1985-12-16 CC Agenda/PacketCITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
12/16/85
i. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
IV. DEPARTMENT BUSINESS
A. Administration
- Price quotes on eletric work to be done at City Hall (pending)
-- Public hearing for Lehmann Mushroom (bring materials that
You recieved at the special meeting on November 12th)
at 8:00
- Opening bids for copier at 8:30
B. Maintenance
- Purchase of new light for tractor to replace broken light
00 (parts are no longer available for the light)
C. Legal
.. - Letter to Thomas D. Hayes regarding annexation
D. Engineering
- Response of the NOV sent to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
- Update on the drain tile problem in the Beaud.ry 2nd Addition
E. Other Business
- Senate Subcommittee on Insurance
Highway Jurisdiction Meeting
— Mayor's meeting
V. INCOME RECIEVED AND BILLS TO BE PAID
VI. ADJOURNMENT
PLBURTVALLE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
DECEMBER 16, 1985
The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order. by Mayor
Walsh. Members persent included G. Schwenzf'eier, D. Vetsch, D. Cornelius,
and B. Braun. Other present included M. Andrews, G. Meyer, B. Johnson;
D. Berning was absent.
Bills and income recieved for the period of December 3rd through the 16th
were reviewed. There was some discussion of whether the total $7,500.00
should be returned to San -Nett Properties ($6,500.00 for the Industrial
Development Bondand$1,000.00 for the Tax Increment). a motion was made
by D. Cornelius and seconded by G.Schwenzfeier to approve the bills
pending G. Meyer's review of the San -Nett money. All were in favor.
When G. Meyer arrived fie suggested that the $6,500 be returned to San -Nett
amd that the $1,000 be retained until all the bills were recieved for the
cost already incurred by the City of Albertville.
There was a motion by D. Vetsch and a second by G. Schwenzfeier to give
M. Andrews a $25.00 Christmas bonus. All were in favor.
Mayor Walsh discuseed his testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on
Insurance. M. Andrews was asked to prepare a letter to be sent to the State
representatives and to Minnesota Congressmen in Washington. To be included
with this letter is a copy of the testimony given.
A public hearing for San -Nett Properties was called to order at 8:00. Let
the minutes sho that the Notice of Public Hearing was published in the
Crow River News on November 12, 1985 and that; the project materials were on
file at City Hall for the length of the notice. The only people present
for the hearing were Jack and Sandy Robertson of San -Nett Properties.
It should also be noted that there were no requests to review the materials
on file at City Hall prior to the meeting.
Attorney Gary Meyer then introduced and read the written resolution:
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BY SAN-NETT PROPERTIES
UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND
AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE
MINESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE APPROVAL THEREOF
(attachment of the resolution is filed with permenant
Council packet file)
Council member Robert Braun then moved its adoption, which was duly
seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All members were in favor of the
motion.
page 2
Council Minutes
Since there was no other San -Nett business the public hearing was closed.
The City Council was informed of several issues that needed no action
which included: a purchase of a new strobe light for the tractor to replace
the broken one (cost expected to run under 100.00). Letter to Attorney
Tom Hayes of Monticello regarding the annexation proposal of the Valerius
property in the City of Albertville from Otesgo Township. And finally,
Berry Johnson of Meyer-Rohlin brought the Council up to date on the
NOV response prepared by Paul Meyer. In addition he also informed the
Council that S & L had completed the additonal work in the Beaudry 2nd
Addition, this work was included in in the final payment to S & L.
At 8:30 Mayor Walsh opened the bids for the new copier. Bids were recieved
from the following companies:
Minnesota Copier
St. Cloud
Stringer
St. Paul
Wagner
St. Paul
American Photocopy
Minneapolis
No action was taken on the purchase of the copier at this time. Maureen :is
to review the bids and report back to the Couniil at the January 6th meeting
a recommendation of purchase.
The last items discussed were the Highway Jurisdiction Meeting and the
meeting with Peter Stalland regarding the possible location of' a
manufactured home subdivision (park). No action was needed on either issue.
A motion by D. Vetsch and second by D. Cornelius to move for adjournment.
All were in favor.
MEYER-ROHLIN, INC
�i1NEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn. 55313 Phone 612 - 682 -1781
December 5, 1985
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. David Douglas
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Re: Project Construction,
City Of Albertville,
Project No. C-271087-02
Dear Mr. Douglas:
This response is given in reply to your letter dated
November 8, 1985 addressed to Mayor Walsh of the City of
Albertville. It is our hope that the concerns the MPCA has
expressed will be adequately addressed by this correspondence.
We will initially comment on the intent, interpretation,
and objective of the specifications and in doing so answer the
questions you raised. This is necessary since section 27 of the
general conditions states that one aspect of the engineer's
authority is interpretating the intent of the contract docu-
ments.
Clarifying the intent of the specifications will be don
since this appears to be the major issue encompassing the NOV.
