Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 UC Documents• DAVID L. GRANNIs - 1874.1961 DAVID L. GRANNIS. JR. - 1914.1980 VANCE B. GRANNIS VANCE B. GRANNIS. JR. THOMAS J. CAMPRRLL PATRICK A. FARRELL DAVID L. GRANNB. M RocER N. KNImoN Romm R. KIND. JR. TNOMAS M. SCOTr GARY G. Fums JoTNAM T. BLODGRTT MARY S. VUJOVICH • LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL PROFUSIONAL ASSOCIATION 403 NORTNWFSTERN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 161 NORTH CONCORD STREET SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 612456 -1661 Mr. Don Brown Superintendent of Streets & Utilities P. O. Box 455 Rosemount, MN 55068 November 10, Re: Office of Consumer Services - Complaint by Cindy Lorge Dear Don: FORMERLY GRANNIS & GRANNIS ESTABLISHED 1932 19$_1 RI f© �'hlit es LOl to.. Nov 1X1 f 9 p &R 81 �g Enclosed is a copy of a letter dated November 4, 1981 which I received from Ron Maas of the Office of Consumer Services. Please review this and contact me at your conven- ience. DLGIII /ra Enclosure Very truly yours, GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL, P.A. BY: _�-- -= L David L. Grannis, III • STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF CONSUMER SERVICES 128 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (61.2) 296 -2331 November 4, 1981 David L. Grannis, III P. O. Box 57 South St. Paul, Minnesota 55075 Re: Cindy Large 15720 Cicerone Path Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Dear Mr. Grannis: 604 Alworth Building 306 West Superior Street Duluth, Minnesota 55802 (218) 723 -4891 File No. RCM -17941 Upon receiving your October 23, 1981, response to Mrs. Large's complaint about Rosemount's water supply, I called Mrs. Large to update her on the City's position on the matter. After four months of complaints and continuation of the problem, she felt that a two - sentence reply to a three -page complaint is inadequate. Given the severity of the odor problem and the time frame involved, she asked that I summarize her questions /concerns as expressed in her complaint and during our telephone conversation: 1. Will the City of Rosemount reimburse residents for the cost of bottled water? 2. Has the City taken steps to inform prospective residents of the problem before they build homes in the area? Could each building permit issued for locations with the water problem carry a notice and /or warning? 3. While flushing the pipes'provjdes some relief from the stench for a few days, it has not been done at regular intervals. Would the City consider instituting a regular, once -or- twice -a -week schedule of flushing the pipes until a permanent solution to,the problem is identified? 4. Has the City accepted or rejected the Minnesota Department of Health recommendation to-chlorinate the water? Reply to: ❑ St. Paul Office ❑ Duluth Office Minnesota Commerce Department - An Equal Opportunity Employer .. . r David L. Grannis -2- November 4, 1981 0 5. Are there alternatives for a permanent solution other 'than chlorination? • 6. What, to date, has the City done to correct the problem? Specifically, what is "everything within reason ?" 7. When.could Mrs. Lorge expect a permanent solution to the problem? 8. Are Mayor Knutson and the four city councilmen aware of the severity of the problem? Have they tasted and smelled the water? While I realize that a city cannot provide instantaneous remedies to every citizen's complaint, it is not unreasonable for a citizen to expect an explanation of delays and occasional progress reports. I am confident that both will be forthcoming and greatly appreciated by Mrs. Lorge. Sincerely, RON MAAS, Supervisor Complaint Mediation Unit RM:dq CC: Cindy Lorge TO: Rosemount Utilities Commission OROM: Don Brown, Utilities DATE: 11 -23 -81 SUBJECT: Fee Schedule for Lift Station Maintenance Agreement for Rosemount Woods As per your instructions at the November 9 Utilities Commission meeting, I have figured two options