Imp. Proj. #457BCOUNCIL
Originating Department
Parks and Recreation
BY: Shari French
0 4
M
Approved for Agenda
5/29/90
Agenda Section
& Plannin
Item No.
8.5
AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURE UP TO $1,000 TO GME CONSULTANTS FOR
SOIL WRINGS FOR PROJECT 457B (SCIENCE INDUSTRY PARK IMPROVEMENTS-
LIGHTING)
Because of the soil conditions on the east end of the proposed
ballfields for Science Industry Park, staff is recommending
expenditure of up to $1,000 for soil borings.
MOTION BY x L SECOND BY
TO: -e l�Co LLL - ":5
Review: Administration: Finance:
• MTST
4401 Xy /on Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533 -1521
June 1, 1990
Mr. Gregory Reuter
Gib Consultants, Inc.
14000 21st Avenue North
Minneapolis, MIST 55447
Dear Mr. Reuter:
The New Hope City Council at its May 29, 1990, meeting approved the agreement
with your caTpany for soil borings at Science Industry Park.
We understand that the expenditure will not exceed $1,920. A fully executed
agreement is enclosed.
Sincerely, `
Valerie le-one
City Clerk
Family Styled City For Family Living
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
14000 21 st Ave. No./ Minneapolis, MN 55447
Phone (612) 559-1859 / Fax (612) 559-0720
May 25, 1990
Mr. Mark Hanson
Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates, Inc.
2335 West Highway 36
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
RE: Proposal for subsurface exploration for new light towers at
Science Industry Park in New Hope, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Hanson:
We are pleased to submit a proposal to you for this project. In this
proposal we present a description of our understanding of the project,
an outline of the scope of services we are to provide, and a fee
schedule and estimate of charges for these services.
Project Description
Ten new light standards are to be constructed around athletic fields
which will be built in the park. Grading of the park will include
revising the existing shoreline of the pond/wetlands. The grading plan
indicates that there would be filling along the west shoreline to
permit construction of one of the athletic fields, and excavation of
the shoreline in the southeast corner of the pond.
The general area of the athletic fields is a filled-in marsh, as
identified on the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey map for
Hennepin County. Thus, we anticipate relatively poor soil conditions.
These conditions would be important relative to the design of the
foundations for the light standards. Although the light standards do
not have an extremely heavy downward axial loads, the horizontal shear
and overturning moments can be fairly significant. A common type of
foundation used for these light standards, if the soil conditions are
suitable, is a straight shaft drilled pier. Alternatively, a spread
footing could be used, or driven piles could be used.
Field Exploration
Because of the anticipated deep organic soils and shallow groundwater
on this site, we believe that driven pile foundations may be required,
and the field exploration should be oriented towards this design.
GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS* ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS
WILLIAM C. KWASNY, P.E. THOMAS P VENEMA, P.E. KENNETH J. LaFONO, P.E. WILLIAM E. BLOEMENDAL, P.E.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Mark Hanson 2 May 25, 1990
Further, the design of the fill on the west side of the pond must take
into consideration the possibility of shear failure of the organic
soils under the weight of the fill. The grading plan indicates that
as much as 6 to 8 feet of fill would be required in a small bay on the
west side of the pond. This weight of fill would be sufficient to fail
weak organic soils in shear, causing movement of the fill and mud waves
in the bottom of the pond. Consequently, we anticipate the need for
relatively deep borings, penetrating through the organic soils and at
least 30 feet into suitable non-organic soils.
You requested that we drill at three of the light standard locations.
At the location farthest to the southeast, we would be able to drive
an all-terrain drill rig relatively close to the proposed location.
This area will eventually be filled in, but as of the date of this
proposal, it is part of the open marsh and we would not be able to
drive into the standing water of the marsh to drill.
Because of the absence of horizontal control on the site, we would ask
that a BRA survey crew locate the borings; we assume that the survey
crew could also determine surface elevations at the borings.
If borings for the light standards were located in non-organic soils,
we would drill to depths of 20 feet. Because of the organic soils on
this site and the distinct possibility that deep foundations would be
needed, we recommend drilling at least 30 feet into non-organic soils,
in anticipation of presenting recommendations for driven pile
foundations. While relatively light pile capacities would probably be
suitable (possibly on the order of 10 tons per pile), we still
recommend drilling at least 30 feet into the non-organic soils.
We plan to use a CME 750 all-terrain rig for the borings. Our crew
will keep logs noting methods of drilling and sampling, along with
Standard Penetration Values, preliminary soil classifications, and
observed water levels. Representative portions of recovered samples
will be sealed in jars and returned to our laboratory for final
examination and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. The
boreholes will be backfilled with cuttings after drilling.
Geotechnical Report
In our laboratory, a Geotechnical Engineer will examine and classify
the samples and prepare the boring logs and report.
We will describe the soil and groundwater conditions and present
recommendations for feasible methods of foundation earthwork design
and construction. We will evaluate whether straight shaft drilled
piers or spread footing foundations would be suitable for the light
towers. If these do not appear to be suitable, and if the alternative
for driven piles appears feasible, we will present recommendations for
pile types, estimated capacities, and estimated depths of driving. We
will also discuss the estimated parameters for determining the lateral
capacity of the piles.
Mr. Mark Hanson 3 May 25, 1990
We will discuss the effects of placement of additional
side of the pond, relative to the shear strength of
which the f ill is to be placed. The report will
discussion of construction considerations related to
earthwork on this site.
Estimate of Charges
fill on the west
the soils over
conclude with a
foundations and
Based on the scope of services outlined above (3 borings, 120 lineal
feet of drilling, preparation of geotechnical report for tower
foundations and fill placement, - organic soils), we estimate the
charges for our services woul pe $1,920. "� If the organic soils are
J
iE
not excessively deep and our borl not have to extend to the
planned 40 feet each, our charges would be less.
If deeper borings or additional borings are needed, we would contact
you to discuss the reasons for modifying the scope of work and receive
authorization to proceed. Final charges will be based on the scope of
services required and authorized, extended at the unit prices shown on
the enclosed fee schedule.
Because we expect buried organic soils over most of the site, it is
our opinion that two borings would be sufficient. Our cost estimate
for drilling two borings to 40 feet and preparing the soil report,
would be $1,590.
Closure
We are submitting this proposal in two copies for acceptance. When it
is accepted, we ask that one copy be signed by an authorized
representative of the party responsible for payment for these services,
and that this copy be returned to us as our authorization to proceed.
We will schedule the subsurface exploration upon receiving a signed
copy of this proposal. We have enclosed our General Conditions with
this proposal as part of our contract for professional engineering
services. Acceptance of this proposal by the authorized signature or
verbal authorization to proceed, indicates understanding and acceptance
of these conditions. We also recommend that you review the enclosure
from the Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers, presenting
information regarding Geotechnical Engineering Proposals.
During our site visit for preparation of this proposal, we observed
that fill has been placed over the original wetlands. The fill appears
to consist of miscellaneous materials including clay, gravel, and sand,
with occasional large pieces of concrete. This proposal is not
submitted for conducting an environmental assessment of the site or
analyzing the environmental effects of previous fill placement. If you
wish to have us prepare an environmental assessment for this project,
we would be pleased to do so.
Mr. Mark Hanson 4 May 25, 1990
Tf you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we can be of
further assistance to you, please contact us.
sincerely,
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
William C. Kwasny, P.E.
Pr' cipal g' eer
^-too ^N
Gregory R. Reuter, P.E.
Project Engineer
Enclosures: Soil Conservation Service Soil Map
ASFE Notes Regarding Geotechnical Engineering Proposals
Fee Schedule
General Conditions
ACCEPTED:
DATE
FIRM
AUTHORIZED
SIGNATURE IJVla�
TITLE � 17
WCK:GRR:smc
4
m
co
0
n
H
HIC
� L.
Fd
HcD2 0
14
. :HeC
NeS
HcC2
HeC
u
Has
00
He
so
1�eB N Fit eC
141513
1�13
H
HIC
� L.
Fd
HcD2 0
14
. :HeC
NeS
HcC2
HeC
1�eB N Fit eC
Has
F
0 i 0
HeC
lBa
NeB
�
HeC
eE'.
Has
H a '
lb
W HcC2 HbB
0 B
HbB
M a HcC2 Ha(
f., m 'SG
Ma, eD Has
H&C
4
�pa E A .,
mes 1c z fo
a He
0,
u ` a
tj
Pm c Has
,4
C . . . . . . . . . . w N:
H
Has
F
f Z 7
M
A
U
L )4 ty
L
1
eb
Cu
c
Z
It:
HeC
4. F. LAS
t, rs A-� "
- HOPE
-He NEW ti
Fd t BxC
Me
H4e -CU Z
CU 4
H#8 47 1 f�j
f
b1B Fd
Had p
Has 6 Had
�,�' lee
D IIII
Has BtB
Hoe- dB
'Pm H eC
I '.v I - .*—, v
tK.
HcD2
11,
a
H
e
0
Bp
4L
L
M 0 Pa rf
'T
Nei
a
a HcC2
Hb. CB2 H Aw l
HcC2 H cC2
13 4
,
�Ma
Pm
Ma
PM1
HuD
eE
Has
N
H& Wf qw.
Cu fl�Tt
V 4 ixT
its.
T.*_ _Ve V
Gc
jr I I,
4 4
;4r
: h
4
du
4
01 w
R. 22 W. I R. 21 W. I
I . pr
4
. :HeC
-C
X
f., m 'SG
Ma, eD Has
H&C
4
�pa E A .,
mes 1c z fo
a He
0,
u ` a
tj
Pm c Has
,4
C . . . . . . . . . . w N:
H
Has
F
f Z 7
M
A
U
L )4 ty
L
1
eb
Cu
c
Z
It:
HeC
4. F. LAS
t, rs A-� "
- HOPE
-He NEW ti
Fd t BxC
Me
H4e -CU Z
CU 4
H#8 47 1 f�j
f
b1B Fd
Had p
Has 6 Had
�,�' lee
D IIII
Has BtB
Hoe- dB
'Pm H eC
I '.v I - .*—, v
tK.
HcD2
11,
a
H
e
0
Bp
4L
L
M 0 Pa rf
'T
Nei
a
a HcC2
Hb. CB2 H Aw l
HcC2 H cC2
13 4
,
�Ma
Pm
Ma
PM1
HuD
eE
Has
N
H& Wf qw.
Cu fl�Tt
V 4 ixT
its.
T.*_ _Ve V
Gc
jr I I,
4 4
;4r
: h
4
du
4
01 w
R. 22 W. I R. 21 W. I
I . pr
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PROPOSAL
-
I-
More construction problems are caused by site subsurface
attendant risk of costly delays and disputes, and even the
conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as subsur-
cost of foundation construction.
face problems can be, their frequency and extent have been
lessened considerably in recent years, thanks to the Associa-
Developing a proper subsurface exploration plan is a basic
tion of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE).
element of geotechnical design which should be accomplished
jointly by the geotechnical engineer and the client (or his
When ASFE was founded in 1969, subsurface problems were
professional representatives). This helps assure that the
frequently being resolved through lawsuits. In fact, the
parties involved recognize mutual concerns, and that the
situation had grown to such alarming proportions that
client is aware of the technical options available to him. if a
consulting geotechnical engineers had the worst profes-
client develops the subsurface exploration plan without the involvement of
sional liability record of all design professionals. By 1980,
his geotechnical consultant, the client assumes responsibility and liability
ASFE-member consulting soil and foundation engineers had the best
for the plan's adequacy.
professional liability record. This dramatic turn-about can be
attributed directly to client acceptance of problem-solving
READ GENERAL CONDITIONS
programs and materials developed by ASFE for its mem-
bers' application. This acceptance was gained because clients perceived
CAREFULLY
the ASFE approach to be in their own best interests. Disputes benefit
Most geotechnical engineers include their standard general
only those who earn their living from others' disagreements.
contract conditions in their proposals.
