04-22-96 CCCITY OF OTSEGO
UEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
11 AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE A
18. ANDY MAC ARTHUR, LEGAL April 22, 1996 - 6:30PM I
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
8.1. Searing for Chris Bulow, Sorensen Ridge Vacation of Streets_
Background:
As part of the Sorensen Ridge Development, Chris Bulow is asking that the vacation of streets within
the plat which were created by the Otsego Old Townsite Plat, as noted in the attached petition and
Resolution of City Council to vacate streets.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Is to approve vacation of the streets as requested, to coincide with the Final Plat of Sorensen Ridge Plat,
The Staff feels this is a plus for the City to get rid of the Old Townsite Plat streets in this area.
8.2. Consider ResolutiowToliey for Stormwater Drainage Impact Fees - Deferment
BACKGROUND:
Some of the developers have asked the Staff if they could have a deferment of the Drainage Impact Fees
on their developments, until the project is built out. This was brought to the Council and they directed
Larry Koshak and Andy MacArthur to put together a Resolution to propose a policy for same.
Attached is the Resolution for the Council to consider_
STAFF EC'OMMMNDAT N:
Approve the attached Resolution as written. The reason being that the Stormwater Drainage will not be
done right away, and we will have the money in time to do the drainage project.
8.3. Consider approval of Referendum to Amend the City Liquor Ordinance for Sunday Sales (by
Riverwood Metro Business Resort)
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a letter from Riverwood Metro Business Resort, 10990 95TH ST NE, Monticello, MN
55362 requesting the Referendum to amend the City liquor ordinance for Sunday sales. Attached also is
a letter from Andy MacArthur regarding this issue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Is to approve the request for Referendum to amend the City Liquor ordinance for Sunday sales, with the
stipulation that Riverwood Metro Business Resort pay all fees associated with this Referendum.
Thank you,
4
[[fFN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
A� DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH
COMMUNITY PLANNING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Kirmis/David Licht
DATE: 17 April 1996
RE: Otsego Comprehensive Plan: Urban Service Area
FILE NO: 176.08
In the Fall of 1994, our office presented a memorandum to the City Council which
discussed issues involving possible expansion of the City's immediate urban service area
(see attached 11/23/94 memo). Discussion of the immediate urban service boundary was
prompted by several development inquiries received by City staff.
As noted in the referenced memorandum, it was the recommendation of our office that an
expansion of the immediate urban service area not take place until such time as City sewer
and storm water management plans were complete. At its 9 January 1995 meeting, the
City Council opted to take no action on the immediate urban service area expansion issue.
In consideration of the City's recently completed drainage study, pending sewer study, and
recent developer inquiries, reconsideration of the immediate urban service area issue
would seem appropriate.
If the City were to expand its immediate urban service area boundaries, such expansion
must be justified through a demonstrated consistency with the City's sewer plan. While
"Phase 1" of the sewer study conceptually outlines a "sewer service area", a more in depth
plan which physically outlines future service areas (based on plant capacity, growth
projections, physical constraints, etc.) is needed to help define a revised urban service
area and areas of the City conducive to future service.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
U R B A N PLANNING- DESIGN- MARKET RESEARCH
Kelp
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
BACKGROUND
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
Bob Kirmis/David Licht
23 November 1994
Otsego - Immediate Urban Service Area Analysis
176.08 - 94.23
In past months, staff has received a number of development
inquiries which would require a change in the City's immediate
urban service area boundary (Comprehensive Plan amendment).
Specific inquiries received include the Anderson and LuConic
properties located south of County Road 39 and east of Nashua
Avenue. These inquiries have prompted a need for the City to
examine its growth strategy and consider an expansion of the City's
immediate urban service area.
This memorandum is intended to supplement a previous NAC
correspondence dated 9 November 1994.regarding this matter and
provide a background/ summary of issues involved in the Planning
Commission's and City Council's forthcoming consideration of a
potential expansion to the City's immediate urban service area.
Initially, we have updated the residential land demand projections
as presented in the City's 1990 Comprehensive Plan Inventory. Such
projections are intended to be utilized in determining a need for
the possible expansion of the City's immediate urban service area.
The projections provide an estimate of the amount of land necessary
to accommodate Otsego's future residential growth needs.
Secondly, we have conducted an inventory of undeveloped land within
the immediate service area and, through property owner contacts,
determined the extent to which such land is currently "available"
for development.
Finally, we have outlined -various policy related decisions which
must be made in establishing a growth strategy for the community.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
Local Growth
As stated previously, local growth in Otsego is restricted by the
lack of available public sewer and water which would allow for more
intense urban land use and densities. Without urban services,
residential land uses will continue to develop at rural/suburban
densities typically in the form of one acre lots.
Between 1985 and August of 1994, Wright County and the City of
Otsego issued building permits for 459 housing units. Such permits
were exclusive to detached single family homes and manufactured
(mobile) homes. As illustrated in the following table, Otsego's
development has fluctuated through the past decade reflecting
extraneous economic and market trends occurring at the time. While
future growth is assumed to also fluctuate, the City can assume a
development rate similar to that experienced in the last decade.
1984-94 OTSEGO RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Number of Residential
Year Building Permits
1985
43
1986
30
1987
31
1988
30
1989
28
1990
54
1991
34
1992
69
1993
112
1994
38*
SOURCE: Otsego Building Permit Information, 1980-1994
* 28 Permits issued through August 1994. A total of 38
permits projected for year.
Residential Land Demand and Absorption
Aside from agricultural land use, residential development continues
to be most predominate land use within the community. This
development trend is projected to continue through the next decade.
In projecting the year 2000 residential land demand, future growth
is assumed to follow the existing development patterns with the
most popular lot size being one acre. Over the next five years,
Otsego is projected to add 235 new households. As shown on table
Assumption #2. Future low density residential development
will develop under a one acre lot size scenario.
Assumption #3. Twenty-three percent of available land area
would be devoted to streets.
The vacant land inventory also revealed that available parcels
range from 10 to 40 acres in size with the average available parcel
measuring 18 acres.
Land Availability
While 398 acres of land has been determined to exist for future
residential development (excluding Wild and Scenic District), no
assurances exist that such land holdings are in fact "for sale" and
"available" for development. To determine the extent to which
vacant land is available, staff has made contact with a number of
property owners to determine land availability.
Such contacts revealed the following results:
Number of
Response Property Owners Total Acres
Willing to develop 3 114
Not willing to develop 6 185
No response/undecided 7 172
TOTAL 16 471
NOTES: Totals represent gross area and lands within Wild and
Scenic District (76 acres).
Attached Exhibit B reveals that only 19 percent of contacted
property owners are willing to develop at this time, while 44
percent were undecided or had no response. Thirty-seven percent of
contacted property owners indicated that they had no plans to
develop.
While the results of property owner contacts cannot be considered
"cast in stone", the staff survey does reveal that the significant
number of undeveloped properties within the immediate service area
are currently not available for residential development.
For the purposes of this examination, it is estimated that
approximately one-half of the undeveloped land within the immediate
urban service area is available for development.
Specifically, it is estimated that ± 200 acres is actually
"available for development". Such acreage would accommodate ± 150
k,
a
U
> i ]
15
• 92nd ST 4
Y
22
DSIA ST
00 '
< t
ST u 27
4
y
s
631A ST
fJ.
v
1 �
l� Y
.,
Otsego,
Minnesota
1 .5 0 1
SCALE IN MILES
YAP OATU
,A6, SEPTEMBER 1989
MOTL- TMn MAP n r01 PT, AM�q
►1/1P01ei OMIT AND MLAO
MOT K M640 WW- PMlCY!
MCAfUl1TWTS AK KOUwlA
BASE MAP SOUFICE
WFtlGHT COUNTY
SURVEYORS OFFICE 7.2569
6 • •'� -67.nJ Off :d
u
Immediate Urban Service Area
M
X
Urban/Rural
Long Range Urban Service Area
PREPARED BY:
_
El
Rural Service Area
vo
Service Concept
orthwest
>.
Specific Immediate Urban Service Area Boundary
AssoClated
D
Amended by Resolution N0. 94-70,
10 January 1994
d t i Engineering d b Stud
to be determined gg y
consultants, Inc.
C
VELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
SPONSE
V SERVICE AREA
1500 }000
FEET
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
7. BOB KIRMIS
Planning April 22,1996 6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
7.1. Discussion of Inunediate
Service Area Line Change.
Background:
With the Sewer Study in the NE portion of the City to Serve #101 area Commercial and Industrial and
any new housing, the City Staff is asking the Council to look at the Immediate Service Area Line
South of the present line to determine if there should be a line change, as we are getting requests
from developers in that area. See attached memo from Bob Kirmis, NAC dated April 17, 1996.
STAFF RECONANIENDATION:
Staff agrees that the area South from the Immediate Service Area Line to 70TH ST and maybe beyond
to Frankfort Twp. line, and East of Odean to 101 and maybe beyond towards Dayton, should be studied
as to what will be allowed for future development with sewer and water and see if the line should be
changed. We feel the Council needs to discuss the possibilities.
Thank you,
E6 MVcA iO4--l'g-Wn i7744M ►JfK1HM Qbm7GhCOT7 7n -1— —
01/10/1994 02:02 2183462048 WAGON WHEEL GROCERY PAGE 01
✓�, / / J A .0 /s r/ p'A 1r/S e'o- 17J1-4. -17 Al, y
1/01/18 rf /_-f /eS
eo r e.- s, J7� a� S"S.3 '7 -y
X899 Ylnasf..-eer- ��..e.� N£
x4w'0-4� "
The Scuth Ha'If of the ScutheitSt Quartcr of Section 28.
Tc-,mahip 121, Mingo 2'3. ++riyhL County, c.4capt therefrom
the fol!Qwin8 described tracts:
1. The north -e1e.00 feet of the west 547.00 feet of the
said South Half of the Southeast Quarter.
2• the cast 660.00 feet of the Said South Half of - the.
Southeast quarter.
3. De;'nniny ' at the southwast corner of Lha sold South
Half of the Southeast Quarter; thence north along the
Nest lire of said south Half of the Srutheast Quarter,
a dis';,3nca of 619.00 fret; thence eost at a right
angle, a distance of 31:3.8:s feet; thence south, at a
right angle, a distance of 621.89 feet to the South
line of the said South Half of the Southeast Quarter;
thence west along the said south line, a distance of .
313.e4 feet to the point of beginning. ,
16kAt-
-a�'�-,oU O d-� �-�{,a.-� .��n•�� cz�c-ate.
).
I
i
WE
H,,*Ia.rry Qct rry
l? r'c, v i l / *W Al G. s' 94
aif- �3'1& - 7A00
,tx a/8'- 3'16- -;2a'f�
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
In the matter of the vacation of
all those streets lying within the
plat of the Townsite of Otsego,
lying south of County State Aid
Highway No. 39, and east of the
Plat of Bulow Estates, as more
fully described on the attached
Exhibit A.
CITY OF OTSEGO
NOTICE OF HEARING
ON PETITION TO
VACATE STREET
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a Petition has been filed with
the City Council of the City of Otsego to vacate that part of those
streets above described herein by the owners of land abutting said
streets to be vacated.
That a hearing will be held upon said Petition by the City
Council of the City of Otsego on the ?7Nn day of Ap:-1 ,
1996 , at 7:30PM o'clock at Otsego City Hall and that any person
interested in the same may be heard at said time.
Dated this 2gwu_ day of Mach , 1996
Attest:
'City Clerk Elaine Beatt
CITY SEAL
CITY OF OTSEGO
Mayor Norman F Freske
EXHIBIT A
All those streets lying within the Plat of the Townsite of Otsego
described as follows:
C Street lying southerly of County State Aid Highway No. 39, except
that part previously platted.
B Street lying southerly of County State Aid Highway No. 39.
A Street lying southerly of County State Aid Highway No. 39.
All that part of Fifth Street lying easterly of the plat of Bulow
Estates.
All that part of Sixth Street lying easterly of the plat of Bulow
Estates.