for lift station maintenance charges. They are: OPTION 1 Rosemount Woods' charges are figaded by using the maximum amount needed to run the lift station at full capacity ($325.00) less the amount paid by Brockway Glass. This is reduced down until no payment is required. COST TO BROCKWAY'S RSMT. WOODS' (TITY'S OPERATE * CHARGE CHARGE COST V -257. paying a lift station maintenance charge since 1975. It is my understanding that the Commission's. Capacity $257.88 $200.00 $125.00 + $67.12 25 -507.. COST TO BROCKWAY's RSMT. WOODS' CITY'S Capacity 280.26 200.00 93.75 + 13.49 ,,1 Capacity $174.21 0 -757. + $68.1-8 26 -507. ' Capacity 302.64 200.00 62.50 40.14 76 -1007. Capacity 219.73 Capacity 325.00 - 0 0 325.00 See Attached Page IA.for computations of cost to operate. 0 OPTION 2 Brockway Glass has been paying a lift station maintenance charge since 1975. It is my understanding that the Commission's. ultimate goal would be to eliminate all lift station maintenance agreements so you may want to eliminate Brockway's agreement. If so, the costs would be distributed as: COST TO BROCKWAY's RSMT. WOODS' CITY'S OPERATE* CHARGE CHARGE COST 0 -257. Capacity $174.21 0 $242.39 + $68.1-8 26 -507. ' Capacity 197.06 0 181.79 + 15.27 51 -757. Capacity 219.73 0 121.19 98.54 76 -1007. Capacity 242.39 0 0 242.39 See attached Page 1B for computations of cost to operate. TO: Rosemount Utilities Commission FROM: Don Brown, Utilities DATE: December 4, 1981 SUBJECT: Fee Schedule for List Station No. 1 Maintenance Agreement for Highpointe First Addition Below are two options for your consideration for setting a fee schedule for Highpointe First Addition. OPTION 1 Charges were established by using the number of units to be built in the First Addition only. Since this lift station is to be shared by other additions you would have to consider writing another contract for those units when approved. Depending on whether or not construction is.completed in one addition before it is started in another, you may have two or three agreements for the same lift station at the same time. CAPACITY COST TO OPERATE HIGHPOINT CHARGE CITY'S COST 0 - 25% 920.91 3683.64 (2762.73) 26 - 50% 1841.82 2762.73 ( 920,91) • 51 - 75% 2762.73 1841.82 920.91 76 - +00% 3683.64 0 3683.64 OPTION 2 This charge was figured by using the totall amount of units which will be using Highpointe Lift .Station No. 1. CAPACITY COST TO OPERATE HIGHPOINTE CHARGE CITY'-S COST 0 - 25% 2132.91 8531.64 (6398.73) 26 - 50% 4265.82 6398.73 (2132.91) 51 - 75% 6398.73 4265.82 2132.91 76 - 100% 8531.64 0 8531.64 • • Thoughts and Concerns on Rosemount Woods Development Project Action By: Street Signing: A. Adopt, install and maintain Dakota County Street Name and Numbering System. Streets: A. Mn /DOT approval on South Robert Trail Brazil Avenue access road. B. Developer to supply typical section to include depth and type of material for Brazil Avenue and including ditches and slopes. Storm Sewer: A. Storm sewer pipe in the R/W of Brazil Avenue must be concrete or corrigated metal of adequate strength to meet 8 tuns per axle roll weight standards. Street Lights: A. Developer to submit street lighting plan to include under ground cable and lights at: • 1) Brazil Avenue and South Robert Trail 2) Park main entrance to Brazil Avenue 3) East access to Brazil Avenue 4) Brazil and Brazil Avenue - City to pay costs of this street light B. All street lights within Development shall be installed, maintained and energy charges paid by Development. Sewer: A. Update lift station alarm device. B. Install all season lift station service road. C. Adjust Brockway sewer line manholes to proposed street grade. D. Timing of sewer line work must not create sewer service interruption for Brockway Glass Co. E. All materials must be approved by Minnesota Health Department or appropriate agency. F. All Sanitary Sewer system designs must be approved by appropriate governmental agency. G. A lift station usage