Subsequent projects could then be proposed based on the resulting relevant data and known facts rather than on assumptions and projections. We believe such carefully considered incremental planning is the only prudent and responsible approach for the City of St. Joseph to take in addressing this issue. Conclusion If current plans to construct the northern connection between CSAH 2 and Hwy 75 remain the first project/component to be undertaken, we strongly recommend that at this time it be the onlv component to which a commitment/mapping be made. This would enable its impact on all area traffic patterns to be carefully studied and clearly determined. Subsequent projects could then be proposed based on the resulting relevant data and known facts rather than on assumptions and projections. We believe such carefully considered incremental planning is the only prudent and responsible approach for the City of St. Joseph to take in addressing this issue. Water Tank Evaluation 500,000 Gallon Elevated Tank City of St. Joseph, Minnesota SEH No. A-ST JOE061 0.00 December 8, 2006 ~ SEH Multidisciplined. Single Source. Trusted solutions for more than 75 years. ~ SEH January 11, 2007 RE: St. Joseph, Minnesota Water Tank Evaluation . 500,000 Gallon Elevated Tank SEH No.A-STJOE061 0.00 Ms. Judy Weyrens City Clerk City of St. Joseph 25 College Avenue N St. Joseph, MN 56374-0668 Dear Ms. Weyrens: We are submitting three copies of the Water Tower Evaluation that Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH@) conducted on the City's 500,000 Gallon Elevated Tank. At this time we are also providing you with supplemental information and the supporting Dive video provided by Liquid Engineering Corporation regarding tanks interior immersion area. The enclosed report is separated into four sections: general information, recommendations, summary, and appendices. The recommendation section includes our proposal for the maintenance and or reconditioning for this tank, prioritized, with a corresponding cost estimate. Structural commentary referencing the foundation and plate condition, applicable coating analysis, Coating Summary and Accessory sheets are located in the summary section of this report. The evaluation criteria and methods, lab results for paint chip analysis, photographs and associated standards are found in the appendix. Both the interior and exterior of the tank appears to be in good condition structurally. A number of minor to moderate coating failures were observed along interior immersion surfaces. The tanks exterior coating is in good condition with only moderate chalking and (spot rust or abrasions) observed. Based on our evaluation, SEH recommends partial reconditioning of tank immersion surfaces, specific areas and repair methods are defined within the recommendation section of this report. Maintenance work should also be considered for the tank exterior and include power-washing and spot coating repairs. Scheduling of this work is suggested for within the next 12 months to avoid further damage to failed areas. At the same time, maintenance repairs and tank upgrades, as defined, should be made to extend the tank's service life. The estimated cost for this project is $51,000.00. A cost breakdown is included in this report, along with a recommended timetable. Accomplishing the recommended work, and continuing with minor periodic maintenance, should enable this facility to provide uninterrupted service over the next 5 years, at which time the tank should be re-evaluated. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, 51. Paul, MN 55110-5196 5EH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651.490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 651.490.2150 fax 11s. Judy VVeyrens January 11,2007 Page 2 VV e would be happy to present this report to the City and discuss our findings at your convenience. If you have any questions regarding this report please contact me at 651.490.2160. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. ~~ Daniel J. Zien; ~ . . ~ 1 AssociatelSr. Professional SpecIalist NACE Coatings Inspector No. 3186 s:\pt\s\stjoe\061 OOO\reports&specs\r\water tank evaluation. doc Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Title Page Table of Contents Page Tank Evaluation Field Report....... ...................................... .................. ....................1 1.0 Remain ing Tan k Life.............................. ...... .... ...................... ............... ................. ....2 2.0 Recommendations......... ........ .... .... ...... .......... ...... .... .... .... ..... ... .... ...... .................. .... ..2 2.1 Interior Structural................................................................................................2 2.2 Exterior Structural...............................................................................................2 2.3 Telecommunication.............................................................................................2 2.4 Cathodic Protection.............................................................................................2 2.5 Interior Coating...................................................................................................3 2.5.1 Interior Dry ............... .................. .... .............. .... .................................... ...3 2.6 Exterior Coating..................................................................................................3 3.0 Engineers Estimate .. ...... ......... .......... ... .... .... .... ...... .... .... .... ....... .... .... .... ...... .... .... .... ..4 4.0 Summary.. ...... ...... ........ .... .... .... ...... ...... ..... ... .... ...... .... .... .... ...... .... ........ .......... ............4 4.1 Standard of Care.................................................................................................4 4.2 Structural Evaluation...........................................................................................5 4.2.1 Coating Evaluation..................................................................................5 Coating Summaries.. ...... .... .... .... ...... .... .... .... .... .......... .... .... ...... ..... .... .... ...... .... .... .... ..6 1. 2. 3. 4. List of Appendices Tank Evaluation Procedures ASTM Standards LEC Report Photo CD SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Water Tank Evaluation St. Joseph, Minnesota A-ST JOE061 0.00 Page i Tank Evaluation Field Report General Information Proiect: 500, 000 Gallon Elevated Tank Proiect No.: A-STJOE061O.00 Owner: City of St. Joseoh Contact: Mr. Dick Taufen Address: 25 College Avenue N. Evaluation Date: October 11,2006 I Evaluated Dan Zienty Bv: Site College Avenue N. and Elm St. North: Parking lot South: Residential East: Commercial West: Residential Security: Exterior lighting, but no fencing Obstructions: None Overflow Discharge Orientation: North Direction of Site Drainage: North Tank Information I Manufacturer: Chicago Bridge & Iron I Year Built: 1993 I Contract No: T20746' I Capacity Construction Height Diameter To Bottom Drawings (Gallons) Style I Type (Feet) (Feet) 500,000 Fluted I Steel 117 50' -10" Yes Coating Information Interior Wet Interior Dry Exterior Date Last Painted 1993 1993 1993 Painting Contractor CB&I CB&I CB&I Total or Partial Total Total Total Surface Preparation SP-I0 SP-6 SP-6 Coating System Epoxy Epoxy Epoxy/urethane . Coating Manufacturer Tnemec Tnemec Tnemec Water Tank Evaluation St. Joseph, Minnesota A-STJOE061 0.00 Page 1 1.0 Remaining Tank Life Upon completion of the recommended modifications, repairs, and coating application, this tank should continue to provide service to the City of St. Joseph through the next evaluation cycle. The normal expectancy of an elevated tower is 60+ years when prescribed periodic maintenance is followed. Periodic maintenance following guidelines as prescribed by A WW A in Manual M42 is recommended. 2.0 Recommendations Based on the information obtained during our Field Evaluation Process we recommend the following: 2.1 Interior Structural 1. Re-seal as applicable the following with elastomeric caulk to inhibit the occurrence of rust bleed: Gaps in the lapped plates including the dollar to roof plate, and roof to roof radial/torus plates (seams above the normal waterline) Roof openings and other roof penetrations At the intermittently welded roof stiffener angles, compression ring, outer painter's rail to within 1 ft. ofthe normal waterline 2.2 2. Add an aluminum jacket extending from the base of the tank to the bottom bowl entry Exterior Structural 1. ModifY the existing vent surrounding the access tube on the roof. This should be done in a manner that prevents incoming rain water, or the possibility of contaminants from entering 2. Clean out the existing overflow pipe at the discharge and replace the screen with a corrosion resistant 3/8" or larger mesh screen 3. Provide new locks for all roof hatches 4. Replace shell gasket Telecommunication . Install signage at the point-of-entry indicating the possibility of radio frequency (RF) exposure . Current location of ground equipment may present an obstruction for the erection of any containment enclosure Cathodic Protection This tank is not equipped with a cathodic protection (CP) system. Based on the condition of this tank, as observed during our investigation, the addition of a CP system is not warranted. 2.3 2.4 Water Tank Evaluation 81. Joseph, Minnesota A-8T JOE061 0.00 Page 2 2.5 Interior Coating As stated earlier, the interior coating system is generally in good condition with only minor isolated repairs needed at points identified in the LEC report and SEH Coating Summary Report. Failed areas should be spot abrasive blasted to an SSPC SP-lO "Near White" standard of cleanliness or prepared to an SSPC SP-11 "Power-Too cleaning to Bare Metal" standard of cleanliness, and feathered to create a smooth transition. After cleaning, exposed surfaces should be painted with two-coats of a compatible epoxy-polyamide system meeting standard NSF 61. 2.5.1 Interior Dry Maintenance within the interior dry is limited to the platforms (catwalk), and the condensate ceiling at this time. Failed areas should be abrasive blasted to an SSPC SP-6 "Commercial Blast" standard of cleanliness, or prepared to an SSPC SP-ll "Power-Tool cleaning to Bare Metal" standard of cleanliness, and feathered to create a smooth transition. After cleaning, exposed surfaces should be painted with two-coats of a compatible epoxy-polyamide system. 2.6 Exterior Coating The exterior coating system is experiencing excessive dirt and mildew growth observed along the cone. However, the tank appears to be exhibiting only minor chalking. This is quite common based on the age of the present system. Based on this assessment a complete power-wash is recommended along with some spot coating repairs. Power-wash should include application of a bleach solution to retard future mildew growth and heated water. The tank should then be rinsed with clean water to neutralize. Spot abrasions or failed areas should be cleaned to an SSPC SP-11 "Power-Tool Cleaning to Bare Metal" level of cleanliness. Edges around spot areas should be feathered. This should be followed with spot touch up with a compatible primer for exposed steel. Water Tank Evaluation St. Joseph, Minnesota A-STJOE061 0.00 Page 3 3.0 Engineers Estimate Units Est~iQt Unit Cost Cost 0 tional LF 300 6.00 $1,800 LS 1 3,000 3,000 LS 1 NA $0.00 Incidental SF 1200 8.00 9,600 Interior D LS LS LS 1 1 1 2,000 NA NA $2,000 $0.00 $0.00 Incidental Incidental Estimated Pro' ect Cost $51,000 $0.00 The above project costs are based on current pricing derived from consultation with area contractors, suppliers, and manufacturers as applicable to the scope of work. SEH suggests that the project be bid several months prior to the anticipated start date attract competitive bids. We estimate this project to be completed in 2 weeks. SEH also recommends inspection during critical operations on the project to ensure proper surface preparation and coating system application, along with any other work noted herein. As an alternative, SEH through its subsidiary SEH Design Build can provide the City ofSt. Joseph with seamless delivery of the entire project. New state law specific to water tank maintenance allows City's to avoid the traditional contracting process and enter into reliable long-term maintenance agreements. Through SEH Design Build the City of St. Joseph can defer full- payment up to five (5) years, and have the workmanship guaranteed. SEH has teamed exclusively with Classic Protective Coatings. Water Tank Evaluation 81. Joseph, Minnesota A-8T JOE0610.00 Page 4 4.0 Summary 4.1 Standard of Care The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report were developed in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty is implied or intended. 4.2 Structural Evaluation Structural commentary under this section refers to the general condition of the foundation, and plate sections of the tank. Based on our visual examination of the tank structure and foundation, it appears that the facility is in good condition at this time. However, modifications are necessary to bring it into compliance with current standards with respect topersonal access. Specific references to items requiring maintenance repair, replacement, or installations to provide code compliance are included in the Recommendation section of this report under Interior or Exterior Structural. Our inspection of the tanks foundation revealed no significant cracking or spalling. The grout between the base plate and foundation was also found to be in good condition. The surrounding area is sloped away from the tank providing good drainage. Anchor bolts securing (base plate) are in good condition within the confines of the anchor chairs. 4.2.1 The interior of the tank is in good to fair condition, with no observed pitting of steel plates. Few deficiencies were identified with regard to weld finish. Coating Evaluation Interior and exterior paint chip samples were not extracted during our evaluation. Coating systems provided by the paint manufacturer, Tnemec, at the time of this tank's construction, were neither lead nor chromium based. The exterior system will not require any provisions that include the abatement of lead or chromium, or the disposal of hazardous waste materials, however, containment would be necessary to prevent the emission of fugitive dust during operations that include the removal of the exterior coating system during future reconditioning. Water Tank Evaluation St. Joseph, Minnesota A-STJOE0610.00 Page 5 Coating Summary Location: Interior Wet Area: All Reference Video Adhesion: Good Overall Condition: Good to fair Dry Film Thickness Minimum Maximum Average 9.0 16.0 12.8 Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None Rusting . -------.------------------- ----------------- Blistering . ------- ---------------------------- ------------ ------------------------ Cracking . -- ------------------------------ f----- --------------------------- Peeling . ---..-........-------------- ----------..-------- Pitting . -----.....------------..- ------------ Chalking . Comments: Silt minor and not removed. Spot corrosion observed on the shell plates. Advanced corrosion identified on the access tube and overflow pipe. Corrosion and paint peeling were observed at the attachment points of the De-leer. Agency Com liant [gI Yes o No Comment Comments Size 24" Sediment 3" Center Removed: DYes [gI No Sump Pit Condition Comment Silt Stop Good Recirculation line: 0 Yes [gI No Cathodic Protection DYes [gI No T e Comments NA Water Tank Evaluation St. Joseph, Minnesota A-STJOE061 0.00 Page 6 Coating Summary Location: Interior Dry Area: Condensate Adhesion: Fair Overall Condition: Fair Dry Film Thickness Minimum Maximum 7.2 11.4 Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None Rnsting . ......-....-------......--......................... --------------..----------- Blistering . --- ------------------------------ ----------------------------- Cracking ------------~ . -------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------- Peeling . --------------------------- ------------------------- Pitting . --- ------------------------------ --------- ------------------------------- Chalking . Comments: The coating system at the base area and the condensate ceiling was good, but brittle. Location: Interior Dry Area: Flute/Bot. Bowl Adhesion: Fair Overall Condition: Good Dry Film Thickness Minimum 8.1 Maximum Coating Summary Average 13.5 11.8 Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None Rusting . --------------------- -- ---------------------------- Blistering . ----------------------- --------------------------- Cracking . - -------- ------------.._----------- Peelin2 . --------------------------- - ---------------------------- Pitting . ---------------- -----~------------------- Chalking . Comments: Coating failures of any concern are limited to the catwalk, and the bottom bowl. Also, experiencing excessive dirt and mildew. Water Tank Evaluation St. Joseph, Minnesota A-STJOE061 0.00 Page 7 Coating Summary Location: Interior Dry Area: Access Tube Adhesion: Good Overall Condition: Good Dry Film Thickness Minimum Maximum Average NA NA NA Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None Rusting . -- -------------------------- ------------------- Blistering . ---------- --------------------------- ------~-------- ------------------------------- Cracking . -- ----------------------------- --- -------------------------- Peelin2 . -------~--_..----------- --------- Pitting . -------------------------- -------- Chalking . Comments: Cracking at the lap joint. Rusting of the cable carrying expansion rings. Separation is ood awa from the ladder. Condition Agency Comments Com liant Ladders Access Tub Good 1:8] Yes o No Ladders Flute Good 1:8] Yes o No Ladder Flute Good 1:8] Yes Ca e o No Climb All Good 1:8] Yes Notched-rail Device o No Handrail Flute Good 1:8] Yes o No Level Condition Type Size Agency Comments Com Hant Flute Good Hinged 24" IZI Yes D No Flute Good Screened 10" 1:8] Yes 4@base and top flute o No Level Number Comments Access Tub 5 Flute 6 Base 6 lout Water Tank Evaluation 5t. Joseph, Minnesota A-5T JOE0610.00 Page 8 Agency Com liant 18" [gI Yes Good [gI Yes Recommend alum. jacketing to D No D No bottom of bowl Size Mud Piped Condition Comments Valve 3" [gI Yes [gI Yes Very Good Mud-valve 4" D No D No Water Tank Evaluation S1. Joseph, Minnesota A-STJOE061 0.00 Page 9 Coating Summary Location: Exterior Area: Flute Adhesion: Fair Overall Condition: Good Minimum Maximum Average Dry Film Thickness 7.6 17.5 12.7 Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None Rusting . -- ---------------------------- - ---------------- Blisterine: . ---- ---------------------------- ---------- ------------------------- Cracking . --------- ------------------------------- --------- ------------------------- Peeling: . ------------------------- ----..------ Pitting . -------------------------- ------------------ Chalking . Comments: Rusting at observed minor abrasions Coating Summary Adhesion: None taken Location: Exterior Dry Film Thickness 10.4 Area: Cone Overall Condition: Fair Minimum Maximum Average Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None Rustine: . -------- -------------------------------- ------------------------- Blistering . ---------------------------------- ---------------------- Cracking . ------------------------------ --------------------- Peeline: . --------- ------------------------------- -------------------------- Pitting . .......--...........-....--........-..--- ------......------ Chalking . Comments: Cracking refers to small crazing of the coating. Dirt and mildew are excessive. Water Tank Evaluation 81. Joseph, Minnesota A-8T JOE061 0.00 Page 10 Coating Summary Location: Exterior Area: Shell Adhesion: None Taken Overall Condition: Fair Dry Film Thickness Minimum Average Maximum NA NA NA Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None Rusting . ------------------------------- ==-. -------' ----------------------------- Blistering . -------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Cracking . -- ------------------------------ --------- -------------------------- Peeling . ......--------------------..-..-- --------------------------- Pitting . -------------------------- -------------------------- Chalking . Comments: The conditional assessment is based on visual and representation of the other areas of the tank. Excessive dirt and mildew observed. Lo 0 is fadin Coating Summary Location: Exterior Area: _.-.- Roof Adhesion: None Taken Overall Condition: Good Dry Film Thickness Minimum Average Maximum 9.0 Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None Rusting . -------------- --------------..--..------- Blistering . ------------------------- ----------------------------- Cracking . - ---------------------- ---------------------------- Peeling . ----------- ------------------------ Pitting . -------------- ---------------------------- Chalking . I Comments: I Spot failures within the confines of the handrail system Water Tank Evaluation 81. Joseph, Minnesota A-8TJOE061 0.00 Page 11 Agency Com Hant DYes [gJ No 18" [gJ Yes D No 24" [gJ Yes D No 30" [gJ Yes D No Comments Aviation Access door Comments Comments Needs signage Vent Roof Good Screened Manways Roof Very Good Hinged Manways Roof Very Good Hinged Level Number Roof 1 Base 2 Level No. Interference Roof 12 DYes [gJ No Flute 12 DYes [gJ No Size Type Condition Frost-free Painter's Bowl access Signage needed Signage needed Screened Good Agency Com Hant [gJ Yes D No Comments Settlement D Cracks [gJ Spalling D Grout: None Comments 12" No air-break D Termination <12" D Foundation! Footings Anchor Bolts Valve Pit Condition Good Good NA Level SCADA ~ Altitude Valve 0 Heated Controls ~ Comments None Taken Water Tank Evaluation 81. Joseph, Minnesota A-8TJOE061 0.00 Page 12 Evaluation Procedures Tank Evaluation Methods The tank was evaluated in conformance with the following: . The guidelines set forth in A WW A D 101, "Inspecting Steel Tank Standpipes, and Elevated Tanks for Water Storage," and Manual M42. The condition ofladders, bolted connections, and other appurtenances not specifically mentioned in the summary sections, or Coating Summary Report, should be assumed satisfactory. . Inspection of interior and exterior coated surfaces was limited to areas accessible without special rigging. The surface of the interior immersion coating system was examined by dive inspection. . No structural analysis was conducted to determine if the tank's design complies with current standards of A WW A D 1 00, "Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage." . As part ofthe evaluation, conditions that appeared unsafe or not in conformance with current OSHA regulations were recorded and are contained in this report. Coating Serviceability The estimated remaining service life of the coating systems is evaluated through the use of these instruments: dry film thickness gage, cross-cut guide kit, putty knife, and 30X microscope. Interior and exterior coatings, where accessible, were evaluated in accordance with Society for Protective Coatings SSPC PA-2 "Measurement of Dry Film Thickness with Magnetic Gages", using a Type 2 field probe and magnetic flux gage. In addition, a Tooke gage was utilized to identify the number of coating applications and estimated thickness of each coat. Since steel plates and structural members appeared visually to be in good condition, an ultrasonic thickness gage was not used during our evaluation. The use of inspection instruments was combined with a thorough visual examination of accessible exterior areas for holidays (voids), runs, sags, surface contaminants, overspray, dry spray, delamination, steel condition under the coating system, and any other questionable deficiencies as objectively compared to ASTM and industry standards. Coating Assessment Criteria The overall condition of each area of the tank has been assessed within the following categories: severe, advanced moderate, slight and none to determine the necessity for maintenance, if any. These categories have been devised by SEH to assist in quantifying the degree of failure observed, and are based on applicable ASTM standards. See Appendix B. These standards include, but are not limited to: . ASTM D 3359 Test Method for Measuring Adhesion by Tape . ASTM D 610 Method for Evaluating Degree of Rusting . ASTM D 714 Test Method for Evaluating the Degree of Blistering of Paints ASTM D 3359 D6l0 D7l4 G46 Water Tank Evaluation St. Joseph, Minnesota STJOE061 0.00 A-1 JlnT~l Designation: D 610 - 01 ~ _~UL_ INTERNATIONAL Steel Structures Painting Council SSPC-VIS-2 Standard Test Method for Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted Steel Surfaces1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 610; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (E) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. This standard has been approved for use by agencies of the Department of D~fense. 