The following suggestions and observations are offered to
One of the general conditions most commonly employed
help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, cost-over-
limits the geotechnical consultant's liability to a fixed
runs and other costly headaches that can occur during a
amount or the fee, whichever is higher. Known as limitation
construction project.
of liability, this approach helps prevent problems to begin
with, and establishes a fair and reasonable framework for
HAVE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
handling them should they arise, Your ASFE-member
geotechnical engineer can provide a document which ex-
If you have never before dealt with geotechnical issues,
plains this concept in detail.
recognize that site exploration identifies actual subsurface
conditions only at those points where samples are taken, at
Various other elements of general conditions delineate your
the time they are taken. The data derived are extrapolated by
geotechnical consultant's responsibilities. These are used to
help eliminate confusion and misunderstandings, and
the geotechnical engineer who then applies his judgement
to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions,
thereby help all parties recognize who is responsible for
their reaction to construction activity, and appropriate foun-
different tasks.
dation design. Even under optimal circumstances, actual
In all cases, read your geotechnical consultant's general
conditions may differ from those opined to exist, because
conditions carefully Speak with him about any questions
no geotechnical engineer, no matter how qualified, and no
you may have.
subsurface exploration program, no matter how com-
prehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and
HAVE YOUR GEOTECHNICAL
time. Nonetheless, steps can be taken to minimize risk.
CONSULTANT WORK WITH OTHER
DEVELOP THE SUBSURFACE
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
EXPLORATION PLAN WITH CARE
Most knowledgeable clients retain their geotechnical en-
gineer to work with other project design professionals who
The nature of a subsurface exploration — the types, quan-
are affected by the geotechnical report. This permits a
tities and locations of procedures used — in large measure
geotechnical engineer to explain report implications to
determines the effectiveness of the geotechnical engineer's
design professionals affected by them, and to review their
report and the design based upon it Because a comprehen-
plans and specifications to help assure that geotechnical
sive subsurface exploration program helps reduce uncer-
issues have been dealt with adequately Although some
tainties, it also helps minimize unanticipated conditions, the
other design professionals may be familiar with geotechni-
GE CONSULTANTS, INC.
14000 - 21ST AVENUE NORTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55447
FEE SCHEDULE
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
SCIENCE INDUSTRY PARK
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
BONESTROO ROSENE & ANDERLIK ASSOCIATES, INC.
PERSONNEL
P-1
Services of Principal Engineer
$ 95.00/hour
P-2
Services of Senior Project Engineer
$ 80.00/hour
P-3
Services of Project Engineer
$ 70.00/hour
P-4
Services of Soil Engineer or
E.nvironmental Geologist
$ 55.00/hour
P-5
Services of Soil Technician
$ 35.00/hour
P-6
Services of Secretary/Draftsman
$ 30.00/hour
P-7
Personnel Transportation Charges
$ 0.35/mile
FIELD EXPLORATION
FE-1
Mobilization/demobilization of drill
crew and rig:
Mobile B-24
$105.00/hour
CME 55
$115.00/hour
CME 550
$125.00/hour
CME 750
$125.00/hour
FE-2
Drilling and sampling (2 man crew):
Mobile B-24
$115.00/hour
CME 55
$125.00/hour
CME 550
$135.00/hour
CME 750
$145.00/hour
FE-3
Layout of soil borings and surface
elevations, 2 man crew
$ 80.00/hour
LABORATORY TESTING
T-1
Moisture Content Test
$ 8.00/test
T-2
Unit Dry Density Test
$ 8.00/test
T-3
Hand Penetrometer Test or Torvane Test
$ 8.00/test
T-4
Organic Content Test
$ 35.00/test
T-5
Atterberg Limits Test
$ 50.00/test
T-6
Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
$ 15.00/test
in-
1. The L
be e
will
2. The t
be st
3. Sery
be b
4. In t
enviz
will
GME CONSULTANTS, INIC.
GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
I. Scope of Work
GME Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter called GME) shall perform the services defined in this contract, and shall invoice
the client for those services at the rates shown on the attached FEE SCHEDULE, Any estimate of cost to the Client as
stated in this contract shall not be considered as a firm figure, but only as an estimate, unless otherwise specifically
stated in the contract. GME will provide additional services under this contract, as required to complete the engineer-
ing assignment, and /or as authorized by the Client and requested by the Client with charges for those' additional
services at the stated rates.
11. Soil Boring Locations and Elevations
It is desirable for GME to use its expertise in determining the number, depth, and locations of borings. However, it is
understood that the Client may specify the number, location, or depth of borings. GME agrees to follow the Client's
specifications to the extent practical. If the Client specifies the number, depth or locations of borings, Client agrees to
accept the risk associated therewith, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless GME from the claims of others arising
therefrom. To the extent that the Client does not specify the number, locations or depth of borings, such will be
selected by GME personnel.
GME will determine the ground surface elevations at the boring locations. If a bench mark is not available on the site,
the elevations may be estimated from the topographic map (if one is provided). In using survey data provided by the
Owner (for horizontal and vertical control), GME assumes no liability or responsibility to verify the accuracy of the
survey data; we assume the survey data and /or bench mark elevations are correct as given. When GME uses a bench
mark provided by the local municipality, county, or the state, we likewise assume no liability or responsibility in
verifying the correctness of the elevation.
Since GME Consultants does not practice in the profession of land surveying, boring locations will be located in the
field within the accuracy feasible. When the property lines are not surveyed and staked it may be necessary to
approximately locate the borings by reference to available landmarks and landforms. In some cases, GME will request
the Owner to either survey the boring locations before drilling starts, or after the completion of drilling. Such surveying
will be carried out at no cost to GME. The boring locations shown on the Soil Boring Location Diagram are to be
construed as approximate locations only.
Ill. Access to Site
Unless otherwise agreed, the Client will furnish GME with right -of- access to the site in order to conduct the planned
exploration or field service. GME will take reasonable precautions to minimize damage due to its operations. GME has
not included in the estimated charges the cost of restoration of any damage resulting from the operations, and will not
be liable for such damage. If the Client directs, GME will restore the site and add the cost of restoration to the charges
in accordance with personnel and equipment rates indicated on the FEE SCHEDULE.
IV. Samples
All samples remaining after tests are conducted will be discarded 30 days after submission of the report unless the
Client advises GME, in writing, to the contrary. Upon request, the sample will be delivered or shipped at the Client's
expense.
V. Reports
GME will furnish` three (3) copies of each report to the Client. The Client will be billed for additional copies at the rate
of $25.00; per copy.
All reports, borings, logs, field 'data, field notes, laboratory test date, calculations, estimates, and other documents
prepared; by GME, as instructions of service, shall remain the property of GME.
Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client or his agents which are not paid for, will be
returned !upon demand and will not be used by the Client for any purpose whatsoever.
GME will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission
of the report, during which period the records will be made available to the Client at all reasonable times.
VI. Invoices will be submitted monthly. Payment is due upon receipt of invoice. Interest will be added beginning 30 days
after the date of the invoice at the rate of 1' /2%' per month, but not to exceed the maximum rate by law. For extended
projects, the bilking rates as described in this contract may be increased on each anniversary of the date of this
Contract at an annual rate not to exceed 10 %.
V11. GME is protected by Workers' Compensation Insurance (and /or employer's liability insurance) and by public liability
insurance for bodily injury and property damage, and will furnish certificates of insurance upon request. If the Client
requests increased insurance coverage, GME will take' out additional insurance, if obtainable, at the Clients expense,
but shall have no liability beyond the limits and conditions of the insurance coverage.
Vill. Limitation of Liability
The Client recognizes the inherent risks connected with construction and the potential for variations in subsurface
conditions.
In performing it's professional services, GME will use not less than that degree of care and skill ordinarily; exercised,
under similar circumstances, by reputable members of its profession practicing in the 'same or similar locality. No other
warranty,; express or implied, is made or intended by the proposal for consulting services or by furnishing oral or
written reports or the finding made, and this statement may not be modified except in writing by authorized signature.
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
Vlll. limited Liability (continued)
In the event that GME would be held liable for damage due to professional negligence, such liability will be limited to
an amount not to exceed $20,000 or the fee, whichever is greater. In the event that Client does not wish to limit GME's i
professional liability, GME agrees to waive this limitation upon written notice from the Client received within five (5)
days iafter the date this agreement is fully executed, and the Client agrees to pay an additional consideration equiva-
lent to ten percent (10 %) of the total fee, said consideration to be called "Waiver of Limitation of Professional Liability
Charge." This charge will in no way be construed as being a charge for insurance of any type but will be increased
consideration for greater risk involved in performing work for which there is no limitation of liability.
Further, Client agrees to notify any contractor or subcontractor who may perform work in connection with any design,
report or study prepared by GME of such limitation of professional liability, and to require as a condition to their'
performing their work, a like indemnity or limitation on their part as against GME: In the event the Client fails to obtain
a like limitation of liability, client agrees to indemnify GME for any excess liability to any third person.
Under no circumstances shall GME be liable for extra costs or other consequences due to "changed conditions" or for
costs related to the failure of others to install materials or perform work in accordance with the plans and specifica-
tions
IX. Hazardous Waste Indemnification
For services' involving or relating to hazardous waste elements of this Agreement, it is agreed that the Owner shall
indemnify and hold' harmless GME Consultants, Inc. and its agents and employees from and against all claims,
damages, losses, and expenses, direct and indirect, or consequential damages, including but not limited to fees and
charges of attorneys and court and arbitration costs, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the work by
GME, or claims against GME arising from the work of others, related to hazardous waste.
The above indemnification provision extends to claims against GME consultants, Inc. which arise out of, are related to,
or are based upon, the dispersal, discharge', escape, release or saturation of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis,
toxic chemicals, liquids, gases or any other' material, irritant, contaminant or pollutant in or into the atmosphere, or on,
onto, upon, in or into the surface or surfaces (a) soil, (b) water or watercourses, (c) objects, or (d) any tangible or
intangible matter, whether sudden or not.
X: Lien Rights
GME hereby gives notice that it retains the right to submit alien against the subject property in the event of
non- payment of invoices. The lient will be prepared and filed in accordance with pertinent laws of the state.
XI GME Consultants, Inc. is an equal opportunity employer.
XII Tax on Services
The amount of any excise, VAT, or gross receipts tax (local, state or federal) that may be imposed, shall be additional
compensation to the actual billings for service, and the client agrees that he shall pay the full amount of billings plus
the tax.
GME CONSULTANT'S, INC.
COUNCIL
r + r
Originating Department I Approved for Agenda I Agenda Section
Ord. & Res.
6 -25 -90
Item No.
By: Dan Donahue I By: ( 10.3
• • • • • • •• • • i ••
• 1 • �•I M • • s •'�'ii
The City received four bids for Improvement Project 457B on June 22, 1990.
The City Engineer will present the results on Monday evening. The apparent
low bidder was Total Construction and Equipment, Inc. for $109,467.92.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
Review: Administration: Finance:
1I
X0.9 "V_• • �
RESO=ON AlAARDING ••� -- �,
• • THE CON=CrION OF
SC IE N CE INDUSTRY ...