charge contract will be implemented pro- rating operation costs based on annual contribution. H. Developer to pay current sewer hook up charges (city & metro) I. Developer to pay current sewer use charges (city) J. Overflow in lift station, to be plugged. Water: A. Water meter to be furnished by City of Rosemount B. Deposit in equal amount of cost of meter will be paid to city. C. Frost free water meter pit shall be installed as approved by City Engineer. D. Watermain from Brazil Avenue to water meter pit must be installed a min- imum of 7' 8" below proposed Brazil Avenue street grade. • (continued) E. Three 2" water service stubs to be installed at locations as specified by City of Rosemount. F. 8" gate valve to be installed at location of existing 8" plug on Brazil Avenue near Fire Hall. G. Watermain to be extended to north R/W on Brazil Avenue from Lot 7 Block 1. Gate valve to be installed at tee. H. All watermains to be Ductile Iron Pipe. I. Prior to installation, City will consider future water demands for area and notify Developer of any additional line size increases from Brazil Avenue stub to Water meter pit. J. Developer to pay current water hook -up charges. K. Developer to pay on quarterly basis current water sur- charge based on number of units available for occupancy. L. Development to pay current water rates. General Comments: A. City to locate future sewer and electrical stubs and information supplied to appropriate agency. B. Consider selling City property to Development. A. Dog Pound (relocation) • B. Abandoning existing well. C. Lift station by -pass line to be abandoned �J • n U M �H August 17, 1981 SHORT - ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. . CONSULTING ENGINEERS j ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISyStir - >. �,• OFFICE - V UINIT City of Rosemount Utilities Commission P.O. Box 455 Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Gentlemen: RE: CITY ENGINEER OUR FILE NO. 71008 � BOG N_ v �2 This letter is a report which summarizes the information presented to the Utilities Commission on July 13, 1981, regarding water tests taken in June, 1981. The report compares June 1981 tests with previous test done by testing laboratories and the State Department of Health. In addition, in response to the Utility Commission request we are including cost estimates for installation of chlorination equipment together with estimated chemical costs for the chlorine. Below is a table listing a comparison of water tests for Wells #3, #6, and #7. The tests for Well #3 dates back to 1961, for Well #6 to 1964 and for Well #7 to 1976. WATER TEST COMPARISON WELL #3 TEST IRON MANGANESE HYDROGEN DATE PPM PPM SULPHIDE TESTED BY 11/9/61 0.44 No Result No Result Twin City Testing 8/28/69 0.59 0.06 No Result Dept. of Health 5/01/74 0.88 0.10 No Result Dept. of Health 07/77 0.30 0.12 No Result SERCO Slight Odor 6/17/81 6 (ON START -UP) Less than 0.1 ppm SEH 6/17/81 0.6 None None SEH (10 minutes after start -up) 200 GOPHER BUILDING • 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 • PHONE (612) 484 -0272 I] • is City of Rosemount Utilities Commission August 17, 1981 Page 2 WELL #6 TEST IRON DATE PPM 5/01/74 3.4 07/77 0.75 MANGANESE HYDROGEN PPM SULPHIDE 0.15 0.18 6/17/81 0.2 (ON START -UP) 6/17/81 0.3 None WELL #7 TESTED BY No Result Dept. of Health No Result SERCO Slight Odor Less than 0.1 ppm SEH None SEH (10 Minutes after start -up) TEST IRON MANGANESE HYDROGEN DATE PPM PPM SULPHIDE TESTED BY 4/19/76 0.25 0.10 No Result Twin City Testing 11/05/76 1.11 No Result No Result Twin City Testing 07/77 0.35 0.15 No Result SERCO Present 6/17/81 6 (ON START -UP) Approx. 