All that part of Seventh Street lying easterly of the plat of Bulow
Estates.
All that part of Eighth Street lying easterly of the plat of Bulow
Estates.
FA
C
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
CCS[EOMIE
D
,cr
Andy MacArthur
Bob Kirmis
17 April 1996
Otsego - Storm Water Drainage and Park/Trail Deferment
176.08 - 96.04
At your request, I have reviewed your draft resolution (dated 4/16/96) related to the
deferment of storm water drainage and park/trail fees. In review of the draft resolution, the
following comments are offered:
1. It may be advisable to add an additional "whereas" which reiterates the purpose of
storm water drainage and park/trail fees.
2. It is my understanding that storm water impact fees are charged on all development
requests (where an increase in impervious surface will result) and are not exclusive
to subdivision applications. Thus, the resolution should be revised accordingly.
3. Some concern exists in regard to fee payment responsibilities. In subdivision
requests, it is not inconceivable that fee payments could be passed from the
developer to the builder and ultimately to the lot purchaser. It may be appropriate
to specifically address responsible parties in the resolution.
4. Item 2.D of the draft resolution states that deferment terms and conditions relating
to storm water impact fees are to be addressed within a development agreement.
This raises question as to how fee deferments are to be handled for development
requests which typically do not require development agreements (i.e., conditional
use permits).
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
5. Item 3.6 notes that interest charges are to be imposed for park and trail deferments
in excess of two years. For the benefit of both the developer and the City, it may
be appropriate to specify the rate of interest to be applied (i.e, prime rate plus a
certain percent increase).
Aside from the preceding items, the draft resolution appears to be in order. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
pc: Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
2
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT RESOLUTION 96-13 CITY OF OTSEGO
RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL VACATING STREET
In the Matter of the Vacation of all those streets lying
within the plat of the Townsite of Otsego, lying south of
County State Aid Highway No. 39, and east of the Plat of
Bulow Estates, as more fully described on the attached
Exhibit A.
The above entitled matter came on to be heard before the City
Council of the City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota, upon the
Petition of Bulow Inc.by Christopher M. Bulow, its President, for
the vacating of the streets above described, and the City Council
having given due notice of said hearing by published and posted
notice as provided by law and said hearing having been held on the
22ND day of April , 1996, at 7:30 o'clock P. M., at the
City Hall in said City, an no one appeared in opposition thereto,
and the said Council after hearing the evidence presented to it in
favor of said Petition finds: that Petitioners are the owners of
all the land abutting said portion of above described streets; that
said streets are not serving any public purpose, and that it would
be in the best interest of the public to vacate said streets;
Council/Me Heidner introduced the following resolution,
to -wit:
All those streets lying within the plat of the Townsite of
Otsego, lying south of County State Aid Highway No. 39, and east of
the Plat of Bulow Estates, as more fully described on the attached
Exhibit A., be and the same are hereby vacated pursuant to Minn.
Stat. Ann. 412.851.
Which resolution was seconded by Council/Member
and being put to a vote a majority of said Council vote in favor
of said resolution, whereupon said resolution was declared adopted
by the Mayor of said City.
Dated at the City of Otsego,
Minnesota this 22ND day of April 1996.
Mayor Norman F Freske
ATTEST:
Clerk
Elaine Beatty, City Cler Zoning Adm.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
Elaine Beatty , being first duly sworn says that !he is
the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of
Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota, and as such is custodian of the
records of said City; that the above resolution is a true and
correct copy of said resolution taken from the records of the
minutes of the City Council of said City, for the regular meeting
thereof held on April 22, , 1996.
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 22ND day of April , 1996.
e.
o ary lic
x
JUDY E. HUDSON
NOTARYPUBLrAINNESOTA
WRIGHT COUNTY
My Commission Eaplroa Jan. 31, 2000
rvu�nMnnnMn x
MMIBIT A
All those streets lying within the Plat of the Townsite of Otsego
described as follows:
C Street lying southerly of County State Aid Highway No. 39, except
that part previously platted.
B Street lying southerly of County State Aid Highway No. 39.
A Street lying southerly of County State Aid Highway No. 39.
All that part of Fifth Street lying easterly of the plat of Bulow
Estates.
All that part of Sixth Street lying easterly of the plat of Bulow
Estates.
All that part of Seventh Street lying easterly of the plat of Bulow
Estates.
All that part of Eighth Street lying easterly of the plat of Bulow
Estates.
D
12@ IEae[E
ArT,a�lass
William S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Court
April 17, 1996
RADZWILL & COURI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Bar 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
City Council Members
City of Otsego
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Proposed Resolution Regarding Deferment Policy
Dear Elaine:
Please find enclosed for City Council consideration at Monday
night's Council meeting a proposed resolution regarding City policy
for fee deferrals. The enclosed resolution incorporates comments
made by Bob Kirmis and Larry Koshak.
I will be available on Monday to answer any questions the Council
may have.
Very ly/y%ours,
drewM`acArthur
RADZWILL COURI
Encl.
cc: Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
Bob Kirmis, NAC
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REGARDING CITY POLICY FOR DEFERMENT OF FEES RELATED TO
STORM WATER DRAINAGE AND PARR AND TRAIL DEDICATION.
WHEREAS, Developers have requested that the City consider allowing
deferment of City fees for storm water drainage impact and fees for
park and trails in lieu of land dedication; and
WHEREAS, the City has established within its subdivision ordinance
certain fees in lieu of land dedication which are for the purpose
of mitigating the affects of additional development on the City's
park and trail systems; and
WHEREAS, the City has also established fees for the affect of land
use changes on storm water drainage within the City due to increase
in impervious surface areas; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it will set forth such a
policy in writing to allow deferments in certain situations and
under certain conditions so as to encourage development within the
City; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
OTSEGO that the following is the policy of the City of Otsego
regarding requests for granting deferments of the above mentioned
fees:
1. No deferment(s) shall be considered unless requested in writing
by the Applicant.
2. Deferments of storm water drainage impact fees may be granted at
the discretion of the City Council upon reviewing the request
presented and any pertinent facts. If deferment is granted it shall
be granted subject to, but not limited to only, the following
conditions:
A. The City Engineer determines that the City is not in
immediate need of said fees.
B. No deferment shall be in excess of two years from the date
of approval of the land use change, unless extended by the City
Council. Any extension beyond two years shall be subject to
interest charges, as well as being subject to any increase in fees
adopted after the date of initial approval. Interest on any
extension of deferment beyond two years shall be determined by use
of the Engineering News -Record Construction Index.
C. All deferred fees shall be fully covered by a Letter of
Credit which may not be reduced below the amount of outstanding
fees owed. The Letter of Credit shall be maintained by the original
applicant until all fees have been paid. Any change in the identity
of the person or entity posting the Letter of Credit is subject to
City approval.
D. The terms and conditions of the deferment and the amount of
Letter of Credit shall all be contained within either the
Developer's Agreement for a subdivision, or within a separate
written recordable agreement between the applicant and the City in
the case of any other land use change.
3. Deferments of fees in lieu of park and trail dedication may be
granted at the discretion of the City Council upon review of the
request presented and any pertinent facts. If deferment is granted
it shall be granted subject to, but not limited only to, the
following conditions:
A. The Council determines, after receipt of a recommendation
from the Park and Recreation Commission, that deferment of receipt
of fees will not impair the City's park and/or trail system.
B. No deferment shall be in excess of two years from the date
of approval of the subdivision unless extended by the City Council.
Any extension beyond two years shall be subject to interest charges
as well as being subject to any increase in fees adopted after the
date of initial approval. Interest rates shall be determined by the
City Council on a case by case basis.
C. All deferred fees shall be fully covered by a Letter of
Credit which may not be reduced below the amount of the fees owed.
The Letter of Credit must be maintained by the original applicant
until all fees have been paid. Any change in the identity of the
person or entity posting the Letter of Credit is subject to City
approval.
D.The terms and conditions of the deferment and the amount of
Letter of Credit shall all be contained within the Developer's
Agreement for the subdivision.
ADOPTED this day of , 1996 by the Otsego City
Council.
IN FAVOR:
OPPOSED:
CITY OF OTSEGO
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
90 95th Street NE Monticello, MN 55362
April 11, 1996
City of Otsego
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE.
Elk River, MN. 55330
RE: Sunday Liquor
Dear Elaine,
ULS\Z:2LSU\.!/l5
z GG6
RMOD_.Jre[ ePHONe6612 441-6833 Fax 612 -441 -
METRO BUSINESS RESORT
On behalf of Riverwood, we are requesting a referendum for the upcoming election.
We are requesting the referendum to amend the City liquor ordinance for Sunday sales to read as
such:
A restaurant club, bowling center, or hotel with a seating capacity for at least 30
persons and which holds an on -sale intoxicating liquor license may sell intoxicating
liquor for consumption on the premises in conjunction with the sale of food between the
hours of 12:00 noon Sundays and 1:00 AM Mondays
If the referendum is passed, we ask for immediate amendment to the City liquor ordinance.
Sincerely,
Nadine Aarvig
Senior Sales Manager
William S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacArthur
?Michael C. Couri
February 16, 1996
RAVZWILL & COURI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
City of Otsego
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Sunday Liquor
Dear Elaine:
Enclosed please find the statutory material on Sunday Liquor that
you earlier requested. As you will note, the first step in the
process is to initiate a referendum on the subject. This can either
be done by petition or can be initiated by motion of the City
Council. The easier method would be for the party requesting the
referendum to make a direct request of the City Council. Upon
successful initiation of referendum, it is then a matter of waiting
to see whether or not the matter is approved by the majority of
voters voting on that issue.
If the referendum is successful there must be amendment of the
City's Liquor Ordinance to provide for Sunday liquor and license
for the same. This amendment will require a public hearing.
Additionally, there must be a public hearing on the granting of a
Sunday liquor license if the applicant desires to start service at
10 a.m. Arguably, the statute does not require such a public
hearing if the applicant desires to start service at 12 0' clock
noon. However, for the sake of consistency and ease of
administration, any ordinance amendment which I would recommend for
passage would require a hearing for either form of Sunday Liquor
license.
Because of the number of events that must occur to establish Sunday
liquor, it is my suggestion that the applicant request not only
that a referendum be initiated but that a proposed ordinance
amendment be drafted and that a public hearing on that amendment be
scheduled contingent upon passage of the referendum.
Letter to Otsego- Sunday Liquor
February 16, 1996
Page 2
I would advise the City to not initiate the referendum process by
Council motion until an agreement is reached with the applicant
wherein they guarantee to cover the City costs of the process.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
rew J. acAr ur
RADMILL i COURI
Encls.
cc: Arlene DeCandia, Riverwood
City of Otsego
Engineer's Agenda Items
City Council Meeting
April 22, 1996
9.1 CONSIDER OTSEGO CREEK LEVY
• Council is requested to consider setting the levy for the drainage
improvements to Otsego Creek and for the engineering fees to assist the
Otsego Creek Authority in prepared of the necessary studies, reports, and
permit applications as required by the Mn/DNR to do work in the creek.
• If you the levy is set and approved, the Council then is requested to order
the preparation of Plans and Specifications for the culvert replacements
and ditch improvements.
• The Council should consider that if the levy is denied, that some
improvement will need to be made to the culvert under 83rd Street in the
future. Funding source will need to be considered to make any
improvements or repairs to the 83rd Street culvert.
9.2 CONSIDER ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE NW AREA STORM SEWER
TAXING DISTRICT.
City attorney will provide the ordinance for the establishment of the
district should the Council proceed with establishing the district.
9.3 CONSIDER BIDS
Mississippi Shores Addition, Improvement Project 95-1
Island View Estates and Arrowhead Estates, Improvement Project 95-2
Find attached our letter of recommendation on the award.
9.4 WARNING SIREN
• We were asked to look into the location and power source for the used
siren by Elaine Beatty for Council information.