1. Scope* 1.1 This test method covers the evaluation of the degree of lUsting on painted steel surfaces. The visual examples which depict the percentage of lUsting given in the written specifica- tions fonn part of the standard. In the event of a dispute, the written definition prevails. These visual examples were devel- oped in cooperation with SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings to further standardization of methods. 1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- priate safety and health practices and determine the applica- bility of regulatory limitations prior to lIse. 2. Referenced Documents 2.1 ASTM AdjunctlSSPC: The Society for Protective Coat- ings SSPC-VIS 2/ASTM D 610 Standard Method of Evaluating Degrees of Rusting on Painted Steel Surfaces2 3. Significance and Use 3.1 The amount of lUsting beneath or through a paint film is a significant factor in determining whether a coating system should be repaired or replaced. This test method provides a standardized means for quantifying the amount and distribution of visible surface lUSt. 3.2 The degree of lUsting is evaluated using a zero to ten scale based on the percentage of visible surface lUSt. 1 This test method is under the jmisdiction of ASTM Committee DO I on Paint and Related Coatings, Materials, and Applications and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee DO 1.46 on Industrial Protective Coatings. This test method has been jointly approved by ASTM and SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings. Current edition approved May 10, 2001. Published July 2001. Originally published as D 610 - 41. Last previous edition D 610 - 95. 2 Colored visual examples are available at a nominal cost from ASTM Head- quarters (request Adjunct ADJD06IOa), SSPC Publication No. 00-08 from SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings, 40 24th Street, Sixth Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, www.sspc.org. 3.3 The distribution of the lUSt is classified as spot rust, general lUSt, pinpoint lUSt or hybrid lUSt. 4. Interferences 4.1 The visual examples that are part of this test method and the associated rust-grade scale cover only lUsting evidenced by visible surface lUSt. 4.2 The use of the visual examples requires the following cautions: 4.2.1 Some finishes are stained by lUSt. This staining must not be confused with the actual lUsting involved. 4.2.2 Accumulated dirt or other material may make accurate determination of the degree of rusting difficult. 4.2.3 Certain types of deposited dirt that contain iron or iron compounds may cause surface discoloration that should not be mistaken for corrosion. 4.2.4 Failure may vary over a given area. Discretion must therefore be used when selecting a single rust grade or rust distribution that is to be representative of a large area or structure, or in subdividing a structure for evaluation. 4.2.5 The color of the finish coating should be taken into account in evaluating surfaces as failures will be more apparent on a finish that shows color contrast with rust, such as used in these reference standards, than on a similar color, such as an iron oxide finish. 5. Procedure 5.1 Select an area to be evaluated. 5.2 Determine the type of rust distribution using definitions in Table 1 and visual examples in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3. 5.3 Estimate percentage of surface area rusted using the visual examples in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3 or SSPC-VIS 2, or both, by electronic scanning techniques or other method agreed upon by contracting parties. NOTE I-The numerical rust grade scale is an exponential function of the area of rust. The rust grade versus area of rust is a straight line plot on semilogarithmic coordinate from rust grade to to rust grade 4. The slope of the curve was changed at 10 % of the area rusted to 100 % rusted to pertnit inclusion of complete rusting on the 0 to 10 rust scale. * A Summary of Changes section appears at the end of this standard. Copyright@ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. ~ 0610-01 TABLE 1 Scale and Description of Rust Ratings Rust Grade Pinpoint (P) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 o Percent of Surface Rusted Less than or equal to 0.01 percent Greater than 0.01 percent and up to 0.03 percent Greater than 0.03 percent and up to 0.1 percent Greater than 0.1 percent and up to 0.3 percent Greater than 0.3 percent and up to 1.0 percent Greater than 1.0 percent and up to 3.0 percent Greater than 3.0 percent and up to 10.0 percent Greater than 10.0 percent and up to 16.0 percent Greater than 16.0 percent and up to 33.0 percent Greater than 33.0 percent and up to 50.0 percent Greater than 50 percent Spotts) Visual Examples General (G) None 9-G 8-G 7-G 6-G 5-G 4-G 3-G 2-G 1-G None 9-P 8-P 7-P 8-P 5-P 4-P 3-P 2-P 1-P 9-S 8-S 7-S 6-S 5-S 4-S 3-S 2-S 1-S / Rust Distribution Types: S: Spot Rusting-Spot rusting occurs when the bulk of the rusting is concentrated in a few localized areas of the painted surface. The visual examples depicting this type of rusting are labeled 9-S thru 1-S (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). G: General Rusting-General rusting occurs when various size rust spots are randomly distributed across the surface. The visual examples depicting this type of rusting are labeled 9-G thru 1-G. (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). P: Pinpoint Rusting-Pinpoint rusting occurs when the rust is distributed across the surface as very small individual specks of rust. The visual examples depicting this type of rusting are labeled 9-P through 1-P. (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). H: Hybrid Rusting-An actual rusting surface may be a hybrid of the types of rust distribution depicted in the visual examples. In this case, report the total percent of rust to classify the surface. 9-H through 1-H. 5.4 Use percentage of surface area rusted to identify rust grade (see Table 1). Assign rust rating using rust grade of 0-10 followed by the type of rust distribution identified by S for spot, G for general, P for pinpoint or H for Hybrid. 5.5 The visual examples are not required for use of the rust-grade scale since the scale is based upon the percent of the area rusted and any method of assessing area rust may be used to determine the rust grade. 6. Report 6.1 IdentifY sample or area evaluated. 6.2 Report rust grade using rating of 0-10. 6.3 Report rust distribution using S for Spot, G for General, P for Pinpoint and H for Hybrid. 7. Precision and Bias 7.1 No precision or bias statement can be made for this test method. 8. Keywords 8.1 corrosion; rusting 2 ,00610-01 JJ JJ JJ c c c !!l. !!l. !!l. G) G) G) en iil iil [ "tI a. a. 0 <Il <Il co . --I ro to -I fn fn _Cn :xl C 0 ~ 0 en w ~ 0 ::! >!!. >!!. to> 0 0 >!!. Z 0 JJ JJ JJ C) c c (/) (/) . c <ii <ii f!l. a. a. co . a. ~ JJ JJ JJ c c c f!l. . f!l. !!l. C) G) . G) G) m iil iil iil z a. a. a. m "Tl <Il <Il co :xl 15 --I ro to > 6 6 fv r- 0 ...... ~ 0 :xl W ~ 8 c: >!!. >!!. en 0 . 0 >!!. -I 0 JJ JJ JJ Z c c (/) (/) c C) <ii . <ii (/) <ii a. a. a. . .' JJ JJ JJ c c c f!l. !!l. !!l. "tI G) G) G) Z iil iil iil "tI a. a. a. Q co <Il <Il --I ro to Z -~ -~ -~ -I 0 ~ 0 :xl W ~ 0 C >!!. >!!. to> en 0 0 >!!. -I JJ 0 JJ JJ Z c c (/) CIJ C C) 1ii 1ii (/) 1ii a. a. a. FIG. 1 Examples of Area Percentages 3 JJ c: !!l. ei) ii3 0- CD ". Sfl o >R o JJ c: (J) CD 0- .. .. JJ c: !!l. ei) ii3 'TI ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ 6 , ... . . .... ~ o '# JJ c: (J) ar 0- ". .'- . .. . . ~ ..' .'f. ~."a ...~~ : .~ .--, JJ c: !!l. Ci) ii3 0- (J) ~ .~,:'~- _-0 ,.. o '# JJ c: !!l. (J) 0- ~ 0610-01 JJ JJ c: c: !!l. !!l. tJl Ci) Ci) "tI ~ ~ , 0 (J) , CD -I 0"1 0) Xl 5n /.Il C tJl w ~ -I >R >R Z 0 0 JJ JJ C) c: c: en !!l. CD CD 0.. 0.. . " - . . ~ . ..\ " ., 41 C " . '." JJ . .. JJ .. .... c: c: ... C) !!l. !!l. m ei) ei) ..... z iil iil .. ,. \ m 0- 0- 01:. " . XJ CD CD )> 0"1 ., 0) ... r- p 41 . P - "- Xl .. . w "'!l9t c::: >R >R ... ~ tJl 0 0 -I JJ -. JJ c: c: .... Z en ,. en C) CD \ CD ..- 0- f 0- .. '.. .... .. . ~' ~~. . . ,':: .~ ",,' '0 .1.~ ",.." '. . .' \ :.. ; '.' ", . , " . JJ '. c: .. "tI !!l. Z ei) "tI iil " .- Q 0.. CD .. Z 0) '. ," -I _-0 XJ c >R .'. tJl 0 ::! JJ c: . ,- '{ .' z (J) .' C) CD 0.. ,. : ".," .." ..... ":" .;" ~.'", JJ c: !!l. Ci) ',. iil 0.. CD 0"1 _-0 w '# JJ c: en ar 0.. .-,;. . ........ "". .; :.. '.)'" ._,' . : .:. -- ~ : ..; .... . ~ ! r . . , ~'- . . .. . .!' _.~. ':,...' ';. ,;. "" ~; FIG. 2 Examples of Area Percentages 4 zO D 610 - 01 . . JJ ::IJ JJ c: c: c: !!l- !!l- ~ (j) (j) (j) UJ i.il ~ i.il "tl 0. 0. 0 CI) CI) CD -l ~ ro (,J :x:J _Cn Sn Sn c: U1 (,J ~ UJ 0 (,J Ol -l ~ ~ ~ z 0 0 0 JJ ::IJ ::IJ C) c: c: c: '" '" !!l- ro- ro- CD 0. 0. 0. JJ c: !!l- Ci) i.il "11 0. P CI) ~ (,,) _6 U1 0 <f- JJ c: '" r0- o. , JJ ::IJ c: c: !!l- !!l- Ci) (j) i.il i.il 0. 0. CI) CI) ~ ro :b _-0 U1 (,J 0 (,J ~ ~ 0 0 JJ JJ c: c: '" '" ro- r0- o. 0. . t.,) l . . )., /.. ~ -. fI'- JJ :0 , . .4 c: c: !!l- !!l- J~J. C) Ci) Ci) m iil iil \ .,.... -4f~. z 0. ". 0. m CI) CD :x:J ro (,J ~ . ~ _6 6 r- (,J, ~ ' . .. :x:J (,J Ol c: <f- ~ ....., . ~ 0 ~ ::IJ ~ ::IJ .. . z c: c: , . '" '" '. C) ro- ro- ~. . 0. 0. . . .. \ ..... ~ .. .. ~ ::IJ c: !!l- "tl Z "tl o Z -l :x:J c: UJ :::! z C) (j) i.il 0. (I) (,J :b Ol <f- :0 c: '" r0- o. FIG. 3 Examples of Area Percentages 5 rO 0 610 - 01 SUMMARY OF CHANGES Committee DO 1 has identified the location of selected changes to this standard since the last date of issue that may impact the use of this standard. (1) This test method revised in 2001 to include the rust distribution information. (2) The visual examples were changed from nine pictorial representation to twenty-seven rust grade and rust distribution visual examples. (3) Previously numerical rust grade rating of 0-10 were used. Now rust grade of 0-10 are followed by rust distribution of S, G,P or H ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standwd are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed eve!)' five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below. This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive. PO Box ClOO, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website (www.astm.org). 6 & Designation: 0714-02 .....11 INTERNATIONAL Standard Test Method for Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paints 1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 714; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (E) indicates an editorial change since the la~t revision or reapproval. This standanl has been approved for use by agencies of the Department of Defense. 1. Scope 1.1 This test method employs photographic reference stan- dards to evaluate the degree of blistering that may develop when paint systems are subjected to conditions which will cause blistering. While primarily intended for use on metal and other nonporous surfaces, this test method may be used to evaluate blisters on porous surfaces, such as wood, if the size of blisters falls within the scope of these reference standards. When the reference standards are used as a specification of performance, the permissible degree of blistering of the paint system shall be agreed upon by the purchaser and the seller. 1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, (f any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- priate safety and health practices and determine the applica- bility of regulatory limitations prior to use. 2. Significance and Use 2.1 A phenomenon peculiar to painted surfaces is the formation of blisters relative to some system weakness. This test method provides a standard procedure of describing the size and density of the blisters so that comparisons of severity can be made. 3. Reference Standards 3.1 The photographic reference standards are glossy prints.2 Figs. 1-4 are reproductions of these standards and are included to illustrate two characteristics of blistering: size and fre- quency. 3.2 Size-Reference standards have been selected for four steps as to size on a numerical scale from 10 to 0, in which No. 10 represents no blistering. Blistering standard No.8 represents the smallest size blister easily seen by the unaided eye. Blistering standards Nos. 6, 4, and 2 represent progressively larger sizes. I This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee DOl on Paint and Related Coatings, Materials, and Applications and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D01.25 on Evaluation of Weathering Effects. Current edition approved Dec. 10, 2002. Published February 2003. Originally approved in 1943. Last previous edition approved in 2000 as D 714 - 87 (2000). 2 Glossy prints of the photographic reference standards showing types of blistering are available at a nominal charge from ASTM International. Order AdjuJlct ADJD0714. 3.3 Frequency-Reference standards have been selected for four steps in frequency at each step in size, designated as follows: Dense, D, Medium dense, MD, Medium, M, and Few. F. NOTE I-A quantitative physical description of blistering would in- clude the following characteristics determined by actual count: Size distribution in terms of mensuration units, Frequency of occulTence per unit area, Pattem of distribution over the surface, and Shape of blister For the usual tests, an actual count is more elaborate than is necessary. 4. Procedure 4.1 Subject the paint film to the test conditions agreed upon by the purchaser and the seller. Then evaluate the paint film for the degree of blistering by comparison with the photographic reference standards in Figs. 1-4. 5. Report 5.1 Report blistering as a number (Note 2) designating the size of the blisters and a qualitative term or symbol indicating the frequency. 5.2 Intermediate steps in size or frequency of blisters may be judged by interpolation. 5.3 When the distribution of blisters over the area has a nonuniform pattern, use an additional phrase to describe the distribution, such as "small clusters," or "large patches." NOTE 2-The number refers to the largest size blister that is numerous enough to be representative of the specimen. For example, photographic standard No.4, "Dense," has blisters ranging in size from about No.7 to No.4, inclusive. 5.4 The pictorial representations in this standard which are published in the Book of Standards are sufficient in order to conduct the evaluation. It is preferable however, to use the original photographs or drawings when available. 6. Keywords 6.1 blistering; corrosion; evaluations; reference standards Copyright @ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700. West Conshohocken. PA 19428-2959, United Slales. ~ 0714-02 Few FIG. 1 Blister Size No. 2 Medium Medium Dense FIG. 1 (continued) Dense 2 ~ 0714-02 Few FIG. 2 Blister Size No. 4 Medium Dense FIG. 2 (continued) Dense 3 ~ 0714-02 Few FIG. 3 Blister Size No.6 Medium Medium Dense FIG. 3 (continued) Dense 4 cO D 714 - 02 Medium Dense FIG. 4 (continued) Dense Few FIG. 4 Blister size No. 8 Medium 5 ~ 0714-02 ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed evel)l five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below. This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website (www.astm.org). 6 ~ Designation: D 3359 - 02 INTeRNATIONAL Standard Test Methods for Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 3359: the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of Oliginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (E) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. This standard has been approved for use by agencies of the Department of Defense. 1. Scope 1.1 These test methods cover procedures for assessing the adhesion of coating films to metallic substrates by applying and removing pressure-sensitive tape over cuts made in the film. 1.2 Test Method A is primarily intended for use at job sites while Test Method B is more suitable for use in the laboratory. Also, Test Method B is not considered suitable for films thicker than 5 mils (125J.l111). NOTE I--Subject to agreement between the purchaser and the seller, Test Method B can be used for thicker films if wider spaced cuts are employed. 1.3 These test methods are used to establish whether the adhesion of a coating to a substrate is at a generally adequate level. They do not distinguish between higher levels of adhesion for which more sophisticated methods of measure- ment are required. NOTE 2-lt should be recognized that differences in adherability of the coating surface can affect the results obtained with coatings having the same inherent adhesion. 1.4 In multicoat systems adhesion failure may occur be- tween coats so that the adhesion of the coating system to the substrate is not determined. 1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only. \.6 This standard does not purport to address the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 2. Referenced Documents 2.1 ASTM Standards: D 609 Practice for Preparation of Cold-Rolled Steel Panels for Testing Paint, Varnish, Conversion Coatings, and I These test methods are under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee DOl on Paint and Related Coatings, Materials, and Applications and are the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D01.23 on Physical Properties of Applied Paint Films. Current edition approved Aug. 10, 2002. Published October 2002. Originally published as D 3359 -74. Last previous edition D 3359 - 97. Related Coating Products2 D 823 Practices for Producing Films of Uniform Thickness of Paint, Varnish, and Related Products on Test Panels2 D 1000 Test Method For Pressure-Sensitive Adhesive- Coated Tapes Used for Electrical and Electronic Applica- tions3 D 1730 Practices for Preparation of Aluminum and Aluminum-Alloy Surfaces for Painting4 D 2092 Guide for Preparation of Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) Steel Surfaces for PaintingS D 2370 Test Method for Tensile Properties of Organic Coatings2 D 3330 Test Method for Peel Adhesion of Pressure- Sensitive Tape 6 D 3924 Specification for Standard Environment for Condi- tioning and Testing Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Materials2 D 4060 Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser 3. Summary of Test Methods 3.1 Test Method A-An X-cut is made through the film to the substrate, pressure-sensitive tape is applied over the cut and then removed, and adhesion is assessed qualitatively on the 0 to 5 scale. 3.2 Test Method B-A lattice pattern with either six or eleven cuts in each direction is made in the film to the substrate, pressure-sensitive tape is applied over the lattice and then removed, and adhesion is evaluated by comparison with descriptions and illustrations. 4. Significance and Use 4.1 If a coating is to fulfill its function of protecting or decorating a substrate, it must adhere to it for the expected service life. Because the substrate and its surface preparation (or lack of it) have a drastic effect on the adhesion of coatings, a method to evaluate adhesion of a coating to different substrates or surface treatments, or of different coatings to the 2 Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Vol 06.01. 3 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 10.01. 4 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 02.05. 5 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 06.02. 6 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 15.09. Copyright@ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. <0 D 3359 - 02 same substrate and treatment, is of considerable usefulness in the industry. 4.2 The limitations of all adhesion methods and the specific limitation of this test method to lower levels of adhesion (see 1.3) should be recognized before using it. The intra- and inter-laboratory precision of this test method is similar to other widely-accepted tests for coated substrates (for example, Test Method D 2370 and Test Method D 4060), but this is partly the result of it being insensitive to all but large differences in adhesion. The limited scale of 0 to 5 was selected deliberately to avoid a false impression of being sensitive. TEST METHOD A-X-CUT TAPE TEST 5. Apparatus and Materials 5.1 Cutting Tool-Sharp razor blade, scalpel, knife or other cutting devices. It is of particular importance that the cutting edges be in good condition. 5.2 Cutting Guide-Steel or other hard metal straightedge to ensure straight cuts. 5.3 Tape-25-mm (l.O-in.) wide semitransparent pressure- sensitive tape? with an adhesion strength agreed upon by the supplier and the user is needed. Because of the variability in adhesion strength from batch-to-batch and with time, it is essential that tape from the same batch be used when tests are to be run in different laboratories. Ifthis is not possible the test method should be used only for ranking a series of test coatings. 5.4 Rubber Eraser, on the end of a pencil. 5.5 Illumination-A light source is helpful in determining whether the cuts have been made through the film to the substrate. 6. Test Specimens 6.1 When this test method is used in the field, the specimen is the coated structure or article on which the adhesion is to be evaluated. 6.2 For laboratory use apply the materials to be tested to panels of the composition and surface conditions on which it is desired to determine the adhesion. NOTE 3-Applicable test panel description and surface preparation methods are given in Practice D 609 and Practices. D 1730 and D 2092. NOTE 4-Coatings should be applied in accordance with Practice D 823, or as agreed upon between the purchaser and the seller. NOTE 5-lf desired or specified, the coated test panels may be subjected to a preliminary exposure such as water immersion, salt spray, or high humidity before conducting the tape test. The conditions and time of exposure will be governed by ultimate coating use or shall be agreed upon between the purchaser and seller. 7. Procedure 7.1 Select an area free of blemishes and minor surface imperfections. For tests in the field, ensure that the surface is 7 Pelmacel 99, manufactured by Pennacel, New Bnmswick, NJ 08903, and available from various Permacel tape distributors, is reported to be suitablc for this purposc. The manufacturer of this tape and thc manufacturer of the tape used in the interlaboratory study (see RR: DOI-IOOS), have advised this subcommittee that the properties of these tapes were changed. Users of it should. therefore, check whether CUlTent material gives comparable results to previous supplied material. clean and dry. Extremes in temperature or relative humidity may affect the adhesion of the tape or the coating. 