The MPCA made several statements in the NOV concerning the
addendum to the plans and specifications. As this addendum
stated, it was written to draw attention to the synthetic liner
specification. In particular, this addendum was referring to
the "materials" section as given in section 3.0 "c" of the
specifications. The MPCA is correct in that the intent was not
Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Registered Land Surveyor
' Page 2
December 5, 1985
to specify a specific mil thickness. As you will note, the
minimum requirements that the addendum refers to are listed on
page 2-13. The intent, as evident by the addendum, was to
specify basic properties, as given in section 3.0 "c" of the
specifications, in lieu of specific thicknesses. When the MPCA
quoted the addendum, they do so only in part. The portion that
was not quoted is germane to an understanding of the intent and
interpretation of the contract documents. This portion of the
addendum states the following: "Based upon the specification
requirements as given, the engineer anticipates that a 20 mil
polyethylene (PE) thickness and a 30 mil polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) thickness will be required to meet the specifications."
The specification and addendum language indicate that the intent
was to ensure that the requirements on page 2-13 were met and
that 20 mil PE or 30 mil PVC would probably meet the
requirements.
Section 3.0 "e" of the specification discusses the field
seaming of the previously specified liner material. The second
paragraph of this section specifies that PE shall be seamed by
fusion welding. It is known within the industry that welding
affects the parent material adjacent to the seam. Pursuant to
your request for independent corroboration, letters from Exxon
and Union Carbide are attached which confirm this fact. Also,
the NSF specification which you have supports this occurrence
for PE as well as for PVC seaming procedures. Therefore, the
specification and addendum state that a liner material meeting
the requirements of page 2-13 shall be seamed by fusion welding.
In the NOV the MPCA stated it was their position that the
intent of the specification was for the contractor to produce a
seam strength of 75 pounds per inch width in tension even if a
liner thicker than that specified would be required. However,
Page 3
December 5, 1985
it was not the intent of the engineer to require a liner thicker
than what was necessary to meet the parent material requirements
as given on page 2-13. This is evident from the foregoing
discussion and, in particular, the addendum language which
states that the engineer anticipates a 20 mil PE liner will be
required. The contractor can only be held to the intent of the
contract documents, performance in excess of this intent is not
obtainable.
We do understand how the MPCA could interpret the
specification to deduce that the seam shall be 75 pounds per
inch width. A cursory examination of the first, sentence under
"Field Seams" of Section 3.0 "e" would support the MPCA's
contention. However, this interpretation of this single sentence
is not consistant with the remainder of the specification in
light of the liner property and fusion welding requirements. A
literal interpretation of this first sentence is not consistant
with the specified intent to use a 20 mil PE liner with fusion
welding. Even though the verbage expressed in this sentence
could lead one to infer that 75 pound per inch width seams were
required, it was not the engineers intent to require a thicker
liner to obtain this value. This intent has previously been
demonstrated. This sentence is badly worded since it's
interpretation, as adopted by the MPCA, is completely inc::)r:-
sistant with the remainder of the specification. If it had been
the engineers intent to produce a seam strength of this value by
increasing the thickness of the liner we would have indicated
this intention with much more specificity. Other pond systems
have been constructed where 20 mil PE was seamed by fusion
welding. The specification intent was to use a similar lining
system for Albertville since prior projects are performing as
designed. Specifying additional liner thickness, at an
increased cost to all parties is not economically prudent when
similar installations have met specified design criteria.
' Page 4
December 5, 1985
The MPCA indicated that they wanted other manufacturers to
examine the specifications "with the objective of being informed
as to which of their products would be most appropriate to meet
the specifications." This is not appropriate since this project
has been bid and manufacturers could now state whatever they
desire without any imposition of responsibility. The appro-
priate considerations are, however, what was the intent of the
specifications and how did manufacturers, at the time of the
bid, interpret the specification. The intent of the specifi-
cation has been previously identified. The manufacturer's
interpretation of the specifications can be obtained by noting
what material and thickness they quoted at the time of the bid.
Two liner bids were received by the general contractor on this
project. The first bid was from Poly -America and the second bid
was from Palco linings. You are aware of Poly -America's bid so
this needs no explanation. Palco linings submitted a bid for 30
mil PVC. Palco's interpretation of the specification was the
same as Poly -America's and consistant with the engineer's intent
that a liner material be provided that meets the requirements as
giver, on page 2-13 of the specifications. If the MPCA thinks it
desirable to contact other manufacturers this is your pre-
rogative. However, any and all manufacturers had the oppor-
tunity to bid on this project and only two manufacturers did so.
Again, to now ask these manufacturers, who did not even supply
quotations on the project, to evaluate what they would have
supplied at the time of the bid, is not appropriate since no
resultant responsibility is imposed.
The NOV raised the question why subsequent testing did not
obtain the results that was originally reported on August 13.
We asked Poly -America for an explanation of this occurrence and
their response is attached.