• We talked to Dr. Ron Bratlie at the School District about locating the
siren on the well site which the City holds an easement for water
facilities. He did not foresee a problem, however, he suggested a letter
and perhaps a revision to the original easement allowing the siren location
on the site be sent to the district.
The School District needs to approve the use on the site. The site has
three phase powers available and it appears, according to the electrician
who worked on the well project, that power could be taken at the well
power source. No additional meter would be needed. ,
Apparently, the siren would need to be mounted on the pole before
putting the pole into the ground. Also, the wiring needs to be on the
pole before raised.
The electrician would need to make several trips to the site and thought
the cost of electrical services would be between $1,000 - 1,500, yet to
be resolved is the method of activating the siren.
We have talked about this matter with Wright Hennepin, who say there
is also three phases power available needs the intersection of CSAH42
and TH 101. Land availability and need to establish electrical service
point would make the well site least costly.
9.5 ANY OTHER ENGINEERING ITEMS.
ki
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
April 18, 1996
Honorable Mayor & City Council
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue
Otsego, MN 55330
RE: Award Recommendation
Improvement Project 95-1 & 2
Dear Mayor & Council Members
222 Monroe Street
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3401
On April 9, 1996, at 10:00 a.m., the City Clerk and myself received bids for the
construction of bituminous paved streets in Island View Additions and Arrowhead
Estates, referred to as Improvement Project 95-2 and for bituminous overlay in
Mississippi Shores Addition, referred to as Improvement Project 95-1.
We received bids from six bidders. The six bids and bidders are listed below with the
lowest first;
Midwest Asphalt Company
Hardrives, Inc.
WB Miller, Inc.
Valley Paving, Inc.
Bauerly Brothers, Inc.
Buffalo Bituminous, Inc.
Imp Proj 95-1
$155,085.00
153,240.00
142,795.00
152,462.50
147,956.00
172,201 .00
Imp Proj 95-2
$384,393.52
397,909.20
409,899.55
441,201 .85
419,789.87
409,597.57
Total
5539,478.52
551,149.20
552,694.55
563,664.35
567,745.87
581 ,798.57
Item 9.3
The feasibility construction cost estimate for Mississippi Shores was $217,375.00.
Using the lowest combined bid of Midwest Asphalt Company of $155,085.00, the
Improvement Project 95-1 would reduce the assessment from $1,1 10/unit to $776/unit.
Midwest Asphalt's bid was not the lowest for Improvement Project 95-1. WB Miller,
Inc.'s bid of $142,795 was lowest, however, we recommend taking the lowest total bid.
In Improvement Project 95-2, Island View Estates Project, the feasibility construction cost
estimate was $314,035.00, approximately 22% less than the lowest bid received. The
feasibility study per unit assessment was estimated at $4,170. Assuming an overhead
cost of 22%, the assessment for 89 units would be $5,269.21 or 26% over the
feasibility study.
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
Mayor & Council Members
Page 2
April 18, 1996
The apparent reason for the high bid in this case is the estimated cost of soils correction
of $52,820.00. After the feasibility hearing and ordering the design, we had the soils
tested by Braun Intertec. The result of the tests indicated substantial soils correction.
The testing company drilled 20 holes to provide us with a representative soils profile.
The construction season weather conditions will play a large role in determining exact
amount and locations of the correction areas. A dry season will allow for the existing
soils to be reshaped and our proposed section placed with only a minor amount of soil
corrections. A wet, rainy season will cause the subsoils to become saturated and will
require removing and replacement of these soils. The assumption is that about 2,000 LF
of the road will need soil correction. Under dry conditions, we may be able to reduce the
amount of correction substantially, however, if you have a wet season we will perhaps
need all provided.
Since the unit amount for assessments is higher than the feasibility study, I would
recommend, before rewarding the project, that the Council consider having an appraisal
performed of the benefited property to determine if the assessed amount will benefit the
property.
Should an appraisal show benefit in the amount of the proposed assessment, then the
award is recommended to be made to the lowest responsible bidder. If the opposite is
determined, then we will need to look at either reducing the work on the project, or
consider abandoning the project.
Our recommendation, at this time, is to retain an appraiser to determine amount of
benefit to the property. Our contract documents provide a 60 day period in which the
bid can be awarded.
I will be available at the council meeting on April 22, 1996, to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lawrence G. Koshak, PE
W
cc: Elaine Beatty, Clerk OT331.may
BID TABULATION
CITY OF OTSEGO
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 95-1
AND
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 95-2
APRIL 9, 1995
Schedule "A" - Public Improvement Project No. 95-1 (Mississippi Shores Addition Street Overlay Project)
MIDWESTASPHALTCO. 14ARf)RwF4 mgr_
Schedule "B" - Public Imp. Proj. No. 95-2 (Island View Estates Addition St. and Arrowhead Estates Addition Reconstruction Project)
Est.
Unit
Unit
?m Description
Qty.
Unit
Price
Unit
Extension
Price
Unit
Extension
A
2021.501
Mobilization
1
LS
$3,000.00
LS
$3,000.00
$2,200.00
LS
$2,200.00
2231.501
Bituminous Patching Mixture
75
T
65.00
Ton
$4,875.00
46.00
Ton
3,450.00
2331.509
Type 41 A Wearing Course Mixture
7550
T
18.60
Ton
$140,430.00
18.80
Ton
141,940.00
2357.505
Bituminous Material for Tack Coat
5650
Gal
1.20
Gal
$6,780.00
1.00
Gal
5,650.00
2104.509
Remove Concrete Headwall
1
EA
150.00
EA
150.00
85.00
EA
85.00
>tal Bid Schedule "A"
Sawing Concrete Pavement (Full Depth)
26
LF
4.00
$155,085.00
104.00
6.00
$153,240.00
Schedule "B" - Public Imp. Proj. No. 95-2 (Island View Estates Addition St. and Arrowhead Estates Addition Reconstruction Project)
R
Est.
Unit
Unit
�m Description
Qty.
Unit
Price
Unit
Extension
Price
Unit
Extension
2021.501
Mobilization
1
LS
$6,000.00
LS
$6,000.00
$4,500.00
LS
$4,500.00
2101.511
Clearing & Grubbing
1
LS
2,800.00
LS
2,800.00
3,850.00
LS
3,850.00
2104.503
Remove Concrete Driveway Pavement
25
SY
4.00
SY
100.00
5.75
SY
143.75
2104.505
Remove Bituminous Pavement
1 130
SY
1.00
SY
1,130.00
2.10
SY
2,373.00
2104.509
Remove Concrete Headwall
1
EA
150.00
EA
150.00
85.00
EA
85.00
2104.511
Sawing Concrete Pavement (Full Depth)
26
LF
4.00
LF
104.00
6.00
LF
156.00
2104.513
Sawing Bituminous Pavement (Full Depth)
635
LF
2.00
LF
1,270.00
1.25
LF
793.75
2104.521
Salvage Iron Pipe Culvert
50
LF
5.00
LF
250.00
5.25
LF
262.50
2104.521
Salvage 12" CMP
140
LF
5.00
LF
700.00
5.25
LF
735.00
2104.521
Salvage 15" CMP
294
LF
5.00
LF
1,470.00
5.75
LF
1,690.50
2104.521
Salvage & Reinstall Wood Fence
26
LF
10.00
LF
260.00
4.00
LF
104.00
' 2104.521
Salvage & Reinstall Timber
40
LF
25.00
LF
1,000.00
4.00
LF
160.00
1 0104.602
Salvage & Reinstall Yard Light
1
EA
1,700.00
EA
1,700.00
200.00
EA
200.00
2105.501
Common Excavation
12700
CY
2.96
CY
37,592.00
3.50
CY
44,450.00
i 2105.507
Subgrade Excavation
4533
CY
2.96
CY
13,417.68
2.00
CY
9,066.00
R
MID
WES 7
ALPHALT
HARDRIVES INC.
Est.
Unit
Unit
;em
Description
Qty.
Unit
Price
Unit
Extension
Price
Unit
Extension
6
0105.602
Gravel Entrance Reconstruction
52
EA
$70.00
EA
$3,640.00
$110.00
EA
$5,720.00
7
0105.604
Granular Borrow
7700
T
4.35
T
33,495.00
3.00
T
23,100.00
B
0105.609
Geotextile Fabric Type V (Stabilization)
6565
SY
0.90
SY
5,908.50
0.80
SY
5,252.00
9
2112.501
Subgrade Preparation
103.6 Rd St
75.00 Rd St
_
7,770.00
160.00 Rd St
16,576.00
0
2211.501
Aggregate Base, Class
11920
T
5.34
T
63,652.80
5.90
T
70,328.00
1
2331.508
Type 41 A Wearing Course Mixture
2710
T
19.2
T
52,032.00
19.99
T
54,172.90
2
2331.514
Type 31B Base Course Mixture
3650
T
18.35
T
66,977.50
19.24
T
70,226.00
3
0331.601
2" Bituminous Wearing Course (Driveway)
1170
SY
5.75
SY
6,727.50
5.70
SY
6,669.00
4
2357.502
Bituminous Material for Tack Coat
1750
Gal
1.20
Gal
2,100.00
1.00
Gal
1,750.00
5
0412.602
Relocate Mailbox
71
EA
60.00
EA
4,260.00
43.00
EA
3,053.00
6.._,
2501.511
15" RC Pipe Culvert, CL V
326
LF
19.40
LF
6,324.40
21.25
LF
6,927.50
2501.511
18" RC Pipe Culvert, CL III
44
LF
22.65
LF
996.60
26.00
LF
1,144.00
B
2501.511
27" RC Pipe Culvert, Class III
32
LF
34.60
LF
1,107.20
41.50
LF
1,328.00
9
2501.511
30" RC Pipe Culvert, Class III
40
LF
38.40
LF
1,536.00
55.25
LF
2,210.00
0
2501.511
15" CM Pipe Culvert
432
LF
14.40
LF
6,220.80
15.25
LF
6,588.00
1
2501 .515
15" RC Pipe Apron
16
EA
375.00
EA
6,000.00
432.00
EA
6,912.00
2
2501 .515
18" RC Pipe Apron
2
EA
450.00
EA
900.00
460.00
EA
920.00
3
2501 .515
27" RC Pipe Apron
2
EA
550,00
EA
1,100.00
571.25
EA
1,142.50
4
2501 .515
30" RC Pipe Apron
4
EA
_ 600.00
EA
2,400.00
593.50
EA
22374.00
5
2501.515
15" CM Pipe Apron
18
EA
130.00
EA
2,340.00
130.50
EA
2,349.00
6
0501.603
Salvage & Reinstall 15" CMP
501
LF
12.00
LF
6,012.00
10.75
LF
5,385.75
7
0501.606
Extend Culvert Random Riprap CL3
12
EA
240.00
EA
2,880.00
93.00
EA
1,116.00
B
251 1.501
Random Riprap CL 3 w/Geotextile Fabric
55.5
CY
60.00
CY
3,330.00
71.00
CY
3,940.50
9
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Stop)
1
EA
145.00
EA
145.00
148.00
EA
148.00
0
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Left Turn)
1
EA
140.00
EA
140.00
143.00
EA
143.00
1
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Right Turn)
1
EA
140.00
EA
140.00
143.00
EA
143.00
2
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Hill w/Percent Grade -8%)
1
EA
140.00
EA
140.00
143.00
EA
143.00
?
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Trucks use Lower Gear)
1
EA
140.00
EA
140.00
143.00
EA
143.00
4-
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Speed Limit Gear)
1
EA
60.00
EA
60.00
60.00
EA
60.00
5
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Dead End)
1
EA
140.00
EA
140.00
143.00
EA
143.00
6
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (No Outlet)
1
EA
140.00
EA
140.00
143.00
EA
143.00
7
0564.602
Salvage & Reinstall Sign
20
EA
46.00
EA
920.00
46.00
EA
920.00
B
2573.501
Bale Check (per bale)
100
EA
5.40
EA
540.00
5.00
EA
500.00
9
2573.503
Silt Fence, Pre -assembled
2300
LF
1.90
LF
4,370.00
1.90
LF
4,370.00
3
2573.508
Bituminous Lined Flume
7.5
SY
31.00
SY
232.50
40.00
SY
300.00
1
0573.602
Temporary Rock Construction Entrance
3
EA
188.00
EA
564.00
550.00
EA
1,650.00
2
2575.511'
Mulch Material, Type 1
25
T
110.00
T
2,750.00
110.00
T
2,750.00
3
12575.501
Seeding
12.6
AC
98.00
AC
1,234.80
100.00
AC
1,260.00
MIDWESTALPHALT HARI)RIVF.S INC
329bid.wk4
Est.