7.1.1 For specimens which have been immersed: After immersion, clean and wipe the surface with an appropriate solvent which will not harm the integrity of the coating. Then dry or prepare the surface, or both, as agreed upon between the purchaser and the seller. ' 7.2 Make two cuts in the film each about 40 mm (1.5 in.) long that intersect near their middle with a smaller angle of between 30 and 450. When making the incisions, use the straightedge and cut through the coating to the substrate in one steady motion. 7.3 Inspect the incisions for reflection of light from the metal substrate to establish that the coating film has been penetrated. If the substrate has not been reached make another X in a different location. Do not attempt to deepen a previous cut as this may affect adhesion along the incision. 7.4 Remove two complete laps of the pressure-sensitive tape from the roll and discard. Remove an additional length at a steady (that is, not jerked) rate and cut a piece about 75 mm (3 in.) long. 7.5 Place the center of the tape at the intersection of the cuts with the tape running in the same direction as the smaller angles. Smooth the tape into place by finger in the area of the incisions and then rub finnly with the eraser on the end of a pencil. The color under the transparent tape is a useful indication of when good contact has been made. 7.6 Within 90 :!:: 30 s of application, remove the tape by seizing the free end and pulling it off rapidly (not jerked) back upon itself at as close to an angle of 1800 as possible. 7.7 Inspect the X -cut area for removal of coating from the substrate or previous coating and rate the adhesion in accor- dance with the following scale: 5A No peeling or removal, 4A Trace peeling or removal along incisions or at their intersection, 3A Jagged removal along incisions up to 1.6 mm (11,6 in.) on either side, 2A Jagged removal along most of incisions up to 3.2 mm (Ye in.) on either side, 1A Removal from most of the area of the X under the tape, and OA Removal beyond the area of the X. 7.8 Repeat the test in two other locations on each test panel. For large structures make sufficient tests to ensure that the adhesion evaluation is representative of the whole surface. 7.9 After making several cuts examine the cutting edge and, if necessary, remove any flat spots or wire-edge by abrading lightly on a fine oil stone before using again. Discard cutting tools that develop nicks or other defects that tear the film. 8. Report 8.1 Report the number of tests, their mean and range, and for coating systems, where the failure OCCUlTed that is, between first coat and substrate, between first and second coat, etc. 8.2 For field tests report the structure or article tested, the location and the environmental conditions at the time of testing. 8.3 For test panels report the substrate employed, the type of coating, the method of cure, and the environmental conditions at the time of testing. 8.4 If the adhesion strength of the tape has been detennined in accordance with Test Methods D 1000 or D 3330, report the 2 <0 D 3359 - 02 results with the adhesion rating(s). If the adhesion strength of the tape has not been detennined, report the specific tape used and its manufacturer. 8.5 If the test is perfonned after immersion, report immer- sion conditions and method of sample preparation. 9. Precision and Bias 8 9.1 In an interlaboratory study of this test method in which operators in six laboratories made one adhesion measurement on three panels each of three coatings covering a wide range of adhesion, the within-laboratories standard deviation was found to be 0.33 and the between-laboratories 0.44. Based on these standard deviations, the following criteria should be used for judging the acceptability of results at the 95 % confidence level: 9.1.1 Repeatability-Provided adhesion is uniform over a large surface, results obtained by the same operator should be considered suspect if they differ by more than 1 rating unit for two measurements. 9.1.2 Reproducibility-Two results, each the mean of trip- licates, obtained by different operators should be considered suspect if they differ by more than 1.5 rating units. 9.2 Bias cannot be established for these test methods. TEST METHOD B-CROSS-CUT TAPE TEST 10. Apparatus and Materials 10.1 Cutting Toot>-Sharp razor blade, scalpel, knife or other cutting device having a cutting edge angle between 15 and 300 that will make either a single cut or several cuts at once. It is of particular importance that the cutting edge or edges be in good condition. 10.2 Cutting Guide-If cuts are made manually (as opposed to a mechanical apparatus) a steel or other hard metal straight- edge or template to ensure straight cuts. 10.3 Rule-Tempered steel rule graduated in 0.5 mm for measuring individual cuts. 10.4 Tape, as described in 5.3. 10.5 Rubber Eraser, on the end of a pencil. 10.6 Illumination, as described in 5.5. 10.7 MagnifYing Glass-An illuminated magnifier to be used while making individual cuts and examining the test area. 11. Test Specimens 11.1 Test specimens shall be as described in Section 6. It should be noted, however, that multitip cutterslO provide good results only on test areas sufficiently plane that all cutting edges contact the substrate to the same degree. Check for flatness with a straight edge such as that of the tempered steel rule (10.3). 8 Supporting data arc availablc from ASTM International Headquarters. Request RR: 001-1008. 9 Multiblade cutters are availablc from a few sources that specialize in testing equipment for the paint industry. One supplier that has assistcd in the refincment of these methods is given in footnote 10. 10 The sole source of supply of the multitip cutter for coated pipe surfaces known to the committee at this time is Paul N. Gardncr Co., 316 NE First St., Pompano Beach, FL 33060. If you are aware of altcrnative suppliers, please provide this information to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will rcccive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, 1 which you may attend. 12. Procedure 12.1 Where required or when agreed upon, subject the specimens to a preliminary test before conducting the tape test (see Note 3). After drying or testing the coating, conduct the tape test at room temperature as defined in Specification D 3924, unless D 3924 standard temperature is required or agreed. 12.1.1 For specimens which have been immersed: After immersion, clean and wipe the surface with an appropriate solvent which will not harm the integrity of the coating. Then dry or prepare the surface, or both, as agreed upon between the purchaser and the seller. 12.2 Select an area free of blemishes and minor surface imperfections, place on a finn base, and under the illuminated magnifier, make parallel cuts as follows: 12.2.1 For coatings having a dry film thickness up to and including 2.0 mils (50 J.U11) space the cuts 1 mm apart and make eleven cuts unless otherwise agreed upon. 12.2.2 For coatings having a dry film thickness between 2.0 mils (50 J.U11) and 5 mils (125 /lm), space the cuts 2 mm apart and make six cuts. For films thicker than 5 mils use Test Method AY 12.2.3 Make all cuts about 20 mm (% in.) long. Cut through the film to the substrate in one steady motion using just sufficient pressure on the cutting tool to have the cutting edge reach the substrate. When making successive single cuts with the aid of a guide, place the guide on the uncut area. 12.3 After making the required cuts brush the film lightly with a soft brush or tissue to remove any detached flakes or ribbons of coatings. 12.4 Examine the cutting edge and, if necessary, remove any flat spots or wire-edge by abrading lightly on a fine oil stone. Make the additional number of cuts at 900 to and centered on the original cuts. 12.5 Brush the area as before and inspect the incisions for reflection of light from the substrate. If the metal has not been reached make another grid in a different location. 12.6 Remove two complete laps of tape and discard. Re- move an additional length at a steady (that is, not jerked) rate and cut a piece about 75 mm (3 in.) long. 12.7 Place the center of the tape over the grid and in the area of the grid smooth into place by a finger. To ensure good contact with the film rub the tape firmly with the eraser on the end of a pencil. The color under the tape is a useful indication of when good contact has been made. 12.8 Within 90 ::!:: 30 s of application, remove the tape by seizing the free end and rapidly (not jerked) back upon itself at as close to an angle of 1800 as possible. 12.9 Inspect the grid area for removal of coating from the substrate or from a previous coating using the illuminated magnifier. Rate the adhesion in accordance with the following scale illustrated in Fig. 1: 11 Test Method B has been uscd successfully by some people on coatings greater than 5 mils (0. I3 mm) by spacing the cuts 5 mm apart. However. the precision values given in 14.1 do not apply as they are based on coatings Icss than 5 mm (0.13 mm) in thickness. 3 (0 D 3359 - 02 58 The edges of the cuts are completely smooth; none of the squares of the lattice is detached. 48 Small flakes of the coating are detached at intersections; less than 5 % of the area is affected. 38 Small flakes of the coating are detached along edges and at intersec- tions of cuts. The area affected is 5 to 15 % of the lattice. 2B The coating has flaked along the edges and on parts of the squares. The area affected is 15 to 35 % of the lattice. 1 B The coating has flaked along the edges of cuts in large ribbons and whole squares have detached. The area affected is 35 to 65 % of the lattice. OB Flaking and detachment worse than Grade 1. 12.1 0 Repeat the test in two other locations on each test panel. 13. Report 13.1 Report the number of tests, their mean and range, and for coating systems, where the failure occurred, that is, between first coat and substrate, between first and second coat, etc. 13.2 Report the substrate employed, the type of coating and the method of cure. 13.3 If the adhesion strength has been detennined in accor- dance with Test Methods D 1000 or D 3330, report the results with the adhesion rating(s). If the adhesion strength of the tape has not been determined, report the specific tape used and its manufacturer. 13.4 If the test is performed after immersion, report immer- sion conditions and method of sample preparation. 14. Precision and Bias 8 14.1 On the basis of two interlaboratory tests of this test method in one of which operators in six laboratories made one adhesion measurement on three panels each of three coatings covering a wide range of adhesion and in the other operators in six laboratories made three measurements on two panels each of four different coatings applied over two other coatings, the pooled standard deviations for within- and between- laboratories were found to be 0.37 and 0.7. Based on these standard deviations, the following criteria should be used for judging the acceptability of results at the 95 % confidence level: 14.1.1 Repeatability-Provided adhesion is uniform over a large surface, results obtained by the same operator should be considered suspect if they differ by more than one rating unit for two measurements. CLASSJ}'ICA TION PERCENT AREA REMOVED CI.ASSIFlCATION OF ADHESION TEST RESULTS 58 0% None 48 Less than 5% 38 5 - 15% 28 15 - 35% IB 35 - 65% OB Greater than 65% SURFACE OF CROSS.cUT AREA FROM WHICH }.1,AKING liAS OCCURRED FOR SIX PARAI.L"~L CUTS I AND ADIlESI01'\ RA1'\(;E BY PERCENT . . - - ---'- --.. . ..-- . -- I _1= -I --- .. .,I~~: .,_111 =--= I I -- I . FIG. 1 Classification of Adhesion Test Results 14.1.2 Reproducibility-Two results, each the mean of du- plicates or triplicates, obtained by different operators should be considered suspect if they differ by more than two rating units. 14.2 Bias cannot be established for these test methods. 15. Keywords 15.1 adhesion; crosscut adhesion test method; tape; tape adhesion test method; X-cut adhesion test method 4 <0 D 3359 - 02 APPENDIX (Non mandatory Information) Xl. COMMENTARY X1.1 Introduction XU.l Given the complexities of the adhesion process, can adhesion be measured? As Mittal (1)12 has pointed out, the answer is both yes and no. It is reasonable to state that at the present time no test exists that can precisely assess the actual physical strength of an adhesive bond. But it can also be said that it is possible to obtain an indication of relative adhesion perfonnance. XU.2 Practical adhesion test methods are generally of two types: "implied" and "direct." "Implied" tests include inden- tation or scribe techniques, rub testing, and wear testing. Criticism of these tests arises when they are used to quantify the strength of adhesive bonding. But this, in fact, is not their purpose. An "implied" test should be used to assess coating performance under actual service conditions. "Direct" mea- surements, on the other hand, are intended expressly to measure adhesion. Meaningful tests of this type are highly sought after, primarily because the results are expressed by a single discrete quantity, the force required to rupture the coating/substrate bond under prescribed conditions. Direct tests include the Hesiometer and the Adherometer (2). Com- mon methods which approach the direct tests are peel, lap- shear, and tensile tests. X1.2 Test Methods X1.2.1 In practice, numerous types of tests have been used to attempt to evaluate adhesion by inducing bond rupture by different modes. Criteria deemed essential for a test to warrant large-scale acceptance are: use of a straightforward and unam- biguous procedure; relevance to its intended application; re- peatability and reproducibility; and quantifiability, including a meaningful rating scale for assessing perfonnance. X1.2.2 Test methods used for coatings on metals are: peel adhesion or "tape testing;" Gardner impact flexibility testing; and adhesive joint testing including shear (lap joint) and direct tensile (butt joint) testing. These tests do not strictly meet all the criteria listed, but an appealing aspect of these tests is that in most cases the equipment/instrumentation is readily avail- able or can be obtained at reasonable cost. Xl.2.3 A wide diversity of tests methods have been devel- oped over the years that measure aspects of adhesion (1-5). There generally is difficulty, however, in relating these tests to basic adhesion phenomena. X1.3 The Tape Test Xl.3.l By far the most prevalent test for evaluating coating "adhesion" is the tape-and-peel test, which has been used since the 1930's. In its simplest version a piece of adhesive tape is pressed against the paint film and the resistance to and degree lO The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of this test method. of film removal observed when the tape is pulled off. Since an intact film with appreciable adhesion is frequently not removed at all, the severity of the test is usually enhanced by cutting into the film a figure X or a cross hatched pattern, before applying and removing the tape. Adhesion is then rated by comparing film removed against an established rating scale. If an intact film is peeled cleanly by the tape, or if it debonds just by cutting into it without applying tape, then the adhesion is rated simply as poor or very poor, a more precise evaluation of such films not being within the capability of this test. Xl.3.2 The current widely-used version was first published in 1974; two test methods are covered in this standard. Both test methods are used to establish whether the adhesion of a coating to a substrate is at an adequate level; however they do not distinguish between higher levels of adhesion for which more sophisticated methods of measurement are required. Major limitations of the. tape test are its low sensitivity, applicability only to coatings of relatively low bond strengths, and non-determination of adhesion to the substrate where failure occurs within a single coat, as when testing primers alone, or within or between coats in multicoat systems. For multicoat systems where adhesion failure may occur between or within coats, the adhesion of the coating system to the substrate is not determined. Xl.3.3 Repeatability within one rating unit is generally observed for coatings on metals for both methods, with reproducibility of one to two units. The tape test enjoys widespread popularity and is viewed as "simple" as well as low in cost. Applied to metals, it is economical to perfonn, lends itself to job site application, and most importantly, after decades of use, people feel comfortable with it. X1.3.4 When a flexible adhesive tape is applied to a coated rigid substrate surface and then removed, the removal process has been described in terms of the "peel phenomenon," as illustrated in Fig. X 1.1. X1.3.S Peeling begins at the "toothed" leading edge (at the right) and proceeds along the coating adhesive/interface or the coating/substrate interface, depending on the relative bond strengths. It is assumed that coating removal occurs when the tensile force generated along the latter interface, which is a function of the rheological properties of the backing and adhesive layer materials, is greater than the bond strength at the coating-substrate interface (or cohesive strength of the coat- ing). In actuality, however, this force is distributed over a discrete distance (O-A) in Fig. XU, which relates directly to the properties described, not concentrated at a point (0) in Fig. XU as in the theoretical case-though the tensile force is greatest at the origin for both. A significant compressive force arises from the response of the tape backing material to being stretched. Thus both tensile and compressive forces are in- volved in adhesion tape testing. X 1.3.6 Close scrutiny of the tape test with respect to the 5 aD 3359-02 'Illl .. COATING FIG. X1.1 Peel Profile (6) nature of the tape employed and certain aspects of the procedure itself reveal several factors, each or any combination of which can dramatically affect the results of the test as discussed (6). X1.4 Peel Adhesion Testing on Plastic Substrates XIA.I Tape tests have been criticized when used for substrates other than metal, such as plastics. The central issues are that the test on plastics lacks reproducibility and does not relate to the intended application. Both concerns are well founded: poor precision is a direct result of several factors intrinsic to the materials employed and the procedure itself. More importantly, in this instance the test is being applied beyond its intended scope. These test methods were designed for relatively ductile coatings applied to metal substrates, not for coatings (often brittle) applied to plastic parts (7). The unique functional requirements of coatings on plastic sub- strates cause the usual tape tests to be unsatisfactory for measuring adhesion performance in practice. X1.5 The Tape Controversy X1.5.1 With the withdrawal from commerce of the tape specified originally, 3M No. 710, current test methods no longer identifY a specific tape. Differences in tapes used can lead to different results as small changes in backing stiffness and adhesive rheology cause large changes in the tension area. Some commercial tapes are manufactured to meet minimum standards. A given lot may surpass these standards and thus be suitable for general market distribution; however, such a lot may be a source of serious and unexpected error in assessing adhesion. One commercially available tape test kit had in- cluded a tape with adhesion strength variations of up to 50 % claimed by the manufacturer. Also, because tapes change on storage, bond strengths of the tape may change over time (7, 8). Xl.5.2 While there are tapes available that appear to deliver consistent performance, a given tape does not adhere equally well to all coatings. For example, when the peel removal force of the tape (from the coating) used earlier by Task Group D01.23.10 to establish precision of the method, by 3M No. 710 was examined with seven different electromagnetic interference/radio frequency interference (EMI/RFI) coatings, it was found that, while peel was indeed consistent for a given coating, the value varied by 25 % between the highest and lowest ratings among coatings. Several factors that contribute to these differences include coating composition and topology: as a result, no single tape is likely to be suitable for testing all coatings. Further, the tape test does not give an absolute value for the force required for bond rupture, but serves only as an indicator that some minimum value for bond strength was met or exceeded (7, 8). X1.6 Procedural Problems Xl.6.l The tape test is operator intensive. By design it was made as simple as possible to perform, and requires a mini- mum of specialized equipment and materials that must meet certain specifications. The accuracy and precision depend largely upon the skill of the operator and the operator's ability to perform the test in a consistent manner. Key steps that directly reflect the importance of operator skill include the angle and rate oftape removal and the visual assessment of the tested sample. It is not unexpected that different operators might obtain different results (7, 8). X1.6.2 Peel Angle and Rate: The standard requires that the free end of the tape be removed rapidly at as close to a 1800 angle as possible. If the peel angle and rate vary, the force required to remove the tape can change dramatically. Nearly linear increases were observed in peel force approaching 100 % as peel angle was changed from 135 to 180, and similar large differences can be expected in peel force as peel rate varies. These effects are related. as they reflect certain rheological properties of the backing and adhesive that are molecular in origin. Variation in pull rate and peel angle can effect large differences in test values and must be minimized to assure reproducibility (9). X1.6.3 Visual Assessment: The final step in the test is visual assessment of the coating removed from the specimen, which is subjective in nature, so that the coatings can vary among individuals evaluating the same specimen (9). X 1.6.3. I Performance in the tape test is based on the amount of coating removed compared to a descriptive scale. The exposure of the substrate can be due to factors other than coating adhesion, including that arising from the requirement that the coating be cut (hence the synonym" cross-hatch adhesion test"). Justification for the cutting step is reasonable as cutting provides a free edge from which peeling can begin without having to overcome the cohesive strength of the coating layer. X1.6.3.2 Cutting might be suitable for coatings applied to metal substrates, but for coatings applied to plastics or wood, the process can lead to a misleading indication of poor adhesion due to the unique interfacial zone. For coatings on soft substrates, issues include how deep should this cut penetrate, and is it possible to cut only to the interface? X1.6.3.3 In general, if adhesion test panels are examined microscopically, it is often clearly evident that the coating removal results from substrate failure at or below the interface, and not from the adhesive failure between the coating and the substrate. Cohesive failure within the coating film is also 6 cO D 3359 - 02 frequently observed. However, with the tape test, failures within the substrate or coating layers are rare because the tape adhesive is not usually strong enough to exceed the cohesive strengths of normal substrates and organic coatings. Although some rather brittle coatings may exhibit cohesive failure, the tape test adhesion method does not make provision for giving failure locality (7, 8). X1.6.4 Use of the test method in the field can lead to variation in test results due to temperature and humidity changes and their effect upon tape, coating and substrate. X1.7 Conclusion XL 7.1 All the issues aside, if these test methods are used within the Scope Section and are performed carefully, some insight into the approximate, relative level of adhesion can be gained. REFERENCES (1) Mittal, K. L., "Adhesion Measurement: Recent Progress, Unsolved Problems, and Prospects", "Adhesion Measurement of Thin Films, Thick Films, and Bulk Coatings," ASTM STP 640, ASTM, 1978, pp. 7-8. (2) Corcoron, E. M., "Adhesion," Chapter 5.3, Paint Testing Manual, 13th ed., ASTM STP 500, ASTM, 1972, pp. 314-332. (3) Gardner, H. A., and Sward, G. G., Paint Testing Manual, 12th ed., Chapter 7, Gardner Laboratory, Bethesda, MD, 1962, pp. 159-170. (4) Mittal, K. L., Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, Vol 1, No. 3, 1987, pp. 247-259. (5) Stoffer, J. 0., and Gadodia, S. K., American Paint and Coatings Journal, Vol 70, Nos. 50 and 51, 1991, pp. 36--40 and 36-51, respectively. (6) Souheng, Wu, Polymer Intelface and Adhesion, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, 1982, p. 531. (7) Nelson, G. L., Gray, K. N., and Buckley, S. E., Modern Paint and Coatings, Vol 75, No. 10, 1985, pp. 160-172. (8) Nelson, G. L., and Gray, K. N., "Coating Adhesion to Plastics," Proceedings, Waterborne and Higher Solids Coatings Symposium, Vol 13, New Orleans, LA, February 5-7, 1986, pp. 114-131. (9) K. L. Mittal, ed., "Symposium on Adhesion Aspects of Polymeric Coatings," Proceedings, The Electrochemical Society, 1981, pp. 569-582. SUMMARY OF CHANGES Committee DO 1 has identified the location of selected changes to this standard since the last issue (D 3359 - 97) that may impact the use of this standard. (1) Deleted reference to Test Method D 2197 in Referenced Documents section and editorially changed footnote 10 to avoid confusion with another adhesion test method. (2) Added 7.1.1, 8.5, 12.1.1, and 13.4 to clarify use when testing samples that have been immersed. ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed eveI}' five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below. This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website (www.astm.org). 7 Page 1 of 2 Liquid Engineering Corporation Steel Potable Water Reservoir Inspection Report Utility ~ eN INL"., Tank ~r ~6 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION ANSIIAWWA M421 0101-53 (RB6) Job No. '3f.)?)lP-'J AWS Legend American Welding Society NACE Legend National Association of Corrosion Engineers SSPC Legend Society for Protective Coatings CORROSION GRADE DESCRIPTION WELD GRADE RUST GRADE DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION A None B Uniform Surface Corrosion C Pitting o Concentration Cell E Galvanic F Stress Corrosion Cracking G Erosion Corrosion H Intergranular I Dealloying Satisfactory Spatter Porosity Convexity / Concavity Cracks Inclusions Incomplete Fusion Incomplete Penetration Undercut Underfill Overlap Unable to Evaluate L M N o p a R S T U V W 10 No rusting, or < 0.01% of surface is rusted 9 Minute rusting. < 0.03% of surface is rusted 8 Few isolated rust spots, < 0.1% of surface is rusted 7 Few isolated rust spots, < 0.3% of surface is rusted 6 Extensive rust spots. < 1 % of surface is rusted 5 Rusting to the extent of 3% of surface area 4 Rusting to the extent of 10% of surface area 3 Approximately 1/6th of the surface (17%) is rusted 2 Approximately 1/3rd of the surface (33%) is rusted 1 Approximately Y. of the surface (50%) is rusted o Approximately 100% of the surface is rusted INTERIOR RESERVOIR ROOF, QUADRANT 2 QUADRANT3 SSPC NACE AWS SSPC NACE AWS QUADRANT 4 SSPC NACE AWS QUADRANT 1 SSPC NACE AWS Vents Roof Panels Roof Support Structure Roof Support Gussets Painting Ring Jo I-C- /0 ~ / J() .1L L ~_,_ -lliL' I- . 10 -&0 L ~-AbL- .lO_-A.P & f DS. L --..- -14- 14- 1.- -ID- A / IV -4- I q _1l1LL ID~~ --lO- ~ L ~~+ Blistering - Chalking - Checking - Cracking -~Growth -~ ~~ Pltdng , Avg. 51:,;. B;>Fair Poor: &lIliter.. I A vg. 51,,, Protective Coating INTERIOR RESERVOIR WALLS1 QUADRANT 4 SSPC NACE AVVS QUADRANT3 SSPC NACE AWS -11L A 1..- ~~*- -1lL -L ~ QUADRANT 2 SSPC NACE AVVS QUADRANT 1 SSPC NACE AWS ID A L- -t\) _~ L =Ia=r+ 1- L M L ---1Q. ---11- ~ fi.. 11 L - ~ -..- J!C ~+~ rO=l _JO_ B 10 J4 Wall to Roof Weld Lower Ring Panels Middle Ring Panels Upper Ring Panels Interior Ladder ~ Fair poor~ Chalking - f:,hecking - crackin~amina~- Growth - Pinhole~- ~9slRuJ\S-=:> Blisters I Avg. Size t/8' Pitting I Avg. Size I h I.J:> , Protective Coating INTERIOR RESERVOIR FLOOR, QUADRANT 2 QUADRANT3 SSPC NACE AVVS SSPC NACE AVVS lo ~ l_ -yo- A L. QUADRANT 4 SSPC NACE AVVS \D it':) QUADRANT 1 SSPC NACE AWS ~ -A- L- --1.IL ~ L- -lO- -A- L --1Q... -A- ~ L L ~ A Perimeter Weld Floor Sketches (Panels) Blistering - Chalking. Checking - Cracking - Delamination - Growth - Pinhole~slR~ Pitting I Avg. Size ~ Fair Poor: Blisters I Avg. Size Protective Coating I LAIM LiqUid Engineering CorporatIon does not provide consulting engineering ~s. Unless otherwise noted. the findu'Os contained In this repon.were nerther prepared nor reViewed by a @ Copyright 2003 LiqUid Engoneering Corporation - All nghts reserved Liquid Engineering Corporation Steel Potable Water Reservoir Inspection Report Utility 'Sf.f-! iN/-; Tank ~ 5(' ...:JO~ INTERIOR RESERVOIR SUPPORT COLUMNS1 QUADRANT 1 QUADRANT 2 QUADRANT3 QUADRANT 4 SSPC NACE AWS SSPC NACE AWS SSPC NACE AWS SSPC NACE AWS Column Structures . ~ -1i- ~ --1L --1C2- \., ~ \3 -.k::-. ?; 13 L Column Base Structure ~ ~ ~ -3- ---B-- t.- .B.- Ii I- 9 :B t- Column To Roof Stucture ~ $- ~ ~ ~ L ~ CO -1.::::::- 0.. B ~ Protective Coating Good & Poor: Blistering - Chalking - Checking - Cracking - elaminatl - Growth. Pinhole~s~ Blisters / Avg. Size Pitt ng / Avg. Size ~ Job No. '~ -- Itv!:;) Page 2 of2 Inlet Plumbing Outlet Plumbing Manways Floor Drains Interior Overflows INTERIOR RESERVOIR PLUMBING COMPONENTS QUADRANT 1 QUADRANT 2 QUADRANT3 SSPC NACE AWS SSPC NACE AWS SSPC NACE AWS -9- -e- t QUADRANT 4 SSPC NACE AWS q 1L-~ ~ 'Pi D \..- 5" --B- L.- Vents Roof Panels Access Hatches QUADRANT 1 SSPC NACE AWS ~ -..:!L ~ --1.Q.. ~ ~ ~ -JL- L EXTERIOR RESERVOIR ROOF1 QUADRANT 2 QUADRANT3 SSPC NACE AWS SSPC NACE AWS ~~~ ---1Q. ~ ...l..=- ---1D- -E- ~ --LC.L ~ L- QUADRANT 4 SSPC NACE AWS "B L 17 t..- 10 \0 Protective Coating & Fair Poor: Blisters / Avg. Size Wall to Roof Weld Lower Ring Panels Middle Ring Panels Upper Ring Panels Interior Overflows Protective Coating QUADRANt 1 SSPC NACE AWS ~ t> -l-- :=3.=:e, \.. q ---1L- ~ q ~-LL- --.iL ..JL ~ EXTERIOR RESERVOIR WALLS1 QUADRANT 2 QUADRANT3 SSPC NACE AWS SSPC NACE AWS ~ --.::B- ---L-. ~ -K ---k- -.!L ----i3- t..-- ~ ---XL ~ ~ --52- ~ --L ----L?L. ~ ~~~ ~ {3 ~ ~ Fair Poor: Blistering -@g - Checking - Crackin ~rs / Avg. Size QUADRANT 4 SSPC NACE AWS q b ~ q -1L~ ~ --5- ~ q-B-L- Footings / Foundations Satisfactory Anchor Bolts Satisfactory X- X Cracking Loose Spalling Rusted I Corroded "X. . Erosion/Exposed Aggregate ,A." (If Excessive) Diameter = TOWER SUPPORT STRUCTURES1 Tower Legs I Columns Satisfactory -r:. Alignment Settling Rust I Corrosion x..... Riser Pipe Satisfactory .~ Alignment I Settling Frost Casing 'X Rusted I Corroded >C ~.. It. T"'Fllnt8k~ Satisfactory Turnbuckle Tension Rod Tension Cotter PinsIRod Nuts L'el sl:leell I Rr:ockets Satisfactory Coating Rusted I Corroded Pitting I Cracking Other 01 LAIMER LIqUid Engineering Corporation does not prOVIde COnSulting englneenng Servl~S Unless otherwise noted. the findIngs contained In thls.report ,were neither ~ared nor revIewed by a @ Copynghl 2003l,quld Engineering CorporatIon - All rights reserved Liquid Engineering Corporation Potable Water Reservoir Contamination, Health and Safety Report Job No. "5?g05 Utility 56;! /wt:,.; Tank ~"1' :706 Inspector F?~rt Team Leader 5('it~.L Date II t!J?-7" tJ(.? jForm 11 Complies With: AWWA · OSHA · ANSI · NIOSH · NAVFAC · NFPAC · Contamination & Health Checklist · Type:~\J # l Screen ConditionsQ Fair Poor Type: . t:>/'oU) "# '"l- Sec~red properl~ No Properly Sealed:~ No Flapper: Yes Screen: '@'No Gasket: Yes t!IJ Conditio~ Fair Poor Covers in Place: Yes No Gaskets: 15..5 No Properly Sealed: Yes ~ # of Covers~ Welded: ~ No Properly Sealed: @ No Holes: Y~~J Cracking: Yes~. Standing Water: Yes ~ Other: ND'N'2.- Holes: Yes Cracking: Yes l@l Other: NON e:. Leaks: Yes 0 Con~ition: Good Fair Poor r;.. General Appearance: r..,()O-P Odor: NON6- Other: A/a 'AI t:- Type: ~~~~t source:---L1..k.~ . CORditi~ -. ~ d F~ir Poor Wol1J~. Yit: ~Jg~O . Y&E ~tQ :}V~~rl' YP~ Nn Air Vents Hatches Exterior Overflow 6trttn5'iJic Covers 7 Roof to Wall Joint Roof Integrity Wall Integrity Manway Integrity Water Clarity Floating Surface Debris WypalQR FIQ~tiRg ('g".r TeleFReVy PeRetration'f ~er Q!~crt!l?_il.n_ciesj Exterior Ladder Overall Ladder Ladder Vandal Guard Ladder Rails & Rungs Rung Spacing & Depth Rail Spacing & Size Safety Climb System Number & Locations Ladder Attachments Manwavs Type and Size Support Structure Number & Locations Hatches Hatch Type and Size Hatch & Lid Lip Height Balconies & Railina DeckJWalkways Hand Rails Toe Rail Welds/Attachments Roof Safety Tie-Off Points Antennas [Qth.!t.! _I:li_sc repanci~ Additional Information · Facility Safety Compliance Checklist · Condition~nli) Fa~oor Offset Landing~ I No #:~ Height: J '" 5 Present: ~NO I ~ Vandal Guard Locked: Yes I No Condition:~ Fair Poor MissingJOama.s.ed Rungs: Yes €Si> ~;t~~g: '7 If 17;,. (,;;;~ ~'?,ax i~;~kn~~:: derJ~~' in~in. ~~j (7{~il ~~ Rail: .( Co "in. (max 16'1 Type: Cage otc e Cable Grab Other None condition~.Fair Poor Wall eg Roof Riser Pipe \ Other ~ . ~ Bolted Other . 1 \ oun Oval Square Other Size: 1.4 I' (24" - 18")(22" min.) #--+-- Davit Arm Bolted Other Cond~ Fajr Poor Roof Riser Pipe Other V ~ ". oun Square Rectangle Other (24" - 24")(15" min.) ..3 0 atch (4" min.) 0 Lid ( 2" min) 2.!' condition~o Fair Condition: Fair Condition: Fair Condition:~ Fair till (42" min.) I (4" min.) (min. 2) No. Rails 3 Width: Height Height Poor Poor Poor Poor Condition: ~ Fair Poor # -i' 20) Types: Transmitting- Point to Point / Omni Directional Receiving #-b- DISCLAIMER Unless otherwise noted. the findin9s contained in this report were neither prepared nor rev)ow'ed by a licensed Protesslonel Engineer. but are Daled on U'le expertence, training and ViSUal exammatlon of the Insp~,,"g DIVe MaIntenance Techn.clan. <tl COPynghl 2003 LiqUid Engineenng CorporatIon - All nghl$ re.ervllO Liquid Engineering Corporation Circular Tank Diagram I Information Worksheet Job# 3~~5 Tank Name: '7-f ~& WALLS Roof line Q-4 Q-1 Q-2 Date: II 00{ 0 (,') Q-3 I 5;:11\1: tJ1:N (, - I:\~~ ~f. t) L'1.STe f-!N& (3L1JreRWb . o.U~ ~S ~!ttK5Wb I u@I Top slIUClure(6) I I I \ ( B1' Steel Concrete Other' e COPYRIGHT 2003110UID EN ING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Floor line Testing and Discrepancy Locations ROOF "5-rAt~ 1 "",-,...lO~ o~ AIri- ST 0-4 A ..x.E rJ'\e..A-rt~ ~~~JeN 0-2 0-3 Plumbing & Structure Location Sediment Depth Measurements Average Sediment Depth= The sum of all measurements laken, divided by the number of measurements taken. t")\\ Average Sedi~ent Depth: ~ Cubic Yardage: Type of sediment:~N.o Plumbing and Structure Codes O=OuUel X=lnJet Z=Manway V=Vent D=Dra.n S=Sump L=Ladder H=Haldl P=Overflow F=Float level Indicator T=Telemetry IN 11-J~ & UAfl):::> Column Placement =+ Liquid ~ring COtJ)Of8tion Circular Tank Diagram I NOT 0 OFT ILl Coating Adhesion D Presence of Lead 0 -"? ~--,,' - . ( .-- ~ '//)"'''' O'J A ~ ~~ Tank Name: "). J,J~ Date: /. "'ffl (.V Job# WAllS Q-4 of line 0-1 0-2 0-3 Color: vJH \,t OXO 00 0 ("'\) 00 V or line lor: r- Color Testing and Discrepancy Locations X Q-1 00 00 x 00 G)@ Q.2 Q-3 (L1) ~ (-- \_) r [J \< / o CClf'VRlGHT 2003 LIQUID ENGINEERING CORPORATION - -'LL RIGtiTS RESERVED Attachment: Yes REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 18.2007 Engineering Tracy Ekola, PE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM 2007 Jade Road Improvements. PREVIOUS ACTION Council ordered preparation of Facility Study for 2007 Jade Road Improvements at December 7, 2006 Council Meeting. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Review report. Schedule Public Improvement Hearing for February 1, 2007. FISCAL IMPACT See attached report (Appendix C). COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS P:\PTlS\stjoe\common\D39 Req Council Action\0605 Feas Report 2 011807.doc I I' I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I Feasibility Report 2007 Jade Road Improvements St. Joseph, Minnesota SEH No. A-ST JOE0605. 00 January 18, 2007 ~ SEH Multidisciplined. Single Source. Trusted solutions for more than 7S years. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I ~ SEH January 18, 2007 RE: St. Joseph, Minnesota. 2007 Jade Road Improvements SEH No. A-STJOE0605.00 52 Honorable Mayor and City Council c/o Judy Weyrens, Clerk/Administrator City of Saint Joseph 25 College Avenue North PO Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374-0668 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Enclosed is a Feasibility Study for the proposed improvements for Jade Road, and utilities and trail improvements to the Independent School District 742 (ISD 742) site. Preliminary cost estimates and proposed assessments are also provided. Please review the enclosed document and contact me if any questions arise. QZY' fr-- TracYL~OIa, PE City Engineer Jmw/sl p:\pt\slstjoe\060500lreportslreport 011807.doc Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 1200 25th Avenue South, P.O. Box 1717, St. Cloud, MN 56302-1717 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 320.229.4300 I 800.572.0617 I 320.229.4301 fax I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Feasibility Report SEH No. A-ST JOE0605.00 January 18, 2007 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws ofthe tate of Minnesota. Date: o III 8/07 Lie. No.: 25216 Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 1200 25th Avenue South P.O. Box 1717 St. Cloud, MN 56302-1717 320.229.4300 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Certification Page Table of Contents Page 1.0 Scope ................. .................................................. ............. ...... ....................... 1 2.0 F easi bil ity ............................. ............................... ....................................... ... 1 3.0 Backgrou nd ....... .................... .... ......... ..... ....... ..... ... ........ ................. ..... ......... 1 3.1 Site Location............................................................................................. 1 3.2 Existing Utilities ......... ........................................................................ ........ 1 4.0 Proposed 1m provements .......... ............................... ........... ........... ...... ......... 2 4.1 Sanitary Sewer.................................... ................................ ............. ......... 2 4.2 Water Main......................................... ............ ............................... ........... 2 4.3 Streets.. . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. 2 4.4 Trails........................................................................................................ 3 4.5 Stormwater Improvements.......................................................................... 3 4.6 Other Improvements........ ........... ........................... ........... ............... .......... 3 5.0 Probable Cost. ........ ..... ........ .... ............0, ...... ......... ... .......... ....... ...... ....... ......... 4 5.1 Street, Sanitary Sewer, Water Ma!.n, Storm Water, and Turn Lane Improvements..................................................................... 4 5.2 Other Costs.............................................................................................. 4 6.0 Estimated Assessments ... .... ............ ............... ... ................. .............. ........... 4 6.1 Assessments.................. ........... ..................... .................... ...... ................ 4 Table 1 List of Tables Opinion of Probable Cost ....................................................................... 5 List of Figures Figure A Figure B Figure C Location Map Site Improvements Typical Section Appendix A Appendix B List of Appendices Opinion of Probable Cost Preliminary Assessment Worksheet SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Feasibility Report S1. Joseph, Minnesota A-ST JOE0605 Page i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Feasibility Report 2007 Jade Road Improvements Prepared for City of St. Joseph 1.0 Scope This report investigates the feasibility of providing sanitary sewer, water main, streets, and trails to serve a new school in St. Joseph. The project location map (Figure A) is included in this report. Construction of the improvements is proposed for the summer of 2007. 2.0 Feasibility This project is necessary to provide sanitary sewer, water and streets to ISD 742. The project is feasible, cost effective, and necessary. 3.0 Background ISD 742 is preparing to construct a new school on the south side of St. Joseph. The initial feasibility study entitled "ISD 742 Improvements" was completed in November 2005 and compared improvement costs for two different proposed sites. This Feasibility Study provides updated cost information. In addition, the scope of the improvements has changed due to the delay of the developer's schedule for Rivers Bend Phase I. Additional trunk water and sewer, trail, and storm water improvements have been added to the scope. 3.1 Site Location The location purchased by ISD 742 is located south of County Road 121 and east of Jade Road, which is located in the Arcon Development, Rivers Bend PUD. Street and utility improvements are needed for the site. 3.2 Existing Utilities Existing IS-inch sanitary sewer and 12-inch water main are extended just south of the County Road 121 lift station. Feasibility Report St. Joseph, Minnesota A-ST JOE 0605 Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.2 4.3 4.0 4.1 Proposed Improvements Sanitary Sewer The IS-inch gravity sewer will be extended through Rivers Bend along (future) Lanigan Avenue and (future) Neary Street to the school property line. Gravity sanitary sewer is proposed to serve the proposed school building; however, future school improvements on the east and south portions of the school site can not be served by the gravity main to be installed with these improvements. Future additions in those locations will need to be served by a new lift station, which would be installed by Arcon Development to serve surrounding residential developments per the Preliminary Plat for Rivers Bend PUD. Installation of utilities within the future rights-of-way for Lanigan and Neary Street will require utility easements or platting of the street right-of-way by the developer, Arcon Development. Water Main The St. Joseph WaterCAD model was recently updated to reflect proposed water main additions to the current system. The proposed area examined is near the proposed school site. Currently, a 12-inch trunk water main is in place along College Avenue South, and ends about 500 feet south ofIverson Street West, near the County Road 121 lift station. The proposed construction would extend this 12-inch trunk main farther southeast along College Avenue South, then south along Lanigan Avenue SW and east along Neary Street SW to the proposed school site. A section of water main was placed in the model to reflect this proposed alignment for analysis. The model indicates that the available fire flow from the 12-inch trunk water main in the street will be near 2,300 gpm. This is the amount of water that can safely be pulled from the water main at this location while maintaining a residual pressure in the water system of 20 psi. For a facility such as a school, water main looping for redundancy is recommended, in case of a water main break or shut down on the trunk main. It is anticipated that water main looping would be accomplished via the Arcon Development and/or the Regional Land and Holding, LLC on the east side of the school site, once development occurs in that area. The time frame for completing the water main loop is not known at this time and is not included as part of these improvements. Streets Jade Road will need to be reconstructed from County Road 121 to the school site. Figure C shows the typical street section. Two entrances to the school site will be located on Jade Road as shown on Figure A. In the future, Jade Road will need to be extended south to future phases of Rivers Bend. Turn lane improvements will also be constructed with the 2007 Jade Road Improvements on County Road 121 at Jade Road and Iverson Street. Feasibility Report St. Joseph. Minnesota ST JOE 0605 Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.5 4.6 4.4 Trails A 6-foot concrete sidewalk is proposed along CR 121 from Iverson Street to the Rivers Bend plat line. An 8-foot bituminous trail is proposed from that point to Jade Road. Lights spaced at 175-foot intervals will be installed along the CR 121 trail. Along Jade Road there is a proposed 6- foot concrete sidewalk to the school site. The trails will provide a safe route to the school site for pedestrians. The cost for the trail along County Road 121 will be assessed to the developer. The portion on the sidewalk along Jade Road is part of the Jade Road assessment costs. Stormwater Improvements Storm sewer will be provided for the Jade Road improvements. A future storm sewer extension will be required through the ISD 742 site. This future storm sewer will be installed by Arcon Development as required for their residential subdivision improvements. A temporary discharge and stormwater pond for the Jade Road storm sewer will be constructed west of Jade Road as part ofthese improvements. Other Improvements This report does not include street lighting, intersection lighting, or site' improvements to the proposed school site, such as driveway/access road, utility extensions, site grading, drainage improvements or storm water ponds that will be required as part of the school site development. These improvements should be evaluated along with the school site and building design by ISD 742. Relocation of electric utilities may be required for turn lane improvements and the Jade Road improvements, and are not included in the costs or assessments presented in this report. Feasibility Report St. Joseph, Minnesota ST JOE 0605 Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.0 5.1 5.2 6.0 6.1 Probable Cost Street, Sanitary Sewer, Water Main, Storm Water, and Turn Lane Improvements Table 1 Opinion of Probable Cost Sanitary Sewer $489,392.51 Water Main $542,772.98 Stormwater Improvements $151,049.28 Streets, Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk - Jade $507,799.99 CR 121 turn lanes at Jade Road $193,126.86 CR 121 turn lanes at Iverson Street $136,449.29 CR 121 trail and trail lighting $224,095.44 TOTAL: $2,244,686.35 For estimating purposes, the above costs.include 10 percent contingency, 18 percent engineering, and 10 percent legaVfiscaVadministrative costs. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix A. Other Costs The above costs are for extending sewer, water and streets to the school's property only. They do not include costs to extend the sanitary and water main service stubs to the actual school buildings, nor do they include costs for access roads and storm sewer improvements on the school's property. Estimated Assessments Assessments Proposed assessments for benefiting properties for street, water main, gravity sanitary sewer, turn lanes, and trails are provided in Appendix B. Trunk charges, SAC and WAC will apply, but are not included in the assessment costs. Feasibility Report St. Joseph, Minnesota ST JOE 0605 Page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I List of Figures Figure A - Location Map Figure B - Site Improvements Figure C - Typical Section Feasibility Report St. Joseph, Minnesota A-ST JOE 0605 Page 5 I I I I I I I Ie CJ> u II --' +- If +- L o Ii o <D o I Vl ./ f- I LL [ <( ~ r I :::, I I ~ Jt. SEH FIGURE A PROJECT LOCATION ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA I I I I I I I I~ " vi +- II L 0. .s I~ +- L o 0. Ii o U) o ./ I~ V1 ./ f- I c;: :r: ( <! I~ I~ :::: I I ~ Jt. SEH FIGURE B SITE IMPROVEMENTS ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA I I I I I I I I C 0> I~ l]) U) "5 I~ +- L o 0. Ii o '"' o I~ {/) /' f- "- I~ LL I~ <>: I~ - r-- Ii I I L R/W I VARIES I JADE ROAD STREET TYPICAL SECTION 44' VARIES R/W I 3' 12' 7' ct 7' 12' 3' SLOPE 2.01- ~ SLOPE 2.0% ~ B618 CONCRETE CURB &. GUTTER TOPSOIL &. SEED 1 ' CONCRETE WALK 11/{ B I TUM I NOUS WEAR COURSE BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 21/{ B ITUM I NOUS NON-WEAR COURSE 6" AGGREGATE BASE. CLASS 5 18" SELECT GRANULAR BORROW GEOTEXTILE FABRIC Jt. SEH FIGURE C TYPICAL SECTION ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A Opinion of Probable Cost I I I TRUNK UTILITIES 12/26/2006 ST. JOSEPH, MN I CITY NO. SEH NO. A-ST JOE0605.00 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST I ITEM UNIT OF APPROXIMATE UNIT NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION MEASUREMENT QUANTITY PRICE COST TOTAL GENERAL MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 I 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 3 SILT FENCE, HEAVY DUTY L1N FT 2,275.00 $2.50 $5,687.50 I 4 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH 4.00 $750.00 $3,000.00 5 SALVAGE & INSTALL 18" CMP UN FT 48.00 $17.00 $816.00 $54,503.50 SANITARY SEWER I 6 15' PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR35 L1N FT 3,186.00 $50.00 $159,300.00 7 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR35 L1N FT 238.00 $35.00 $8,330.00 8 15" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR26 L1N FT 207.00 $55.00 $11,385.00 I 9 4" PVC SANITARY SEWER SERVICE, SDR26 L1N FT 1,417.00 $17.00 $24,089.00 10 SANITARY MANHOLE EACH 18.00 $2,100.00 $37,800.00 I 11 EXTRA DEPTH MANHOLE L1N FT 135.89 $125.00 $16,986.25 12 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EACH 1.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 13 15' X 4' PVC WYE EACH 29.00 $440.00 $12,760.00 I 14 CLEAN & TELEVISE SANITARY SEWER L1N FT 3,631.00 $1.75 $6,354.25 15 AGGREGATE BEDDING (CV) CUYD 1,235.00 $20.00 $24,700.00 $303,204.50 WATER MAIN I 16 12' WATER MAIN - DUCT IRON CL 50 L1N FT 4,685.00 $37.00 $173,345.00 17 8" WATER MAIN - DUCT IRON CL 50 L1N FT 80.00 $28.00 $2,240.00 18 6' WATER MAIN - DUCT IRON CL 52 L1N FT 240.00 $25.00 $6,000.00 I 19 HYDRANT EACH 13.00 $2,500.00 . $32,500.00 20 12' GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 15.00 $1,800.00 $27,000.00 I 21 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 2.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 22 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 12.00 $750.00 $9,000.00 23 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 1.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 I 24 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 29.00 $140.00 $4,060.00 25 1" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 29.00 $150.00 $4,350.00 26 l' TYPE K COPPER PIPE L1N FT 1,155.00 $16.00 $18,480.00 'I 27 JACK/BORE 30' STEEL CASING PIPE . L1N FT 80.00 $275.00 $22,000.00 28 3' INSULATION SaYD 11.00 $25.00 $275.00 I 29 WATER MAIN FITTINGS POUND 3,534.00 $4.00 $14,136.00 30 AGGREGATE BEDDING (CV) CUYD 1,500.00 $17.00 $25,500.00 $341,886.00 II 1/10/2007 I I I I I TRUNK UTILITIES ST. JOSEPH. MN CITY NO. SEH NO. A-ST JOE0605.00 12/26/2006 I ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION TURF RESTORATION OPINION OF PROBABLE COST UNIT OF APPROXIMATE UNIT MEASUREMENT QUANTITY PRICE COST TOTAL I 31 INLET PROTECTION TYPE D EACH 2.00 $150.00 $300.00 32 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CUYD 1,217.00 $12.00 $14.604.00 33 SEEDING (TEMPORARY) ACRE 1.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 34 SEEDING ACRE 4.40 $1,000.00 $4,400.00 35 SEED MIXTURE (TEMPORARY) POUND 80.00 $2.00 $160.00 36 SEED MIXTURE POUND 1.056.00 $3.00 $3,168.00 37 MULCH MATERIAL (TEMPORARY) TON 2.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 38 MULCH MATERIAL TON 5.50 $800.00 $4,400.00 39 DISC ANCHORING (TEMPORARY) ACRE 1.00 $350.00 $350.00 40 DISC ANCHORING ACRE 2.80 $350.00 $980.00 41 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SQYD 7,825.00 $2.00 $15,650.00 42 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER (TEMPORARY) POUND 200.00 $1.00 $200.00 43 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER POUND 1,540.00 $1.00 $1,540.00 $48,352.00 SUBTOTAL - CONSTRUCTION $747,946.00 $747,946.00 CONTINGENCY (10%) $74,794.60 ENGINEERING (18%) $134,630.28 LEGAL, FISCAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE (10%) $74,794.60 GRAND TOTAL $1,032,165.48 P:\P1\S\stjoe\060S00\sp9cs'{REPORT estimale.x1sJTra~ Estimate I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 1/10/2007 I I I I I County Road 121 Right & Left Turn Lanes at Jade Road 12126/2006 ST. JOSEPH, MN CITY NO. SEH NO. A-ST JOE0605.00 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ITEM UNIT OF APPROXIMATE UNIT NO. ITEM OESCRIPTION MEASUREMENT QUANTITY PRICE COST TOTAL GENERAL TRAFFiC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 SILT FENCE, HEAVY DUTY L1N FT 2,519.00 $2.50 $6,297.50 PAVEMENT MARKiNG REMOVAL L1NFT 3,374.00 $0.50 $1,687.00 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQYD 636.00 $3.00 $1,908.00 SAWiNG BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT L1NFT 2,470.00 $5.00 $12,350.00 $37,242.50 STREET COMMON EXCAVATION (PO) CUYD 1,225.00 $3.50 $4,287.50 SUBGRADE EXCA V A TION (PO) CUYD 2,250.00 $3.50 $7,875.00 WATER MGAL 20.00 $30.00 $600.00 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) (P) CUYD 2,250.00 $9.00 $20,250.00 10 COMMON BORROW (CV) CUYD 2,540.00 $8.00 $20,320.00 11 AGGREGATE BASE PLACED CLASS 5 CUYD 572.00 $22.50 $12,870.00 12 WEARiNG COURSE MIXTURE TON 209.00 $52.00 $10,868.00 13 NON WEAR COURSE MIXTURE TON 268.00 $46.00 $12,328.00 14 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 108.00 $1.75 $189.00 15 GEOTEXTlLE FILTER FABRIC, MNDOT TYPE V SQYD 2,258.00 $1.50 $3,387.00 16 PAVEMENT MESSAGE - RIGHT TURN ARROW EACH 2.00 $200.00 $400.00 17 PAVEMENT MESSAGE - LEFT TURN ARROW EACH 2.00 $200.00 $400.00 18 4" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPOXY L1NFT 3,011.00 $0.50 $1,505.50 19 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPOXY L1NFT 2,035.00 $0.50 $1,017.50 20 STREET SWEEPING HOUR 5.00 $100.00 $500.00 $96,797.50 TURF RESTORATION 21 ONSITE TOPSOIL RESPREAD (LV) CUYD 464.00 $2.00 $928.00 22 SEEDING (TEMPORARY) ACRE 0.10 $500.00 $50.00 23 SEEDING ACRE 0.50 $500.00 $250.00 24 SEED MIXTURE (TEMPORARY) POUND 8.00 $2.00 $16.00 25 SEED MIXTURE POUND 120.00 $3.00 $360.00 26 MULCH MATERIAL (TEMPORARY) TON 0.20 $800.00 $160.00 27 MULCH MATERIAL TON 0.40 $800.00 $320.00 28 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SQYD 1,439.00 $2.00 $2,878.00 29 DISC ANCHORING (TEMPORARY) ACRE 0.10 $2,500.00 $250.00 30 DISC ANCHORING ACRE 0.20 $2,500.00 $500.00 31 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER (TEMPORARY) POUND 20.00 $1.00 $20.00 32 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER POUND 175.00 $1.00 $175.00 $5,907.00 SUBTOTAL - CONSTRUCTION $139,947.00 $139,947.00 CONTINGENCY (10%) $13,994.70 ENGINEERING (18%) $25,190.46 LEGAL, FISCAL, AND ADMINISTRATiVE (10%) $13,994.70 GRAND TOTAL $193,126.96 P:\PT\S'.$liOt\06G5OO'>$pves"lAEPORTllISlmale _IT.... ESlomare Notes: 1. Mobilization was not included as it is included with Jade Road & the utility Improvements. 2. Assumed topsoillrom Jade Road Improvements is available. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. 1/10/2007 I I I I 12/26/2006 County Road 121 Right & Left Turn Lanes at Iverson Street SI. Joseph, MN I SEH NO. A-STJOE 0605 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ITEM UNIT OF APPROXIMATE UNIT I NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION MEASUREMENT QUANTITY PRICE COST TOTAL GENERAL TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 I 2 SILT FENCE, HEAVY DUTY UN FT 300.00 $2.50 $750.00 3 TEMPORARY LANE MARKING ROAD ST A 1,000.00 $1.00 $1,000.00 4 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL UN FT 2,478.00 $0.50 $1,239.00 I 5 REMOVE 15" RC PIPE SEWER UN FT 8.00 $10.00 $80.00 6 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER UN FT 790.00 $4.00 $3,160.00 I 7 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQYD 1,182.00 $3.00 $3,546.00 8 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT UN FT 10.00 $6.00 $60.00 9 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT UN FT 1,130.00 $5.00 $5,650.00 I 10 SALVAGE & INSTALL HYDRANT EACH 2.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 11 SALVAGE & INSTALL GATE VALVE EACH 2.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 12 SALVAGE & INSTALL 12" RC APRON EACH 1.00 $250.00 $250.00 I 13 SALVAGE & INSTALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURE' EACH 2.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $23,735.00 STREET I 14 COMMON EXCAVATION (PQ) CUYD 956.00 $3.50 $3,346.00 15 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (PQ) CUYD 1,687.00 $3.50 $5,904.50 16 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) (P) CUYD 1,687.00 $9.00 $15,183.00 I 17 AGGREGATE BASE PLACED CLASS 5 (CV) (P) CUYD 399.00 $22.50 $8,977.50 18 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TON 151.00 $52.00 $7,852.00 I 19 NON-WEAR COURSE MIXTURE TON 195.00 $46.00 $8,970.00 20 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 78.00 $1.75 $136.50 21 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER UN FT 792.00 $9.00 $7,128.00 I 22 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQYD 50.00 $35.00 $1,750.00 23 BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQYD 15.00 $15.00 $225.00 24 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH 4.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 I 25 ADJUST VALVE BOX EACH 2.00 $150.00 $300.00 26 STREET SWEEPING HOUR 5.00 $100.00 $500.00 $61,272.50 I I I 1/10/2007 I I I I I County Road 121 Right & Left Turn Lanes at Iverson Street 12/26/2006 St. Joseph, MN SEH NO. A-ST JOE 0605 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ITEM UNIT OF APPROXIMATE UNIT NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION MEASUREMENT QUANTITY PRICE COST TOTAL STRIPING 27 PAVEMENT MESSAGE - STOP EACH 1.00 $150.00 $150.00 28 PAVEMENT MESSAGE LEFT ARROW EACH 8.00 $200.00 $1,600.00 29 PAVEMENT MESSAGE RIGHT ARROW EACH 2.00 $200.00 $400.00 30 24" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPOXY L1N FT 24.00 $4.50 $108.00 31 4" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPOXY L1N FT 1,785.00 $0.50 $892.50 32 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPOXY UN FT 1,036.00 $0.90 $932.40 33 4" DOUBLE CENTER TURN LANE-EPOXY L1N FT 1,456.00 $0.90 $1,310.40 $5,393.30 WATER MAIN - Relocate 2 hydrants 34 6" WATER MAIN - DUCT IRON CL 50 L1N FT 25.00 $24.00 $600.00 35 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 2.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $2,200.00 STORM SEWER 36 12" RC PIPE SEWER UN FT 10.00 $27.00 $270.00 37 15"'RC PIPE SEWER L1N FT 20.00 $29.00 $580.00 38 CONNECT TO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 2.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $2,450.00 TURF RESTORATION 39 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CUYD 171.00 $9.00 $1,539.00 40 SEEDING ACRE 0.10 $1,000.00 $100.00 41 SEED POUND 20.00 $3.00 $60.00 42 SODDING TYPE LAWN SQYD 442.00 $2.75 $1,215.50 43 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SQYD 438.00 $2.00 $876.00 44 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER POUND 35.00 $1.00 $35.00 $3,825.50 SUBTOTAL. CONSTRUCTION $98,876.30 $98,876.30 CONTINGENCY (10%) $9.887.63 ENGINEERING (18%) $17,797.73 LEGAL, FISCAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE (10%) $9,887.63 GRAND TOTAL $136,449.29 p:\pnS\stjoe\060500\specs\(REPORTeslimate.x1s]TraiJ Estimate I I I I I I I I I I I I Notes: 1. Mobilization was not included. This project will be completed as part of the Jade Road Improvement Project. I I 2 1/10/2007 I I I I I JADE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 12/26/2006 ST. JOSEPH, MN CITY NO. SEH NO. A-STJOE0605.00 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ITEM UNIT OF APPROXIMATE NO, ITEM DESCRIPTION MEASUREMENT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST TOTAL GENERAL MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1.00 $1 ,500.00 $1,500.00 3 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH 2.00 $750.00 $1,500.00 4 SILT FENCE, HEAVY DUTY L1N FT 3,200.00 $2.50 $8,000.00 5 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQYD 3,476.00 $3.00 $10,428.00 6 SALVAGE 36' RCP UN FT 58.00 $10.00 $580.00 7 SALVAGE 36" APRON EACH 2.00 $350.00 $700.00 8 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT L1N FT 105.00 $5.00 $525.00 $43,233.00 STREET 9 COMMON EXCAVATION (PO) CUYD 5,374.00 $2.50 $13,435.00 10 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (PO) CUYD 6,115.00 $2.25 $13,758.75 11 WATER MGAL 100.00 $30.00 $3,000.00 12 AGGREGATE BASE PLACED CLASS 5 (CV) (PO) CUYD 1,477.00 $22.50 $33,232.50 13 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) (P) CUYD 4,198.00 $9.00 $37,782.00 14 COMMON BORROW (CV) CUYD 2,902.00 $6.00 $17,412.00 15 GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC, MNDOT TYPE V SOYD 8,396.00 $1.50 $12,594.00 16 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TON 770.00 $52.00 $40,040.00 17 NON WEAR COURSE MIXTURE TON 1,210.00 $46.00 $55,660.00 18 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 396.00 $1.75 $693.00 19 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, DESIGN B618 L1N FT 2,410.00 $9.00 $21,690.00 20 PAVEMENT MESSAGE - STOP EACH 1.00 $150.00 $150.00 21 PAVEMENT MESSAGE - RIGHT TURN ARROW EACH 1.00 $200.00 $200.00 22 PAVEMENT MESSAGE - LEFT TURN ARROW EACH 2.00 $200.00 $400.00 23 24" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPOXY L1N FT 30.00 $4.50 $135.00 24 4" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPOXY L1N FT 864.00 $0.50 $432.00 25 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPOXY L1N FT 2,035.00 $0.90 $1,831.50 26 STREET SWEEPING HOUR 5.00 $100.00 $500.00 27 PERMANENT BARRICADES EACH 2.00 $300.00 $600.00 $253,545.75 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1/10/2007 I I I I I JADE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 12/26/2006 ST. JOSEPH. MN CITY NO. SEH NO. A-STJOE0605.00 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ITEM UNIT OF APPROXIMATE NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION MEASUREMENT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST TOTAL STORM SEWER 28 POND EXCAVATION (PO) CUYD 9.296.00 $3.50 $32.536.00 29 24" RC PIPE APRON WI TRASH GUARD EACH 1.00 $1.200.00 $1.200.00 30 18" HOPE PIPE SEWER lIN FT 630.00 $24.00 $15.120.00 31 24" RCP PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL III lIN FT 1.115.00 $36.00 $40.140.00 32 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES H EACH 1.00 $1.300.00 $1,300.00 33 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 EACH 3.00 $2.000.00 $6,000.00 34 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 60-4020 EACH 3.00 $3.000.00 $9.000.00 35 CONST POND SKIMMER STRUCTURE EACH 1.00 $3.200.00 $3.200.00 36 RANDOM RIPRAP CL III WI GEOTEXTILE FILTER FAB CUYD 16.00 $60.00 $960.00 $109,456.00 TURF RESTORATION 37 INLET PROTECTION TYPE A EACH 7.00 $175.00 $1.225.00 38 INLET PROTECTION TYPE C EACH 7.00 $125.00 $875.00 39 SEEDING (TEMPORARY) ACRE 1.00 $500.00 $500.00 40 SEEDING ACRE 4.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 41 POND SEEDING ACRE 0.90 $1.000.00 $900.00 42 SEED MIXTURE (TEMPORARY) POUND 80.00 $2.00 $160.00 43 SEED MIXTURE POUND 960.00 $3.00 $2.880.00 44 POND SEED MIXTURE POUND 152.00 $3.50 $532.00 45 MULCH MATERIAL (TEMPORARY) TON 2.00 $800.00 $1.600.00 46 MULCH MATERIAL TON 7.20 $800.00 $5.760.00 47 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SQYD 1.867.00 $2.00 $3,734.00 48 POND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SQYD 4.200.00 $2.00 $8,400.00 49 DISC ANCHORING (TEMPORARY) ACRE 1.00 $350.00 $350.00 50 DISC ANCHORING ACRE 3.60 $350.00 $1,260.00 51 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER (TEMPORARY) POUND 200.00 $1.00 $200.00 52 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER POUND 1,400.00 $1.00 $1,400.00 $31.776.00 SUBTOTAL - CONSTRUCTION $438,010.75 $438,010.75 CONTINGENCY (10%) $43.801.08 ENGINEERING (18%) $78.841.94 LEGAL, FISCAL. AND ADMINISTRATIVE (10%) $43.801.08 GRAND TOTAL $604,454.84 P:\PT\S\s1jo8lo0605OO\specs"{REPORTestimato.Jds]Trail Estimale I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 1/10/2007 I I I I I TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS ST. JOSEPH, MN CITY NO. SEH NO. A-ST JOE0605.00 I ITEM NO, OE!lERAl; , MOBILIZATION SILT FENCE, HEAVY DUTY ITEM DESCRIPTION I REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE I SUBGRADE PREPARATION AGGREGATE BASE PLACED CLASS 5 (ev) (PQ) 10 WEARING COURSE MIXTlJRE 11 4" CONCRETE WALK W/4" SAND BEDDING 12 CONSTRUCT PED RAMP WI DOME 13 BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY 14 COMMON BORROW ICv) 15 SlGNAGE & CROSSWALK I I ;':;: :~-i.';::2-1;;'&~~p~nih~~~ I 'M~;~~~~~. i 16 SEEDING 17 SEED MIXTURE 15 MULCH 19 DISC ANCHORING I 20 SODDING TYPE - LAWN 21 FERTlUZER 22 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET OPINION OF PROBABLE COST APPROXIMATE UNIT OF TOTAL MEASUREMENT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST 12/412006 TOTAL .'." >:C'~_' 'W:~~J, ;;-\,',_~;tt:.{~qK;;~:;"" i--:~}i!: ;:_~~j, 1.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 ,;"i" "~{ LUMP SUM UNFT SQYD L1NFT L1NFT EACH 4,975.00 23.00 100.00 5.00 4.00 $2.25 $3.00 $6.00 $20.00 $&00.00 $11,193.75 $69.00 $600.00 $100.00 $3,200.00 $25,162.75 CUYD 17.30 $125.00 $2,162.50 CUYD 496.00 $22.50 $11,160.00 TON 330.00 $68.00 $19,140.00 TON 11,187.00 $3.00 $33,561.00 GAL 6.00 $300.00 $1,&00.00 UNFT 23.00 $15.00 $345.00 EACH 1,568.00 $7.00 $10,976.00 EACH 3.00 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $90,2&8.00 '(,~~~tX;;:\1;;;~~ii;fl;f~Jt~1~i!:1!f!lff.!l1!f-pmr1t~t'lM~\ POUND 254.00 $3.00 $762.00 TON 0.49 $600.00 $245.00 ACRE SQYD POUND SQYD 0.25 356.00 634.00 7,&00.00 $500.00 $4.00 $125 $225 $125.00 $1,424.00 $792.50 $17,100.00 $21,353.50 ~~;;.;-: 23 LIGHTING ~:-~1:f~~8lm-~~}i{~qi!f~f.B~;Mi~~(~~imit{~~~~~~i{_~~_I~llIB LUMP SUM 1.00 $65,000.00 $85,000.00 $65,000.00 I I -- ~ ORT.......lIlI/T... e...- SUBTOTAL. CONSTRUCllON CONTINGENCY (10%) ENGINEERING (1&%) LEGAL, RSCAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE (10%) ORAND TOTAL $201,50425 $20,180.43 $36,324.77 $20,180.43 $275,45U7 $201,50425 I Notes: 1. Estim.te b.sed on 8' bituminous trail, with 6" dass 5 b.... 2. Estim.te does not indude trails for school property. 3. Common excavation Ind borrow are estimates only, not biSect on actual survey. 4. Arcon Development sh.1I be responsible for the cost .nd installation of traU .nd lighting per Memorandum of Understending. I I I I I 1/11/2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B Preliminary Assessment Worksheet I I ... 8 "!. ~ ~ <( ::J I z ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I- W W J: U) lI:: It: I ~ I- ~ Z z W w :IE ::E U) W U) > I w o 8 U) I>: on ~ ~~:g ~ ~ ~~ c( ~~~ z: ~ ~~ I i ::::i <( " 0 w ~~~ It: o....w Q. Nenen I ---.--- ~ ~ ~ ~ '" :: ... I- <D ... Z ~ ~ t:i ~ 0 ~ ul ..lW 0 0 ~ C1> ::I <(lE ~ ~ o g '" tit 1-11I 011I ... ~'" ;;; I-W ~ of III '" .. III <( -' ~ I- ~ 8 tri d a> '" o ..,. N N '" '" 0 a> 0 N d ~ '" N ;:g '" 8 8 ~ d ci . '" '" .. 0> ..; .. .. .. 88gg:g d d c:i d N fh "" ~ ~ .... ... ~ .. o 0 00 gg ffiz 1-;;: ~lE I>: ~ III Z ~ o '" 0 N d a> '" ., a> ~ 88 d c:i '" '" gggglO ocidoN ~fh~~cn ... ! III I- Z W ~ z IIIZI>: ~oi:! ~::!lii g!w -'" ... III m~~::~ ~~SS! ti~;~~ .. cw <(z lilj ui~ ~~ 8 $ on ' a> ., ., ... ~ ~ '" 8888:8 oodd. 44......~ ... ~ .. I- W W '" I- III ... a> 0) N ~ ..j '" M N <D .., N ~~ 8 8 88 l!l ggggi ... ... = w ~::! I>: ~ 8 <( -~ :z: ~I- .,;: III :z: ffii!; 8 0> I- 0> CI 1-<( on .. z ~lE <D ... ~ ... ~ ..,. :z: I>: ~ ~ I- z~ CI ~ z '" ... w ~ = -' III I- W Ww ::! I>:z liij ~ l:j '" '" ~ ~ 0 <( Zz N :z: Oa: o d 0 0 III III::> a: I- ~ cw w <(z a: lilj ... .., g ~ <D .., WZ 0 0 .,;: III ca: <(::> ...,1- ~~ ffi '" ll! ... i:~ "'! ... lO r;; .. a: ::l ~8 Iii ~ ~ .. <(II. I>: ~ w W ::J <( 0 0 lD l- ii; <( C Cl z a: <3 z 0 0 ~ Z 0 0 I>: W W I- 0 0 a: z ~ I>: Z II. W W ~< 0 ::E en :) 11. W ia enO I>: 9 Zz zO w < 01>: ~ W oc.o Z OlD i]j ::Ei= 8 "'< 0 05 z-' d - -' Z NOO 1-< 0 ""0<( >- ZO 0 "'zo '" Wz I>: 6l ,Hi < 5~ < Cl e ~ 88 '" 0 -' ~ C"i M ~ ~o ~ ~ :0 ;1; "'z 00 : "!. N '" ;i ,.; ;i .., '" ~ " Ol .. 11. " c: ~ E .a 0> c: '2 'iij E e '" .. a. .9 '" e '5 0' e Q) .. j .. " 'E Q) a. e a. " " 11 .. c: 0 0 '" c: .. ". '" e lD ..: " " .. .. .. c: 0 0 '0 C " E a. 0 'ii > " '" e .g u. ! 8 en.. g ~ ~ !! .. ~~ ",,, a. ~.!l ~~ '" " ..'" Oc: 1>:0 -Ell ".. 0" 0'" ,,:I c~ ~8. i~ 0._ EO '; .8 -Ig Ec: .as - .. 2 E J!l'~ 8~ " .. j~ ES .a", o~ *~ ~8. [K 'H ,; ! c: 0 [0 E~ 8! -gen .. c: eng oJ - c: " Q) > E- e~ ~ o>N <(~ 1:8 I ~I>: ~-E " " > 0 "0 0_ " ~ ca .!lf~ f ~,.;8 ~ SEH Multidisciplined. Single Source. Trusted solutions for more than 75 years. www.sehinc.com I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Administrator Reports US Cable Agreement for Services DATE: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM US Cable Agreement for Services PREVIOUS ACTION The Council has previously agreed to utilize fiber from US Cable to connect all the City facilities for telephone and Internet. Since that time we have received an agreement from US Cable for the services. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Authorize execution of the Service Agreement with US Cable contingent upon the amendments as requested by the City Attorney and final review by the City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT COlVIMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS The contract has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review with his comments attached. Please note that it was just received today. Due to the timeliness of the installation we are looking for approval contingent upon the City Attorneys approval. Ifthey do not agree to all the amendments as requested by the City Attorney the document will be brought back to the Council for review and consideration. FEES AND PAYMENTS Payment is due thirty (30) days following the date of a US Cable invoice. Each invoice is for the following month. Past due payments incur interest at a rate of 1.5% per month. The "billing commencement date" is five (5) days after the City receives US Cable's notice of the Service Activation Date. Service is deemed accepted by the City and billing coinmences after the 5 day period unless the City notifies US Cable in writing of any performance failures in those 5 days. If the City does not wish to accept service in the instance that a performance failure occurs, the City must cease to utilize any part of the service at that time. Utilization of the service, even after a performance failure, is acceptance of the service and billing begins. If the City disputes any charges, it must still submit those charges that are due and not in dispute. Under the Agreement, the City has 30 days after the date of the applicable invoice to report a disputed charge to US Cable. This poses an obvious problem. Because the invoices are for the following month's service, there will be no time left to dispute a charge if a service problem occurs in the last couple days ofthe month. Further, I would assume that the City will pay its bills in a timely manner, meaning that each month's service will likely be paid for in the first couple weeks of the month. ** AMENDMENT NEEDED. For the above reasons, the agreement should be amended to allow the City 60 days to report a dispute (see Section 5.4 of the Agreement). It should further . be stated that "timely payment of an invoice by the Customer shall not act as a waiver by the Customer to properly dispute an amount contained therein." The City is responsible for regulatory fees and taxes charged to US Cable, but this does not inc1udetaxes from which the City is exempt so long as the tax exemption certificates are provided by the City (see Exhibit A). LIMITATION OF LIABILITY The Agreement limits US Cable's liability to three (3) times the monthly fee for services, or $2,025 in this case. It also states that US Cable will only be liable for actual damages, and not for damages such as punitive, consequential, special, etc. ** AMENDMENT NEEDED. The stated liquidated damages seem low. It should either be stricken or revised. The City should discuss possible ways in which US Cable's actions could harm it and determine a more reasonable estimate of damages. An obvious situation would be if US Cable ceases service without warning and the City is forced to find another service provider on little or no notice. 