Page 5
December 5, 1985
When one examines the entire synthetic liner specification,
the overall intent of this portion of the specification can be
seen. This entire examination is necessary since a determin-
ation of the purpose and intent of the specification, as a
whole, must be made before individual sections and sentences can
be disected and scrutinized. One major criteria cf the
specification requires the manufacturer to be responsible fcr-
all phases of the liner installation. Upon completion of the
project, in addition to a stringent water balance test
requirement, the liner manufacturer must provide a 20 year
limited warranty as well as provide documentation that states he
has inspected the complete installation and that the liner was
installed in accordance with the manufacturers requirements. The
manufacturer observes the overall installation, including base
preparation, liner installation, and backfill covering. The
warranty that is given also covers seams, both field and factory
(if used). As evident from this portion of the specification,
substantial responsibility in addition to that of simply
supplying a liner material is required of the liner manu-
facturer. The essential intent of the liner specification is to
ensure that an excellent liner material is provided and that
this liner material is installed pursuant to the manufacturers
recommendations.
The purpose for which a liner is used is also encompassed
in the overall intent of a specification. Major criteria that
require evaluation with respect to a liner system are water-
tightness (Impermeability), elongation properties of the
material, the resistance of the material to degradation, the
cost of the overall liner and, most important, the suitability
of the finished product to function in a. mariner for which it was
designed. First, there is no question that the permeability of
L i
Page b
December 5, 1985
the basic liner material is satisfactory. Second, once the
liner has been installed, one of the most important properties
is its ability to elongate. If no elongation were possible, the
slightest movement of the soil due to consolidation, etc., would
produce a tear. You will note that the specifications require
excellent elongation properties. Third, the resistance of the
material to degradation over time is important since an
excellent installation which subsequently degrades over time is
obviously not desireable. The PE liner that is installed has
excellent properties that resist degradation. Fourth, the
overall cost of the installation must be a consideration. If
dollars were not a consideration, designs and the accompanying
plans and specifications would be entirely different. However,
this is not the case and it is incumbent upon the engineer to
design a project and prepare plans and specifications which will
meet the applicable design criteria at the least possible cost.
Finally, the project must function in a manner for which it was
designed. If a project does not meet this standard, it is
obviously not acceptable. However, a project which meets the
standards for which it was designed is acceptable. Projects
which are designed, either by construction materials or
construction means, to be in excess of what is needed to fulfill
the necessary requirements are a waste of money and are not
excuseable. The intent of the Albertville specification is to
meet the stabilization pond requirements and produce an
excellent project for the State of Minnesota and City of
Albertville at the least possible cost. Requirements in excess
of this standard are not needed and are unjustifiable.
The major criteria that a litter should exhibit were
identified above. However, it should be noted that once a pond
system has been constructed and has passed the water balance
test, the tensile strength of the liner is not of prime
importance. For example, if a covered liner were constructed of
a material that had high tensile strength but no elongation,
Page 7
December 5, 1985
subsequent consolidation or movement of the pond system would
probably tear the liner. Whereas, a liner material that had
extremely low tensile strength but high elongation properties
would probably not tear, other things being equal.
Therefore, various attributes of the liner as well as the
quality of the earthwork performed prior to liner installation
all act in concert to produce a project that must function in a
manner for which it was designed.
The liner installation has received meticulous inspection
by both the manufacturers representative and the engineers
inspector. Even so, the contractor is fully aware that the
water balance must be acceptable before the project will be
completed. The liner installation is now complete, but it will
not be tested until next spring. This timing will actually
produce a more stringent test for the integrity of the pond
system since a freeze -thaw cycle will have occurred. In many
instances, maximum stresses are placed on a liner system during
construction and during the period prior to full operation.
After a pond system is in operation, freezing of the liner
beneath the pond bottom does not occur. Consequently, the
Albertville liner will be tested after the occurrence of both
construction and freeze -thaw stresses which will provide for a
more stringent test than if the water balance had been conducted
this fall. This factor should help alleviate MPCA concerns
about the integrity of the pond system.
In conclusion, the project contract documents present the
following: First, the engineer prepared the plans and
specification and is responsible for interpreting the intent of
the contract documents pursuant to Section 27 of the General
Conditions. Second, the engineers intent was to specify a liner
that met the properties as given on page 2-13 and to seam the
Page 8
December 5, 1985
liner by welding. The intent was not to require the contractor
to furnish a liner thickness in excess of that needed to meet
the materials specification of page 2-13. Third, the liner
manufacturers who submitted bids interpreted the specification
and addendum consistant with the engineers intent of meeting the
material properties as listed on page 2-13. Fourth, the liner
was to be installed pursuant to the manufacturers instructions.
This encompasses all phases of installation, including seaming.
Fifth, the pond lining system must pass the water balance
criteria before the project is acceptable. Sixth, the liner
manufacturer must give assurance that the liner was installed in
accordance with their instructions and a 20 year warranty must
be given. Finally, the project will not be approved until the
testing has passed and the assurances and warranty have been
obtained.
We hope this correspondence has satisfactorily addressed
the concerns the MPCA has with respect to the project and
contract documents interpretation. The essential purpose of the
project is to provide a facility that will function in a manner
for which it was designed. The engineers contend that this is
being done and that the project will not be finaled until the
remaining appurtenant requirements are satisfied.