Unit
Unit
tem Description
Qty.
Price
Unit
Extension
Price
Unit
Extension
4 2575.502
Seed Mixture 800
650 LB
2.15
LB
1,397.50
$2.20
LB
$1,430.00
5 2575.519
Disk Anchoring
12.6 AC
32.40
AC
408.24
33.00
AC
415.80
6 2575.523
Wood Fiber Blanket, Type Regular
6125 SY
1.10
SY
6,737.50
1.10
SY
6,737.50
7 2575.523
Wood Fiber Blanket, Type High Velocity
5000 SY
1.50
SY
7,500.00
--1.54
SY
7,700.00
8 2575.531
Commercial Fertilizer, 20-10-10
3.25 T
320.00
T
1,040.00
325.00
T
1,056.25
Fotal Bid Schedule "B"
$384,393.52
$397,909.20
SUMMARY OF BIDDING:
3i-'-„chedule "A”
t;
- Mississippi Shores Addition
$155,085.00
$153,240.00
3id Schedule "B"
- Island View & Arrowhead Additions
$384,393.52
$397,909.20
-OTAL BID:
$539,478.52
$551,149.20
329bid.wk4
lid Schedule "A" - Public Improvement Project No. 95-1 (Mississippi Shores Addition Street Overlay Project)
W.B. MILLER INC. VALLEY PAVING
Schedule "B" - Public Imp. Proj. No. 95-2 (Island View Estates Addition St. and Arrowhead Estates Addition Reconstruction Project)
Est.
Est.
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
tem Description
tem
Qty.
Unit
Price
Unit
Extension
Price
Unit
Extension
Unit
Extension
2021.501
Mobilization
1
LS
$500.00
LS
$500.00
$2,500.00
LS
$2,500.00
2231.501
Bituminous Patching Mixture
75
T
20.00
Ton
$1,500.00
48.00
Ton
3,600.00
2331.509
Type 41 A Wearing Course Mixture
7550
T
17.90
Ton
$135,145.00
18.60
Ton
140,430.00
2357.505
Bituminous Material for Tack Coat
5650
Gal
1.00
Gal
$5,650.00
1.05
Gal
5,932.50
SY
1.60
SY
1,808.00
1.50
SY
1,695.00
2104.509
Remove Concrete Headwall
Bid Schedule "A"
EA
250.00
EA
250.00
$142,795.00
EA
250.00
$152,462.50
Schedule "B" - Public Imp. Proj. No. 95-2 (Island View Estates Addition St. and Arrowhead Estates Addition Reconstruction Project)
Est.
Unit
Unit
tem
Description
Qty.
Unit
Price
Unit
Extension
Price
Unit
Extension
2021.501
Mobilization
1
LS
10,500.00
LS
$10,500.00
6,800.00
LS
6,800.00_
2101.511
Clearing & Grubbing
1
LS
1,500.00
LS
1,500.00
1,200.00
LS
1,200.00
2104.503
Remove Concrete Driveway Pavement
25
SY
5.00
SY
125.00
8.50
SY
212.50
2104.505
Remove Bituminous Pavement
1130
SY
1.60
SY
1,808.00
1.50
SY
1,695.00
2104.509
Remove Concrete Headwall
1
EA
250.00
EA
250.00
250.00
EA
250.00
2104.511
Sawing Concrete Pavement (Full Depth)
26
LF
10.25
LF
266.50
10.00
LF
260.00_
2104.513
Sawing Bituminous Pavement (Full Depth)
635
_ LF
2.80
LF
1,778.00
2.15
LF
1,365.25
2104.5.? 1
Salvage Iron Pipe Culvert
50
LF
5.00
LF
250.00
7.00
LF
350.00
{
2104.521
Salvage 12" CMP
140
LF
1.50
LF
210.00
7.00
LF
980.00
G --
2104.521
Salvage 15" CMP
294
LF
1.50
LF
441.00
7.00
LF
2,058.00-
1
2104.521
Salvage & Reinstall Wood Fence
26
LF
8.25
LF
214.50
20.00
LF
520.00
2
2104.521
Salvage & Reinstall Timber
40
LF
10.25
LF
410.00
10.00
LF
400.00
3
0104.602
Salvage & Reinstall Yard Light
1
EA
400.00
EA
400.00
250.00
EA
250.00
4
2105.501
Common Excavation
12700
CY
2.55
CY
32,385.00
3.10
CY
39,370.00
5
2105.507
Subgrade Excavation
4533
CY
1.00
CY
4,533.00
3.10
CY
14,052.30
6
0105.602
Gravel Entrance Reconstruction
52
EA
210.00
EA
10,920.00
110.00
EA
5,720.00
7
0105.604
Granular Borrow
7700
T
2.60
T
20,020.00
4.20
T
32,340.00
8
0105.609
Geotextile Fabric Type V (Stabilization)
6565
SY
0.85
SY
5,580.25
1.15
SY
7,549.75
9
2112.501
Subgrade Preparation
1 103.6 Rd St
225.00 Rd St
23,310.00
68.00 Rd St
7,044.80
W.
B. MILLER
INC.
VALLEY PAVING
Est.
Unit
Unit
em
Description
Qty.
Unit
Price
Unit
Extension
Price
Unit
Extensio
2211.501
Aggregate Base, Class
11920
T
$6.50
T
$77,480.00
5.40
T
64,368.00
1
2331.508
Type 41A Wearing Course Mixture
2710
T
18.90
T
51,219.00
19.05
T
51,625.50
2
2331 .514
Type 31B Base Course Mixture
3650
T
18.00
T
65,700.00
18.40
T
67,160.00
3
0331.601
2" Bituminous Wearing Course (Driveway)
1170
SY
9.00
SY
10,530.00
5.70
SY
6,669.00
1
2357.502
Bituminous Material for Tack Coat
1750
Gal
1.00
Gal
1,750.00
1.25
Gal
2,187.50
i
0412.602
Relocate Mailbox
71
EA
60.00
EA
4,260.00
55.00
EA
3,905.00
3
2501.511
15" RC Pipe Culvert, CL V
326
LF
20.50
LF
6,683.00
33.00
LF
10,758.00
7
2501.511
18" RC Pipe Culvert, CL III
44
LF
22.25
LF
979.00
35.00
LF
1,540.00
3
2501.511
27" RC Pipe Culvert, Class III
32
LF
35.25
LF
1,128.00
55.00
LF
1,7_60.00
3
2501.511
30" RC Pipe Culvert, Class III
40
LF
39.00
LF
1,560.00
63.00
LF
2,520.00
)_:...
2501.511
15" CM Pipe Culvert
432
LF
15.35
LF
6,631.20
22.00
LF
9,504.00
J
2501.515
15" RC Pipe Apron
16
EA
600.00
EA
9,600.00
635.00
EA
10,160.00
2
2501 .515
18" RC Pipe Apron
2
EA
650.00
EA
1,300.00
800.00
EA
1,600.00
3
2501.515
27" RC Pipe Apron
2
EA
750.00
EA
1,500.00
1,200.00
EA
2,400.00
2501.515
30" RC Pipe Apron
4
EA
815.00
EA
3,260.00
1,500.00
EA
6,000.00
5
2501.515
15" CM Pipe Apron
18
EA
71.75
EA
1,291.50
90.00
EA
1,620.00
3
0501.603
Salvage & Reinstall 15" CMP
501
LF
15.35
LF
7,690.35
15.00
LF
7,515.00
7
0501.606
Extend Culvert Random Riprap CO
12
EA
200.00
EA
2,400.00
350.00
EA
4,200.00
3
2511 .501
Random Riprap CL 3 w/Geotextile Fabric
55.5
CY
45.00
CY
2,497.50
65.00
CY
3,607.50
3
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Stop)
1
EA
180.00
EA
180.00
150.00
EA
150.00
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Left Turn)
1
EA
180.00
EA
180.00
150.00
EA
150.00
1
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Right Turn)
1
EA
180.00
EA
180.00
150.00
EA
150.00
2
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Hill w/Percent Grade -8%)
1
EA
180.00
EA
180.00
150.00
EA
150.00
3
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Trucks use Lower Gear)
1
EA
90.00
EA
90.00
150.00
EA
150.00
1
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Speed Limit Gear)
1
EA
130.00
EA
130.00
70.00
EA
70.00
3
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Dead End)
1
EA
180.00
EA
180.00
150.00
EA
150.00
3
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (No Outlet)
1
EA
180.00
EA
180.00
150.00
EA
150.00
'
0564.602
Salvage & Reinstall Sign
20
EA
60.00
EA
1,200.00
45.00
EA
900.00
2573.501
Bale Check (per bale)
100
EA
5.00
EA
500.00
6.00
EA
600.00
3
2573.503
Silt Fence, Pre -assembled
2300
LF
1.60
LF
3,680.00
2.15
LF
4,945.00
)
2573.508
Bituminous Lined Flume
7.5
SY
60.00
SY
450.00
35.00
SY
262.50
1
0573.602
Temporary Rock Construction Entrance
3
EA
250.00
EA
750.00
200.00
EA
600.00
2
2575.511
Mulch Material, Type 1
25
T
150.00
T
3,750.00
110.00
T
2,750.00
3
2575.501
Seeding
12.6
AC
225.00
AC
2,835.00
115.00
AC
1,449.00
1
2575.502
Seed Mixture 800
650
LB
2.50
LB
1,625.00
2.15
LB-
1,397.50
3
2575.519
Disk Anchoring
12.6 AC
50.00
AC
630.00
45.00
AC
567.00
3
2575.523
Wood Fiber Blanket, Type Regular
6125
SY
1.65
SY
10,106.25
1.07
SY
6,553.75
7
2575.523
Wood Fiber Blanket, Type High Velocity
5000
SY
1.85
SY
9,250.00
1.50
SY
7,500.00
t329bid.wk4
B. ILLER
VALLEY PA ING
Est.
Unit I I
Unit
em Description Qty. Unit
Price Unit Extension
Price Unit Exte-ns io
3 2575.531 Commercial Fertilizer, 20-10-10 3.25 T
450.00 T 1,462.50
320.00 T 1,040.00
otal Bid Schedule "B"
$409,899.55
$411,201.85
UMMARY OF BIDDING:
id Schedule "A" - Mississippi Shores Addition
$142,795.00
$152,462.50
id Schedule "B" - Island View & Arrowhead Additions
$409,899.55
$411,201.85
�T.
_>,L BID:
$552,694.55
$563,664.35
t329bid.wk4
W Schedule "A" - Public Improvement Project No. 95-1 (Mississippi Shores Addition Street Overlay Project)
BAUERLY BROTHERS INC. BUFFALO BITUMINOUS
3id Schedule "B" - Public Imp. Proj. No. 95-2 (Island View Estates Addition St. and Arrowhead Estates Addition Reconstruction Project)
Est.
Est.
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
tem Description
tem
Qty.
Unit
Price
Unit
Extension
Price
Unit
Extension
Unit
Extension
2021.501
Mobilization
1
LS
$1.00
LS
$1.00
$1.00
LS
$1.00
2231.501
Bituminous Patching Mixture
75
T
68.48
Ton
$5,136.00
50.00
Ton
3,750.00
2331.509
Type 41A Wearing Course Mixture
7550
T
18.43
Ton
$139,146.50
21.75
Ton
164,212.50
2357.505
113ituminous Material for Tack Coat
5650
Gal
0.65
Gal
$3,672.50
0.75
Gal
4,237.50
SY
0.50
SY
565.00
1.50
SY
1,695.00
i
2104.509
Remove Concrete Headwall
"oral Bid Schedule "A"
EA
150.00
EA
150.00
$147,956.00
EA
200.00
$172,201.00
3id Schedule "B" - Public Imp. Proj. No. 95-2 (Island View Estates Addition St. and Arrowhead Estates Addition Reconstruction Project)
Est.