SOFrBALL AND SOCCER F= LIGHTING
(nSR0VE1WU PRaTECr NO
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows:
1. That bids for the construction of Improvement Project 457E were duly opened
at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, at 11:30 a.m. on the
22nd day of June, 1990.
2. That advertisement for bids for the construction of said improvement was
published in the New Hope - Golden Valley Pest, the official newspaper of the
City, on the 30th day of May, 1990, and in the Construction Bulletin on
the 1st and 8th days of June, 1990.
3. It is hereby found and determined by this Council that the bid of Total
Construction and Equipment, Inc. for the construction of said project in
the amount of $109,467.92 is the lowest responsible bid submitted for the
construction of said improvement; that Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik &
Associates, Inc., Engineers for the City, have rec=wnded to this Council
the said low bid for the award of the contract for the construction to the
designated lowest responsible bidder.
4. The Mayor and Manager are authorized and directed to enter into an
improvement contract for the construction of said improvement in the name
of the City with the lowest responsible bidder, subject to the said
contractor furnishing a public contractor's surety bond, conditioned as
required by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
this 22nd day of June, 1990.
t/ 4e f C1 _
Mayor
Attest:
City-Clerk
Our File No. 34120
SCI ENCE I NDUSTRY PARK LIGHTI
PROJECT 45`7B
NE HOPE.
BID TIME: 11:30AM C.S.D.T.
BID DATE: 22. 1990
CONTRACTOR
RIDGEDALE ELECTRIC
�2. KILLMER ELECTRIC
3 COLLINS ELECTRIC
4. A. & B. ELECTRIC
5. CSI ELECTRIC
D7. 6. SPORTS TECH.
ELANDBE
8. CARNES GROUP
0 TOTAL CONST. & EQUIPMENT In C,
10. CARL BOLANDER & SONS CO.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
TOTAL BASE BI
w. co
0 o
16.
Engineers Estimate $110,000
COUNCIL
Originating Department
Parks and Recreation
LN
Shari French
M
Approved for Agenda
7/23/90
Item No.
6.12
RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE 1990-91 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $24,467.92 TO SCIENCE INDUSTRY PARK
SOFTBALL AND SOCCER FIELD LIGHTING (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 457B)
This resolution will enable staff to use CIP funds to fund the
lighting for the new ballfields (457B) approved at the 6/25/90
Council meeting. Funds budgeted for the project total $85,000. An
additional $24,467.92 is needed.
Park Increase Decrease
1990 Sealcoat Park Paths $4,467.92
Ballfield Lighting $4,467.92
Staff recommends that the remaining $20,000 be provided by a
transfer from the 1984 CIP Sinking Fund.
MOTION BY X I-- SECOND BY
0
TO: fifit ZO - 1-
Review: Administration:
Finance:
Agenda Section
Consent
CITY OF NEW HOPE
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -135
RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE 1990 -91
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING
TRANSFER OF $24,467.92 TO SCIENCE INDUSTRY PARK
SOFTBALL AND SOCCER FIELD LIGHTING (PROJECT 457B)
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program was established in
the 1990 City Budget for the years 1990 and 1991; and
WHEREAS, Park priorities have changed; and
WHEREAS, Bids came in higher than anticipated for the Science
Industry Park; and
WHEREAS, The Capital Improvement Fund should be amended to reflect
these changes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 1990 Capital Improvement
Budget be amended as follows:
Park Increase Decrease
1990 Sealcoat Park Paths $4,467.92
Ballfield Lighting $4,467.92
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the remaining $2.0,000 required be
provided by a transfer from the 1984 CIP Sinking Fund.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, this 23rd day of July, 1990.
Mayo
Attest• i
• City Clerk
COUNCIL
Originating Department I Approved for Agenda
Parks and Recreation 1 7/23/90
By: Y
Shari French B :
Agenda Section
Consent
Item No.
6.7
RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF NEW HOPE AND NSP TO
PROVIDE TRANSFORMER AT NEW BALLFIELDS AT A COST OF $1,100.00 AND
AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO SIGN
Staff recommends that the transformer for the new ballfields be
placed by the shelter building for safety and ease of operation.
NSP will locate it there but must charge the City $1,100 for the
extra cable needed. This agreement approves the placement and
payment of the money.
Staff recommends
funding come from
category.
approval. Staff further recommends that the
Park operating budget, the landscape materials
TO:
Review: Administration:
SECOND BY C. 71�-ILz
Finance:
RFA -001
CITY OF NEW HOPE
RESOLUTION NO. 90-130
RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF NEW HOPE AND NSP TO PROVIDE TRANSFORMER AT
NEW BALLFIELDS SITE
WHEREAS, the City desires to place.the transformer for the new
ballfields within the park, and
WHEREAS, NSP must charge to place the unit in that location, and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that funding come from Park operating
in the landscaping materials category.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Manager is authorized to
enter into an agreement with NSP and the City to place
the transformer for the new ballfields site by the
shelter building at a cost of $1,100.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, this 23rd day of July, 1990.
Atc rA.
Aayor
I
Attest: VA&I&
City Clerk(/
,T TE ENT OF WORK REQUESTED
FORM 17- 7012112 81) RAW,
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
July 3 IQ 90
WORK REQUESTED BY City of New Hope
WORK TO BE AT Science Industry Park
ADDRESS 88 60 East Resear Center Road
New Hope, Minnesota
CONSISTING OF: Extend 3,0 underground primary cable from transformer serving the
Public works Building on International Parkway, over to, and under,
East Research Center Road; and then underground to transformer by the
Shelter Building.
- Transformer location, selected by the City of New Hope, resulted in
220 feet of excess primary cable at $5.00 per foot = $1100.00
- 4" P.V.C. Conduit provided by N.S.P. to be installed under parking
area by Contractor.
City of New Hope to do all restoration.
The facilities installed or removed by the Company shall be the property of the Company and any payment by customer
shall not entitle customer to any ownership interest or right therein.
The undersigned hereby requests and authorizes the NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY to do the work
described above, and in consideration thereof, agrees to pay One Thousand One Hundred and 00 /100
($ 1100.00
), in accordance with the following terms: Payable within 30 days following receipt
of Invoice from N.S.P.
Receipt of the above amount hereby acknowledged on b(Dialf of NSP by
Credit Approval
NORTH E STATES POWER COMPANY Custome City of NeW Hope
BY 4 7�3 I By 1 1 6 1 MI II&I
NSP Representative _L Benson Division Brooklyn Center NSP Proj. No. NAGC AAC
Const. $ Rem. $ Maint. $ Oper. $ Transf, $ Total S
ORIGINAL -- DIVISION ACCOUNTING COPY - CUSTOMER COPY - DIVISION DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING
>
3
_.G_r.V...57 /.lei 4
EE
i
i eA
W. HESEAfiCNCENTER RD. �N� - ;;-Iory
. z
EL82 -T �--
1 -75
2AL 40T 4f 4
MA
cea N s
759
s7c
i
37C 93
_S CIENCE CENTER OR 2 -50
A
tz
EST. NO.A//�'C C,
FE 5 /t 'Z'L=
EST. BY
DATE 9-24-�c
TEL. CO. NO.
BUS BOOK S
PLATE -2
FEEDER MAP-- M
�':_
LOCATION NO. ' 4: !S !��
U.G. UTILITIES
RIGHT-OF-WAY
RE C
OK
PER
FAS
AREA
TEL l
CITY
¢
GAS
STATE
N$P
COUNTY.
SIGNALS
R.R.
CAN
P. R 7
OTHER
DES
RIW
OK
SURVEY
L
OTHER - PK: - BD. - SCHOOL AIRPORT
LEGEND
z T-p
_R
3 PHASE 15KV I/OAL
JACKETED CABLE
3 PHASE PADMOUNT
TRANSFORMER-
13 ALL OTHER SYMBOLS
REPRESENT EXISTING
FACILITIES
NOTES
1. PRIMARY CABLES TO BE BURIED A MINIMUM
OF 56 INCHES.
2, - SERVICE -- - - CABLES FROM . TRANSFORMERSTO
BUILDING M BE OWNED AND INSTALLED
BY CUSTOMER.
3. TRANSFORMER LOCATION TO CONFORM WITH
. N.S.P. COMPANY UNDERGROUND STANDARDS.
NORTHERN STATES POWER U0.
ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION DEPARTMENT
MINNEAPOLIS DIVISION
TITLE - -) L- / C I V--- C g4fvL14f
N 1` W hl 0A & rr
SCALE DR. BY
DATE 2 -30 0 CHK. BY
APPROVED BY
Form 17-0231
4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533 -1521
July 25, 1990
Mr. Larry Benson
Northern States Power Company
4501 68th Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Dear Mr. Benson:
The City of New Hope at its meeting of July 23, 1990, approved the agreement
between the City of New Hope and NSP to provide services at Science Industry
Park.
Enclosed are the executed agreements. Please contact Shari French at 533 -1521
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
Family Styled City For Family Living
COUNCIL
' n omil • 306=
By:
Originating Department I Approved for Agenda I Agenda Section
Parks and Recreation 9/9/91 Consent
Item No.
Shari French
By: „ 6.7
ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 457B SCIENCE INDUSTRY PARK
SOFTBALL AND SOCCER LIGHTING (VICTORY PARK) AND AUTHORIZATION OF
FINAL PAYMENT
The softball and soccer field lighting project for Victory Park has
been completed. The project was constructed by Total Construction
and Equipment, Inc. Staff has recommended acceptance.
The total project cost came in $710.40 under the amount bid
($108,757.52 vs. $109,467.92) . Staff recommends acceptance and
release of final payment of $5,437.88 as soon as the IC -134 from
has been submitted to the City Clerk.
u[•TIO[•I►i3•�
Im
Review: Administration:
Finance:
It
M
Engineers & architects
Keith A. Gordon, P.E.
Mark R. Rolls, P.E.
Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E.
Richard W. Foster, P.E.
Bonestroo
Robert W. Rosene, P.E.
Donald C. Burgardt, P.E.
Thomas E. Angus, P.E.
Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E.
Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E.
R osene
Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E.
Richard E. Turner, P.E.
®
Glenn R. Cook P.E.
Thomas E. Noyes, P.E.
Robert R. Dreblow. P.E.
Robert G. Schunicht, P.E.
A ssociates
Susan M. Eberiin, C.P.A.
Engineers & architects
Keith A. Gordon, P.E.
Mark R. Rolls, P.E.
Rene C. Plumart, A.I.A.
Richard W. Foster, P.E.
Robert C. Russek, A.I.A.
Agnes M. Ring, A.I.C.P.
Donald C. Burgardt, P.E.
Thomas E. Angus, P.E.
Jerry D. Pertzsch, P.E.
Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E.
Howard A. Sanford, PE.
Cecilio Olivier, P.E.
Mark A. Hanson, P.E.
Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E.
Robert R. Dreblow. P.E.
Ted K. Field, P.E.
Mark A. Seip, P.E.
Gary W. Morien, P.E.
Michael T. Rautmann, P.E.
Philip J. Caswell, P.E.
Karen L. Wiemeri, P.E.
Robert R. Pfefferle. P.E.
Ismael Martinez, P.E.
Keith R. Yapp, P.E.
David O. Loskota, P.E.
Mark D. Wallis, P.E.
Charles A. Erickson
Thomas W Peterson, P.E.
Thomas R. Anderson, A.I.A.
Leo M. Pawelsky
Michael C. Lynch, P.E.
Gary F. Rylandec P.E.
Harlan M. Olson
James R. Maland, P.E.
Miles B. Jensen, P.E.