0.2 ppm SEH 6/17/81 0.3 None None SEH (15 minutes after start -up) As can be seen from the test results, iron content in the various wells does vary, especially when the well first starts up. In the case of the June 17, 1981 tests the iron concentration in Wells #3 and #7 were both 6 ppm. After 10 to 15 minutes the iron content in the case of Well #3 reduced to 0.6 ppm and for Well #7 to 0.3 ppm. Well #6 had been running just recently and there was very little change in iron content from start -up to 10 minutes after start -up. Manganese has been detected in the past, but none was detected on June 1981 tests. City of Rosemount Utilities Commission • August 17, 1981 Page 3 On start -up both Wells #3 and #6 had a slight hydrogen sulphide odor with a content of less than 0.1 ppm and after 10 minutes there was no hydrogen sulphide detectable. Well #7 had a hydrogen sulphide odor present with a content of approximately 0.2 ppm on start -up with none present after the well had been running for 15 minutes. The high iron content on start -up and the presence of hydrogen sulphide indicates that there are iron and sulphide producing bacteria present somewhere in the system. Previous studies have reported the same conclusion, that is that there are sulphur and iron reducing bacteria in the system. Previous reports have recommended chlorination because chlorination kills bacteria and the application of it will eventually clean up the system to eliminate the bacteria. The normal minicipal water system injects a solution of chlorine gas and water at each pumphouse while the well is pumping. With 40 a dose rate of approximately 2 ppm of chlorine, the system will be sterilized working outward from the well sites toward the extremities of the system until eventually the entire system will be free of bacteria. There still may be problems on dead ends where an adequate chlorine residual is not maintained, however periodic flushing should eventually clean up most of the dead end problems. While the system is being bacteria by chlorination, kill is occurring will be been cleaned up should be where chlorine is working present time. cleaned up through destruction of the problems in the zone where bacteria noticeable. The area that has already fine and the area beyond the zone should be the same as it is at the The cost of installing chlorination equipment is approximately $6,000 per well. At Well #7 the equipment would be installed in the existing chlorine room, on the other two wells the chlorine equipment would be in a metal cabinet that mounts on the outside of the building, the cabinet would be approximately 18" deep, 36" wide and 6' high, sufficent to hold three cylinders and the chlorinator regulators, and would require no heat or electricity. Each well would have a chlorine booster pump to inject the chlorine • City of Rosemount Utilities Commission • August 17, 1981 Page 4 solution into the main at the pumphouse. Below is a breakdown listing the estimated cost per well per chlorination; Chlorination Equipment $3,500 Installation Cost 1,000 Subtotal 4,500 + 10% Contingencies 500 Est. Construction Cost 5,000 Eng. Legal & Misc. Costs 1,000 Est. Total Cost Each Well $6,000 The estimated yearly cost for gas chlorine is approximately $600. It is our recommendation that the City consider chlorination to eliminate odors in the water system. However, the occurence of red water, especially on dead ends, could still be a problem even after obtaining a chlorine residual in the entire system. gfc Sincerely, Norman E. endrickson SHORT- ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN gel <1�RR , ✓''� July 7, RE: ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA SANITARY SEWERS WESTERN ROSEMOUNT PROJECT 1972 -2 OUR Q�a FILE NO. 7210 (ALSO CITY ENG. #71008) City of Rosemount P.O. Box 455 Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Attention: Mr. Don F. Darling, Clerk- Treasurer On April 21, 1981 your City Council took action regarding continuing problems with the Terrence Duffy sanitary sewer service (3565 Upper 143rd Street West) as follows: MOTION by Jensen directing City Engineer to seek a • satisfactory settlement between Terry Duffy and those responsible for the installation of the sewer in front of the Duffy residence. Second by Stauffer. Ayes Stauffer, Knutson, Ratzlaff, Jensen, Walsh. Nays 0. In accordance with the foregoing, the undersigned has taken the following steps: 1) Review of memo of city clerk to council, April 101 1981, detailing Duffy claim of $1009.11 consolidated as follows: Plumber Charges 7/77 thru 3/81 $ 210.90 Carpet Replacement 3/78 614.50 Quarterly Sewer Charge 183.71 TOTAL $1,009.11 2) Review of SEH, Inc. files, records and contract documents. 