2 DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES The Agreement includes a blanket disclaimer of all warranties. If Minnesota lawis used to govern this agreement, an attempt to waive statutory warranties is. probably not valid. INDEMNITY Each party agrees to indemnify and defend the other in the instance that it is the one found negligent or guilty of willful misconduct in cases involving property damage, personal injury or death. The indemnified party must immediately notify the other if such a claim is brought. USE OF SERVICE Among other things, the City agrees to hot use the service illegally, distribute spam, resell the services, or use US Cable's logos, trademarks, etc. without its permission. In such instances, remedies include, but are not limited to, immediate termination of services to-the City and/or requiring that the violating City employee be cut off from using the services. The City can terminate the Agreement "for cause" if US Cable fails to remedy a failure to perform a material obligation within 30 days of the City's written notice. In this case, the City must pay all accrued but unpaid charges. The City can terminate "for convenience" by giving 30 days written notice to US Cable, but various liquidated damages are imposed: 1. If the service is terminated before the Service Activation Date, the City must pay US Cable for all costs of implementation of the terminated service. 2. If the City terminates service after the Service Activation Date, it must pay US Cable all amounts owing plus the cost for all remaining months under the Agreement. US Cable can terminate the Agreement without further liability if the City fails to make payment within 10 days of written notice to such effect or fails to perform some other material obligation within 30 days of written notice to such effect. It can also take this action if the City goes bankrupt/insolvent. US CABLE NETWORK US Cable will try to notify the City if its service must be interrupted for maintenance. Service will usually be done between midnight and 6:00 a.m. US Cable is responsible for maintenance, but it will charge the City $100 per hour for labor if it is determined that the City caused the need for maintenance. There is a four-hour minimum charge ($400) and the cost increases to $150 for work between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. The City earns Outage Credits (write-offs on future bills) when service is interrupted, which is the City's only remedy for such events. 3 BINDING ARBITRATION Either party can send disputes to binding arbitration upon demand. Such disputes will be decided under Minnesota law. MISCELLANEOUS The Agreement is to be governed by the laws ofthe State of New Jersey (see section 15.1). This puts the City Attorney at a disadvantage considering that it is not familiar with New Jersey's contract laws. ** AMENDMENT NEEDED. The contract should instead be governed by Minnesota law. We have good arguments for such a change: the contract is entered into here in Minnesota and it will be fully perfomied in Minnesota. Neither party will be responsible for losses due to "acts of God" or other various catastrophes listed in the Agreement. Neither party will refer to itself as a representative of the other party unless it has the other's party's permissioIl to do so. Neither party can assign this Agreement without the other's written consent, which consent cannot be reasonably withheld. The Agreement documents contain the entire agreement. Anv verbal representations previously made that are not included in the Agreement have no effect. 4 ORIGINAL __ "',"'''W. . .~ .. _...... ..... .... CcItJ1e@ of Coastal-Texas, L.R MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT This Master Services Agreement (the "Agreement") is made as of this _th day of December, 2006 (the "Effective Date") and entered into by and between US Cable of Coastal- Texas, L.P, a New Jersey Limited Partnership with its principal place of business at 28 West Grand Avenue, Montvale, NJ 07645 (hereinafter referred to as "US Cable"), and The City of St. Joseph, a City incorporated in the State of Minnesota with its principal place of business at St. Joseph City Hall, 25 College Ave N, St. Joseph, MN 56374 (hereinafter referred to as "Customer"). WHEREAS, Customer desires to obtain certain services from US Cable pursuant to the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement; and WHEREAS, such services shall be specified in one or more of US Cable's then- current Service Order Forms ("SOFs"); and WHEREAS, US~ Cable is willing to provide services for which an SOF has been submitted by Customer and accepted by US Cable. NOW THEREFORE, Customer and US Cable hereby mutually agree as follows: SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 "Activation Date" or "Service Activation Date" shall mean the date, following US Cable's installation and testing, that Service is first made Available to Customer for use. 1.2 "Agreement" shall mean this Master Service Agreement, including all SOFs accepted by US Cable. 1.3 "Available" shall mean all necessary equipment for Service has been properly installed and tested and perform correctly. 1.4 "Customer Affiliate" shall mean any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a party hereunder. 1.5 "Employee" shall mean any employee of Customer. 1.6 "Facilities Based Fiber Optic Connectivity" shall mean fiber based connectivity provided through US Cable's OSP and connects one or more of Customer's locations to other Customer locations and/or to US Cable's Head-end. US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 10118 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph 1.7 "Fiber Optic Network" shall mean the fiber optic cabling and associated electronics that comprises the optical portion ofDS Cable's OSP. 1.8 "Firm Order Confirmation" or "FOC" shall mean the form US Cable submits to Customer indicating US Cable's acceptance of Customer's SOF and the date that Service( s) ordered will be activated. 1.9 "Gig E" shall mean one (1) gigabit of connectivity. 1.10 "lIFC Network" shall mean hybrid fiber optic coaxial network that comprises the asp and provides for the two-way delivery of content. 1.11 "Jeopardy Notice" shall mean the form us Cable submits to Customer indicating US Cable's rejection of Customer's SOF for reasons outlined in this Agreement. 1.12 "Latency" shall mean delays in the transportation of content from point to point that is measured in milliseconds. . 1.13 "Mean Time to Repair" or "MTTR" shall mean the performance target calculated for each calendar month that is the average time required to restore Customer's service after eligible On-Net Outages. The time to restore is measured from the moment the On-Net Outage is reported by Customer to us Cable until the Service is available. US Cable's target objective is to repair network equipment within an average ofless than four hours and to have the first fiber on a fiber cut restored within an average of less than six hours. MTTR maintenance standards only apply for equipment or fiber on US Cable's owned and operated OSP. 1.14 "Monthly Recurring: Chargee s )" or "MRC" shall mean the mutually agreed upon monthly charge for Services. 1.15 ''NOC'' shall mean the network operation center owned, operated and/or contracted to by US Cable. 1.16 ''Network Availability" shall mean the percentage of the total time the Service is operative, measured over a 365-day consecutive-day period. US Cable's Fiber Optic Network shall be 99.99 percent from its Head-end to Customer's premise measured over one year. US Cable will undertake repair efforts on equipment or fiber as soon as it becomes aware, or when notified by the Customer. 1.17 "Non-Recurring Charge(s)" or "NRC" shall mean the installation fee(s) and other one-time charges. 1.18 "Notice of Receipt" or "NOR" shall mean the electronic mail ("E-mail") from US Cable indicating receipt of Customer's SOF. 1.19 "asp" shall mean outside plant. 1.20 "Off-Net" shall mean facilities for the transport of data, voice and/or video that are owned by companies other than US Cable. US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 2 of18 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph 1.21 "On-Net" shall mean the Fiber Optic Network owned or leased, and operated by US Cable. Typically comprised of the OSP fiber optic and coaxial cables covering various geographic areas and/or franchises that are connected to a Head-end "aggregations point" that receives, combines and distributes bi-directional digital, data, video and other content types on its facility. 1.22 "Outage Credit" shall mean compensation in the form of a credit against Customer's MRC payment for Services provided by US Cable in a thirty (30) day month, as set forth in Exhibit B. 1.23 "Service Level Agreement" or "SLA" shall mean the Service Level Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B. 1.24 "Service Order Form" or "SOF" shall mean the form Customer submits to US Cable detailing the Service(s) Customer wishes to order; the SOF shall include rates and term for said Service(s) and, when applicable, rates for ancillary Service(s) Customer may order. 1.25 "Service( s )" shall mean the usage-based and other services offered by US Cable and specifically refers to Services Customer may order under this Agreement. I 1.26 "100 Base T" shall mean one hundred (100) megabit of connectivity. SECTION 2 SERVICES 2.1 Services. All Services are subject to availability, shall be provided on an individual case basis and shall be subject to the terms and rates specified on the applicable SOF(s). Services provided hereunder may include any of the following: A. Facilities Based Fiber Optic Connectivity: Facilities based fiber connectivity from point to point and/or point to multipoint that mayor may not be routed through US Cable's Head-end. This connectivity may include and is not necessarily limited to 100 Base T, Gig E and/or dark fiber(s). B. IF Port Bandwidth: Facilities based fiber connectivity from the Customer's location through US Cable's fiber to US Cable's Head-end and connected to a IP backbone provider. The IP Port may be shaped or routed to the Customer's location through US Cable's routers, switches and/or other equipment. The IP Port may be provided through Customer owned equipment and or US Cable equipment as stipulated in the applicable SOF. SECTION 3 TERM 3.1 Term. Commencing on the Effective Date, Customer may order Services on US Cable's then current SOF. Each SOF shall include a term for each Service, which shall begin on said Service's Activation Date and continue for the number of months indicated on the SOF (the "Service Term"). This Agreement shall govern all Services ordered pursuant to the terms and conditions herein for a minimum of seven years commencing on the Effective Date and, when applicable, shall remain effective throughout the Service Term last to expire US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidentia/& Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 3 of18 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph (the "Initial Term"). Upon expiration of the Initial Term, this Agreement automatically shall extend on a month-to-month basis unless: (i) earlier terminated pursuant to the conditions of this Agreement; (ii) written notice is given by either party at least thirty (30) days before said expiration that such party does not consent to such extension; or (iii) the parties agree to renew the term of the Agreement (the "Renewal Term"). If Service(s) continue after expiration of the Initial Term and/or any Renewal Terms, US Cable may, upon ninety (90) days written notice to Customer, adjust rates for Services hereunder to its then-current month- to-month rates. Service Term, Initial Term and Renewal Term collectively shall be referred to as "Term." SECTION 4 SERVICE ORDER FORMS 4.1 Service Order Forms. Each SOF submitted by Customer or a Customer Affiliate and accepted by US Cable shall be executed by the parties pursuant to the terms herein and shall become part of this Agreement by reference. Each SOF shall include rates and Service Term for each Service ordered. Electronic submission of SOFs shall be deemed executed by and binding upon Customer, provided Customer has not requested that US Cable void said electronic submission within one day following US Cable's issuance of the NOR. Issuance of an FOC shall be deemed as US Cable's acceptance of said SOF. In the event any Service(s) ordered by Customer cannot be provided pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, US Cable shall so notify Customer via a Jeopardy Notice. Each SOF may be sent to US Cable either by regular mail or email at the address identified in the SOF. 4.2 Customer Affiliate. Each SOF submitted by Customer Affiliate shall be bound to the same terms and conditions of this agreement "MSA- 3004-A int". US Cable will honor such SOFs' submitted by a Customer Affiliate. Said Customer Affiliate shall be authenticated by Customer in writing and shall be accepted by US Cable as the valid MSA Customer, as identified in the terms and conditions of this agreement and subsequent 'SOFs' as may be submitted by Customer Affiliate. SECTION 5 FEES AND PAYMENT TERMS 5.1 Payment Terms. Invoices for Services are due and payable in U.s. dollars within thirty (30) days following the date of US Cable's invoice (the "Due Date"). US Cable may offset any amounts owed by US Cable to Customer against any amounts owed to US Cable by Customer. Payments not received by the Due Date are considered past due, and interest shall accrue at the rate of one and one half percent per month (or the maximum rate allowed by applicable law, if less). If any invoice is not paid when due, US Cable may take any action in connection with any other right or remedy US Cable may have under this Agreement, at law or in equity. 5.2 Billing Commencement Date. All Services shall have a billing. commencement date of five (5) days from receipt by Customer of US Cable's notice of US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP - Confidential & Proprietary - MSA 3013 Page 40f18 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph Service Activation Date, provided that Customer has not given US Cable written notice of any performance failure within said five (5) days. If Customer does not provide such notice, the applicable Service shall be deemed accepted by Customer, and billing shall commence on a prorata basis. In the event that Customer elects to utilize any part of the Service capacity despite a performance failure, said Service shall be deemed accepted and billing shall commence, provided, however, that such acceptance and billing commencement shall not relieve US Cable of its obligation to maintain its network. 5.3 Monthly Charges for Services. Customer will be invoiced for Services on a monthly basis in advance. The first invoice shall be for the first two (2) months (prorated for any first partial month) of the Service Term; each invoice thereafter shall be for the following month. 5.4 Billing Disputes. If Customer in good faith disputes any portion of any US Cable invoice, Customer shall submit to US Cable, by the Due Date, full payment of the undisputed portion of the invoice and written documentation identifying and substantiating the disputed amount. If Customer does not report a dispute within thirty (30) days following the date on the applicable invoice, Customer shall have waived its right to dispute that invoice. US Cable and Customer agree to use their respective best efforts to resolve any dispute within thirty (30) days after US Cable receives written notice of the dispute from Customer. Any disputed amounts resolved in favor of Customer shall be credited to Customer's account on the next invoice following resolution of the dispute. Any disputed amounts determined to be payable to US Cable shall be due within ten (10) days of the resolution of the dispute. Any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement that has not been resolved by the good-faith efforts of the parties shall be settled by binding arbitration conducted expeditiously in accordance with this Agreement. 5.5 Additional Assurances. If at any time during the Term of this Agreement there is a material and adverse change in Customer's fmancial condition, business prospects or payment history, which shall be determined by US Cable in its sole and reasonable discretion, US Cable may demand that Customer provide US Cable with a security deposit or increase the amount of the security deposit, as the case may be, as security for the full and faithful performance of Customer of the terms, conditions and covenants of this Agreement. In no event shall the amount of any such security deposit ever exceed two (2) months' estimated or actual usage charges, MRC and/or other amounts payable by Customer to US Cable hereunder. A security deposit also may be required prior to US Cable's acceptance of any SOF. 5.6 Regulatory Fees and Taxes. A. Customer is responsible for reimbursement to US Cable for any fees, taxes or surcharges paid by US Cable that are imposed or authorized by regulatory and governmental entities. B. The amounts payable by Customer under this Agreement do not include any state, local sales, use or utility taxes, however designated, which may be levied on the Services provided by US Cable hereunder. With respect to such taxes and if applicable, prior to execution of this Agreement, Customer shall furnish to US Cable valid and appropriate tax exemption certificates, attached hereto as Exhibit A, for all applicable jurisdictions (federal, state and local) in which it performs Customer billing. If Customer US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 5 of18 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph fails to provide and maintain the required certificates, US Cable may charge Customer and Customer shall pay the applicable taxes, other than taxes based on or measured by US Cable's gross income, as US Cable may be by law required or permitted to collect or pay. Any and all other taxes, including but not limited to franchise, net or gross income, license, occupation, and real or personal property taxes, shall be timely paid by Customer. SECTION 6 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 6.1 Limitation of Liability. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION HEREOF, US CABLE SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, RELIANCE, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, LOST REVENUES OR COST OF PURCHASING REPLACEMENT SERVICES) ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. ADDITIONALLY, IN NO EVENT SHALL US CABLE BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER FOR ANY ACTUAL DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THREE (3) MONTH'S FEES PAID TO US CABLE HEREUNDER FOR THE PARTICULAR SERVICE GNING RISE TO THE DAMAGES. SECTION 7 DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES 7.1 Disclaimer of Warranties. US CABLE MAKES NO WARRANTY TO CUSTOMER OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE DESCRIPTION, QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY, COMPLETENESS OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE, OF ANY SERVICE PROVIDED HEREUNDER OR DESCRIBED HEREIN, OR AS TO ANY OTHER MATTER, ALL OF WHICH WARRANTIES BY US CABLE ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED AND DISCLAIMED. SECTION 8 INDEMNITY 8.1 Indemnity. Each party shall indemnify, defend, release and hold harmless the other party from any claims by third parties and expenses (including legal fees and court costs) arising from damage to tangible property, personal injury or death caused by such party's negligence or willful misconduct. In the event a claim relates to the negligence of both parties, the relative burden of the claim shall be attributed equitably between the parties in accordance with the principles of comparative negligence. In the event any action is brought against the indemnified party, such party shall immediately notify the indemnifying party in writing, and the indemnifying party, upon request, shall assume the cost of the defense on behalf ofthe indemnified party. The indemnifying party shall pay all expenses incurred by and satisfy all judgments rendered against the indemnified party, provided that the indemnifying party shall not be liable for any settlement effected without its written consent. US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 60f18 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph SECTION 9 SERVICEUSAGE 9.1 Use of Service. Customer agrees that it will not (i) use the Service(s) for any purpose other than that for which it is intended or in violation of any law or regulation or in aid of any unlawful act; (ii) use the Service(s) so as to interfere with the use of US Cable's network by other customers or authorized users of US Cable; (iii) use the Service(s) for transmission of any unsolicited distribution lists or other unsolicited electronic mailing ("Spamming"); (iv) resell the Services and/or (v) unless otherwise specified herein, use the Service( s) for distribution of any communication, including but not limited to unsolicited electronic mail, that includes US Cable's logos, trademarks, service marks, hosted IP addresses, or any variation thereof. Customer further agrees that it will not, and will inform its Employees not to, violate US Cable's Acceptable Use Policy, which may be read at www.uscable.comlusagepolicy. In the event of violation ofthis Section by Customer's Employees, US Cable shall notify Customer, and upon such notification Customer hereby agrees to im.inediately investigate the allegation, and if determined true, to terminate said Employees access to the Services. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if in US Cable's sole judgment, Customer or Customer's Employees violates this Section, and such violation or failure to comply poses an immediate threat of harm to or destruction of US Cable's network, violates existing law or regulation, or puts US Cable's network at risk with its providers of network services or other customers, US Cable shall have the right to immediately take any and all steps reasonably necessary to remove such threat, including but not limited to suspension or termination of Services immediately and without notice; provided, however, that US Cable will use commercially reasonable efforts to notify Customer prior to any Service suspension. Customer shall indemnify and hold harmless US Cable for Spamming or illegal activities, including but not limited to acts using athird party mail server, caused by Customer or Customer's Employees using US Cable's network. All requests for the use of third-party mail servers shall be subject to US Cable's sole approval. US Cable shall not (i) have any obligation or liability to Customer or to any third party for any unlawful or improper use of the Services by an Employee; nor (ii) have any duty or obligation to exercise control over the use of, or the content or information passing through, the Service. Customer shall be fully responsible for the acts of its Employees. 