Unit
Unit
tem
Description
Qty.
Unit
Price
Unit
Extension
Price
Unit
Extension
2021.501
Mobilization
1
LS
2,000.00
LS
$2,000.00
1.00
LS
1.00
2101.511
Clearing & Grubbing
1
LS
3,000.00
LS
3,000.00
10,000.00
LS
10,000.00
1
2104.503
Remove Concrete Driveway Pavement
25
SY
6.00
SY
150.00
4.00
SY
100.00
2104.505
Remove Bituminous Pavement
1130
SY
0.50
SY
565.00
1.50
SY
1,695.00
i
2104.509
Remove Concrete Headwall
1
EA
150.00
EA
150.00
200.00
EA
200.00
i
2104.511
Sawing Concrete Pavement (Full Depth)
26
LF
3.00
LF
78.00
4.50
LF
117.00
'
2104.513
Sawing Bituminous Pavement (Full Depth)
635
LF
1.00
LF
635.00
1.50
LF
952.50
1
2104.521
Salvage Iron Pipe Culvert
50
, LF
8.00
LF
400.00
_
5.00
LF
250.00
1
2104.521
Salvage 12" CMP
140
LF
8.00
LF
1,120.00
5.00
LF
700.00
r
2104.521
Salvage 15" CMP
294
LF
_ 8.00
LF
2,352.00
5.00
LF
1,470.00
2104.521
Salvage & Reinstall Wood Fence
26
LF
20.00
LF
520.00
10.00
LF
260.00
2
2104.521
Salvage & Reinstall Timber
40
LF
10.00
LF
400.00
8.00
LF
320.00
3
0104.602
Salvage & Reinstall Yard Light
1
EA
500.00
EA
500.00
250.00
EA
250.00
4
2105.501
Common Excavation
12700
CY
4.88
CY
61,976.00
5.35
CY
67,945.00
5
2105.507
Subgrade Excavation
4533
CY
4.88
CY
22,121.04
2.55
CY
11,559.15
6
0105.602
Gravel Entrance Reconstruction
52
EA
_ 50.00
EA
2,600.00
100.00
EA
5,200.00
7
0105.604
Granular Borrow
7700
T
5.00
T
38,500.00
3.05
T
23,485.00
8
0105.609
Geotextile Fabric Type V (Stabilization)
6565
SY
0.75
SY
4,923.75
0.95
SY
6,236.75
9
2112.501
Subgrade Preparation
103.6
Rd Stl
75.00
Rd St
7,770.00
100.00
Rd St
10,360.00
BAUERLY BROTHERS INC. BUFFALO BITUMINOUS
Est.
Unit
Unit
:em
Description
Qty.
Unit
Price
Unit
Extension
Price
Unit
Extension
0
2211.501
Aggregate Base, Class
11920
T
5.60
T
66,752.00
5.25
T
62,580.00
1
2331 .508
Type 41 A Wearing Course Mixture
2710
T
20.32
T
55,067.20
21.75
T
58,942.50
2
2331.514
Type 31B Base Course Mixture
3650
T
17.88
T
65,262.00
19.00
T_
69,350.00
3
0331.601
2" Bituminous Wearing Course (Driveway)
1170
SY
5.50
SY
6,435.00
6.00
SY
7,020.00
4
2357.502
Bituminous. Material for Tack Coat
1750
Gal
0.70
Gal
1,225.00
0.75
Gal
1,312.50
5
0412.602
Relocate Mailbox
71
EA
75.00
EA
5,325.00
50.00
EA
3,550.00
6
2501.511
15" RC Pipe Culvert, CL V
326
LF
25.00
LF
8,150.00
26.00
LF
8,476.00
7
2501.51 1
18" RC Pipe Culvert, CL III
44
LF
_ 27.00
LF
1,188.00
28.00
LF
1,232.00
8
2501.511
27" RC Pipe Culvert, Class III
32
LF
40.00
LF
1,280.00
40.00
LF
1,280.00
9
2501 .51 1
30" RC Pipe Culvert, Class III
40
LF
45.00
LF
1,800.00
44.00
LF
1,760.00
0;-
2501.511
15" CM Pipe Culvert
432
LF
17.00
LF
7,344.00
16.00
LF
6,912.00
l : I
2501.515
15" RC Pipe Apron
16
EA
375.00
EA
6,000.00
320.00
EA
5,120.00
�2
2501.515
18" RC Pipe Apron
2
EA
425.00
EA
850.00
380.00
EA
760.00
'3
2501.515
27" RC Pipe Apron
2
EA
525.00
EA
1,050.00
480.00
EA
960.00
14
2501.515
30" RC Pipe Apron
4
EA
575.00
EA
2,300.00
_
530.00
EA
2,120.00
15
2501.515
15" CM Pipe Apron
18
EA
75.00
EA
1,350.00
75.00
EA
1,350.00
16
0501 .603
Salvage & Reinstall 15" CMP
501
LF
20.00
LF _
10,020.00
12.00
LF
6,012.00
17
0501.606
Extend Culvert Random Riprap CL3
12
EA
100.00
EA
1,200.00
50.00
EA
600.00
18
2511.501
Random Riprap CL 3 w/Geotextile Fabric
55.5
CY
_ 50.00
CY
2,775.00
35.00
CY
1,942.50
19
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Stop)
1
EA
135.50
EA
135.50
137.50
EA
137.50
10
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Left Turn)
1
EA
118.75
EA
118.75
118.75
EA
118.75
11
12
13
14
15
0564.602
0564.602
0564.602
0564.602
0564.602
F & I Sign Panel (Right Turn)
F & I Sign Panel (Hill w/Percent Grade -8%)
F & I Sign Panel (Trucks use Lower Gear)
F & I Sign Panel (Speed Limit Gear)
F -&I Sign Panel (Dead End)
1
1
1
1
1
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
118.75
118.75
_ 118.75
118.75
118.75
118.75
40.00
6.00
1.50
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
118.75
118.75
118.75
118.75
118.75
118.75
800.00
600.00
3,450.00
118.75
118.75
118.75
118.75
118.75
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
118.75
118.75
118.75
118.75
118.75
16 0564.602 F & I Sign Panel (No Outlet) 1 EA
l_ 0564.602 Salvage & Reinstall Sign 20 EA
18 2573.501 Bale Check (per bale) 100 EA
19 2573.503 Silt Fence, Pre -assembled 2300 LF
118.75 EA
40.00 EA
5.00 EA
1.80 LF
118.75
800.00
500.00
4,140.00
50
2573.508
Bituminous Lined Flume
7.5
SY
16.95
SY
127.13
25.00
SY
187.50
i 1
52
0573.602
2575.511
Temporary Rock Construction Entrance
Mulch Material, Type 1
3
25
EA
T
25.00
110.00
EA
T
75.00
2,750.00
150.00
103.50
EA
T
450.00
2,587.50
i3
i4
2575.501
2575.502
Seeding
Seed Mixture 800
12.6 AC
650 LB
85.00
1.85
AC
LB
1,071 .00
1,202.50
93.15
2.07
AC
LB
1,173.69
1,345.50
55
36
2575.519
12575.523
Disk Anchoring
Wood Fiber Blanket, Type Regular6125
12.6 AC
SY
35.00
0.901
AC
SY
441.00
5,512.50
�_l
31.05
1.05
AC
SY
391.23
6,431 .25
* CORRECTED TO
SHOW MULTIPLICATION ERROR
I
I
BAUERLY BROTHERS INC. BUFFALO BITUMINOUS
Est.
Unit
Unit
tem Description Qty. Unit
Price Unit Extension
Price Unit
Extension
7 2575.523 Wood Fiber Blanket, Type High Velocity 5000 SY
1.35 SY 6,750.00
1.45 SY
7,250.00
8 12575.531 Commercial Fertilizer, 20-10-10 3.25 T
280.00 T 910.00
305.00 T
991.25
-otal Bid Schedule "B"
$419,789.87 *
$409,597.57
SUMMARY OF BIDDING:
3id Schedule "A" - Mississippi Shores Addition
$147,956.00
$172,201.00
3id Schedule "B" - Island View & Arrowhead Additions
$419,789.87
$409,597.57
-
rL, -XL BID:
$567,745.87
$581,798.57
)t329bid.wk4
CORRECTED TO SHOW ADDTION ERROR
William 5. Radzwill
idrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Couri
April 17, 1996
RADZWILL & COUN
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Midurel, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
City Council Members
City of Otsego
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
p Lg(�� [2oer�
APR 1 7X996 D
� d
RE: Council Consideration of Otsego Creek Watershed Project
Dear Council Members:
The matter of Council consideration of the proposed Otsego Creek
Storm Sewer District project has been placed on the City Council
agenda for April 22. The Council must determine whether or not the
project should proceed any further. The hearing held on Monday,
April 15 was much like an Improvement Hearing under the Minn. Stat.
429 procedures which you are familiar with.
The decision whether to proceed or not does not have to be made at
this meeting. It can be made anytime within six months after the
date of the hearing.
The Council has the authority to order all or any portion of the
proposed project. The issue of the actual tax levy is separate from
the decision to order the project and can be made at anytime
between the time the project is ordered and the date that a levy
must be certified to the County. This gives the City the option to
wait until the actual costs have been determined before certifying
the levy.
If the Council decides to proceed with the project they should do
so by resolution. If you decide not to go ahead a motion to effect
should suffice. Another option is to simply not act on the matter
at this time.
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 9 6 - 4
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A STORM SEWER TAX IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT ENCOMPASSING PORTIONS OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF
THE NORTHWEST AREA WATERSHED.
The City of Otsego ordains as follows:
Section 1. Authority. The council is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444 to
establish by ordinance a storm sewer improvement tax district within which the council
may acquire, construct, reconstruct, extend, maintain, and otherwise improve storm sewer
systems and related facilities within the district and within which the Council may levy a
tax on all taxable property therein to finance the cost of such improvements, including
maintenance and the payment of principal and interest on obligations issued in making
such improvements.
Section 2. Establishment of District. There is hereby established a Storm Sewer
Improvement Tax District encompassing those delineated properties either wholly or
partially within the geographical area designated as the Northwest Area Watershed and
outlined on the attached Exhibit A, which is herein incorporated by reference.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and
after its passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Otsego this 22nd day of April, 1996.
Motion was made by Councilperson Ron Black and seconded by
Councilperson Larry Fournier
IN FAVOR: Norman F Freske, Mayor, Ron Black, Larry Fournier,
Vern Heidner and Suzan Ackerman, Council Members
OPPOSED: c.
No One
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
elamine Beatty, City Clerk
Publish: May 1, 1 9 9 6
Post: April 24, 1996
One West Water Street
Suite 200
St. Paul, MN 55107
(612) 296-3767
Fax (612) 297-5615
Field Offices
Northern Region:
394 S. Lake Avenue
Room 403
Duluth, MN 55802
(218) 723-4752
Fax (218) 723-4794
3217 Bemidji Avenue N.
Bemidji, MN 56601
(218) 755-4235
Fax (218) 755-4201
217 S. 7th Street
Suite 202
nerd, MN 56401-3660
J 828-2383
rax (218) 828-6036
Southern Region:
Highway 15 S.