Sincerely,
Jiro Walsh,,Mayor
Mautee Andigews DAR
PaJI Meyer, Engin er
_ PM:kn
cc:City of Albertville
cc:Mike Wright, Corps of Engineers
cc:E-8401—E
� I[",' UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
Iu� POLYOLE=INS DIVIS10N
1401 QUORUM DRIVE. DALLAS. TEXAS 75260 TELEPHONE 1214' 934�4900
'f (�)�
�+ V
ill q %'
October 11, 1935 J. H. BRINDLE
Mr. Ken Ashfeld
:Meyer-Rohlin Consulting Engineer
1111 Highway 25 North
Buffalo, MN 55313
Subject: Heat Welding of Thin Guage Polyethylene Sheet
Dear 1,1r. Ashfeld:
In discussions with Bill Neal of Poly America, Grand
Prairie, TX, it is generally accepted in the polyethylene
and geomembranes industry that heat histories involved
in fusing or welding polyethylene sheet together result
in a lowering of the physical properties of the sheet.
This effect is more pronounced in thinner guaged sheet
(30 mils thick or less) in the area immediately adjacent
to the weld or fusion bond.
Sincerely
!JJ
H. Brindle
Account Manager
POLYOLErINS DIVISION
db
cc: Mr. Bill Neal, Poly America, Grand Prairie, TX
EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS
5CA Glaoe '' H-gnwev. Saute 476. Hirst. Texas 76053
POLYETHYLENE DEPARTMENT
October 7, 1985
Ken Ashfeld
Myer Rohlin
1111 Hwy. 25 North
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Re: Film Properties
Dear Mr. Ashfeld:
EXON
w
CHEMICALS
All polyethylene film properties are reduced when exposed to additional
heat history. Therefore, we could anticipate a property reduction on the
film immediately adjacent to the seal.
I hope you find this information beneficial to your report to the MPCA.
Very truly yours,
,IJames H. Brackeen
JHB /vw
c.c. Doug Burrage - Baytown Chemical Technology Center
Archie Murray - Baytown Chemical Technology Center
A 0-9,on nl EXXON C.�4E WCAL Ci MPANY a divis,on of EXXON CORPORA ION
POLY-RMERICR Inc. 4000 W. Marshall Drive Grand Prairie,
Texas 75051
800-527-3322 817-640-0640 Telex 79-2851
November 29, 1985
Mr. Paul Meyer
MEYER-ROHLIN INC., ENGINEERS
1111 Highway 23N
Buffalo, ILN 55313
Dear Mr. Meyer:
With regard to the N.O.V. on the Albertville project, we have
inquired as to the differing results on shear test and have
determined the following:
I. The material randomly selected for test, was
significantly thicker than the required average
thickness.
2. The results from these tests are linear in nature,
--� therefore, the thicker the sheet, the higher the
shear strength in pounds/inch/width.
While I was in Minnesota meeting with the M.P.C.A., I cited
several studies performed on high density welding results
which in summary indicated that unlike the welds on metal,
plastic welding would result in 50% shear strength relative
to the strength of the parent material. Those references
were left with the M.P.C.A. For your information, they were
as follows:
1. J.J. Bikerman, "Effect of Chemical Constitution,"
Enclvclooedia of Polymer Science and Technology, Vol. 1
pp 450-47 .
2. R.F. Blomquist, "Applications," Enclyclopedia of Polymer
Science and Technology, Vol. 1 pp 538-546.
3. H. Shorhorn, "Surface Properties," Enclyclopedia of
Polymer Science and Technology, Vol. 13 pp 533-551.
I hope that this is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
i�
William C. Neal
Vice -President of Marketing
WCN : crg
Enclosures
f
TESTIMONY BEFORE T fit
`SENATE SUBCOMMITTIE
ON
INSURANCE COVERALL.
DECEMBER 10, 1985
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JIM WALSH AND T AT-1 !!i[_ MAYOR OF AI_BERIVILLE:.,
HINNESOTA, WHICH IS LOCAIED JN INTERSTATE 94- ',') M'l E NORTHWEST OF
DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS. I AM HERE TODAY REP[O"'I"NTTNG THE ALBERTVILLE:
CITY C'OUNCIi._ AND THE TAXPAYERS OF OUR COMMUNTII WLIH REGARDS 10 THE TMI'AL'I
OF INCREASING INSURANCE PREMIUMS ON SMA+_.L MHN'('IPA!_! I (ES S�ffCH AS OUR`.:)'.
WTTHiN THE LAST MONTH THE C1!Y OF IALBERTVII_LT +.!',-'ROVED AN INSURANCE:
INCREASE OF 54. 296 OVER LAST YEAR-5 COST FOR 1 E1E SAME TYPE OF COVERAGE. E If.
MAJOR AREA [1F INCREASE WAS IN IHE AREA OF PUBLIC GFFiCIALS LIABILITY
'NSURANCE, WHICH 1NCRE ASED L6500'. THESE TYPES OF INCREASES ARE EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT FOR CITES 10 ABSORB WHEN A CITY IS WORKING WITHIN THE CONE !NE 3
OF r1 BUDGET, BEING FACED WITH POTENTIAL CUIBACKS IN STATE AND FEDERAL
FINANCIA.. SUPPORT AND ARE MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO KEEP THE MILL LEVY A A
RESuNABLE LEVEL.