9.2 Content. US Cable provides Services; US Cable does not operate or control the content transported over the Service. US Cable shall have no liability or responsibility for the Customer or Employee content of any communication transmitted via the Services hereunder. Customer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless US Cable from any and all third party claims (including claims by governmental entities seeking to impose penal sanctions) related to such content, and from any and all third-party claims relating to Customer's use of Services hereunder. Customer shall make no claim against US Cable regarding said content, or respecting any information, product, service, software or other item( s) ordered through or provided by virtue of the Internet. SECTION 10 TERMINATION 10.1 Termination by Customer. A. For Cause. If US Cable fails to perform a material obligation under this Agreement and does not remedy such failure within thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice from Customer ("US Cable Default"), US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 70118 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph Customer may terminate this Agreement and/or any SOF without any further liability except for the payment of all accrued but unpaid charges. B. For Convenience. Customer may, at any time and without cause, terminate this Agreement or any SOF upon thirty (30) days written notice to US Cable, provided the following: (i) If Customer terminates this Agreement and/or any SOF prior to the applicable Service Activation Date(s), Customer shall reimburse US Cable for all costs of implementation of terminated Service(s); or (ii) If Customer terminates this Agreement and/or any SOF on or after the applicable Service Activation Date(s), Customer immediately shall pay US Cable all charges for Service(s) previously rendered, and the amount due for the terminated SOFs times the number of months remaining in the applicable Service Term(s). Customer acknowledges that US Cable may suffer damages if this Agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of the Term or any renewal term as the case may be and that the aforementioned payment is a genuine pre-estimate of liquidated damages that US Cable will suffer and not a penalty. . 10.2 Termination by US Cable. US Cable may terminate this Agreement or any SOF with no further liability: (i) if Customer fails to make payment as required under this Agreement and such failure remains uncorrected for ten (10) calendar days following written notice from US Cable, (ii) if Customer fails to perform any other material obligation under this Agreement and does not remedy such failure within thirty (30) days following written notice from US Cable, or (iii) in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency of Customer, or if Customer shall make any assignment for the benefit of creditors or take advantage of any act or law for relief of debtors (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Customer Default"). In the event of a Customer Default, US Cable shall have the right to (i) suspend Service(s) to Customer; (ii) cease accepting or processing orders for Service(s); and/or (iii) terminate this Agreement or any SOF. If this Agreement is terminated due to a Customer Default, Customer shall remain liable for charges outlined in Section 1O.1.B. herein. Customer agrees to pay US Cable's reasonable expenses (including attorney and collection agency fees) incurred in enforcing US Cable's rights in the event of a Customer Default. SECTION 11 US CABLE NETWORK 11.1 US Cable Network Maintenance. In the event US Cable determines that it is necessary to interrupt Service( s) or that there is a potential for Service( s) to be interrupted for the performance of network maintenance, US Cable will use commercially reasonable efforts to notify Customer prior to the performance of such maintenance and will schedule such maintenance during non-peak hours (midnight to 6 a.m. local time). In no event shall interruption for routine, scheduled network maintenance constitute a failure of performance by US Cable. 11.2 Maintenance Charges and Ancillary Fees. US Cable is responsible for maintaining its network. However; if US Cable sends out maintenance staff and the work requiring maintenance is determined to be caused by Customer, including but not limited to Customer's equipment, the following charges shall be applied based on a four (4 )-hour minimum and fifteen (15)-minute increments thereafter: (i) Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 8 0118 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph 5 p.m. - One Hundred dollars ($100.00) per hour; (ii) after hours (work limited to recovery of downed circuits or equipment, not new installations) - One Hundred-Fifty dollars ($150.00) per hour. SECTION 12 OUTAGE CREDITS 12.1 Outage Credits. Customer will receive Outage Credits against future charges pursuant to the terms and conditions in the SLA att,ached hereto as Exhibit B. Except for termination as provided for in Section 10.1(B) hereunder, such Outage Credit(s) shall be Customer's sole remedy with respect to such an event. No such Outage Credits shall be allowed and US Cable shall not be liable for any service interruption caused by any Force Majeure (defmed in Section 15.2). SECTION 13 CONFIDENTIALITY 13.1 Defmition of Confidential Information. "Confidential Information" shall mean all information disclosed in writing by one party to the other party that is clearly marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "PROPRIETARY" by the disclosing party at the time of disclosure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all information concerning either party's traffic volume or distribution, pricing, customer lists and fmancial information is hereby deemed to be confidential and proprietary regardless of whether it is so identified. In addition, all content transmitted over the Service by Customer or Customer's Employees is hereby deemed to be confidential and proprietary to Customer. Confidential Information does not include any information that (i) was already known by the receiving party free of any obligation to keep it confidential at the time of its disclosure; (ii) becomes publicly known through no wrongful act of the receiving party; (iii) is rightfully received from a third person without knowledge of any confidential obligation; (iv) is independently acquired or developed without violating any of the obligations under this Agreement; or (v) is approved for release by written authorization of the disclosing party. 13.2 Use of Confidential Information. A recipient of Confidential Information shall not disclose the information to any person or entity except for the recipient's and/or its Affiliates' employees, contractors and consultants who have a need to know such Confidential Information. The recipient may disclose Confidential Information pursuant to a judicial or governmental request, requirement or order; provided that the recipient take all reasonable steps to give the disclosing party prior notice sufficient to contest such request, requirement or order. Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to any third party without the prior written consent of the owner of the Confidential Information. The recipient shall use Confidential Information only for purposes of this Agreement and shall protect Confidential Information from disclosure using the same degree of care used to protect its own Confidential Information, but in no event less than a reasonable degree of care. Confidential Information shall remain the property of the disclosing party and shall be returned to the disclosing party or destroyed upon request of the disclosing party. Either party may make Confidential Information available to its lenders and/or fmancial advisors, provided said lenders or financial advisors are bound by written Confidentiality Agreement( s). 13.3 Iniunctive Relief. Because money damages may be insufficient in the event of a breach or threatened breach of the foregoing provisions of this Section 13, the affected US Cable of Coastal- Texas, LP - Confidential & Proprietary - MSA 3013 Page 9 0[18 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph party may be entitled to seek an injunction or restraining order in addition to such other rights or remedies as may be available under this Agreement, at law or in equity, including but not limited to money damages. SECTION 14 BINDING ARBITRATION 14.1 Binding Arbitration. A. The parties will attempt in good faith to resolve any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement promptly through discussions between themselves at the operational leveL h1 the event a resolution cannot be reached at the operational level, the disputing party shall give the other party written notice of the dispute, and such controversy or claim shall be negotiated between appointed counselor senior executives of the parties who have authority to settle the controversy. If the parties fail to resolve such controversy or claim within thirty (30) days of the disputing party's notice, either party may seek arbitration as set forth below. B. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or a breach of this Agreement, shall be finally settled by arbitration in the State of Minnesota and shall be resolved under the laws of the State of Minnesota except for its conflict of laws principles. The arbitration shall be conducted before a single arbitrator in accordance with the commercial rules and practices ofthe American Arbitration Association then in effect. C. The arbitrator shall have the power to order specific performance if requested. Any award, order or judgment pursuant to such arbitration shall be deemed fmal and binding and may be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction. The parties agree that the arbitrator shall have no power or authority to make awards or issue orders of any kind except as expressly permitted by this Agreement, and in no event shall the arbitrator have the authority to make any award that provides for punitive or exemplary damages. The arbitrator may, as part ofthe arbitration award, permit the prevailing party to recover all or part of its attorney's fees and other out-of- pocket costs incurred in connection with such arbitration. All arbitration proceedings shall be conducted on a confidential basis.¡ US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 10 of18 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph SECTION 15 MISCELLANEOUS 15.1 Legal Construction. The terms and conditions of this Agreement, including any supplements, addenda, riders, exhibits, SOFs and other documents incorporated herein, constitute the entire Agreement between US Cable and Customer pertaining to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings in connection herewith. Any and all Services pertaining to the subject matter hereof and active as of the Effective Date shall be governed by the terms and conditions herein. In.the event of any conflict between these terms and conditions and those of any SOF, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail; in the event of any conflict between rates in this Agreement (if applicable) and rates in any SOF, rates in the SOF shall prevail. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New Jersey without regard to its principles of choice oflaw. 15.2 Force Maieure. Neither party shall be liable to the other, nor deemed in default under this Agreement if and to the extent that such party's performance of this Agreement is delayed or prevented by reason of Force Majeure. For purposes hereunder, the term "Force Maieure" means an eventthat is beyond the reasonable control of the party affected and occurs without such party's fault or negligence. Without limited the foregoing, Force Majeure includes acts of God, fIre, explosion, vandalism, flood, storm, or other similar catastrophe, failure of the Internet not related to US Cable's actions or inactions, or cable cut not caused by US Cable's employees or contractors; any law, order, regulation, direction, action or request of any governmental entity having jurisdiction over either of the parties, or court, civil or military authority or any other instrumentality of one or more of said governmental agencies, national emergencies, insurrections, riots, wars, acts ofterrorism, or third party strikes, lockouts or work stoppages. 15.3 Authorized Use of Name. Without the other party's prior written consent, neither party shall refer to itself as an authorized representative of the other party or use the other party's logos, trademarks, service marks, or any variation thereof in any advertising or other promotional materials, or in any activity using or displaying the other party's name or Service(s) to be provided hereunder, except, however, US Cable shall have the right to include Customer's name in US Cable's customer lists, and in proposals and other documents to prospective customers. Each party agrees to change or correct at its own expense any material or activity the affected party determines to be inaccurate, misleading or otherwise objectionable under this section. 15.4 Assignment. Neither party hereto may assign this Agreement without the express written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, US Cable may assign all its rights and obligations hereunder to: (i) any of its Affiliates (for example, US Cable may assign amounts due from Customer to any subsidiary of US Cable for billing purposes); (ii) any entity that results from a merger or consolidation with US Cable; or (iii) any purchaser or other acquirer of substantially all of US Cable's assets or equity. No such assignment of obligations shall relieve the assignor of any liability or obligation hereunder unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both parties. 15.5 Subiect to Laws. Both parties shall comply with and give all notices required by all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and lawful orders of any public authority bearing on the performance of this Agreement. Both parties agree to obtain and maintain all required certifications, permits, licenses, approvals or authorizations imposed by any regulatory or governmental body. Each party agrees to provide the other US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 11 of18 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of 81. Joseph party with copies of documentation for such compliance within ten (10) days of request by the other party. Each party shall protect indemnify and hold harmless the other party from any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action, and any and all related costs and expenses of every kind arising from the other party's violation ofthis Section 15.5. 15.6 Notices. All notices and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given as of the date of delivery or conftrmed facsimile or E-mail transmission. If mailed, notice shall be sent ftrst class, postage prepaid, certifted or registered mail, return receipt requested, or overnight mail service, and becomes effective upon conftrmed delivery. To be effective, written notice of any material breach (except payment default) must prominently state that the correspondence is a formal notice of breach and must be sent via certifted mail, registered mail or overnight mail service. Notices will be delivered or sent to the parties' respective addresses set forth on the signature page ofthis Agreement and to the attention of the following persons: If to US Cable: US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. 28 West Grant Avenue Montvale, New Jersey 07645 Attn: President Telephone: (201) 930-9000 Facsimile: (201) 930-9704 With a Copy to: US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. 402 Red River Avenue N Unit 5 Att: General Manager PO Box 496 Cold iSpring, MN56320 Telephone: 320.685.7113 Facsimile: 320.685.2816 If to Customer: The City of St. Joseph St. Joseph City Hall 25 College Ave N St. Joseph, MN 56374 Att: Mayor (Honorable Richard Carlbom) Tel: Facsimile: 15.7 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and when taken together shall constitute one document. The parties expressly authorize the use of a facsimile counterpart as a valid method of execution for Customer so that US Cable may begin processing pending SOFs. In the event that Customer executes this Agreement via facsimile counterpart, Customer agrees to provide US Cable with a fully executed original of this Agreement within US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 12 of18 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. OR I 81 (~A L. The City ofSt. Joseph five (5) calendar days of such facsimile execution. For valid execution by US Cable, US Cable's original signature shall be required. 15.8 Waiver of Breach or Violation Not Deemed Continuing. The waiver of either party of a breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement shall not operate as or be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation hereof. 15.9 Business Relationship. This Agreement shall not create any agency, employment, joint venture, partnership, representation or fiduciary relationship between the parties. Neither party shall have the authority, nor shall any party attempt, to create any obligation on behalf of the other party. 15.10 Survival. The covenants and understandings contained in this Agreement with respect to payment of amounts due, confidentiality, limitation of liability, disclaimer of warranty and indemnification shall survive any termination of this Agreement. The rights and obligations under this Agreement shall survive any merger or sale of either party and shall be binding upon the successors and permitted assigns of each party. 15.11 Amendments / Riders. Unless otherwise specified herein, this Agreement may be modified or supplemented only by an instrument in writing executed by each party. 15.12 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including any terms and conditions, supplements, amendments, addenda, riders and/or exhibits that are attached hereto and incorporated herein, constitutes the entire Agreement by US Cable and Customer pertaining to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings in connection herewith. Any and all Services pertaining to the subject matter hereof and active as ofthe Effective Date shall be governed by the terms and conditions herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date last written below. By: US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. By: US Cable Holdings, L.P. By: US Cable Lake Forest, Inc. . eneral Partner The City of St. Joseph, MN By: Name: Richard Carlbom Title: Mayor Date: Title: General Partner Date: 12.18.06 Attested to By: Judy Weyrens, City Administrator Date: US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 13 0118 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph EXHIBIT A TAX EXEMPTIONS Certificate of Exemvtion from Federal Excise Taxes on Communications Services and Facilities The undersigned hereby certifies that the Service furnished by US Cable is exempt from the Federal Excise Tax on Communications and Facilities imposed by Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 4251 because the undersigned is exempt under IRC Section 4253 for such reason as marked below (check one). The undersigned agrees to notify US Cable in writing when the claimed status no longer applies. A nonprofit hospital referred to in IRC Section 170(b )(1 )(A)(ii) which is exempt from income tax under Section 501(a). A nonprofit educational organization described in IRC Section 170(b)( 1 )(A)(ii) which is exempt from income tax under Section 501(a). A School which is operated as an activity of an organization described in IRC Section 50 1 (c)(3) which is exempt from income tax under Section 505(a), and operates as described in IRC Section 42530). The U.S. government, government of a State, political subdivision of a state of the District of Columbia. The American Red Cross or an international organization described in Internal Revenue Code Sections 7701(a)(18) and 4253(c). A news service company of the type referred to in Internal Revenue Code Section 4253(b). Diplomatic, consular or other officers of foreign governments temporarily residing in the United States who are nationals of the foreign country on a diplomatic mission. The service will be used exclusively in the rendering of a communications services upon which tax is imposed by IRC Section 4251. It is understood that no tax will be collected by US Cable on charges for said service and that it will be the responsibility of the undersigned to collect such tax as may be due from its customers. The service, which is defined in Section 4252(b )(2), is for use by a common carrier, telephone or telegraph company, or radio broadcasting station or network in the conduct of its business as such. FOR THIS CERTIFICATE TO BE VALID YOU MUST CHECK ONE OF THE ABOVE BOXES, SIGN AND DATE THE CERTIFICATE AND PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE ABOVE WILL RENDER THE CERTIFICATE NULL AND VOID. THE EXEMPT STATUS OF THE UNDERSIGNED IS EFFECTIVE AS OF. US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 14 0118 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City ofSt. Joseph Customer Name: FEDERAL TAX LD. I swear under penalty offmes, imprisonment, or both, together with cost of Prosecution that the statement contained herein are true to the best of my knowledge. Signature Title Date US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 15 0/18 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph EXHIBIT B SLA US Cable's Fiber Optic Network is a facility based hybrid fiber coaxial network "HFC Network" owned or leased, and operated by US Cable. The HFC Network covers specific geographic areas that include your facility. The HFC Network is generally agnostic to transport protocol. It is inherently capable of carrying: 100 Base T, Gig E, V oIP, NTSC Video, Digital Video, Ethernet and a host of other protocols and content. The HFC Network is centrally served from an aggregation point known as a Head-end where Data, Video and various content is aggregated and distributed bi-directionally to numerous locations. The Head-end is connected via fiber to an IP backbone providers, such as; ACC, AT&T, Broadwing, Qwest, Sprint, XO, or any other IP backbone provider US Cable may engage from time to time. The Services that this Exhibit B apply to are: (1) Facilities Based Fiber Optic Connectivity; and (2) IP Port Bandwidth. 1. SERVICE LEVELS AGREEMENTS 1.1 Proactive Monitoring. US Cable's "NOC" will monitor Customer's Service for port availability via standard electronic pings or other methods in use by US Cable, at regular intervals ("Proactive Monitoring"). US Cable's NOC will notify designated personal and commence network trouble shooting activity. It is Customer's responsibility to provide US Cable with accurate contact information and to update this information as needed. If Customer does not provide US Cable with accurate contact information, US Cable will use reasonable efforts to notify Customer using available information. Proactive Monitoring does not relieve Customer of its obligations to open a trouble ticket in the event Customer is aware of a Service interruption. Any credits resulting from Service interruptions will be upon Customer request only; no credits will be made automatically. 