3) On May 5, 1981, conferences with following plus site viewing: City Clerk Don Darling Utility Foreman Rick Cook Councilman Arnie Jensen 200 GOPHER BUILDING • 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 • PHONE (612) 484 -0272 • City of Rosemount July 7, 1981 Page 2 4) On May 5 and 21, 1981 conferences with SEH, Inc. personnel: Robert Glasgow - Project Construction Engineer Gary R. Gray - Project Manager, 1973 Norman E. Hendrickson Steve Campbell 5) On July 3, 1981, after several delays in contact; conferences with Mr. and Mrs. Duffy, including site viewing. As a result of the foregoing, we present certain fundamental information: 1) Bids received on project: April 25, 1973 2) Successful bidder: McDonald & Associates, Inc. 3) Order to proceed issued to contractor: May 16, 1973. • Contract documents specified completion as follows: Sewer construction -140 calendar days or Oct. 2, 1973 Street restoration by June 1, 1974 Total restoration by June 15, 1974 4) Sewer main, Upper 148th Street - 8" P.V.C. Sewer service, Duffy property - 4" P.V.C. 5) Sewer mains and services completed on Upper 148th Street serving Duffy property by late October, 1973 (thus permitting partial utilization by city and property owners and commencing one year guarantee on portions of project so utilized). 6) Service connection to Duffy property completed and inspected, November 23, 1973. 7) City clerk's written notification to contractor of Duffy service plugging and anticipation of possible repairs, June 11, 1974, with copy to SEH, Inc. 8) Engineers recommend final acceptance of project and final payment to contractor based on final inspection with city personnel, Aul. /.* / j ?4. 0 • City of Rosemount July 7, 1981 Page 3 9) McDonald & Assoc., Inc. enter backruptcy and suspend business, 1976. 10) Council motion referring matter SEH, Inc. April 21, 1981. In view of the foregoing, it is obvious that the Duffy's have suffered reduced and hazardous sewer service from late 1973 through early April, 1981 caused directly by absence of approximately two (21) feet of 4" P.V.C. pipe in their sewer service immediately adjacent to the 8" sewer main. This absence was obviously due to failure on the part of the contractor in constructing this particular 4" service in the same satisfactory manner as the other functioning services in this project, some 370 services totaling 7,135 feet in length. Regretfully, the Duffy's have also encountered considerable expense in attempting to solve their own problems without recourse to the city. • However, our firm acting as your city engineer, feel ourselves inadequate in achieving a satisfactory settlement with Terrence Duffy. The contractor is no longer in business and is living in Texas, his bond expired several years ago and we, as your engineers, are unable to commit your city to any relief in sewer charges. Further, we were totally unaware and unadvised of the problem for seven years and thus unable to recommend a solution. Apparently, your utility department was also in the dark on the matter for seven years and unable to offer a practical solution until this post April, 1981. We thus can only "identify those responsible for the installation of the sewer in front of the Duffy residence" as being the contractor and ourselves. As is often the case with such past situations, we can't assume the obligations of the contractor, particularly where so much time has passed, and where we were completely unadvised as