THIS TESTIMONY WILL DISCUSS :ALBERTVILLE'S IN'.-)IJRANC:E WOES BY DiSCUSSIN[, E!T
FUI_LOWING ISSUES:
1. BID RESPONSE
2. LACK OF PUBLIC OFFICIAt_S CARRIERS
s. ADDITIONAL COVERAGE
�. INCREASED COST -vJF INSURANCE: COGP0'D WITH ;NURf','J O
DED[JCT ABLFS
i
PAGE '2
BIDS
11-1*s THREE YEARS AGO THE L'ITY OF ALBERTVILLE ADVERTISED FOR INSURANCE BIDS AND
RECIEVED QUOTES FROM 5 DIFFERENT CARRIERS. WHEN THE CITY ADVERTISED FOR
BIDS FOR OUR 1986 COVERAGE WE SENT INSURANCE SPECIFICATIONS TO THE SAME
5 BIDDERS AS WELL AS ADVERTISED IN OUR OFFICIAL PAPER, THE CROW RIVER
NEWS. THE RESPONSE WE GOT BACK WAS RATHER GRIM -- OUT OF THE 5 CARRIERS
WE WERE NOTIFIED BY 2 THAT THEY WERE NO LONGER DEALING WITH MUNICIPAL.
INSURANCE AND FROM 1 WE RECIEVED NO RESPONSE AT ALL, SO OUT OF THE 5 PREVIOUS
BIDDERS WE RELIEVED 2 QUOTES. THESE QUOTES WERE. FROM OUR CURRENT CARRIER
WHO HAD PREPARED QUOTES FROM MINNESOTA MUTAL FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY AND THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST CARRIER --
NORTH STAR RISK SERVICE, INC. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE CITY DID NOT
RECIEVE ANY RESPONSE FROM.THE NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT.
llo� OF THE TWO QUOTED THE CITY DID RECIEVE MINNESOTA MUTUAL FIRE AND CASUALTY
WAS $1,965 OR SOME 2390' LOWER THAN THE LEAGUE'S QUOTE. PLEASE TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THAT THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S COVERAGE WAS QUOTED FROM THE
SAME SOURCE BECAUSE THE LEAGUE'S COVERAGE DID NOT INCLUDE "PRIOR ACT"
COVERAGE (COVERAGE FOR PAST ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL) BUT RATHER JUST
COVERAGE FOR 1986. THIS LEADS ME INTO THE DISCUSSION OF THE LACK OF
CARRIERS OF PUBLIC OFFIC.IAL'S INSURANCE.
LACK OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS CARRIERS
IN REVIEWING OUR COVERAGE WITH OUR INSURANCE AGENT WE WERE INFORMED THAT
TUDOR INSURANCE WAS THE. ONLY COMPANY IN THE STATE OTHER THAN THE LEAGUE
THAT WILL WRITE A PUBLIC OFFICIALS POLICY AND IS WILLING TO DO 50 ONLY IF
QO
PA6 L.
a
THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE OFFICIALS. AS I STATED EARLIER,
THAT OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS PREMIUMS WAS THE AREA WE SAW THE LARGEST
PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (165900 AMD THAT INCREASE IS WITHOUT ANY CLAIMS
AGAINST THE POLICY. THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE HAS BEEN FORTUNATE THAT THERE
HAS NOT BEEN ANY LAWSUITS AGAINST IT OFFICIAL AND THERE ARE NOT ANY THREATS
OF POTENTIAL SUITS PENDING. BUT WHAT HAPPENS 1F THERE IS EVER A CLAIM
AGAINST THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOR AN HONEST MISTAKE, WHERE DOES IT LEAVE
THE CITY -- I WILL TELL YOU -- OUT IN THE COLD WITH NO PROTECTION.
ADDITIONAL COVERAGE
ANOTHER AREA I WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH ON IS THE FACT THAT CITIES HAVE BEEN
FORCED TO PICK UP ADDITIONAL COVERAGE TO CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN WHAT THE
POLICY ACTUALLY COVERS AND WHAT A POTENTIAL CLAIM COULD BE. FOR 1986
THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE'S UMBRELLA COVERAGE WILL_ COST THE CITY $1,000.00
THROUGH OUR CURRENT CARRIER AND WOULD HAVE COS] $3,100.00 THROUGH THE;
LEAGUE'S CARRIER. THE CITY HAS BEEN LUCKY [HAT WE HAVE NEVER HAD A CLAIM
THAT HAS REQUIRED US TO USE THE: UMBRELLA COVERAGE, YET WE ARE STILL FACED
WITH THE NECESSITY TO CARRY IT.
INCREASED COST OF INSURANCE COUPLED WITH INCREASED DEDUCTABLES
FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE INCREASED COST OF INSURANCE WITHIN
THE PAST FEW YEARS, EVEN THOUGH THERE. HAVE BEEN ONLY MINOR CLAIMS AGAINST
OUR POLICY. THESE INCREASES ARE COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAVE.
INCREASED OUR DEDUCTABLES TRIPLEFOLD.
IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE HAS ONLY HAD 5 CLAIMS
AGAINST OUR POLICY, WITH ONLY ONE OF THEM BEING OVER $500.00. ]HE CLAIMS
WERE IN THE AREA OF GLASS BREAKAGE, EQUIPMENT DAMAGE AND MINOR VANDALISM.
THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE KNOWS THAT OUR GOOD RECORD HAS AIDED IN KEEPING
PAGE 4
s
OUR PERMIUMS DOWN, YET WE HAVE BEEN FACED WITH HAVING TO HAVE INCREASED
OUR DEDUCTIBLES TRIPEFOLU TO KEEP OUR INSURANCE COVERAGE WITHIN AN
AFFORDABLE RANGE. THE INCREASE IN DEDUCTABLES COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT
WE WERE IN AN INSURANCE PRICE WAR SHOULD HAVE MEANT THAT OUR PERMIUMS
SHOULD HAVE DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY. OUR ON THE OTHER HAND REMAINED
SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT THROUGH 1984 AND IN THE PAST TWO YEARS WE HAVE SEEN
LARGE INCREASES IN OUR PERMIUMS.
INCLUDED IN YOUR COPY OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVIL_LE'S TESTIMONY 1 HAVE INCLUDED
A BREAKDOWN OF OUR INSURANCE COST FOR THE PAST FIVE YREAR ALONG WITH
WHAT OUR COST WILL BE FOR 1986 SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE CHANGES IN
COST HAVE OCCURRED. IN ADDITION, I HAVE SHOWN THE SAME INFORMATION IN
A GRAPH SO THAT YOU CAN VISUALIZE THE DRASTIC CHANGES OF THE PAST COUPLE
YEARS.
IN CLOSING I WOULD LIKE TO POSE THESE QUESTIONS TO YOU -MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSURANCE- TO THINK ABOUT AS YOU HEAR ADDITIONAL
TESTIMONY HERE TODAY AND IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE AND AS THE
SUBCOMMITTEE'S REPORT IS WRITTEN AND PRESENTED DURING THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE
SESSION:
1. WILL CITIES BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO CARRY I.NSURANC:E WITH
INCREASING PREMIUM COST?
2. WILL CITIES EVEN BE ABLE TO GET INSURANCE COVERAGE?
3. WILL CITIES BE FORCED TO DISINCORPORATE BECAUSE OF THE
INABILITY TO GET INSURANCE. AND WHO WILL BE FORCED TO
CARRY THE BURDEN OF DISINCORPORATION?
4. WOULD YOU BE. WILLING TO SERVE ON A BOARD OR COUNCIL_ .IF
THERE WAS NOT ADEQUATE INSURANCE: COVERAGE?
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE_ THIS SUBCOMMIITEL
TO EXPRESS THE CONCERNS OF ALBERTVIL.LE.
PAGE 5
o
0
0
o
Q
O
o
C
p
O
o
p
o
O
Q
c
o
rn
\0
:n
�
ull�
U'I�
o
o
•-�
O
C
f`
CU
CD
cS'�
r�
M
cc
O
0
r�
M
N
O�
O
r*J
co�
Jl
!�
CD-
r'•
�D
U1
O
U`.
O
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
'
�I
O
O
C
p
O
ul
O
p
Q
Ot
O\
KM
r
UZ
v7
N
O
O
N
-
m
\O
CYN
r`
O
00
..
M
M
M
M
H
N
4
M
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
MI
O
O
C
C
O
O
O
f.
�
Ul
Ln
7
D`
H
N
U1
�n
ON
r
..
M
Q
i cn
N
O
O
O
Oco
Q
p
L
.-+ co
ON
C I
W r C W 0
U LO ii J CO
J ON
Q �
ti
U) CC
O
O
O
C
O
O
O
Z W
-C
O
C
O
O
O
C
O
;y
O
Q
O
O
O
O
O
0\
�
W
-
J
t
-7
r
l
t`
-
-zr
r`
O
N
-
O
N
W
> )
H �
Z J
W .
W
O
>
S CO
Z
-
w
W
W
Ln
W
Li
W
O
>
H
O LJ
Q
Cr
LO r-
U) r-
W
_J
U-
_J a-
Q
Z-
Z
J
CD
t.._
4 O J
O
5
'-+ Ln a'
i—
U�
p
W m
w m
z
m
u
< m
c..