Box 756
New Ulm, MN 56073
(507) 359-6074
Fax (507) 359-6018
40 -16th Street SE
Suite A
Rochester, MN 55904
(507) 285-7458
Fax (507) 280-2875
Box 267
1400 E. Lyon Street
Marshall, MN 56258
(507) 537-6060
Fax (507) 537-6368
Metro Region:
One West Water Street
Suite 250
St. Paul, MN 55107
(612) 282-9969
Fax (612) 297-5615
jai opportunity employer
Printed on recycled paper
Kerry Saxton, Office Manager
Wright Soil and Water Conservation District
306C Brighton Avenue
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Dear Mr. Saxton,
I received your March 26, 1996 correspondence regarding Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) funding to LGUs and have reviewed your comments with John Jaschke, BWSR
Wetlands Specialist. On behalf of the BWSR, we offer the following response:
BWSR WCA base grants, annually allocated to counties via the Natural Resource
Block Grant (NRBG) Program, are based on the estimated or potential amount of
WCA activity. These grants are allocated upfront, before costs are incurred, and it is
impossible for BWSR or LGUs to foretell the extent of actual annual LGU costs.
Realizing that in some counties the WCA Base Grant was quite insufficient to cover
actual local WCA costs, the BWSR, at their December, 1994 Meeting, endorsed a one-
time 1995 WCA Challenge Grant opportunity to all counties. For the counties which
applied, WCA base grants were closely reviewed and successful applicant's base grants
were increased as their need was successfully demonstrated. However, the BWSR did
not receive an application for these funds from Wright County. Currently, there are no
plans for WCA base grant adjustments, however, further examination of this grant
allocation in the future is likely.
The BWSR must scrutinize all of their grant programs on a state-wide basis. In so
doing, there are numerous methods that the BWSR could employ to more accurately
and comprehensively compensate LGUs for their local costs of state programs. Among
these methods are: voucher -reimbursement, flat -rate for services performed, annual
challenge grants, competitive reimbursement grants, etc., all of which have associated
higher administrative costs at the state and local levels and ultimately would reduce the
amount of funds available state-wide at the local level for actual WCA administration.
At the present, due to budgets and workloads, the current base grant allocation is
authorized by the BWSR. In addition, the current base grant method promotes local
budget planning, stability, control, and versatility, all of which are desired by LGUs and
offset the shortfalls of this grant allocation method.
The present and future administration of the WCA in Wright County is important to
the BWSR. In early May of 1996, the BWSR will open the application period for FY
97 Local Water Plan (LWT) Challenge Grants. The BWSR would welcome a grant
application from Wright County for potentially funding components of the local
administration of the WCA. However, this LWP Challenge Grant does not provide
for a WCA base grant increase.
Yo truly'VA-,A—
WaY6 Ze e)xm r
Grants Coordinator
c: Wright County Commissioners
Administrator, City of Buffalo
Greg Larson, Section Head
H.%=wngh
t. -'Administrator, City of Otsego
John Jaschke, Wetlands Specialist
Ron Harnack, Executive Director
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCEL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
10. COUNCIL ITEMS:
COUNCIL April 22,1996 6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
10.1.Consider Adopting A
Job Performance Review Form
Background:
Attached is a job performance review form that I obtained from the City of Monticello. I have used it
for the reviews of the Deputy Clerk and Secretary and liked the form. I would like the Council to
consider adopting this form as the form we use for jab performance reviews. This form was made by
the League of Minnesota Cities for Monticello. It worked well.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached form as the form the City will use for1ob performance reviews.
It works well to have the employee fill out a forrn as to their review and the farm is
also filled out by the interviewer and it is a place to start the interview and a chance
to expand €ram there.
10.2. Consider meeting date for Otsego Creek Authority
Albertvil}e has asked for an Otsego Creek_ Autl_hority Meeting and Larry Fournier asked that this be on
the agenda to set a date for same.
Tbank you,
CITY OF OTSEGO
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS
FOR COMPLETION OF EVALUATION FORM
FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS/ADMINISTRATION
The purpose of this performance evaluation scale is to provide you, the rater,
with an objective way of evaluating the performance of clerical staff. The
rating scales which follow have been designed to help you rate performance in
25 areas which have been consistently identified as important aspects of the
department head's job.
The rating process is simple. Consider the individual to be rated and give a
rating on each of the 25 aspects of performance. You will notice that each of
the 25 aspects is defined for you. You will rate each person by describing how
well the person typically performs each job aspect. You may not find
statements that describe exactly the person being rated. You are, however,
expected to use the statements given as reference points to guide your
ratings. When rating the person, keep in mind the definition of the aspect
being rated.
You will notice that the rating scale is made up of a series of statements
which have been numbered from "0" through "5". The purpose of the job
performance examples is to tell you exactly what level of performance is
indicated by the various points along the scale. In other words, we are trying
to give you an idea of the behavior represented by a "5", a "411, a "3", a "2",
or a "l". Choose one statement per page (per job criterion) which best
describes the performance of the person being rated, and mark the appropriate
category on the evaluation form.
These instruction sheets can be kept by the rater for reference during the next
evaluation period.
PERSONNEL OFFICE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM DATE:
CITY OF OTSEGO DEPARTMENT HEADVADMINISTRATION
Employee's Name: Completed By: Job Title:
Department: Evaluation Period:
SECTION 1 4a0)
s
a
�aaa�a
arc � �a x
g mV
JOB ASPECTS
CHECK LIST
1.
To
1 7/89
Ability to meet objectives.
2.
Accuracy in reports recor s.
3.
Pubri—ccontact-and service.
4.
Ability to Plan/ability to organize.
5.
Teaching/developing subordinates an associates.
6.
Compat i ity communication with subordinates.
7.
Ability to a egate coor mate.
8.
Ability to meet deadlines.
9.
Problem solving skills (quick decisions).
10.
Compat ib 11 ity communications with supervisors.
11.
Technical competence.
12.
Credibility.
13.
Flexr ility a aptability.
14.
Ability to anticipate problems (foresight).
15.
Dependabi ity reliability.
16.
Accepts responsibility for actions and decisions.
17.
Responsible maintenance and control of City property.
18.
Budget management cost awareness.
19.
Problem solving planned resolution of problems).
20.
General communication skills - oral.
21.
General communication skills - written.
22.
Dedication extra effort -staying late, etc. .
23.
Job knowledge.
24.
Productivity.
25.
Sensitivity to problems or needs of co-workers(job an
non -fob related).
1 7/89
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM
DEPARTMENT HEADS/ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 2 Explain each factor for which "outstanding or exceeds
standards" was checked unless documented on previous
report. Cite examples.
SECTION 3 Explain each factor for which "below standards or
unacceptable" was checked. Cite examples.
SECTION 4 Comment on how weaknesses might be improved.
SECTION 5 Employee comments concerning performance report (to be
completed at time of review with employee).
Rater's Signature Date
Employee Signature Date
(Your signature does not necessarily mean that you agree with the rating.)
2 7/89
CRITERION - ABILITY TO MEET OBJECTIVES: This element has to do with progressing
toward a goal or goals; understanding what needs to be done to get from
A to Z; structuring and coordinating efforts to achieve desired result.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on ability to meet objectives
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on ability to meet
objectives by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on ability to meet
objectives by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on ability to meet
objectives by most raters.
5.
4. Identifies challenges beyond
goals and sets out to achieve
them.
Achieves positive results
under adverse conditions.
3. Gets job done under normal
conditions.
Lays out a course of action
easy for all to follow.
Coordinates efforts of several
employees.
Has flexibility to adjust
goals.
Systematic approach to get
from start to finish.
2. Tends to come up short.
Frequently commits errors
or omissions that compromise
the objective as identified.
Works totally independently such
that completion of individual
task may have no relationship
to greater objective.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on ability to meet objectives
by most raters.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - ACCURACY IN REPORTS/RECORDS: This job aspect involves recording
and coordinating of data and information; may relate to technical data such
as log books; may relate to dissemination of information in narrative reports;
awareness that reports/records play a critical part in other decision-making.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on accuracy in reports/records
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on accuracy in
reports/records by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on accuracy in
reports/records by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on accuracy in reports/
records by most raters.
5.
4. Duplicates and cross-references
when data may be applicable
to more than one topic.
Provides written history
of goal achievement.
3. Timely completion of data
entry.
Notes time and date and
other pertinent information
to entry.
Data is delegated in appropriate
file.
Generally avoids abbreviations
or "private notations" that
would confuse another reader.
Timely retrieval of data
filed earlier.
When in doubt concerning
importance, saves the information.
2. Throws notes away or into
a catch-all file.
Misfiles under inappropriate
or secondary subject.
Scatters data to various
files.
Gaps in data evident; leaps
from step 1 to step 4.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on accuracy in reports/records
by most raters.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - PUBLIC CONTACT AND SERVICE: This element concerns courteous
behavior with people; dealing with inquiries and complaints; providing necessary
and useful information; conducting transactions; providing assistance; helping
general public understand function/operation of City.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on public contact and service
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on public contact
and service by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on public contact
and service by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on public contact and
service by most raters.
5.
4. Demonstrates extra patience
with angry or confused customers.
Volunteers time and service
for public demonstrations,
speaking, etc.
Publicly promotes assets.
3. Cheerful, pleasant manner.
Provides detailed information
and explanations on completing
transactions.
Offers samples/examples/copies
of information customer
might find helpful.
Lends assistance to customer
who has not or cannot fulfill
his/her own obligations.
Able to direct customer to
better or correct source
of information.
Responds quickly to acknowledge
customer's presence.
2. Rude comments and behavior.
Interrupts customer.
Appears bored or bothered
by customer's "intrusion."
Tends to respond with, "It's
not my job" and "I don't know."
These statements describe persons i.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on public contact and service
by most raters.
Tends to be defensive, short
tempered.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - ABILITY TO PLAN/ABILITY TO ORGANIZE: This element involves
identifying specific goals and the intermediate steps to achieve said goal;
clarifying problems that may or will be encountered and their solutions;
coordinating efforts to achieve plan without sacrificing efficient daily
operations; identifying key personnel involved; presenting alternatives
and their consequences.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as outstanding
on ability to plan/ability to
organize by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on ability to
plan/ability to organize by
most raters.
5.
4. Identifies required steps
to achieve a specified goal.
Can identify several alternatives
to achieve goal, and recommend
best course of action based
on anticipated problems
and available manpower.
These statements describe persons 3.
who are usually rated as meeting job
standards on ability to plan/
ability to organize by most
raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on ability to plan/
ability to organize by most
raters.
Clearly defines level of
service to be provided.
Allots time for breakdowns,
interruptions, emergencies.
Usually achieves goals on
time and as planned.
Conveys to staff clear instructions
to fulfill plan and achieve
goal.
2. Has difficulty establishing
priorities and making assignments
accordingly.
Tends to assign whoever
is free to a task.
Task assignments are often
disjointed bearing no relation
to other tasks.
Frequently falls behind
in goal completion.
These statements describe persons t.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on ability to plan/ability to
organize by most raters.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - TEACHING/DEVELOPING SUBORDINATES AND ASSOCIATES: This aspect
relates to allocating time to provide in-depth understanding of the job
and the work; explaining the why and wherefor of operations; patience in
the learning process; being open and available for questions and providing
answers; encouraging expansion to new areas of responsibility.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on teaching/developing subordinates
and associates by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on teaching/
developing subordinates and
associates by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on teaching/
developing subordinates and
associates by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on teaching/developing
subordinates and associates by
most raters.
4. Provides resources where
employee can expand understanding
and ability.
3. Takes time to assure staff
understanding of procedures
and policies.
Accepts errors of inexperience;
attempts to explain how
they can be avoided.
Makes professional journals/
magazines available to entire
staff.
Explains tasks/objectives
first, rather than mistakes
afterwards.
Conducts periodic discussion
sessions to exchange techniques
and ideas.
2. Assigns inexperienced staff
to "solo" missions.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on teaching/developing subordinates
and associates by most raters.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - COMPATIBILITY/COMMUNICATIONS WITH SUBORDINATES: This job element
relates to the giving of information and direction to other employees; observing
areas of difficulty; recognizing excellence and extra effort; being receptive
to employee concerns; understanding the various roles of supervisor and
subordinate.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on compatibility/communications
with subordinates by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on compatibility/
communications with subordinates by
most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on compatibility/
communications with subordinates
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on compatibility/
communications with subordinates
by most raters.