to the problem, even through its logical correction. • • City of Rosemount July 7, 1981 Page 4 We will, however, join in a financial solution to assist the Duffys with agreement on the part of the city to address itself to the Duffy claim for relief of quarterly charges. We do not feel any responsibility for the 1978 carpet replacement where we had no opportunity to assist in a solution to the problem. We suggest the city designate a city staff or council representative to work with us in reaching a constructive and amicable settlement of the situation. Ig% rely, Z V . Short jcj • 0 • 14745 South Robert Trail Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 612 - 423 -1144 , September 1, 1981 Tom Lein �k 14851 Camfield Circle Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Dear Mr. Lein: The below paragraph is what is written on the box that temperature and pressure valves come in. The temperature and pressure valve on a water heater protects a water system from both over pressure and over temperature. It will (if functioning properly) automatically shut off after providing such protection. If the temperature and pressure valve does fail to shut -off, is check for excessive pressure and /or heat imput control operation, It is our opinion that any appliance such as a water softener where the water passes thru before it gets to the water heater could/ if the water pressure is to great, blow gaskets or O rings before it would blow the temperature and pressure valve. Temperature and pressure valves are designed for different blow off ratings. (these are usually noted on the temperature and pressure valve) I do not know at what pressure the 0 rings or gaskets on a water softener would be tested for but perhaps a call to your softener company would help answer that. I do know that in Burnsville and several other towns a water pressure reducing valve is required before the water meter. The type we normally use is #U5B watts (pi-cture is enclosed). This valve is designed to eliminate the high water ppressure to the whole house system before and after the water heater. Sincerely, GENZ -RYAN PLUMBING AND HEATING COMPANY i Gene Huber, Plumbing Supervisor Enclosure GH /21 • • O 1367 . 1451 H ST E - P. O PDX 455 l ROSE MOUNT. M INN IS0 i A 5N''" JJJ ` 612-423-4411 OSenwunt PROPOSED UTILITY BUDGET 1981 j 1980 1980 1981 OVER AND 1981 vunvn¢Fn ABOVE ACCEPTED i ITEM 4oges, Clerical 13,200.00 Wages, Clerical,P.T 1,262.50 Wages, 0 r. 329573.13 g � P Wages, Opr., P.T. 3,500.00 Wages, In S & W 2,000.00 13,158.78 1,704.73 341598.34 16,634.00 1 800.00 , 43,606.75 2,000.00 2,000.00 3,434.00 +537.50 11,033.62 - 1,500.00 TOTALS 52,535.63 49,461.85 66,040.75 13,505.12 20- Office Supplies 1,500.00 501.40 1,000.00 .---500-00 23 -Small Tools 900.00 704.02 900.00 25- Equip. Opr, Repair 2,000.00 26- Garage Maint. 4,000.00 28- Computer Exp. 11000.00 728.24 1,525.29 834.51 11500.00 4,000.00 21000.00 '- -500.0 +1;000.0 TOTALS 9,400.00 4,293.46, 9,400.00 -0- 30- Professional Services 1,500.00 31- Communication 2,000.00 39- Insurance 3 1600.00 473.41 659.89 6,280.72 1,000.00 1,000.00 7,500.00 - 500.00 - 1,000.00 3,900.00 TOTALS 7,100.00 40- Miscellaneous 1,100.00 7,414.02 788.00 9,500.00 900.00 2,400.00 - 200.00 TOTAL 1,100.00 788.00 900.00 - 200.00 52- Capital Outlay 10,0 , 4,200.00 -5.800.00.. 9,473.51 49200.00 5,800.00 TOTAL 10,000.00 Collected for others Meter Deposit Refunds Purchase of Investments 82- Mileage Reimburse- ments 400.00 200.00 - 200.00 TOTALS 400.00 400.00 200,00 1 - 200.00 i • 610 ACCOUNT WATER 1980 1980 1981 OVER AND 1981 ITEM BUDGETED EXPENDITURES PROPOSED ABOVE ACCEPTED 21 -Water Meter Maint. 500.00 1,957.03 2,000.00 + 1,500.00 21 -a New Meters _ 3,000.00 +3,000.00 22 -Well Maint. 5000.00 2,010.90 2,000.00 - 3,000.00 23 -Small Tools Equip. 500.00 114.12 300.00 - 200.00 24 -Supv. Control Panel 450.00 311.10 500.00 +50.00 25 -Equip Maint. 200.00 400.00 +.200.00 26 -Water Tower Maint. 