W
W
Z
C� Q
= ct
Q O
W - i
Ln
--
H
a
Q
H
a. �+
U Z
W
J
Z 1 0
0
O
J
J
S J
= S
U-
O
i U --
O
CC
n-
Z
H
O
U
CO
U
W
i
I:t
LO
C
CL
C
U
m
W
OU
AUTO t. I AB I L 1 1 Y
Litt
N i Rl I'll J, ',, 1', CAI LG ORI, FS
i P i fit 11, f
INCOME RECIEVED
12/1.6/85
WRIGHT
TITLE GUARANTEE
4,016.35
SEWER
ACCOUNTS
637.50
WRIGHT
COUNTY TREASURER
NOV 1985 TAX STATEMENT
88,928.97
TIF #1
13,034.50
TIF #4
433.48
EPA
83,332.00
HORDIS
BROTHERS
415.1.1
TOTAL 190,797.91-
BILLS TO BE PAID
PCI
101,970.80
DALE'S "66" & OFF SALE
16.50
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION (STREET LOAN)
20,400.00
itIt 11(STORM SEWER)
1.1,750.00
S & L CONSTRUCTION
49,"5-7-8-,"69
NORWEST BANK (G 0 IMP 10-1-73)
10,939.05
it if ( IMP 7-1-76)
6,071.05
BOB MINKEMA
200.00
G. D. LaPL.ANT
33.00
CROW RIVER NEWS ($1.9.80 TO BE REIMBURSED BY SAN-NETT)
29.70
TRI-STATE PUMP AND CONTROLS ( AIR COMPRESSOR FOR
276.75
LIFT STATION)
NEW BRIGHTON LUMBER (REMODELING)
138.44
CHOUINARD'S
58.05
HACKENMUELLER'S
11.94
MEYER, NELSON AND MILLER
1,007.00
KILIAN HARDWARE ( $10.54 FOR REMODELING)
131.36
JIME MERGES (24 HOURS)
11.25
AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS CO. (RADIO)
883.50
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
5.00
MAUREEN ANDREWS
467.88
KEN LINDSAY
544.42
HEIDELBERG INN
25.00
VERN'S MARKET
10.00
u10 T AL- 2-04, 5-59.., 3"8 ...
Irilnnt3oTo, J-►R9J�J��-
rnann Chu.&h'�(jcr�ds.T,�c
TN-vid vkqsch - c1hi s �SW-/.
ai .ag3.(0-5
T4 �
7
.7
MEYER-ROHLIN WC.
`�--NGINEERS -LAND SU-RVEYUrll_*` 1111 Hwy 25 N, [1jifalo. Wirt 55"31, O.liorie 612 - 682 1 r r
Dc(-.rr:')�-r !':-,
Hc ncrable Mayor £k City i-ounclil
Maureen Andrevvs, Admiril.,_ora'tor
City Hall
..lbert.vllle, MN 55301
_'. : 1 c484-1 Dnprover,,t(-.�u 1, Pro i P 1 -1 � I 1)
',Fal' li-y, AlberT_,vl 1(-,
C-2' 7 iO87-02
Partil Pr?,.ymer)'G No. 8
Yllerri.ber._' 'Jf' T-hc� I :
r a re i ',_,J Pa i
.,hf above
s 'r a q)� u'l.,'r .-ri
iy.
- 11 _,f,
W "_; 1, Y, C' - " ITI': 1 � -1 '_'ed t' o d < I, L c' '74 4, 6y 2. U - 7
M 11 Hand $ 3, 362.'",)
Order #1 & #2 $ 2,245.00
Due l.,o Date T750,279..2
Rc-z' ai nage ll�-,% -$ 37,513-�9
Due to Date $T12,765.83
Minus Prevluus Payments
Amount Due $101,970.80
Wp recommer-id Far-ial P_vrrient No. 3 ir, th,_, amount,
'he ("ontrac"C.'r, Pre grf•..s!.ve Conl-ractors, Iric-.
""y
e. %"l,n.)t e�a 'Y
La,n0 s s .L
1� -P t I 011S , s - t me, you have any ques please corita�
S i T'l ,, (,' 1, P I y yours,
M F, Y E HOIJ 1-1 N 5 INC.
1. '[' () 1
p , u I M, .%Y e r
rof
PM k,t--,
:Derr Be-rz_iL ng, Clerk
'..c':PCI' W/encic,surez-7,
Cc rT)s of Enginc-'ers, M W r t gh t , W/el)closure
cl -34C)I-E#6
Th(re P Meyer Proessiotialf Erigioto-c,,t Rc)berl Rohlio. Registered Laf)d Surveyor
r
t
�2! `t,M'
�BE;, 6
3'
t --
t 5' l.ui.Z?aL,Y. �i ,..... .tai..E
8
.r' .
----------------
`
cE.v.r
.-U
. --C..
30
131-----------------
-------------..—_—..—_..—
3..
133
34
'35 - -- -
n Frr
-7
-----------------
142
L -
47
51
�57'
N
w
' WtJEi SAL, TEST LS,�_ f.ii0 i3, t}C.3�1—zQ,:jj
21 TGTAL C 15!�"s; 3+M : 3 c,
31 LT n
41! ------------
- ol
. .. 71 �Lt1. ui,til'V IF 4U0.00 47MLO �..�i� f._r..ar r`t -----
�.1..• M — 1 ;I
21
1-25
c
--- ----
zb
—
V :v r si
-
-----------------
t-
�JJ Lev.
33 T T "< C
24,
35 --
-�36' - - 17.
r;
42
'4t
t _
r
51, WA
sr: M[ i E`4 1.
531
54.
� A
�� 56 tiro s
a
�E
PI
07 7 Yf,
122
--- -------- ------
------- -- ----
t7
'23
25
;Z7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
75C, 27q, t 2-
-----------
- 71 116 S. F -3
33
9 70.
co, r
4 1:
42
7-0-
45
146.