Kenneth P. Anderson, P. E,
L. Phillip Gravel III, P.E.
August 30, 1991
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue No.
New Hope, MN 55428
Attn: Ms. Shari French
Re: Science Industry Park
Softball and Soccer Lighting
City Project No. 457B
Our File No. 34120
Dear Shari,
Enclosed is the 5th & Final Pay Request for the above project. All work has
been satisfactorily completed and we recommend final payment in the amount of
$5,437.88.
The final contract amount is $108,757.52 compared to the bid amount of
$109,467.92.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at this office.
Yours very truly,
BONE TROO ROTNE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
�/ t1Z "
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:li
Enc1.
Ltr2
233S West Highway 36 9 St. Paul, Minnesota SSI 13 9 612-636-4600 * 3Sth Anniversary
Engineers & Architects
Keith A. Gordon, P.E.
Mark R. Rolfs, P.E.
Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E.
Richard W. Foster, P.E.
Bonestroo
Robert W. Rosen, P.E.
JA
Thomas E. Angus, P.E.
Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E.
Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E.
R osene
Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E.
Richard E. Turner, P.E.
r
Glenn R. Cook, P.E.
Thomas E. Noyes, P.E.
Robert R. Dreblow P.E.
Ted K. Field, P.E.
Robert G. Schunicht, P.E.
Gary W. Morien, P.E.
A ssociates
Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A.
Engineers & Architects
Keith A. Gordon, P.E.
Mark R. Rolfs, P.E.
Rene C. Plumart, A.I.A.
Richard W. Foster, P.E.
Robert C. Russek, A.I.A.
Agnes M. Ring, A.LC.P.
Donald C. Surgardt, P.E.
Thomas E. Angus, P.E.
Jerry D. Pertzsch, P.E.
Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E.
Howard A. Sanford P.E.
Cecilio Olivier, P.E.
Mark A. Hanson, P.E.
Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E.
Robert R. Dreblow P.E.
Ted K. Field, P.E.
Mark A. Seip, P.E.
Gary W. Morien, P.E.
Michael T Rautmann, P.E.
Philip J. Caswell. P.E.
Karen L. Wiemeri, P.E.
Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E.
Ismael Martinez, P.E.
Keith R. Yapp, P.E.
David O. Loskota, P.E.
Mark D. Wallis, P.E.
Charles A. Erickson
Thomas W. Peterson, P.E.
Thomas R. Anderson, A.I.A.
Leo M. Pawelsky
Michael C. Lynch, P.E.
Gary F Rylander, P.E.
Harlan M, Olson
James R. Maland, P.E.
Miles B. Jensen, P.E.
Kenneth P. Anderson, P. E.
L. Phillip Gravel III, P.E.
August 30, 1991
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue No.
New Hope, MN 55428
Attn: Ms. Shari French
Re: Civic Center & Terra Linda Park
Playground Equipment
City Project No. 461
Our File No. 34121
Dear Shari,
Enclosed is the 4th & Final Pay Request for the above project. All work has
been satisfactorily completed and we recommend final payment in the amount of
$8,541.99.
The final contract amount is $77,462.50 compared to the bid amount of
$68,706.80 which represents an 11.3% overrun. The additional cost ($8,755.70)
is due to additional excavation (poor soil), PVC perforated pipe, and sand
cover.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at this office.
Yours very truly,
BON STR00 SENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
a
Mar A. Hanson
MAH:li
Encl.
Ltr2
233S West w . A, : er
Highway 36 Minnesota
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT
DATE: July 10, 1991 FOR PERIOD:
PLACE: New Hope, Minnesota From: Nov. 1, 1990 To: July 8, 1991
PROJECT: Ind. Park Softball & Soccer Field Lighting
PROJECT NO.: 457B FILE NO.: 34120 COMPLETION DATE:
CONTRACTOR: Total Construction & Equipment, Inc.
ADDRESS: 10195 Inver Grove Trail
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.: 5 & FINAL
SUMMARY:
1. Original Contract Amount
2. Change Order - ADDITION $
3. Change Order - DEDUCTION $
4. Revised Contract Amount
5. Value Completed to Date
6. Material on Hand
7. Amount Earned
8. Less Retainage 0 X
9. Sub -Total
10. Less Amount Paid Previously
11. AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.: 5 & F
Recommended for Approval by:
$ 109,467.92
$ 109,467.92
$ 108,757.52
$
0.00
$ 108
757.52
$
0.00
$ 108,757.52
$ 103,319.64
$ 5,437.88
Date: 'j� Approved By: TOTAL CONSTRUCTION & EQUIPMENT
Contractor
By:
34120PR
PROJECT:Science Ind. Park Softball & Soccer FieldLigh_tin
PLACE: New Hope, Minnesota
CONTRACTOR: Total Construction & Equipment, Inc.
STATEMENT OF WORK
Unit
Contract Item Unit Price
Pole foundation Incl. timber piles,
PAYMENT NO.: 5 & FINAL
FILE NO.: 34120
DATE: July 10, 1991
Est'd Quantity Amount
Quantity To Date To Date
concrete pile cap, & concrete pier Each $3,979.30 10 10 $39,793.00
3 wire branch circuit cable L.F. 2.22 3,200 2,880 6,393.60
60 foot galvanized steel lighting
standard incl. ground rods Each 2,075.50 10 10 20,755.00
Sports lighting luminaires
incl. lamps and ballasts Each 755.54 48 48 36,265.92
Equipt. for shelter bldg. incl.
panelboard & mini -power center,
lights, wiring, wiring devices,
& service entrance Each 5,550.00 1 1 5,550.00
TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE $108,757.52
Page 1
34120PR
PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS
CITY:
New Hope, Minnesota
- ADD
PROJECT
PROJECT:
Science Industry Park
Softball & Soccer
Field Lighting
PROJECT NO.:
457B
NO.
FROM TO
FILE NO.:
34120
Start 8 -1 -90
$18,901.67
CONTRACTOR:
Total Construction &
Equipment, Inc.
3
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS
REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT
$109,467.92
10 -1 -90 11 -1 -90
$0.00
$109,467.92
DATE NO.
CHANGE
ORDER DESCRIPTION
1
2
3
TOTAL PAYMENT TO DATE $108,757.52
RETAINAGE FOR PAYMENT NO. 5 & F 0.00
TOTAL VALUE COMPLETED $108,757.52
VALUE
COMPLETED
$19,896.50
74,697.06
105,982.52
108,757.52
108,757.52
AMOUNT
$0.00
RETAINAGE
$994.83
3,734.85
5,299.13
5,437.88
0.00
34120PR
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS
- ADD
PROJECT
PAYMENT SUMMARY:
PAYMENT
PERIOD
PAYMENT
NO.
FROM TO
THIS VOUCHER
1
Start 8 -1 -90
$18,901.67
2
8 -2 -90 9 -1 -90
52,060.54
3
9 -1 -90 10 -1 -90
29,721.18
4
10 -1 -90 11 -1 -90
2,636.25
5
11 -1 -90 7 -8 -91
5,437.88
6
TOTAL PAYMENT TO DATE $108,757.52
RETAINAGE FOR PAYMENT NO. 5 & F 0.00
TOTAL VALUE COMPLETED $108,757.52
VALUE
COMPLETED
$19,896.50
74,697.06
105,982.52
108,757.52
108,757.52
AMOUNT
$0.00
RETAINAGE
$994.83
3,734.85
5,299.13
5,437.88
0.00
34120PR
Phone: 531 -5100 FAX ( 612) 531 -51 1�
September 17, 1991
Total Construction & Equipment
10195 Inver Grove Trail
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076
SUBJECT: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 457B - SCIENCE INDUSTRY PARK SOFTBALL & SOCCER
FIELD LIGHTING
At its meeting of September 9, 1991, the New Hope City Council accepted Project
457B and authorized final payment of $5,437.88.
The check will be released upon receipt of a certified IC -134 form. Please send
the IC -134 to my attention.
Sincerely,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
Family Styled City For Family Living
CONTRACTOR
TOTAL BASE BID
ADDENDUM NO. I
SCIENCE INDUSTRY PARK
SOFTBALL AND SOCCER FIELD LIGHTING
CITY PROJECT NO. 457B
FILE NO. 34120
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
June 19, 1990
OPENING TIME: 11:30 A.M., C.D.S.T.
OPENING DATE: Friday, June 22, 1990
ADDENDUM NO. 1
SPECIFICATION ITEMS
PROPOSAL: Change the number of luminaires required from 58 total to 48.
SECTION 16110 - RACEWAYS: Add the following paragraph under Article 2.02:
B. Enclosures for terminal strips and fuse blockes shall be NEMA, Type 4,
16 gauge steel, seams continuously welded and ground smooth, door with
hinged cover, gasketing and key lockable latch; all latches shall use
the same key; Hoffman, or equal.
SECTION 16500 - LIGHTING: Add the following paragraph under Article 1.03:
D. Provide computer printouts with initial footcandle levels for each
field using the system required to meet the performance specification
for maintained footcandle values.
Modify sentences 1.04.A.3 and 1.04.B.3 as follows:
It maintenance factor of 0.85 and tilt factor if required."
Modify the following sentence in each paragraph 1.04.A.4 and 1.04.8.3 to read
as follows:
"Illumination in the plane perpendicular to maximum candlepower of any
bank of lights on a line 150 feet beyond the boundaries of the playing
field shall not exceed 1 footcandle."
Add a sentence under paragraph 1.04.A as follows:
"5. Provide number of luminaires on each pole required to meet the above
specifications."
34120S
Add a sentence under paragraph 1.04.B as follows:
"4. Provide number of luminaires on each pole required to meet the above
specifications."
Modify paragraph 2.02.A to include the following sentence: "Provide a lk" hub
on each pole at 10 feet above finished grade level so that a terminal cabinet
as specified in Section 16110 can be mounted on the pole."
Add the following paragraphs under Article 3.01:
I. Provide a terminal cabinet, fused terminal blocks, and circuiting
according to details issued with Addendum No. 1.
J. All luminaire wiring shall be enclosed within the pole and mounting
brackets; no wiring shall be exposed.
K. Prior to acceptance of the installation, field measurements of
footcandle levels shall be made to verify that the light levels meet
or exceed the levels specified based on the printouts of initial
footcandle levels.
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2335 WEST TRUNK HIGHWAY 36
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55113
End of Addendum
Al-2
CONNECTIONS FROM
RANCH CIRCUIT TO
6 POLE CONDUCTORS
GROUND LUG POLE HANDHOLE
6 AWG CONNECTION
TO GROUND ROD
DIRECT BURIED
3— CONDUCTOR
CABLE
2 PVC CONDUIT
BUSHING
1 1 0 6 AG
}
CONNECTION
I TO GROUND
LUG
GROUND ROD
a
W 3P i
..`.
SP127A.DWG
Bonestroo
Rosene
Ande !k
Associates
St. Paul, Minnesota
..`.
SP127A.DWG
rl
:���ii�f IIN ��III �.
s � a —� i
DIRECT BURIED 3
CONDUCTOR CABLE
r b
wl #6 AWG
CONNECTION
It TO POLE
A m I Wl
............ 10- ................
2 0
Nu
.... ..... .... i
wimpt-m
Sonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
St. Paul, Minnesota
wimpt-m
Index
Advertisement for Bids
Information to Bidders
Proposal
Special Provisions
02360. Driven Piles
03100. Concrete Formwork
03200. Concrete Reinforcement
03300. bast-in-Place Concrete
16050. Basic Electrical Materials and Methods
16110. Raceways
16120. Wires and Cables
16140. Wiring Devices
16400. Service and Distribution
16500. Lighting
Plate SP-127 Precast Pole Base Detail
Plate SP-128 Anchor Bolt Base Detail
Plate SP-129 Pile Cap Detail
Soil Investigations
Supplemental Conditions of the Contract
Conditions of the Contract
I hereby certify that this plan and specification was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
F3award A. Sanford P.E.