500.00 3000.00 F 2,500.00 27 -Well House Maint. 1,500.00 57.00 700.00 - 800.00 29- System Maint. 5,500.00 1,571.97 2,500,00 - 3,000.00 TOTALS 14,150.00 6,022.12 14,400.00 +250.00 32 -Lab Analysis 300.00 231.00 600.00 +300.00 35- Electric Power 5,000.00 3,878.07 5,000.00 -0- 36 -Gas 4,500.00 3,105.49 4,500.00 -0- 37-Flouride 800.00 999.78 10200.00 +400.00 TOTALS 10,600.00 8,230.99 11,300.00 +700.00 40- Miscellaneous 300.00 26.00 300.00 -0- TOTALS 300.00 26.00 300.00 -0- 82 -Meter Deposit Refund 1500.00 1036.78 out - 11500.00 TOTALS 1500.00 1036.78 -0- - 1,500.00 35- Electrical Useage 700.00 526.02 750.00 +50.00 TOTALS 700.00 526.36 750.00 +50.00 615 Account Sewer 300.00 100.00 ITEM 1980 Budgeted 1980 EXPENDITURES 1981 OVER AND PROPOSED ABOVE 23 -Small Tools & Equip. 300.00 150.00 - 150.00 24 -Jet Machine 400.00 233.88 350.00 -50.00 25- Equip. Opr. & Maint. 50.00 50.00 100.00 +50.00 27 -Lift Stat. 1500.00 759.40 1200.00 - 300.00 29- System Main. 500.00 300.00 - 200.00 TOTALS 2750.00 1043.28 2100.00 - 650.00 35- Electrical Useage 700.00 526.02 750.00 +50.00 TOTALS 700.00 526.36 750.00 +50.00 40- Miscellaneous 300.00 100.00 - 200.00 TOTAL 300.00 100.00 - 200.00 Metro Sewer Useage Charge 50,757.40 46,944.39 TOTAL 50,757.40 1 46,944.39 GRAND TOTAL 161,593.03 135,660.76 • 62,243.83 (+11,486.43 62,243.53 I +11,486.43 185,434.58 23,841.55 1981 ACCEPTED 'r i �i i S ?, C. J DATE: MARCH 4, 1981 (V 0 - Iq Of (7�jv0S2Yj'l of 31 TO: MAYOR CITY COUNCIL UTILITIES COMMISSION STAFF FROM: DON J. BROWN SUBJ: UNIVERSITY ADDITION The University of Minnesota has submitted a preliminary plat to the City for approval called the "University Addition ". If this plat is approved the City would take over ownership of the existing street and the in -place utilities. Listed below are some concerns of mine that I feel the Council, Utilities Commission, and Staff should address: WATER xx • A. The City be supplied with (2) sets of as -built plans. B. The University of Minnesota should locate, check out and raise to existing grade all gate valves and curb stops. C. All existing obsolete fire hydrants should be replaced with hydrants as specified by the City. D. The City should consider having the University of Minnesota replace all existing galvanized service lines (main to curb stops only). E. The City will have to have an additional 10 -foot easement on the west side of Biscayne Way. (Water main is approxi- mately (3) three feet from property line.) F. If lots 1 and 12 of BLK 1 and lots 1 and 17 of BLK 2 are to be approved as part of this plat, then all water stubs should be made to these lots prior to any street improvement. (See items A & B under STREETS) G. The University of Minnesota must deed existing water main and easement for same which runs from Burnley Ave- nue to the point where it connects to the existing water main at Biscayne Way to the City of Rosemount. 40 COMMENT: Homes on the east side of Biscayne Way are served by common water lines (3 homes per line). This arrangement does not comply with city ordinance, although, I really can't see any problem. - 2 - SEWER xx • A. Lower all manholes in Biscayne Way. B. (2) Two sets of as -built plans C. Sewer mains should be cleaned, televised and repairs to mains or manholes should be made prior to acceptance of same. D. If lots 1 and 12 of BLK 1 and lots 1 and 17 of BLK 2 are to be approved as part of this plat, then the sewer main should be extended approximately 100 -feet north of existing dead end, and all stubs to these lots should be stubbed in prior to any street improvement. (See items A & B under STREETS) STREETS A. Install curb and gutter and new mat . - or - B. Install 3/4 -inch overlay and cut and reshape ditches STREET LIGHTS A. There are (5) five existing street lights which I feel to be adequate. STREET SIGNS A. Remove all existing "Watch Out For Children" signs as per Glen Van Wormer Recommendation dated 9/18/79. NOTE: itxx" denotes action required by Utilities Commission.