1.2 On-Net Service Availability. A. US Cable's target is for its Fiber Optic Network to be 99.99 percent available from its Head-end to the Customer's premises measured over one year. US Cable will undertake repair efforts on its equipment or fiber as soon as it becomes aware, or when notified by Customer. Any On-Net network event resulting in downtime during which Customer cannot pass traffic on US Cable's network for a period in excess of one (1) hour will be deemed an "On-Net Outage" (unavailability of the Customer connection) provided that such Outage is on US Cable's network. B. An On-Net Outage shall be deemed to commence upon US Cable's verification of stated trouble in the trouble ticket submitted by Customer; this verification will be conducted by US Cable's NOC. An On-Net Outage shall be deemed to terminate upon the closing of the same trouble ticket (or the termination of the downtime, if sooner), less any time US Cable is awaiting additional information or premise testing from Customer. Customer will be eligible for one (1) Outage Credit for a request, which stems from the same network event. Outage Credits will not be cumulative. US Cable ofCoastaf-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 160118 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City of St. Joseph C. For each hour of On-Net Outage experienced by Customer, Customer will receive a credit equal to one. (1) Hours MRC billing for the month in which such On-Net Outage occurred. In the event that an On-Net Outage has duration greater than four (4) hours, Customer will receive one (1) day's credit. No Outage Credit will be given unless Customer has provided reasonable assistance In an effort to diagnose the On-Net Outage. Reasonable assistance includes requesting the opening of a trouble ticket from the NOC, providing US Cable access to Customer's premises, if necessary, and assisting US Cable with problem identification and resolution via telephone or other means such as fax or e-mail. In any month, Outage Credits cannot exceed the Customer's MRC. If the On-Net Outage experienced by Customer continues for a consecutive seventy- two (72) hours, then Customer may request a cancellation of the Service, by providing written notice of such to US Cable prior to the On-Net Outage being resolved. 1.3 On-Net Average Monthly Latency (Contiguous United States). The On-Net Average Monthly Latency target shall be less than thirty (30) milliseconds from our Head-end to Customer's premises. US Cable's traffic exchange providers target a monthly network-wide average round-trip transmission of Sixty-Five (65) milliseconds or less between US Cable's backbone routers ("Core Routers") in the contiguous U.s. Each calendar month, US Cable measures Latency by averaging sample measurements taken between Core Routers and is based on a monthly network-wide average round-trip transmission delay. 1.4 Packet Loss. US Cable's Internet Packet Loss Target is a measurement of dropped packets between the Core Routers within US Cable's network and terminating round trip to Customer's premises equipment. Packet Loss is measured as an average over a one (1) calendar month period and we target less than one percent (1 %). US Cable's traffic exchange providers measure packet loss from US Cable's Core Routers to the trunk side point of US Cable's traffic exchange provider's interconnection with US Cable and is less than 1 percent. 2. CONDITIONS 2.1 The Outage Credits set forth herein are applicable only to On-Net Outages and do not apply to Off-Net Outages. 2.2 In order to obtain an Outage Credit, Customer must notify US Cable's Customer Service department within five (5) calendar days after the end of the month in which the event( s) giving rise to the credit occurred. Outage Credits are not applied automatically and will be issued only upon Customer's timely request. 2.3 Outage Credits may never exceed one (1) month's MRC billing in any calendar month. The maximum amount of Outage Credits per calendar year is limited to four (4) months of MRC charges. 2.4 Outage Credits shall not apply to events outside the control of US Cable, including but not limited to the following: (i) power loss; (ii) failure of equipment or systems provided by Customer or any third party (not under the direction or control of US Cable), including any provider of Off-Net/local access service to US Cable contracted for, by, or on behalf of Customer; (iii) other us Cable of Coastal- Texas, LP - Confidential & Proprietary - MSA 3013 Page-170f18 12/19/06 US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. The City ofSt. Joseph connectivity or equipment failure at Customer's premises; and (iv) any Force Majeure event. 2.5 Scheduled maintenance outages, also known as Network Maintenance Windows, shall not be subject to any SLAs specified in this Exhibit B and will not be measured for or applicable to the determination of service level performance. Accordingly, Customer shall not be entitled to any Outage Credits as a result of any scheduled maintenance outage. 2.6 The methodology used to measure the service level performance thresholds is determined by US Cable in its sole and reasonable discretion and is subject to change without notice. US Cable shall in good faith make all final determinations with respect to the existence or occurrence of an Outage and the appropriateness or applicability of any Outage Credit. 2.7 US Cable will take commercially reasonable steps to rectify chronic service disruptions if associated and caused by US Cable's Fiber Optic Network. 2.8 Outage Credits are Customer's sole and exclusive remedy for any Outage ofthe Service. [END OF EXHIBIT B] US Cable of Coastal-Texas, LP- Confidential & Proprietary- MSA 3013 Page 180f18 12/19/06 --- - -- - --- -- ~ ........ Cable@ of Coastal~ Texas, L.P. p""- ".,.", 'G' c' 'N"~' U K j' "i i il A L ~ 28 West Grand Avenue. Montvale, NJ07645-2100 . (201)930-9000 . Fax(201)930-9232 Service Order Form "SOF" MSA#: 3013 SOF-l The City of St, Joesph 25 Cottage Ave, North St,Joseph, MN 56374 Att: Judy Weyren City Administrator Date: 12.18.06 Circuit ID: 410313.01A 410313.0lB 410313.0lC ServiceslIerm: lIP Port Bandwidth LUFacilities Based Fiber Optical Connectivity (FBFOC) I Gigabit Ethernet c:K:JI0 Base T Service Type Termination Location(s): Term Months NQn-Recurring Cost NRC L:K:JTerm Monthly Recurring Cost MRC Seven Years Annual Recurring Cost ARC Service: 10 Mbps fiber optic connectivity to and from the following building. (SOF 2) will add two sites. From: St, Joesph City Hall 25 College Ave N To: Fire Hall 323 4th Ave N. St, Joesph Old City HaIllt St, N. St, Joseph 410313.01A 84 $ 225 $ 2,700 410313.01B 410313.01C 84 84 $ $ 225 $ 225 $ 2,700 2,700 Total: $ $ 675 $ 8.100 -I: By: 1 es earson Title: eneral Partner Date: 12.18.06 Company: US Cable of Coastal- Texas, L.P. -. Signature: By: Title: Date: Company: The City ofSt. Joseph Signature: Attest to by: Judy Weyrens Upon acceptance and counter signature by US Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. "US Cable", This "SOF" sball be considered a Firm Order Confumation "FOC" consistent with US Cable's Master Service Agreeement "MSA". The term and billing of the FOC will commence upon installation of the service (s) All Terms and Conditions of this agreement pends signature of US Cables "Master Service Agreement". Send SOFs to: US Cable ofCosstal- Texas, L.P. Attn: Michael Morris 28 West Grand Ave. Montvale, NJ 07645 For US Cable use only: Page 1 of_ The City 01 St. Joseph MSA 3013 SOF,112.18.06.xLSMSA3013 SOF 1 1211912006 I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Administrator Reports Legislative Concerns. DATE: January 18,2007 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Legislative Concerns PREVIOUS ACTION In December of 2006 the Mayors and Administrators met to begin the discussion on what the Area Cities concerns are regarding legislative issues. At that meeting a number of items were discussed. From this meeting the area Administrator prepared a master list of issues. It is our hope that the area Cities will present a list of regional items for the legislature to consider. All the area Cities have been or will be considering this same list. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Come to consensus as to the list of Legislative issues. FISCAL IMPACT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS The Council should review the list and determine if the list of items is acceptable. It has been aclmowledged that each City might have additional items that are specific to their City. Those items have not been included on this list. 1/9/2007 - Draft 2007 LeJ!islative Issues for the Central MN Cities of St. Cloud, Sartell. St. Aue:usta. St~ Josenh. Sank Ranids and Waite Park Central MN Specific Issues: 1. Property Tax Relief: Local Government Aid for property tax equalization . Restore the 2003 cutsjfullyfund the LGA program by 2009 (approx. $100 million) Sartell 2001: $617,270 2007: $62,468 Waite Park 2001: $397,217 2007: -0- Sauk Rapids 2002: $1,969,930 2007: $2,131,899 St. Joseph 2001: $323,904 2007: $841,993 St. Augusta 2001: $100,008 2007: $180,109 St. Cloud 2002: $12,597,803 2007: $11,469,400 . Correct the regional center aid determination in LGA formula to use most current State Demographer estimate of population by getting 2005 legislation SF 1011 (Fischbach) and HF 1182 (Seversonj Otremba) bills approved. 2. Levy Limits . OPPOSE reinstatement of levy limits & continue to facilitate local accountability. Levy limits are particularly debilitating for cities with strong growth. e.g. 2003 = 21% tax valuation increase in Sartell with a 5.6% levy limit increase. 3. Bio-science Zone Designation & Funding . Provide for designation and funding of Bio-science zones in Greater MN 4. Regional Cooperation Incentive Grants Support the creation and funding for a grant incentive program such as. the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation Grants program that existed in the mid-1990's for multi-jurisdictional collaboration efforts that facilitate cost savings, efficiency improvements, andj or the streamlined delivery of municipal services (e.g. public safety, civil legal and criminal prosecution, regional transportation services and infrastructure, regional cultural services). Issues of Broader Interest or Concern: 1. Growth Management and Annexation · Support only annexation related legislation that is agreed to by both the Cities & Township organizations. 2. Environment 1/9/2007 - Draft OtherpotentiaZ issues Jo.rincZusion if CiLgreed to by alZ6 cities: Property Tax Relief: . Qppose the use of property tax rebates which do not provide property tax relief based on financial need North Star Commuter Rail . Support extension of commuter rail service northward to St. Cloud/Camp Ripley . Support legislation providing transit officer enforcement authority Photo Cop Authority . Provide clarity in the authority for local governments to install camera equipment for the automatic surveillance of intersections and issue citations upon that evidence. Smoking Ban . Express preference for state-wide legislation over that of local legislation making all MN bars and restaurants smoke-free. Growth Management and Land Use Regulation . Support relaxation of the recently adopted restrictions of Cities' ability to amortize non-conforming uses. 1/9/2007 - Draft . SUPPORT Pre-TMDL Trading · REQUIRE sound science for new nutrient mandates · SUPPORT the Clean Water Legacy Act with appropriate funding 3. Local Option Sales Tax Authority · Support the establishment of statewide authority based on pre- established criteria · Lift restrictions and caps on previously authorized local option sales tax bills 4. Budget and Levy Publication Requirements · Support the modification of Truth-in-Taxation publication requirements to provide for the disclosure of more pertinent and informative data for local taxpayers (e.g. estimated tax rate changes) 5. Transportation Funding · SUPPORT statutory amendment that guarantee 60% of MVST revenue to highways through the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund Contact Information: City of St. Cloud: Mayor Dave Kleis, 320-255-7201 office, 320-293-8888 cell, dave. kleis(a?ci. stc1oud.mn. us Mike Williams, City Administrator, 320-255-7201 office, 320-493-1123 cell, michael.williams(a?ci.stc1oud.mn.us City of Sartell: Mayor Tim O'Driscoll, 320-293-1452 (cell), Trainer4l4<Zi2hotmail.com Patti Gartland, City Administrator, 320-258-7305 office, 320-260-2442 cell; patti(W,sartellmn. com City of St. Augusta: Mayor Bob Kroll Bill McCabe, City Administrator City of St. Joseph: Mayor Richard Carlbom Judy Weyrens, City Administrator City of Sauk Rapids: Mayor Mark Campbell Ross Olson, City Administrator City of Waite Park: Mayor Carla Schaefer Shaunna Johnson, City Administrator I Attachment: Yes or No . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Administrator Southwest Beltway -- Consultant Hire DATE: January 18,2007 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Southwest Beltway - Consultant Hire PREVIOUS ACTION The APO is funding in part the Transportation Corridor Study for the road known as the Southwest Beltway. This road affects the Cities ofSt. Joseph, Waite Park, Sartell and St. Cloud and Stearns County. Each City has a representative on each of the different boards. As Administrator I have sat on the consultant search committee and the Mayor will be serving on one of the stakeholder committees. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION FISCAL IMP ACT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS Please see the memo from Scott Mareck. At the meeting on Thursday I will have the financial information for the Council as to how the study will be paid for. Saiot tloot! Area Planning Organization 1040 County Road 4, St. Cloud, MN 56303-0643 (320) 252-7568 · (320) 252-6557 (FAX) · E-mail: admin@stcloudapo.org · www.stcloudapo.org January 11, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: APO Executive Board Stearns County Board Waite Park City Council St. Joseph City Coun~i~;{ Scott Mareck ~tIV "- SUBJECT: Southwest Beltway EIS Scoping Study Consultant Selection FROM: Backaround As you may be aware, the St. Cloud APO has programmed $275,000 in the St. Cloud Metropolitan Area Transportation Improvement Proaram for a Southwest Beltway Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Scoping Study (see attached study area map). This scoping study will evaluate and screen down alternative roadway corridors south of Quarry Park in Waite Park, extending north between the City of St. Joseph and the City of Waite Park toward the City of Sartell. Immediately following this seoping study, in approximately 2 years, and EIS will be prepared to select a preferred alignment to be preserved with an Official Map. Seventy percent, or up to $192,500 of the study budget, has been previously approved for federally earmarked "High Priority Project" funds by the APO Board. Thirty percent, or up to $82,500 of the study budget has been previously app'roved as local match funds, to be paid on the following basis: . Stearns County: 50 percent ($41,250) . City of St. Joseph: 25 percent ($20,625) . City of Waite Park: 25 percent ($20,625) Proposal Review Process A Committee of staff members from the St. Cloud APO, Stearns County, City of Waite Park, City of St. Joseph, City of St. Cloud, City of Sartell and MnDOT District 3 reviewed and scored proposals from the following engineering consulting firms: SRF, WSB, Ayres, and Edwards & Kelcey. Review and scoring of proposals followed MnDOT's "Best Value" methodology, as MnDOT requires for federally funded studies. Using this methodology, an eighty (80) percent weight was placed on technical aspects of the proposal, such as project understanding, project approach and work plan, and similar project experience. A twenty (20) percent weight was placed on the proposal cost estimate and the adequacy of task hours assumed in this estimate. Representing tbe FollouJing Jurisdictions Benwn County · Haven Township . Le$auk Township · St, Augusta · St. Cloud · St. Joseph St. Joseph Township. Sartell . Sauk Rapids. Sherburne County · Stearns County · Waite Park Southwest Beltway EIS Scoping Study Consultant Selection January 11, 2007 Page 2 Committee Recommendation After applying the "Best Value" methodology to the four proposals, the Committee unanimously agreed to recommend SRF Consulting for the Southwest Beltway EIS Scoping Study. The rationale for this recommendation is that SRF had the highest proposal score at 94/100 and was also approximately $40,000 lower in cost than the next closest firm. ReQuested Action Endorse execution of a professional engineering services contract for up to $210,000 between SRF Consulting and the study lead agency, Stearns County. Of this amount, $206,365 would be executed in the initial agreement for study tasks that are known to be necessary at this time. The remaining budget of $3,635 would be held in contingency for additional work that may be necessary as the study progresses. Approval of the SRF contract for up to $210,000 would be $65,000 under the initially approved study budget of $275,000. Accordingly, this would reduce the overall local match from $82,500 to $63,000, and would reduce local pro-rata shares to the following: . Stearns County: 50 percent ($31,500) - $9,750 reduction . City of St. Joseph: 25 percent ($15,750) - $4,875 reduction . City of Waite Park: 25 percent ($15,750) ~ $4,875 reduction ~€ !S ~oo =r ...... ..... ~ =- ~ " -= .~ .....00 == r:Ll >:> ~; \ '" a I. 'HYf:) d 1/1 ~ .: cJ OI'H'J. '^" Qdoo:> ... 1/1 : .!. Kllf:) ci a: '" ... o 5 II ~ ~Qoc ~e:!!~ s~l~ =jll!!:jo~ o~o. U 0 => u...:N t:l)f:i'}('P') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0'\ ...... 0 ...... 0'\ 0'\ "<:t ...... \0 \0 t--- t--- \0 \0 t--- \0 = = ~ = ~ ..... ~ ~ ...... = ..... ClO '" 1:: (".l (".l (".l (".l (".l (".l (".l (".l '0 0.. 0 - 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g< 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... = '" ;n "<:t 0 lr) t--- t--- "<:t t--- 00 ~ t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- = = '" S ~ ..... ro ...... ..... ...... 0 ..... ~ ~ ~ ..d ..... ~ S '+-< 0 ~ '~ $:I ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 0 0 .'$ $:I ~ 00 '-E Q) ~ :e Q) '" ~ S '" g. ~ "S E Q) ~ ~ . "0 ~ .. .~ o ro ~ = = 0.."0 .. ~ = ] S a = 00. ~ ~ 00. - - '" o '" ..... = = 1:: ...... S .... = g<o ~ = ro = .... ;::: ..d ~ ~ ..,+-< u ;:3 t; 0 '" $:I '" 0 ~ 0 u u S ...... ~ ,- '" 0 ;:3 ...... Q) S '" ~ ::: ro :€~..9B :::.- 0 ro tf.) ~__ Q)St;5. r.Su]8 Q) ...... OJ) 0.. {f) rJ'J.."", O-t ~8::C< * I I * * f/) (I) ..... cu E -- ..... C)f/) e:w -- c...... of/) 00 (/)0 (/)~ -f/) WI.. ~::::J cuO ;:J: .....'1- 0)0 me: 1ii~ (1)-- ~Ca .s::c. ~E 00 (/)0 "CI Q) In o " c. e D.. ~ ~ o :I: Q) C) l! Q) > <C - o o o u) ..... N ER- .... o - Q) C) "CI ~ m "CI Q) - CIS - ~. .! - c_ ns G) .. <( ~ tn ns I- " I. Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Administrator Reports Liquor Ordinance Amendment DATE: January 16,2007 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Liquor Ordinance Amendment - Outdoor events PREVIOUS ACTION RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Discussion on proposed amendment . FISCAL IMPACT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS The staffhas reviewed the outdoor event provision in the Ordinance. As you recall the current Ordinance requires that music end at 9:30 PM. Last year the 8t. Joseph Church as granted a special license allowing music until midnight. The event was in honor of the sesquicentennial. The Church has expressed interest in making the Bobby Vee concert an annual event. The College of 8t. Benedict has also requested to have an event past 9:30 PM. The City Attorney is in the process of drafting a revised Ordinance. The staff is recommending that each license holder be allowed to have one event per calendar year that extends beyond 9:30. The permit for this license is recommended at $ 500 with a $ 1,500 deposit. The process would also include submission of plans and require a public hearing to assure that neighbors are aware of the event. We had talked about requiring the applicant to contact the neighbors but we did not know how to assure this would be completed. Therefore the public hearing seemed reasonable. As soon as we have a draft we will present to the Council. If the Attorney has completed the draft before Thursday we will have it delivered. I Attachment: Yes or No ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION St. Cloud Area School- District 742 Site Plan - FYI DATE: January 18, 2007 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM N/A PREVIOUS ACTION The Staff has been meeting with District 742 and their representatives reviewing the site plan and improvements for the new school. Staff has reviewed the following site plan and they have recommended Planning Commission approval. On January 8, the Planning Commission reviewed and accepted the site plan. Acceptance of the site plan allows the School district to move forward with the detailed planning. As can be seen on the concept plan, a dashed line from the school to CR 121 is a proposed future access. The County Engineer has denied access for safety reasons, for which the Police Chief is in support. The' access is located on a curve which could create potential hazards. The School Board is going through the process to appeal the decision. The Planning Commission has recommended that the City support the School district in their efforts. This access issue does not delay the project as they have access through Jade and Neary. Access to CR 121 is a future access. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Action is not required of the City Council at this time. FISCAL IMPACT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ST. CLOUD AREA SCHOOLS DISTRICT 742 PK-8 SCHOOL site plan , ,----;---------' I I I SE 1/4 SE 1/4 '[Cot&. T124N. R29W ------- IIICLTArchitects 01.04.07 ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA 11 Seventh Avenue North P.O. Box 1433 St. Cloud, MN 56302-1433 320-251-1055 Toll Free 800-44509617 Fax 320-251-5896 rajhan@rajhah.com' . www.rajhan.com Frank J, Rajkowski.. Gordon H. Hansmeier Frederick L. Grunke Thomas G. Jovanovich" Paul A. Rajkowski. Kevin F. Gray William J. Cashman Richard W. Sobalvarro LeAnne D. Miller Peter J. Fuchsteiner Susan M. Dege Sarah L. Smith-Larkln- Troy A. Paetz Gregory J. Haupert Jason T. Bretto Matthew W. Moehrle Melissia R. Christianson Kristi D. Stanislawski ' VtlWRajkOWSki \1'r.~~~Ud. January 15, 2007 VIA EMAIL ERDAHROG@rhinelander.k12.wi.us Mr. :Roger Erdahl RE: Grant Erdahl Rental Matter OUf File No. 25077 Dear Mr. Erdahl: This letter is to infonn you that the penalties and administrative fees have been paid in compliance with the conditions of Grant Erdhal's Agreement with the City of St. Joseph with regard to violations of the St. Joseph City Ordinances. As' such, the criminal proseci.ltion hearing which was scheduled for January 23, 2007, has now been cancelled. If you have any questions regarding the above, please advise. TGJlbaw Sincerely, ", 12 RAJKOIJ:~~HANItR / I-I ~l ('A ~~ 1/ By /. ThoMas G. Jota;ovich v c. Judy Weyrens (via email) Frank J. Rajkowski and Jason T. 8retto are admitted to praalce in North Dakota, Gordon H. Hansmeler in North Dakota. South Dakota and Wisconsin. Paul A. Rajkowski and Sarah L Smith-Larkin in Wisconsin, William J. Cashman in South Dakota, and Richard VII. Sobalvarro in North Dakota and South Dakota. aMember of American Board ofTrial Advocates. .Quallfied ADR Neutral.