Date r June 12, 1990 Reg. No. 7566
341205
Sealed bids will be received by the City of New Hope, Minnesota in the City
Hall at 4401 Xylon Avenue N. until 11:30 A.M., C.D.S.T., on Friday, June 22,
1990, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud for the fur-
nishing of all labor and materials and all else necessary for the followingt
RM
Lighting for Softball and soccer Field
with miscellaneous poles, •
l` correlated appurtenances.
Plans ► specifications, proposal to and contract documents may be seen at
Associates, the office of the City Clerk, New Hope, Minnesota, and at the office of
Inc., Consulting
Trunk Highway i
Each bid shall be accompanied by a bidder's bond naming the City of New Hope
as obligee, certified check payable to the Clerk of the City of New Hope or a
cash deposit equal to at least five percent (51) of the amount of the bid,
which shall be forfeited to the City in the event that the bidder fails to
enter f a contract.
The city Council reserves the right to retain the deposits of the three lowest
bidders for a period not to exceed 45 days after the date and time set for the
opening of bids. No bids may be withdrawn for a period of forty-five (45)
days after the date • time set for f of bids.
Payment for the work will be by cash or check.
Contractors desiring a copy of the plans and specifications and proposal forms
may obtain *(t •Yt the office Bonestroo, ► 1. Associates,
Inc., upon payment of a deposit of $25-00. See "Information to Bidders" for
plan/specification deposit refund policy.
The City Council reserves the right to reject t- all bids, to waive
irregularities • informalities therein and further reserves the right
Daniel award the contract to the best interests of the City.
Donahue,
City of ►tx. Minnesota
submit 1. BID PROCEDURE: Each planholder has been furnished a specification, plan
set and two extra proposals. Bias shall be designate& C OPY' n ot i t a . • r� ♦•
f u s
se
a) Were a prime bidder who submitted a bona-fide bid i the a • N
b) Submitted quotes to at least two prime bidders which are identifi
with t he returned p lans 3i..- al'Y.
Th foll p `e. not r eturn p ai spe s? • er to
receive a refund of depo sit:
a) Low prime bidder, or
b) Successful low subc an s upp liers
receptionist within 15 days of the bid.
Tota Construction & Equipment Inc.
CONTRACTOR -
109 467__92
PROPOSAL FOR TOTAL BASE BID
SCIENCE INDUSTRY PARK
SOFTBALL AND SOCCER FIELD LIGHTING
CITY PROJECT NO. 457B
FILE NO. 34120
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
1990
OPENING TIME: 11:30 A.M-!-t C .D. S - T.
Honorable City Council QPENING DATE: F_ riday_,_Ju 22, 1990
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Dear Council Members:
The undersigned, being familiar with your local conditions, having made the
field inspections and investigations deemed necessar
Plans and specifications for the work including Addenda h av
l the
familiar with all factors and other conditions affecting the work and cost
thereof, hereby proposes to furnish all labor, tools, materials, skills
equipment and all else necessary to completely construct the project in
accordance with the and specifications Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderliks& Associates, Inc., 2335n W. f Trunk wi Hi hwar Clerk and
Paul, Minnesota 55113, as follows: g Y 36, St.
10 Each Pole foundation including timber piles, concrete
pile cap, and concrete pier @
Thr Th Nine Hundred DOLLARS Th
Seventy- ni�'ne'�'°'! ------ EN TS� 3 , 979.30 eac
-�_ 39 79_ 3.00
3,200 Lin.ft. 3 wire branch circuit cable @
Two DOLLARS Twenty_ CENT
$ 2.22 ,Llin. ft 7,10 4.00
10 Each 60 foot galvanized steel lighting standard
including ground rods @
Two T Seventy -fi DOLLARS Fift
y CENTS 4� 0'5 ea
-- OJe _ch _., $ 20,755.0
48 Each Spsds lighting luminaires including lamps and ballasts @
Seven Hundred rift -five DOLLARS Fift four
--s- -,—_._ CENTS $ _ Z55.54 ,, /each S 36, 265.
1 Each Equipment for shelter building including panelboard
and mini -power center, lights, wiring, wiring devices,
and service entrance @
Fiv Th Five n dred DOLLARS H u ^' —� -�- N O . CENTS
Fifty .
55000 e
3' --�-- --- 0 -- -- ,�_a h S 5,550.0o
TOTAL BASE BID
P -1
ALTE RNAT E E BID (ADD OR DEDUCT)
10 Each Replace 60 foot galvanized steel poles by Corten
U T T steel poles @
4
--------= =--- -- eac NO BI
TOTAL ALTERNATE BID - ADD OR DEDUCT (Circle one).,
The final. amount of the contract shall be determined b l $ N BI D
measured quantities of the various items actually constructedandlyinstall final
ed by
the unit prices stated therefor, in the manner prescribed in the specifica-
t
tions. However, the low bidder shall be determined by adding the sums result-
ing from multiplying the quantities stated by the unit prices bid therefor. a
Accompanying this bid is a bidd bond, certified check or cash deposit in
the amount of Fi P —P gbbPRS _
which is at least five percent (5%) of the
he acttountbi my /oursbid$ mad
to the City of New Hope, )
the event of default �on� the spart ofdtheeundersigneduore fail to forfeiture ab in
the undersigned to execute the prescribed contract and bondrewithine fifteen n
(15) days after its submittal to me /us.
In submitting this bid it is understood that the Owner retains the right to
reject any and all bids and to waive irregularities and informalities therei n
and to award the contract to the best interests of the Owner. g
In submitting this bid it is understood that payment will be by cash or check.
It is understood that bids may not be withdrawn for a period of 30 days after
the date and time set for the opening of bids. It is the
Owner reserves the right to retain the certified checkuorebondoof thetthree
lowest bidders as determined by the Owner for a period not to exceed 30 days
after the date set for the opening of bids.
Respectfully submitted,
Total Construction & E ui (A Corporation)
Name of Bidder q- -'p`-- (An Individual)
ment Inc, (A Partnership)
By Ma's ( Krech
Title President
-_MARY C. KRECH
Printed Name of Signer
10195 Inver Grove Trail
Address
In ver Grove Hei 1 55076
City, State & Zip Code
451 -1384
Telephone No.
P -2
3
'"
f�
,. ;; r ; r
S UBSURFACE i
AT FIEL LIGHT STANDARDS
SCIENCE INDU
H OPE , NEW •
P GXE
�, �� .. s
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
14000 21 st Ave. No./ Minneapolis, MN 55447
Phone (612) 559-1859 / Fax (612) 559-0720
June 1, 1990
City of New Hope
c/o Mr. Mark Hanson
Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates, Inc.
2335 West Highway 36
St® Paul, Minnesota 55113 GME Project No. 2547
RE: Subsurface exploration for proposed athletic field light
standards at Science Industry Park in New Hope, Minnesota
Dear r® Hanson:
Following the acceptance of our proposal of May 25, 1990, we have
completed our subsurface exploration for this project. Enclosed please
find the results of our field exploration and the soil report we have
Cerepared. Three copies of this report have been sent to the above
address.
We appreciate the opportunity • have been of service • you for thl
project. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we c
be of further assistance to you, please contact us.
Sincerely,
W. liam C. Kwasny, • P
• _
ail
Principal Engineer
WCK:smc
GEOTECHNICAL e MATERIALS* ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS
WILLIAM Q KWASNY P.E. THOMAS P VENEMA, P.E. KENNETH J. LaFOND, P.E. WILLIAM E. BLOEMENDAL, RE.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
IMP INFO
ABOUTYOU
GEOTEC
More construction problems are caused by site subsurface
conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as sub-
surface problems can be, their frequency and extent have
been lessened considerably in recent years, thanks to the
Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE).
When ASFE was founded in 1969, subsurface problems
were frequently being resolved through lawsuits. In fact,
the situation had grown to such alarming proportions that
consulting geotechnical engineers had the worst profes-
sional liability record of all design professionals. By 1980,
ASFE- member consulting soil and foundation engineers had the best
professional liability record. This dramatic turn -about can be
attributed directly to client acceptance of problem - solving
programs and materials developed by ASFE for its mem-
bers' application. This acceptance was gained because clients
perceived the ASFE approach to be in their own best interests.
Disputes benefit only those who earn their living from
others' disagreements.
The following suggestions and observations are offered to
help you reduce the geotechnical- related delays, cost -over-
runs and other costly headaches that can occur during a
construction project.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF
PROJECT - SPECIFIC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface
exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of
project- specific factors. These typically include: the general
nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration;
the location of the structure on the site and its orientation;
physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots,
and underground utilities, and the level of additional risk
which the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed
upon the exploratory program. To help avoid costly prob-
lems, consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how
any factors which change subsequent to the date of his
report may affect his recommendations.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not be used:
• When the nature of the proposed structure is
changed, for example, if an office building will be
erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger-
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrig-
erated one;
• when the size or configuration of the proposed
structure is altered;
• when the location or orientation of the proposed
structure is modified;
• when there is a change of ownership, or
• for application to an adjacent site.
A geotechnical engineer cannot accept responsibility for problems which
may develop if he is not consulted after factors considered in his report's
development have changed.
•:�;
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken, when they
are taken. Data derived through sampling and subsequent
laboratory testing are extrapolated by the geotechnical
engineer who then renders an opinion about overall sub-
surface conditions, their likely reaction to proposed con-
struction activity, and appropriate foundation design. Even
under optimal circumstances actual conditions may differ
from those opined to exist, because no geotechnical en-
gineer, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface explo-
ration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal
what is hidden by earth, rock and time. For example, the
actual interface between materials may be far more
gradual or abrupt than the report indicates, and actual
conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predic-
tions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can
be taken to help minimize their impact. For this reason, most
experienced owners retain their geotechnical consultant through the
construction stage, to identify variances, conduct additional
tests which may be needed, and to recommend solutions
to problems encountered on site.
i
CHANG
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly -
changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engineer-
ing report is based on conditions which existed at the time
of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be
based on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have
been affected by time. Speak with the geotechnical consultant
to learn if additional tests are advisable before construc-
tion starts.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
natural events such as floods, earthquakes or groundwater
fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and,
thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report.
The geotechnical engineer should be kept apprised of any
such events, and should be consulted to determine if
additional tests are necessary.
REP REPOK17 IS SUB O
NUSINTE
Costly problems can occur when other design profession-
als develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a
geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid these prob-
lems, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to work
with other appropriate design professionals to explain
relevant geotechnical findings and to review the adequacy
of their plans and specifications relative hu8eotechnkca|
REPORT
Final boring logs are developed by the ge6technical en-
gineer based upon his interpret dcmof8eld|ogs(aayen+
b|edbyoiteperonnel)and|abomtoryeva|uadonoffie|d
samples. Only final boring logs customarily are included in
8emtechnica| engineering reports. The logs should not under
any circumstances 6o redrawn for inclusion in architectural or
other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors
or omissions in the transfer process. Although photo-
graphic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does
nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misin-
terpretating the logs during bid preparation. When this
occurs, delays, disputes and unanticipated costs are the
uU'too'fmquentresu|t.