5.
4. Gives praise and credit
where due.
Makes effort to be available
in crisis situations.
3. Criticism is given to assist
in job improvement.
Provides clear, concise explanation
of particular tasks and their
relation to overall operation.
Carefully observes work habits;
watches for ups and downs in
productivity; meets with employee
to discuss.
Follows through on employee
concerns and complaints.
Conducts "informal", oral appraisals
keeps staff informed on how
everything is going.
Is candid and honest with staff;
respects employees abilities
and rights.
2. Tends to be condescending
toward work force.
Has difficulty working "with"
staff; tends to lose control
when not directing.
Builds barriers.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on compatibility/communications
with subordinates by most raters.
Reprimands employees in
view of others.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - ABILITY TO 0ELECATE/COORDINATE:
of work; determining best employee for each
within work schedules; planning so various
lead to a desired result; deriving maximum
These statements describe persons 5.
who are usually rated outstanding
on ability to delegate/coordinate
by most raters.
These statements describe persons 4.
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on ability to
delegate/coordinate by most raters.
These statements describe persons 3.
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on ability to delegate/
coordinate by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on ability to delegate/
coordinate by most raters.
This element concerns the assigning
task; assigning multiple tasks
assignments complement one another,
production from self and others.
Coordinates results rather
than performance.
Clearly recognizes manpower
limitations.
Keeps each task force at
minimum number to effectively
accomplish task; doesn't have
two or three standing around.
Assigns best person for
each job.
Keeps aware of progress
on various tasks and their
projected completions.
Monitors quality of work
performance.
2. Tends to assign work, but
then stands over employee
or does the work instead.
Tends to over assign; delegates
more work than can realistically
be accomplished.
Frequently re -assigns employee;
takes employee off one job,
puts on another.
Loses sight of one's own
responsibilities; tends
to delegate that which should
not be delegated.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on ability to delegate/coordinate
by most raters.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - ABILITY TO MEET DEADLINES: This element involves timely completion
of assigned or defined tasks, understanding that not completing tasks may
have direct bearing on other tasks and objectives; planning and scheduling
to get expected results without "last minute rush" to meet deadline.
These statements describe persons 5.
who are usually rated outstanding
on ability to meet deadlines by
most raters.
These statements describe persons
4. Often completes task well
who are usually rated as exceeding
in advance to allow for review.
job standards on ability to meet
deadlines by most raters.
These statements describe persons
3. Usually completes tasks on
who are usually rated as meeting
time.
job standards on ability to meet
Immediately gives notice if
deadlines by most raters.
time schedule must be disrupted due
to unforeseen circumstances;
projects a feasible alternate
deadline.
Provides occasional progress
reports.
These statements describe persons
2. Meets deadlines only because
who are usually rated below job
of continued prodding.
standards on ability to meet
Frequently waits till "last
deadlines by most raters.
day" then focuses all efforts
on completion.
Loses track of time; plans
to get to it soon.
If done on time, is frequently
sub -standard.
Displays an attitude that within
a day or two is close enough.
These statements describe persons i.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on ability to meet deadlines
by most raters.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS (QUICK DECISIONS): This element involves
specific problem definition in an urgent situation; assembling all available
data; determining remedial action needed; relaying of all information to
others as soon as possible; troubleshooting.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on quick decisions by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on quick decisions
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on quick decisions
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on quick decisions
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on quick decisions by most raters.
5.
4.
3. Responds quickly using all
available data.
Able to identify quick fix
to get through the crisis.
After remedial action, immediately
notifies others and begins
planning for long-term solution.
Remains composed in crisis; makes
accurate determination of
kind of problem and whether
or not it requires quick
fix.
2. Refuses to decide without
consultation.
Tends to panic; can't see
a solution.
Makes decisions based on
a flip of a coin.
1. Consistently selects wrong
alternative; overreacts;
results of remedy usually
create greater problem.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - COMPATIBILITY/COMMUNICATIONS WITH SUPERVISORS: This job aspect
relates to how one identifies his/her role with respect to role of supervisor;
willingness to follow direction; willingness to relay concerns to supervisor;
open, honest responses to questions; ability to tell supervisor you are
unclear or confused about task, direction, etc.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on compatibility/communications
with supervisors by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on compatibility/
communications with supervisors
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on compatibility/
communications with supervisors
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on compatibility/
communications with supervisors by
most raters.
5.
4.
3. Follows directions easily.
Keeps supervisor informed of progres
Requires or requests further informa
tion if directives seem questionable
Has ability to carry supervisor's
instructions to co-workers.
Recognizes problems when they occur
and reacts and reports immediately.
Maintains open, professional
relationship with supervisor.
Reports actions and results more
than asks what to do.
Seeks out clarification if
presented with conflicting directive
2. Tells supervisor what they think
they want to hear; a "yes" man.
Strictly follows directions; no
follow-up on either instructions
or task.
Doesn't seem to "hear" directions.
Complains to public and co-workers
about being unhappy with policies,
supervisors, working conditions, etc
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on compatibility/communications
with supervisors by most raters.
Frequently challenges directives,
often without sound rationale or
alternative.
Allows supervisor to discover
information from others,
second hand, rumors.
Tends to "hide" items of minor
concern, until they develop into
major problems.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
SOM
CRITERION - TECHNICAL COMPETENCE: This aspect concerns the ability to perform
with specialized tools and equipment; skills that are learned or acquired
that are generally considered to be unique to municipal operations.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on technical competence by most
raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on technical
competence by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job -standards on technical
competence by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on technical competence
by most raters.
S.
4. Inventive to create or adapt
equipment and tools for
special needs.
Seeks out education opportunities
to improve skills.
Frequently refers to manuals and
other reference material to expand
ability to utilize equipment.
3. Displays proficiency in the
use of equipment and tools.
Demonstrates knowledge of the
limits of expectation from
equipment and tools.
2. Seems confused and inept.
Unfamiliar with specialty tools,
both in name and use.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on technical competence by most
raters.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - CREDIBILITY: This element relates to one's actions following
through from one's words; following through on statements; consistent application
of rules and regulations to both public and other employees; demonstrating
one's intent to achieve stated goals.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on credibility by most raters.
These statements
who are usually
job standards on
most raters.
These statements
who are usually
job standards on
by most raters.
describe persons
rated as exceeding
credibility by
describe persons
rated as meeting
credibility
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on credibility by
most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on credibility by most raters.
5.
4. Finds it necessary to honor
his/her word, even if it means
a personal sacrifice.
3. Promptly responds to inquiries.
Admits "I don't know" when
he/she doesn't, in fact,
know the answer.
Demonstrates consistent
application of rules.
Actions match promises.
Others demonstrate a trust
in this person's word.
2. Overextends self on commitments.
Frequently apologetic for
shortcomings.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - FLEXIBILITY/ADAPTABILITY: This element relates to the need
to use alternative methods to solve problems, address issues; recognizing
unique conditions requiring unique actions, when and if compromise is necessary;
being receptive to innovative techniques.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on flexibility/adaptability by
most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as 'exceeding
job standards on flexibility/
adaptability by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on flexibility/
adaptability by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on flexibility/adapt-
ability by most raters.
5.
4. Demonstrates desire to learn things
beyond strict definition of job.
3. Displays receptiveness to new
techniques when needed.
Identifies ways to change existing
method for improvement.
Is able to "switch horses" as
need arises.
Reacts quickly to "one time only"
situations; addresses it and then
resumes standard operations.
Actively participates in the
discussion and evaluation of
new processes.
Can comfortably compromise without
abandoning principles.
Can bend without breaking.
Alert to sensitive issues
and personal.
Openly suggests to others, including
supervisors, that a new way might
be more beneficial.
Receptive to suggestions of others;
willing to try something before
dismissing as unworkable.
2. Frequently expresses the sentiment,
"We never did it that way before."
Exerts less effort in a new situation.
Frequently complains that things are
always changing; "How can they expect
me to do my work when it's never
the same."
Lives by "a rule is a rule, no
exceptions please."
Tends to incorporate only part of
new.process. Mixes old and new, even
when directed to do otherwise.
These statements describe persons �•
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on flexibility/adaptability by
most raters.
D• This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
thi3 criterion.
CRITERION - ABILITY TO ANTICIPATE PROBLEMS (FORESIGHT): This job aspect
has to do with recognizing those things which, if left unattended, could
lead to problems; analysis of current situation; determining when problem
might occur if not addressed.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on foresight by most raters.
These statements
who are usually
job standards on
most raters.
These statements
who are usually
job standards on
most raters.
describe persons
rated as exceeding
foresight by
describe persons
rated as meeting
foresight by
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on foresight by most
raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on foresight by most raters.
5.
4. Displays comprehensive knowledge
of City operation and of
"cause and effect" relationship.
Encourages and executes
extensive preventative maintenance
programs.
3. Consistently reviews records
to discover troubling trend.
Knows desired end result,
and what will interfere
with achieving that result.
Promptly relates to supervisor
potential problem and the
related details.
2. Person works only on today's
tasks.
Ignores warning signs.
Attempts to cover up problems,
hopes they'll go away.
Frequently works under crisis
or in a state of emergency.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - DEPENDABILITY/RELIABILITY: This part of the job relates
meeting the expectations of the City and co-workers; contributing to,
and supplementing the efforts of others; consistent accomplishing of
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on dependability/reliability
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on dependability/
reliability by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on dependability/
reliability by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on dependability/
reliability by most raters.
to
complementing
tasks.
4. Cheerfully assumes extra
duties in an emergency.
Readily volunteers for a unique
task or a special assignment.
3. Timely completion of tasks.
Knows importance of own role
to successful operation
of City, and fulfills that role.
Contributes to effort in a
time crisis.
Does own job only; gone
by quitting time.
2. Late with tasks, thereby
affecting others ability
to complete tasks.
Frequently takes on tasks,
but loses interest.
Often gets sidetracked and
leaves tasks incomplete.
Frequently offers excuses
for work undone; tends
to blame everyone and everything
else.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on dependability/reliability
by most raters.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS AND DECISIONS: This element
concerns the amount of personal responsibility taken for the completion
of work and the related decision; the amount of work progress without direct
supervision; willingness to work through barriers toward desired result;
accountability for results.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on accepting responsibility for
actions and decisions by most
raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on accepting
responsibility for actions and
decisions by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on accepting
responsibility for actions and
decisions by most raters.
5.
4.
3. Promptly begins day's work without
waiting for specific direction.
Identifies priority of tasks and
decides on a course of action
to complete.
Openly admits errors in judgement.
Identifies self (as a supervisor)
as ultimately responsible for
staff production, e.g., their
problems are his/her problems.
These statements describe persons 2.
who are usually rated below job
standards on accepting responsibility
for actions and decisions by most
raters.
Makes excuses for incomplete
work.
Frequently seeks out supervisors
to confirm or approve a decision
before any action is taken.
These statements describe persons 1. Blames others for problems.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on accepting responsbility for
actions and decisions by most
raters.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on this
criterion.
CRITERION - RESPONSIBLE MAINTENANCE AND CONTROL OF CITY PROPERTY: This
element concerns the conscientious care of tools, equipment, supplies and
structures; taking time to care for City property; utilizing appropriate
clean-up methods after task completion; making an effort to extend the useful
life of property; watching for trouble spots.
These statements describe persons 5.
who are usually rated outstanding
on responsible maintenance and control
of City property by most raters.
These statements describe persons 4.
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on responsible
maintenance and control of City
property by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on responsible
maintenance and control of City
property by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on responsible
maintenance and control of City
property by most raters.
3. Exercises reasonable precautions
in care of City property.
Identifies wear of property
and takes steps to repair.
Treats equipment as if his/her
own.
Encourages thorough use
of disposable supplies;
watches for waste.
Ensures security of buildings
and contents to prevent
theft.
Maintains an inventory of
tools and equipment.
Keeps maintenance files.
2. Tools and equipment frequently
left lying about.
Must frequently replace
specific items due to loss.