471
481
149
52
53
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
MEYER, NELSON AND MILLER, LTD. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES J
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
GARY J. MEYER
3735 LAKELAND AVENUE NORTH ROLF T. NELSON
ROBBINSDALE, MINNESOTA 55422-2341 ROBERT J MILLER
TELEPHONE 1612i 588-9424
AMOUNT REMITTED --------
TERMS: NET 30 DAYS
C 1 t Of , 1 tie r t v i l 1 F� I BILLING CYCLE CLOSES 1] —3Ci —
r Lion Ee r n i n u ON STATEMENT DATE:
Al ber t'.1 1 l l e MN 5530 l 1: 1"i
FILE NO.: A 184CI — i C
PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE
RE:
lJorSe C',eV . 'P1._6; l Horne P.,rl. r: 1 1;%S5; PREVIOUS BALAt-JCE.
M AQtINT s
PATE DESCii1PT10N _____ ----
_,��i,.�e1' ,.1i f t t")• Uri G(i t"lobi 1 Home Deve1 OPer a
Jim lAc-i l h rind Thor hie>•er-
FOR SERVICES REt DERED _ .l1ij
T 1 T i-4 L- DUE T H I '= I t�-10 CF I C E
DEBITS OR CREDITS APPLIED • -1I"
LESS t'i= 'T"t 1EhiT' l:I . Fir;
R:4t_H;t,10E DUE
MEYER, NELSON, & MILLER, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Nit YER, NELSON AND MILLER, LTD'
= ATTORNEYS AT LAW
' 3r3mLAwsL*woAVENUE NORTH
nome/wsoALc.m,wmssor^ 5:422e341
Citv of Albertville -----
c/o Don 8erning
Albertville MN 55301
Re C/ty Council Meetings
GAnYJ, MEYER
muLpTNELSON
xomsnrJ.MILLER
TELEPHONE (61u)588'94o4
AMOUNT REMITTED
TERMS: NET 3oDAYS
o|LumG CYCLE CLOSES
OwSTATEMENT DATE: 1 1-30-85
FILE NO.: 01840-015O
PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE
PREVIOUS BALANCE 300.00
11-04-85 prepare for council
~e=`'"y
11-04-85 Attend council meeting
11-18-85 Prepare +or council
meeting
11-18-85 Attend council meetin
g
FOR SERVICES RENDERED
35O.O0
TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE 350.00
DEBITS OR CREDITS APPLIED 13.00
LESS PAYMENTS 300.00
BALANCE DUE 350.00
MEYER, NELSON, & MILLER, LTD.
ATTORNEYS ArLAW
MEYER, NELSON AND MILLER, LTD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3735 LAKELND AVENUE NORTH
ROBBINSDALE, MINNESOTA 55422.2341
A
C i t_y, of Al ber tv i 1 1 e
C, ;, Don Bern ng
Albertville
MN 55301
-- Lehrnann Mushroom Ca. 85)
OFACCCHMIT
GARY J. MEYER
ROLF T- NELSON
ROBERT J. MILLER
TELEPHONE (612) 588-9424
AMOUNT REMITTED ------------- -
TERMS: NET 30 DAYS
BILLING CYCLE CLOSES 1 1 -30 -85
ON STATEMENT DATE:
FILE NO.: 0 1 E:40 -0 10 5
PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE
PREVIOUS BALANCE f' .OE
1 1 -1 2-65 Tel eohone conference w I 1-1►+ . "� - -
11-12-85 Revieul and analyze Resolutions, et ai
I 1-1 '-85 Con-ference wi th t-1aureen
FOR SERVICES RENDERED
126.0tl
TOTAL DUE THIS INJ )DICE 126.01:1
DEBITS OR CR.EDITS r F'F'LIEG 0.l .Ol0
LESS PA—(MEjJT-E:
t ALAtJCE DUE 126.00
MEYER, NELSON, & MILLER, LTD.
ATTORNEYS Al LAW
~ ° MEYER, NELSON AND MILLER, LTD
ATTORNEYS ATLAW
s,3sL**sLAwoAVENUE NORTH
' eooa/waoALs.m'"wssorA 55422-23*1
`
City of Albertville
c/o Don Berning
Box 13\
|Albertville
MN �53U1
RE: Municipal Work
A Ery4ji4T OF ACCOUNT
GARJ. MEYER
nOLprNELSON
noosnTJ.MILLER
TELEPHONE (61u)moo'o4u^
AMOUNT REMITTED
TERMS: NET ymDAYS
BILLING CYCLE CLOSES I 1_3O-85
ON STATEMENT DATE:
FILE NO.: 01840-0000
PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE
PREVIOUS BALANCE 189.00
�
11-01-85
Conference
with
Jim Walsh
11_O1_85
Conference
with
Maureen Andrews
Walsh, Gries and Robertson
11-08-85
Conference
with
11-08-85
Conference
with
Maureen
~ 11-19-95
Telephone
conference with Maureen
11-29-85
Conference
with
Jim Walsh
`
FOR SERVICES REN
�510ODERED ^
TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE
351.00
DEBITS OR CREDITS APPLIED
0.08
LESS PAYMENTS
189.00
"
BALANCE DUE
-151 ,UO
MEYER, NELSON, & MILLER, LTD.
ATTORNEYS A`LAW