Tb minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpretation,
give contractors ready access to: the complete yovts6w/m/engineering
report. Those who dunot provide such access may proceed
under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming
responsibility for the accuracy u/ subsurface information
always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing
the best available information to contractors helps prevent
costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes
which aggravate them to disproportionate scale,
1;IJIVIIII 11 1111 111
Because geotechnical engineering io based extensively on
iudgementand opinion, itis far less exact than other
design disciplines. This situation has resulted inwholly
unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnica|
consultants. Yb help prevent this problem, geotechnica|
engineers have developed model clauses for use inwritten
transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to
foist the 8eotechnica| engineer's liabilities onto someone
else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which identify
where thegeotechnica| engineer's responsibilities begin
and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their
individual responsibilities and take appropriate action.
Some cf these definitive clauses are likely tu appear inyour
geotechnica| engineering report, and you are encouraged
io read them closely Your geotechnioo| engineer will be
pleased to give full and frank answers tn your questions.
C. Prepare . _ report
I
v
M r. Marc Hanson 2 June 2, 1990
were chosen by the Engineer. The boring locations were staked in the
f ield by the BRA survey crew; the crew also shot the boring surface
The borings were drilled with a C ME 750 all-terrain rig. Hollow stem
augers were used to advance the borings full depth. Soil samples were
obtained by the split barrel method in accordance with ASTM: D 1586.
III . i :� i ". • i - r • �:
during the sampling procedure are shown on the respect ve logs. The
N-values are used as indication of in-�,Flace density of cohesionaless
soils, and to a more approximate degree, the - consistency of cohesive
or semi-cohesive soils. Representative portions of recovered samples.
were preliminarily classified in the field by the drill crew, sealed
in jars t o red m oisture k r
labora
examination and classification by a Geotechnical Engine
GMI CONSULTANTS, INS.
Mr. Mark Hanson 3 June 1, 1990
The laboratory testing was initiated by a Geotechnical Engineer
examining each • the samples to determine the major and minor soil
components, while also noting the color, degree of saturation, and any
lenses or seams found in the samples.
The Engineer grouped the soils by type into the strata as shown on the
4• ring logs. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs are
approximate; insitu, the transition between soil types may be gradual
or abrupt in the horizontal or vertical direction.
We will retain the soil samples for this program for 30 days after the
date • this report. If you wish to have the samples retained beyond
this time, we ask that you please advise us; otherwise, the samples
will be discarded®
GME CONSULTANT8. INC.
Mr. Mark Hanson 4 June 1, 1990
.�, .
TORoar u hv/surface Features
I
Offif CONSULTANTS, INC,
Mr. Mark Ranson 6 June 1, 1990
am ounts in the pond and the groundwater levels would probably rise to higher
table will fluctuate seasonally and annually, depending on local
of precipitation - runoff and
infiltration.
IAK��Rght standards are to be constructed as
ffart of the development of the Science Industry Park. Details on the
structural loadings are not available as of the date of this report.
However, typically tall concrete or steel athletic field light
standards typically have downward axial loads on the order of 15 to 20
Based on the soil conditions found in our borings we recommend that
deep foundations be used for the light standards, consisting of driven
treated timber piles or straight shaft drilled piers (caissons).,
Concrete c should be cast over the piles or caissons, with the
OME CONSULTANTS, IMM
I
Mr. Mark Hanson
appeared to have been seeded on the north side.
consisted of weeds and heavy grass on the south side-
wa��W
The vegetation
In boring 1, we found 9 feet of soft peat, overlying very loose silty
sand, changing to stiff silty sandy clay.
Groundwater Conditions
drilling than the normal high water level, due to the drought
conditions which have persisted in the past few years. The water level
GNIS CONSULTANTS. INC.
Mr. Mark Rans 7 June 2, 1990
(# of the cap at least - - low f inal grade
. = .� . •
*etails on our recommendations are,presented below.
in boring 1, or through the -raft clay zones.
I f treated timber piles are used, we recommend that a configuration
a organ - encoun t ele
tips shouldbe - driven would vary. , We anticipate that pile Iengths
below existihg grades would be abproxipgtely �10 to 55 feet.�
If
a pile
do es
not
have adequate
blow
counts
after penetrating at least
feet
into
the
non - organic
stiff
clay,
we recommend leaving it
ONIS CONSULTANTS, INC.
Mr. Mark Hanson 8 June 1, 1990
vernight, and retapping the pile the next day. Due to the "pile
freeze," the capacity of the pile should increase with time.
organic layer and the adhesion of the organics and the overlying fill
on the pile, causing negative skin friction (downdrag). We recommend
an allowance of 20 tons per pile be made for the downdrag.
ff-ecause of the relatively stif fer upper layer of f ill overlying the
arganics, it is our opinion that piles driven through the soil profile
spring thaw.
augers.
"I'll N. 1-S'I-V ' I, I I ''I'll
Mr. Mark Hanson 10 June 1, 1990
driven Since groundwater was encountered in the borings, it should be
anticipated that groundwater would be encountered if caisson
foundations are used. Groundwater should not be a serious problem if
• timber pile foundations z^ L,= •
Although we did not encounter obstacles in our boreholes, we did
observe slabs of concrete and asphalt block and other materials
All excavations, trenches, or shafts for this project must be properly
sloped, sheeted and braced, or cased in accordance with the most
current pertinent OSHA safety regulations. The responsibility to
provide safe working conditions on the site with respect to personal
safety as well as noise, is solely that of the contractors. This
responsibility is not born in any manner by GME Consultants, Inc.
ONIE CO SULTANT8, INC.
Mr. Mark Hanson 9 June 1, 1990
The lateral capacity of caissons drilled through the soil prof ile
should be adequate for the anticipated structural loadings.
WE CONSULTANTS, INC.
Mr. Mark Hanson 11
Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions were encountered and
it is probable that additional variations exist that cannot be
determined from our borings or our site reconnaissance. Given the past
uses of this land and the uncontrolled filling which has taken placei
The soil and groundwater conditions for this project were determined
at three locations. Variations were encountered and it is probable
Lhat additional variations exist that would not become apparent until IN
w
by me or under my
\ \� & e+2 <<4 \ that I am a cluly
Engineer under the
ml�: =
D4. t' —L=L — k f Reg. No�
WCK:KJL*.smc
GME CONSULTANTS, INC,
r •
W-11 t, • • • i' i • ' •' •►'
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
SL SS with Liner
SG Split Spoon — 1%yiD,2~[lD,unless
otherwise noted
ST Shelby Tube --2"O.[I. unless otherwise noted
PA Power Auger
OB Diamond Bit--N%: BX AX
AS Auger Sam
JS oar Sample
VS Vane Shear
OS
Osterberg Sam 3" She Tube
Ho
Hollow Stem Auger
WS
Wash Sample
FT
Fish Trail
RB
Rock Bit
BS
Bulk Sample
PM
Preoauremete*teo --insitu
Standard ^N^Penetration: Blows per foot cda140 pound hammer failing 3O inches ono2 inch DD s spoon, except
where noted.
VVL
Water Level
VVC(
Wet Cave In
OC|
Dry Cave |n
WS
While Sampling
WD
While Drilling
BCR:
Before Casing Remvoo
AOR:
After Casing Removal
AB :
After Boring
Water l evels indicated on the boring the levels nad in the boring the times indicated. I
indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of ground
water elevations is not possible in even several days observation, and additional evidence of ground water elevations must be
Coarse Grained or Granular Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as:
boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are
described as: clays or clayey silts if they are cohesive, and silts if they are non-cohesive. In addition to gradation, granular
soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their strength or
consistency, and their plasticity.
Major
Component
(Of Components Also
Percent of
Of Sample
Size Range
Present i Sample)
Dry Weight�
Boulders
Over 8 in. (200mm)
Trace
1-9
Cobbles
8 in. to3in.
Little
10--19
(200mm0o75mm)
Gravel
3in. to#4sieve
Some
20--34
(75mmtu2mm)
Send
#40o#2OOsieve
And
35--50
(2mmto.874mm)
Silt
Passing #200 sieve
(0.074mm h/0.OU5mm)
Clay
Smaller than O.UO5mm
C ONSISTENCY OF COHES SOILS
OF GRANULAR SO
Unconfined
Comp.
Strength, Qm
tsf
Consistency
N — Blows/ft.
Relative Density
<O.25
Very Soft
0--3
Very Loose
0.25-0.49
Soft
4-- A
Loose
0.50--0.99
Medium (Firm)
10--2H
Medium Dense
1.00--1.99
Stiff
3O--4Q
Dense
2.00--3.99
Very Stiff
5O--80
Very Dense
4.00--8.00
Hurd
80+
Extremely Dense
>8.UO
Very Hard
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
9'
5SS Black fine SILTY SAND, trace gravel
few thin peat seams - very loose -
wet - (SM)
13'
6SS Gray fine SILTY SAND, trace gravel
very loose - wet - (SM)
18'
7SS Brown fine SANDY CLAY WITH SILT,
trace gravel - firm to stiff -
(CL)
8SS
Boring continued on neat page
*NOTE: Sampler advanced by weight
of rod and hammer
0
7
8
8 LR
F t
:�4. .i♦
LOG OF BORING 1
PROJECT
Science
Industry Park
SITE
Research Center Road
Light
Standards
New Ho Minnesota
CLIENT
ARCHITECT-
ENGINEER
City
of
New Hope
Bonestroo Rosen Anderlik & Associates
L
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS /FT?
ui i
p-
(t
—®-
Z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
®
1 2 3 4 5
WATER
uj
M
J
to
4
�
W
m
CONTENT
Z
Z W
¢
H
Q _
J
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS /FOOT)
a
w
<
v=
uj
O
Q Z
N Q
d
3
cc
F-
SURFACE ELEVATION 887.
a w
>
10 20 30 40 50
1SS
Black PEAT - very soft - mist,
wet at 6 feet - (Pt)
2SS
3
ri
3SS
*
4SSLI
9'
5SS Black fine SILTY SAND, trace gravel
few thin peat seams - very loose -
wet - (SM)
13'
6SS Gray fine SILTY SAND, trace gravel
very loose - wet - (SM)
18'
7SS Brown fine SANDY CLAY WITH SILT,
trace gravel - firm to stiff -
(CL)
8SS
Boring continued on neat page
*NOTE: Sampler advanced by weight
of rod and hammer
0
7
8
8 LR
F t
:�4. .i♦
33'
LOG OF BORING 2 (Offset to top of slope)
PROJECT
Science Industry Park
SITE Research Center Road
Light Standards
New Ho , Minnesota
CLIENT
ARCHITECT- ENGINEER
City of New Hope
Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS /FT?
W
IW
g
t�
-®
m
LJ
z
D OF MATERIAL
Ch
O
1 2 3 4 5
WATER
U
=
w
m
CONTENT %
LL
Z a
- '
-
_
-j h
c
ED
U =
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS /FOOT)
o
<?
�
SU ELEVATION -896 °
m �
-�-
10 20 3 40 50
1SS
6
Brown fine CLAYEY SAND, trace silt,
1
2SS
gravel - loose - damp - (SC)
8
3SS
4
4SS
8,
(Fill)
7
1
5SS
r ro wn fine SILTY SANDY CLAY,
trace
1
avel -firm to very soft -
(CL)
t
33'
liss
LOG OF BORING 2 (continued)
PROJECT
Science Industry Park
14
SITE Research Center Road
Light Standards
Nev Hope, Minnesota
CLIENT
gravel - firm to very stiff - (CL)
ARCH ITECT- ENGIN
City of New Hope
Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates
16
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONSIFT. 2
w
16
— 0 -
cc
Uj
13SS
LL
LIJ
0
DESCRIPTION
OF MATERIAL
�5
3:
1 2 3 4 5
1- i —4---
WATER
17
m
2
:D
-j
w
z
<
x
14SS
(n
w
0
co -j
CONTENT %
LL
2w
a.