Attempts to utilize damaged
equipment rather than repair
or replace.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on responsible maintenance and
control of City property by most
raters.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - BUDGET MANAGEMENT/COST AWARENESS: This job aspect concerns
understanding municipal financial procedures; ability to perform cost vs.
benefit analysis; long-range purchasing plans; recognizing improper purchasing
procedures; achieving a defined level of service within budgetary constraints.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on budget management/cost awareness
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on budget management/
cost awareness by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on budget management/
cost awareness by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on budget management/
cost awareness by most raters.
5.
4.
3. Has ability to project payback
periods.
Accurately projects annual needs
and adheres to approved expenditure
limits.
Establishes a long-range
capital improvement plan.
Maintains quality inventory
control.
Makes purchases on an as -needed
basis.
Investigates options with respect
to equipment and/or methods
to find most cost efficient.
Uses, and encourages others to
utilize, cost saving measures;
e.g., turn off lights, turn
down heat, close the door, etc.
Emergency measures notwithstanding,
consistently comes in at
or under budget.
2. Frequently expends funds for
items other than identified
in budget.
Purposely over-estimates budget
requests to ensure plenty
of money.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on budget management/cost awareness
by most raters.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - PROBLEM SOLVING (PLANNED RESOLUTION OF PROBLEMS): This element
involves specific definition of the problem, assembly of available information,
data or facts, review, analysis and evaluation of information; formulation
of alternatives and anticipated results of each; application of logic and
other decision making principles in selecting a preferred alternative; sharing
decision with others.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on planned resolution of problems
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on planned resolution
of problems by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on planned resolution
of problems by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on planned resolution
of problems by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on planned resolution
of problems by most raters.
5.
4.
3. Breaks down problem into
its simplest component parts
and addresses each.
Draws from background to
review relevant data.
Takes solutions to others
for their reactions; seeks
out additional thoughts
and possibilities.
Plans ahead.
2. Overwhelmed by the size and
complexity of the problem;
turns it over to someone else.
Tries to avoid dealing with
problems; can't see them
developing.
Sees one solution only;
does not evaluate; forces
the method, right or wrong.
Identifies only a part of
the problem; cannot see any
relation to other City operations.
Does not investigate alternate
solutions; first step is
always to take it to someone
else for their thoughts.
0
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportuni'
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - GENERAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS
clear expression of thoughts and ideas;
understanding replies and/or directions
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on oral communication skills by
most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on oral communication
skills by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meetin
job standards on oral communication
skills by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on oral communication
skills by most raters.
- ORAL: This element involves
ability to listen and share information;
from others.
5.
4. Frequently repeats in
paraphrase to verify understandin
Provides detail crucial to
understanding, but eliminates
excess baggage.
3. Thinks before speaking.
Attampts to make explanations
in a clear sequential order.
2. Wordy, windy, redundant -
loves to listen to self talk.
Acknowledges clear understanding,
but acts in a totally
contrary manner.
Tends to finish other
speaker's sentence or begins
own speech be -'ore other is
finished.
Often gets muddled, saying
"you know what I mean?"; tends
to ramble on with no direction;
avoids or misses the point.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on oral communication skills
by most raters.
0. This criterion is not
applicable or I have not
had the opportunity to
observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - GE+YERAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS - WRITTEN: This element involves
composition of reports, letters, memos, proposals and other documents;
use of principles of writing such as clarity, brevity, accuracy, and logic.
These statements describe persons 5.
who are usually rated outstanding
on written communication skills
by most raters.
These statements describe persons 4. Can quickly prepare necessary
who are usually rated as exceeding correspondence.
job standards on written Carefully selects vocabulary
communication skills by most raters. to convey concise meaning
without becoming overly complex.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
lob standards on written
communication skills by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated beljob
standards on written
communication skills by most raters.
3. Understands and uses sound
grammar.
Accurate spelling.
Assures that crucial points
are covered without excessive
verbiage.
Avoids excessive use of
colloquialisms and slang.
Writes technical manuals only
when necessary, otherwise
stays with what will be
understood by reader.
2. Tends to ignore recipient;
writes one way only.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on written communication skills by
most raters.
0. This criterion is not
applicable or I have not had
the opportunity to observe
performance on this criterion.
CRITERION - DEDICATION (EXTRA EFFORT -STAYING LATE, ETC.): This element involves
recognizing a specific need and/or emergency; willingness to assist in resolving
the issue; occasionally relates to deadlines or adjustments in deadlines.
These statements describe persons 5•
who are usually rated outstanding
on dedication by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on dedication by
most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting job
standards on dedication by most
rat__
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on dedication by
most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on dedication by most raters.
q. Willingness to stay late to
complete urgent or unexpected task.
Alert to time demands of others -
offers to stay late to assist.
Readily accepts (occasionally
volunteers for) a task that is
not in any job description; the
kind of unplanned, unexpected
occurrence.
Will readily utilize or "loan to the
City" a personal tool, piece of
equipment, etc., to get through a
crisis.
Responds to City demands on personal
time, e.g., will make a short side
trip for City reasons while on a
personal errand.
3. Adjusts well to deadline changes.
Shows attitude of being happy
to assist rather than a "you owe
me" attitude.
Conveys an attitude that the job
and the business of the City
is important.
2. Displays an "it can wait" attitude.
0. This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - JOB KNOWLEDGE: This element involves having a clear understanding
of the nature of work tasks unique to the position; how this position relates
to departmental operations and the overall functioning of the City.
These statements describe persons 5.
who are usually rated outstanding
on job knowledge by most raters.
These statements describe persons 4. Stays current with new findings,
who are usually rated as exceeding methods, etc., in field; attempts
job standards on job knowledge to become familiar and incorporate.
by most raters.
These statements describe persons 3.' Knows duties as outlined in
who are usually rated as meeting job description.
job standards on job knowledge Knows co-workers duties well
by most raters. enough to perform them efficiently.
Accurately completes assigned
duties and tasks.
Has underlying comprehension of
why task is essential and how it
relates to overall operation.
Can pass job understanding to
public and peers.
Knows what resources are available
for reference and problems/questions.
These statements
describe persons 2.
Unaware of duties and
who are usually
rated below job
responsibilities.
standards on job
knowledge
Repeated asking of questions.
by most raters.
Constant requests for further
assistance.
Needs constant reminders
of processes.
These statements
describe persons 1.
Repeated incorrect performance of
who are usually
rated as unacceptable
tasks; high occurrence of
on job knowledge
by most raters.
error and correction.
0.
This criterion is not applicable
or I have not had the opportunity
to observe performance on
this criterion.
r
CRITERION - PRODUCTIVITY: This job aspect relates to completing activities
in an acceptable amount of time; identifying that a task can be completed
in a specified period of time; moving on to additional tasks.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on productivity by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on productivity by
most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on productivity by
most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on productivity by most
raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on productivity by most raters.
5.
4. Special projects are blended
right into everyday work
load, jeopardizing neither.
Special projects proceed
steadily to completion.
3. Work load is held at a
relatively consistent
level.
Identifies product/productivity
as a standard of excellence to
be.achieved through ordinary
means rather than extraordinary
effort.
2. energy used is substantial,
results are few.
Projects are frequently
abandoned then rejuvenated at
a later time.
Does precisely as assigned
with little regard for
next activity.
0. This criterion is not
applicable or I have not
had the opportunity to
observe performance on
this criterion.
CRITERION - SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS OR NEEDS OF CO-WORKERS (JOB AND NON -JOB
RELATED): This aspect involves awareness of problems or needs that can
affect job performance; keeping the "human element" in the work place;
understanding stress situations.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated outstanding
on sensitivity to problems or needs
of co-workers by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as exceeding
job standards on sensitivity to
problems or needs of co-workers
by most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated as meeting
job standards on sensitivity to
problems or needs of co-workers by
most raters.
These statements describe persons
who are usually rated below job
standards on sensitivity to problems
or needs of co-workers by most
raters.
5.
4. Quickly identifies diminishing
job performance and meets with
employee.
Listens intently to employee
concerns.
Displays ability to "open -up"
about one's own stresses; lends
assurance to employee that
problems are real for everyone,
but can be handled.
3. Identifies when problems may
need greater professional help;
encourages employee to seek
additional assistance.
Defends employee in face of
unwarranted attacks and cri, sW;
is supportive of staff.
Recognizes and anticipates
stress situations and takes
steps to alleviate.
2. Emphasizes work results only;
advises employee to hurry up
and get it together because
work is suffering.
Tends to become a counselor;
wants to "fix" everybody else.
These statements describe persons 1.
who are usually rated as unacceptable
on sensitivity to problems or
needs of co-workers by most raters.
0. This criterion is not
applicable or I have not
had the opportunity to
observe performance on
this criterion.
7
1
1
1
i
Claims List for Approval
For the period 04/09/96 to 04/18/96
1�
TO WHOM PAID FOR WHAT PURPOSE DATE NUMBER __ CLAIM
I'sl ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST DEFERRED COMP -PAY PERIOD 4/6/96 04/09/96 1473 425.1E
6 _ [JI IQI 1 5 -NPI QVCCG RFI X!RrmMFi0 T
a,cv � :„vr��r, 1 `NMB EMPc6YEEi'E!1('t8i'Eft-SHARE 47'97'409470997'96r1: 4'7'4 --�-�s
of
1111
I
;
,
113
114,
16
t7
1s
so
..
u
23
24
ELAINE BEATTYMEDICAL
REIMBURSEMENT-`SEC't,'N 125
04/09/96
1477
371.50
7
AFFORDABLE SANITATION
TOILET RENTAL
04/18/96
1478
106.50
BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS
TONER KIT AND GENERAL SUPPLIES
04/18/96
1480
378.42
12a
C & H DISTRIBUTORS
DUCT AND BLOWER
04/18/96
1481
579.38
30
32
t482
228.78
( 3J
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC INO
MARCH ENGINEERING
04/18/96
1483
25,010.19
1•
37
3i
36
7D
I I
.+
14oI
141
!421
43
u
45
47
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC INC
FINAL PAYMENT 94-4 88TH STREET
04/18/96
1484
831.66
METROPOLITAN GRAVEL CO INC
PEDAL
04/18/96
1485
60.51
4e
4P
eo.
-.i
CITY OF MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTROL CHGS & FIRE CONTRACT 04/18/96 1487 1,813.50
smowfieEft:0 TIMES- Filuotfe fieffee 04/,18/,96 1488 lot .09
e—
NORTHERN AIRGAS OXYGEN 04/18/96 1489 11.23
1s� NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS MARCH SERVICES 04/18/96 1490 5,019.53
Claims List for Approval
31 -
Y32
:33
'r
137 .. _
1``39
)i4t (/
14"Let�
7
143 -
'43
46
1147
140
4
1 � S01
t
131 �
IS
I
.33
s4
SSj
ass
I --
For the period 04/09/96 to
04/18/96
4
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DATE
NUMBER CLAIM
s
6
TO WHOM PAID
7
1 L
f'T
IJ
1 ttl
2�
131
1 t4
3
1°
RINKE-NOONAN
MARCH LEGAL SERVICES
04/18/96
1492
5,309.06
361.8C
1e
SOUTHHAM BUSINES COMM USA INC
AD FOR BIDS -ISLAND VIEW & MISS.SHRS
04/18/96
1493
WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT
SALT/SAND MIX, SALT,INSP.BOOK5 Y"'
04/18/96
1494
1,423.91
)izo
.z l
u
WRIGHT COUNTY RECORDER
RECORD FEES
04/18/96
04/18/96
1495
1496
39.00
400.00
I;z3l
124
VALERIE HOFMEIRECO
STER
REFUND DEPOSIT
1u
�j27
46,678.
TOTAL FOR
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE
102,905.
["1
)1291
31 -
Y32
:33
'r
137 .. _
1``39
)i4t (/
14"Let�
7
143 -
'43
46
1147
140
4
1 � S01
t
131 �
IS
I
.33
s4
SSj
ass
I --