-j
181
J
W
::)
a.
cr
uj
-j
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT)
< z
cr
o
En <
U) x
Z
10 20 30 40 50
liss
Gray fine SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace
14
gravel - firm to very stiff - (CL)
16
12SS
16
13SS
17
14SS
181
157SS
16SSI I 1 1 121
LOG OF BORING 3
PROJECT science Industry Park SITE Research Center Road
Light Standards New Hopq, Minnesota
CLIENT ARCHITECT- ENGINEER
City of New Ho iDe estroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates
PRES --- —
--11ONQ/FT 2
YS
-®-
tr
W
LL
Ld
0
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
U)
1 2
3 4 5
WATER
t7u
m
:2
=)
W
>
z
<
X
W
0
-i
CD
CONTENT %
W
LL
z W
W
W
< J
W
:)
-i
(L
cc
III
_j
<
STANDARD
PENETRATION
(BLOWS/FOOT)
U)
a
20
< z
U) ¢
1-
<
3:
cc
I'-
SURFACE ELEVATION 896.7
W
a. W
ir
>
1
Z
10 20
-11
30 40 50
iss
13
—
Brown and dark brown fine SANDY
CLAY, trace silt - very stiff to
X1
—
2SS
firm - (CL)
17
3SS
8
--5-L
4SS
8
Q9
91
(Fill)
5SS
Brown fine SILTY CLAYEY SAND, trace
gravel - loose - damp - (SC-Sm)
YS
LOG OF BORING 3 (continued)
PROJECT Science Industry Park SITE Research Center Road
Light Standards New Hope, Minnesota
CLIENT ARCH ITECT- ENGIN
City of New Hope Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates
ra UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT?
W — 0 -
U.
kr Lj 1 2 3 4 5
ca
W 0 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
-j z
:2 Uj
W I
UL z 11.1
W CL
-j cr
W
LU <z �: <
0 U) <
Gray f ine SILTY SANDY CLAY -
liss very soft to stiff - (CL) 9
End of boring at 40 feet
Hollow stem auger used full depth
Borehole backfilled with cuttings
9
WAT ER
r—ri
m
CONTENT %
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT)
W U)
N Uj
U) cc
Z
1 10 20 30 40 50
Gray f ine SILTY SANDY CLAY -
liss very soft to stiff - (CL) 9
End of boring at 40 feet
Hollow stem auger used full depth
Borehole backfilled with cuttings
a
r
( T 2487 and 88)
M ajor divisions Group Typical names Laboratory classification criteria
symbols
_u
M C.2
Pt
g ®N
Well- graded gravels, gravel -sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly graded gravels, gravel -
sand mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, gravel- sand -silt
mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel- sand -clay
mixtures
Weil- graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
Clayey sands, sand -clay mix-
tures
8 60 (
N
ow
0
D10 8 10X 8 60
C
C
o
m O
m e
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
u U N
dy y
w
m�
v N
O
V y
N
.N H tlS O1
GP
CL
N U R
Atterberg limits below "A"
N
y
p 6
8
Z N U U m N
r
t Z
U 'a A
c
OL
d
°y
CE
N
o
GM
a i
a w
CD
w d
c
:c E
N
N
rn
��
w
C than 4; C between 1 and 3
u
d
O
3a5
to
Z
2
o
c
>
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
rn_ ,
° c v
C7 a
GC
Q
V a.�Nr V
IM
„a
c H c
a� `—° M M �
Atterberg limits below "A"
1 N
d a , N
C
line or PI. less than 4
zone with P.I. between 4
S!
d
N
SW
E
c
c
p
O ^
-
N c
line or P.I. greater than 7
N
.N
c
O
L
i v
d
`N
.°—:
UV
SP
w�
r
N V
O
�
epZ
d o
E
SM
N
dE
-5
N
Lara
U
N
c
N a
SC
c
_u
M C.2
Pt
g ®N
Well- graded gravels, gravel -sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly graded gravels, gravel -
sand mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, gravel- sand -silt
mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel- sand -clay
mixtures
Weil- graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
Clayey sands, sand -clay mix-
tures
8 60 (
ML
C than 4; C between 1 and 3
0
D10 8 10X 8 60
e o
c
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
u U N
dy y
w
m�
V y
N
.N H tlS O1
a •—
�E
CL
p a
Atterberg limits below "A"
3 a A
8
8
Z N U U m N
between 4 and 7 are border -
6
Z
v
OL
c
Atterberg limits below "A"
of dual symbols
m
s
line or P.I. greater than 7
a i
a w
>�
M
i=
®
N
C than 4; C between 1 and 3
°w
°E
as
R`
w
v
to
V d
w w
N 32
CH
C
d '
OH
_u
M C.2
Pt
g ®N
Well- graded gravels, gravel -sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly graded gravels, gravel -
sand mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, gravel- sand -silt
mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel- sand -clay
mixtures
Weil- graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
Clayey sands, sand -clay mix-
tures
Inorganic slits and very fine
sands, rock flour, silty or clay-
ey fine sands or clayey slits
with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to me-
dium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
Organic silts and organic silty a
clays of low plasticity
C
Inorganic silts, micaceous or It
diatomaceous fine sandy or
silty soils, elastic silts
Inorganic clays of high plas- I 10
ticity, fat clays
7
4
Organic clays of medium to o il
high plasticity, organic silts 0
Peat and other highly organic
soil
8 60 (
C than 4; C between 1 and 3
v
D10 8 10X 8 60
e o
$
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
u U N
dy y
N
.N H tlS O1
p a
Atterberg limits below "A"
3 a A
line or P.I. less than 4
Above "A" line with P.I.
Z N U U m N
between 4 and 7 are border -
0
tine cases requiring use
• n
Atterberg limits below "A"
of dual symbols
line or P.I. greater than 7
M
m
O N
w c
8 (8
C than 4; C between 1 and 3
m
®ro ®roX ®so
C a
C
d '
6 a c
c c
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
rn_ ,
° c v
O) N N V t
c
V a.�Nr V
c H c
a� `—° M M �
Atterberg limits below "A"
Limits plotting In hatched
d a , N
C
line or PI. less than 4
zone with P.I. between 4
o H 4) �
and 7 are borderline cases
a p y
requiring use of dual sym-
Atterberg limits below "A"
boas.
line or P.I. greater than 7
Inorganic slits and very fine
sands, rock flour, silty or clay-
ey fine sands or clayey slits
with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to me-
dium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
Organic silts and organic silty a
clays of low plasticity
C
Inorganic silts, micaceous or It
diatomaceous fine sandy or
silty soils, elastic silts
Inorganic clays of high plas- I 10
ticity, fat clays
7
4
Organic clays of medium to o il
high plasticity, organic silts 0
Peat and other highly organic
soil
10 20 30 40 s0 60 70 80 90
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Chart
classific of fine-grained
— soils and fine fraction of coarse-
- grained soils.
Atterberg Limits plotting In
hatched area are borderline classi-
fications requiring use of dual
symbols
Equation ,
_
/ --
���
EWI
10 20 30 40 s0 60 70 80 90
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Chart
The placement of compacted fill for support of foundations, floor slabs, pavements, or earth structures should be
carried out by an experienced excavator with the proper equipment. The excavator must be prepared to adapt his
procedures, equipment, and materials to the type of project, to weather conditions, and the structural requirements of
the architect and engineer. Methods and materials used in summer may not be applicable in winter;,fill used in dry
excavations may not be suitable in wet excavations or during periods of precipitation; proposed fill soil may require
wetting or drying for proper placement and compaction. Conditions may also vary during the course of a project or in
different areas of the site. These needs should be addressed in the project drawings and specifications.
It is common to have to excavate and replace unsuitable soils below the water table for site correction. As a general
rule of prudent construction technique, we recommend that excavation /backfill below the water table not be permitted,
unless the excavation is dewatered. Numerous problems can develop when this procedure is attempted without
dewatering.
— Inability of the equipment operators and soil technicians to
observe that all unsuitable soil /materials have been removed from
the base of the excavation.
— Inability to observe and measure that proper lateral oversizing is
provided.
— Inability to prevent or correct sloughing of excavation sidewalls,
which can result in unsuitable soils trapped within the select
backfill
— Inability of the contractor to adequately and uniformly compact
the backfill.
— Possibility of disturbance of the suitable soils at the base of the
excavation.
The dewatering methods, normally chosen at the contractor's option, should follow prudent construction practice.
Excavations in clay can often be dewatered with sump pits and pumps; this technique would not be applicable for
excavation extending into permeable granular soil, especially for depths significantly below the water table. Dewater-
ing granular soils should normally be done with well points or wells. When dewatering is needed, we strongly
recommend that the procedures be discussed at pre -bid or pre- construction meetings. The dewatering technique
chosen by the contractor should be reviewed by the architect and engineer before construction starts; it should not be
left until excavation is under way.
The selection of proper backfill materials is important when working in dewatered excavations. Even with dewatering,
the base is usually wet and the contractor must be careful not to disturb the base. We recommend that the first lifts of
backfill be a clean medium to course grain sand with less than 5% passing the #200 sieve. The use of silty sand, clayey
sand, or cohesive /semi- cohesive soils is not recommended for such situations. The excavator should be required to
submit samples of the proposed material(s) he plans to use as backfill before the fill is hauled to the site, so that it can
be tested for suitability.
Winter earthwork presents its own range of problems which must be overcome; the situation may be complicated by
the need for dewatering discussed above.
During freezing conditions, the fill used must not be frozen when delivered to the site. it also must not be allowed to
freeze during or after compaction. Since the ability to work the soil while keeping it from freezing depends in part on
the soil type, the specifications should require the contractor to submit a sample of his proposed fill before construc-
tion starts, for laboratory testing. If the soil engineer and structural engineer determine that it is not suitable, it should
be rejected. In general, silty sand, clayey sand, and cohesive /semi - cohesive soils should not be used as fill under
freezing conditions. All frozen soil of any type should be rejected for use as compacted fill.
It is important that compacted fill be protected from freezing after it is placed. The excavator should be required to
submit a plan for protecting the soil. The plan should include details on the type and amount of material (straw,
blankets, extra loose fill, topsoil, etc.) proposed for use as frost protection. The need to protect the soil from freezing is
ongoing throughout construction and applies both before and after concrete is placed, until backfilling for final frost
protection is completed. Foundations placed on frozen soil can experience heaving and significant settlement, rota-
tion, or other movement as the soil thaws. Such movement can also occur if the soil is allowed to freeze after the
concrete is placed and then allowed to thaw. The higher the percentage of fines (clay and silt, P -200 material) in the fill,
the more critical is the need for protection from freezing.
G E CONSULTANTS, INC.
The contractor should be required to adjust the moisture content of the soil to within a narrow range near the optimum
moisture content (as defined by the applicable Proctor orAASHTO Test). In general, fill should be placed within about
2% of optimum. The need for moisture control is more critical as the percentage of fines increases. Naturally - occurring
clayey sand or cohesive /semi- cohesive soil are often much wetter than the optimum. Placing and attempting to
compact such soils to the specified density may difficult, or not possible. Even if compacted to the specified density,
excessively wet soils may not be suitable as floor slab or pavement subgrades due to pumping under applied load. This
is especially true when wet cohesive /semi - cohesive soil is used as backfill in utility trenches under streets. Excessively
wet soil in thick fill sections may cause post - construction settlement beyond that estimated for fill placed at or near
(±2 %) the optimum moisture content.
An exception to this would be low permeability soil placed as a pond liner or for a dam. Such soil should usually be
placed at 2% to 4% above the optimum moisture content, to provide for a lower insitu permeability. Also, shrinking/
swelling soils (expansive clay) should be placed at about 2% to 4% above` optimum` moisture to reduce the possibility of
soil expansion. Clayey silt, silt, or very silty fine sand should be placed excessively dry. Such soils can undergo
post - construction consolidation upon being wetted, even if the specified density had been achieved. This is caused by
the collapse of flocculant soil particle arrangement, and can result in settlement of buildings or slabs constructed over
the soil.
Proper control of fill soil moisture is the responsibility of the excavator. The excavator should evaluate the need for
wetting or drying the soils, based either on the data in the soil report, or his own site testing. If the excavator is bringing
in off -site fill, it is also his responsibility to evaluate the moisture content of the soil, and the need for wetting or drying.
We recommend that this matter be addressed in the project specifications.
CONSTRUCTION ON COMPACTED SOIL
After the select fill has been placed, compacted, and tested, it must be maintained and protected in order to properly
support structures. The suitability of compacted fill soil can be greatly diminished if it is allowed to freeze, become
saturated while unconfined (such as in footing excavations or at the surface of slab /placement subgrade), or disturbed
by construction equipment.
The responsibility for protecting the soil, or for correcting any disturbance, should be clearly defined in the specifica-
tions. Soils which become wet and soft after compaction testing do not necessarily reflect inaccurate field density
tests. Especially with non - expansive cohesive /semi - cohesive soils, saturation when unconfined can severely reduce
the shear strength while the density remains adequate. The reduced shear strength can cause footings, floor slabs, or
pavements to settle or fail under load. We strongly recommend that all pavement subgrade be test rolled (MN /DOT
Specification 2111) immediately before paving to determine if the subgrade has not been protected and soft spots have
developed.
FLOOR SLAB SUBCRADE AND UTILITY TRENCHES
This facet of construction presents special problems, especially if the slab subgrade is allowed to freeze. When the soil
thaws, it undergoes a period of temporarily lower shear strength. Floor slabs should not be cast over soil in such a
weakened or frozen condition (reference pertinent PCA and ACI publications). To do so can result in cracked and
failing slabs. The time period to heat and thaw a building may place the construction schedule and /or costs in
jeopardy. We strongly recommend that this matter be reviewed in pre -bid and pre - construction meetings.
Backfilling of utility trenches in the floor slab subgrade can be difficult. If the soil is wet, compaction to the specified
density may be difficult, or not possible. The narrowly cut trenches may preclude the use of proper compaction
equipment. With the use of small equipment in confined areas, the contractor must place the soil in thin lifts (4 to 6
inches), with the soil at the proper moisture content. This work is typically carried out by contractors other than the
mass grading or earthwork contractor. We strongly recommend that the responsibility to carry out the compaction be
clearly detailed in the applicable section of the specifications, and reviewed with the appropriate contractor and
subcontractor.
SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT
3.1. AWARD OF CONTRACT
The award of the project shall be made to the lowest responsible bidder based
on the lowest base bid amount. The Owner reserves the right to retain all
bids for 45 days prior to awarding the Contract.
8.14. ONE -YEAR CORRECTION PERIOD
The correction period is herewith revised to two years.
OUT -OF -STATE CONTRACTOR SURETY DEPOSIT
When an out -of -state Contractor enters into a contract that exceeds
$100,000.00, the Contractor must file Form SD -E, Exemption from Surety
Deposits for Out -of- State Contractors, with the Minnesota Department of
Revenue. If the Contractor is exempt from the surety deposit requirements, he
shall provide the Owner with a copy of the form showing the Revenue Department
certification. If the Contractor is not exempt, the Owner will withhold an
additional eight (8) percent of each payment made to the Contractor and
forward those funds to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Forms and
information can be obtained by calling (612) 296 -6181 or (toll free)
1- 800 -657 -3777.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESOTA STATUES 290.92 & 290.97
Upon completion of the project and prior to final payment, the Contractor and
all subcontractors shall complete Minnesota Department of Revenue Form IC -134,
revised September, 1989. This form, Withholding Affidavit for Contractors,
must be stamped and dated by the.Department of Revenue and forwarded to the
Owner. Contractors can obtain copies of this form from the Owner or from the
Minnesota Department of Revenue, Mail Station 4450, St. Paul, MN 55416 or by
calling (612) 296 -6181.
34120S
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA
POWER OF ATTORNEY
Fttnfu all ern Vu Z4rsr Vrrsrnts:
That the UNIVERSAL SURETY COMP.4NY. a corporation of the State of Nebraska, having its principal office in the City of Lincoln, Nebraska, pursuant to the
following By -Law, which was adopted by the Board of Directors of the said Company on July 23, 1981, to -wit:
"Article V- Section 6. RESIDENT OFFICERS AND ATTORNEYS -IN -FACT. The President or any Vice- President, acting with any Secretary or Assistant Secretary,
shall have the authority to appoint Resident Vice- Presidents and Attorneys -In -Fact. with the power and authority to sign, execute, acknowledge and deliver on its
behalf, as Surety: Any and all undertakings of suretyship and to affix thereto the corporate seal of the corporation. The President or any Vice - President. acting with
any Secretary or Assistant Secretary, shall also have the authority to remove and revoke the authority of any such appointee at any time.'
does hereby make, constitute and appoint
Eldon Oldre or Arthur J. Dordel or Michael J. Keeler, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
its true and lawful Attorney(s) -In -Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver for and on its behalf. as Surety:
Any and all undertakings of suretyship
And the execution of such bonds or undertakings in pursuance of these presents, shall be as binding upon said Company. as fully and amply. to all intents and
purposes, as if they had been duly executed and acknowledged by the regularly elected officers of the Company at its offices in Lincoln. Nebraska, in their own
persons -
The following Resolution was adopted at the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Universal Surety Company. held on July 23. 1981:
"RESOLVED, That the signatures of officers of the Company and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any Power of Attorney executed in
accordance with Article V- Section 6 of the Company By -Laws: and that any such Power of Attorney bearing such facsimile signatures, including the facsimile
signature of a certifying Assistant Secretary and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company with respect to any bond, undertaking or contract of
suretyship to which it is attached."
All authority hereby conferred shall remain in full force and effect until terminated by the Company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, UNIVERSAL SURETY COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by its Vice- President and its corporate seal to be hereunto
affixed this 20th day of April 19 90
UNIVERSAL SURETY COMPANY
B (VVMM�-/ V
Secretary Vice resident
State of Nebraska
ss.
County of Lancaster)
On this 20th day of April 19 90 , before me personally came Robert L. Privett to
me known, who being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that (s)he resides in the County of Lancaster, State of Nebraska; that (s)he is the Vice- President of the
UNIVERSAL SURETY COMPANY, the corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; that (s)he knows the seal of the said corporation; that the
seal affixed to the said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of said corporation; that (s)he signed (his) (her)
name by like order; and that By -Law, Article V- Section 6, adopted by the Board of Directors of said Company, referred to in the preceding instrument, is now in force.
E bens
NOTARIAL
A NEBRASKA
My C ommission Expires 8 _ 22-93 Notary Public
1, Thomas A. Tallman , Assistant Secretary of UNIVERSAL SURETY COMPANY, do hereby certify that the above and
foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Power of Attorney executed by said UNIVERSAL SURETY COMPANY, which is still in full force and effect.
Signed and sealed at the City of Lincoln, Nebraska this 3 rd day of July , 19 90
�����i� 0_
V As stant Secretar}�
('O�IERTIFICATE OF
)DUCER
0'70 'vJ, 11 55
SUB -CODE
----------
INSURANCE DATE (NINVIDD.
'rRjS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A PfiA OF 11NF'ORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO
RIGH TS UPON 11 iE CERT iF CATE HOLDER. THIS CER DOES NOT AMEND, EX-
TEND OR ALIFR THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY I HE POLICIES BELOW
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
URED
"."J!
COMPANY
A
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED
LETTER
DICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANN REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH DflS CER-
N E!4 H � I-I'l 1:
COMPANY
SIONIS AND CONDffIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMNS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS,
LETTER
ALL LlMR RN THQU'ANO
1 1", 1 3 H " A ' . 1 �c 0)
COMPANY
LETTER
c
G i
ENERAL AGGREGATE Y s
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
PRODi IC TS, COMP,'OPS AGGREGATE 1 1IJ 1-i
(_1 1 U B r"i I) IJ r 1 ::1 F1 11.
COAl)PANY
D
EACH OCCURRENCE
LETTER
FIRE DAMAGE (Any one firp}
J I_
COMPANY
0
AU CDMO8,ft_E LIABa-tTY 11 -1 J J J,
COMBINED
LETTER
E
WERAGES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED
ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INL
DICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANN REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH DflS CER-
TIFICATE ;RAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE lNSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POUCIES DESCRIBED HEREIN
IS SUBJECT TO ALL.. THE TERMS, EXCLU
SIONIS AND CONDffIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMNS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS,
TYPE OF INSURANCE POCJCY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPMATION
ALL LlMR RN THQU'ANO
DATE (MM/DAY'Y DATE (MM/DD/YY)
GENERAL LIAMILITY C' 1"' FI J. i P" I
Y Q 13 Q J. 7 1
G i
ENERAL AGGREGATE Y s
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
PRODi IC TS, COMP,'OPS AGGREGATE 1 1IJ 1-i
C LAIMS MADE i• OCCUR .
PERSON' Al. A ADVERTISING INJURY f.,
0\11,1NER'S 8, CONTRACTORS PROT.
EACH OCCURRENCE
FIRE DAMAGE (Any one firp}
MED, EXPENSE (Any one peison)
0
AU CDMO8,ft_E LIABa-tTY 11 -1 J J J,
COMBINED
ANYAUJO
SINGLE
0 J
LIMIT .1
ALL OWNED ALTOS
BODILY
NjURY
SCHEDULED AUTOS
Vlerper>on)
FIRED AU
BODILY
o !NJURY
NON-CANNIED AUTOS
(Pe acc.idenY)
GARAGE LIABILI TY
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
EXCEMS LIABILITY 9 0 9 0 :,3, 0 0 0
Li
EACH AGGREGATE
OCCPFIRENICE
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM
J ^�l 1 9 i, t Y
STATUTOFlY
1VORKER'S COIAPENSAT€ON
(EACI -I ACCIDENT�
AND
51f, j f, (DISEASE -- POLICY LIMIT)
ENIPLOYER'S LIAMLITY
•1, 0 (DISEASE -- EACH EMPLOYEE)
OTHMR
CRIPTION OF OPERATJONS/�,-OCA'T'BONS/VET-qCLESfRESI',6-liC'TiONS/5PEC&AE, ITEMS
f*
'ICATE HOLDER CANCELLATfON
SHOULD ANY OF - ,IN' ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICiES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUINIG COMPANY WILL Mommolom
J. i y 1,3 MAIL- "l'Cl DAYS WR'TTEN NOFICE TO THE CERTIF ICAII E HOLDER NAMED 'TO THE
1 R� I j
LEFT,
[fl*l.l::1E NN 5 cl
J
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
0,
C)
or
0
SC
Cs