City Council Agenda Packet 10-27-2025AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:30 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Mayor: Lloyd Hilgart
Council Members: Kip Christianson, Charlotte Gabler, Tracy Hinz, and Lee Martie
1. General Business
A. Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance
B. Approval of Agenda – Councilmembers or the City Administrator may add items
to the agenda for discussion purposes or approval. The City Council may or may
not take official action on items added to the agenda.
C. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• Joint Meeting Minutes from October 7, 2025
• Special Meeting Minutes from October 13, 2025
• Regular Meeting Minutes from October 13, 2025
D. Citizen Comments – Individuals may address the City Council about any item not
contained on the agenda. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes with a
maximum of five speakers. The Mayor may allow for additional time and/or
speakers. The City Council generally takes no official action of items discussed,
except for referral to staff for future report.
E. Public Service Announcements/Updates
F. Council Liaison Updates
• Industrial & Economic Development Committee (IEDC)
• Economic Development Authority
• I-94 Coalition
• Parks, Arts & Recreation Commission (PARC)
G. Department Updates
• Construction Update
• Wright County Sheriff’s Office Quarterly Update
• Arvig/Fibernet Quarterly Update
2. Consent Agenda – All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered standard or
may not need discussion prior to approval. These items are acted upon by one motion
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
(Academy Room)
5:00 – 6:15 p.m. Public Works Facility Discussion
unless a councilmember, the city administrator, or a citizen requests the item by
removed from consent for additional discussion.
A. Consideration of approving payment of bills
B. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
C. Consideration of approving the sale/disposal of surplus city property
D. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-64 accepting Outdoor Recreation
Grant and authorizing execution of grant agreement for Bertram Chain of Lakes
Athletic Park
E. Consideration of approving accepting the bid from WH Security for the
replacement of fire monitoring system at the Monticello Library in the amount of
$10,565
F. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-67 accepting bids and awarding
contract to eRoof LLC for the replacement of hail damaged property at thirteen
city facilities in the amount of $145,779.89
G. Consideration of approving a contract with HCM Architects to develop the scope
and specifications for water intrusion at the Monticello Community Center in the
amount of $63,580
H. Consideration of approving a utility easement at Freeway Fields
PID155043000100
2A. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion
3. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-65 approving the certification of
delinquent utility billing account to the 2026 payable tax year
B. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-66 approving the certification of
delinquent miscellaneous accounts receivable to the 2026 payable tax year
4. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of approving policies related to the Minnesota Paid Leave (Paid
Leave) program including a 50/50 premium split between the City of Monticello
and non-bargaining unit employees, utilizing the State of MN as the Plan
provider, and the discontinuation of the weekly disability benefit for non-
bargaining employees effective 1/1/2026.
B. Consideration of adopting Ordinance 859 implementing a gas energy franchise
fee on CenterPoint Energy Minnesota Gas
C. Consideration of approving a Professional Services proposal from WSB for a Step
1 Grant application through the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails
Commission (TP)
5. Adjournment
City Council Special Meeting Minutes – October 13, 2025
MINUTES
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, October 13, 2025 – 5:00 p.m.
Monticello Community Center
Present: Lloyd Hilgart, Charlotte Gabler, Kip Christianson, Tracy Hinz, and Lee Martie
Absent: None
Staff: Rachel Leonard, Sarah Rathlisberger, Angela Schumann, Matt Leonard, Bob
Ferguson, Jim Thares, Tom Pawelk, and Stephanie Trottier
1. Call to Order
Mayor Lloyd Hilgart called the special meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. City Property and Land Broker Discussion
Community Development Director Angela Schumann gave an overview of City-owned
properties. The properties discussed did not include those held by the EDA or those
used for City operations. The following properties were discussed:
• Jefferson Commission, one parcel - an approximate 7-acre property. Ms.
Schumann noted that this is the only property listed with a broker. Currently a
childcare facility is pending for this property, with shared access and stormwater
needs.
The City Council discussed future land use of the remaining area which was
previously envisioned for commercial or recreational uses.
Staff requested feedback on whether to retain the broker given the limited
market interest and cost to the City. It was noted that there were minimal
developer inquiries in the past year. There was no direction on broker usage.
• Pointes at Cedar which includes three parcels (2.98, 3.75, and 35.69 acres) near
the central water feature/stormwater pond. Ms. Schumann noted that staff was
exploring land acquisition or trade options to secure areas needed for ponding.
It was mentioned that City Council previously directed staff to seek grant
opportunities for park/recreation land.
Staff and City Council discussed land valuation and potential trade options.
Comparable land values range from $100,000–$135,000 per acre (depending on
stormwater and fees).
Developer (Charlie Pfeffer) expressed interest in clarifying property lines or
pursuing a land swap as his property is included in the Pointes at Cedar and has
City Council Special Meeting Minutes – October 13, 2025
remained inactive for several years. Mr. Pfeffer noted strong motivation to sell
and willingness to consider swaps for City-owned parcels, including land off
Edmonson Road that could be marketed for residential use.
Council reached consensus to have staff explore all agreeable options and bring
back information.
• South School Boulevard Parcel, one parcel – 43.463 acres. The southwest parcel
is currently used for stormwater. Ms. Schumann questioned the City Council on
whether to keep it zoned residential or rezone/market differently. The Council
reached consensus that staff wait until the Public Works building is completed
before making a decision.
• 200 River Street West (Drawers of Davlee). Ms. Schumann noted that the lease
with Drawers of Davlee expires in 2026. The City Council and staff discussed
short-term lease renewal (one year at a time) and potential long-term vision for
the property. It was decided that staff will discuss future plans with the tenant
and consider City’s broader redevelopment goals for the site.
3. Tree Grant Discussion
Parks and Recreation Director Tom Pawelk gave a brief overview of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources Forestry Grants – 2025 ReLeaf Program. He note that
there are two $0-match grants available, each up to $500,000. The first focuses on
assisting homeowners with diseased tree removal and the second aids a community
tree planning within designated census block. He added that the City has funds for
public tree removal. This grant would extend assistance to private property owners.
Mr. Pawelk stated that one of the City’s responsibilities include development of a form
and application for residents to request tree removal.
If the City is selected, one contractor will be hired to complete the removals.
If awarded early in the year, work would begin around April 2026 and end spring 2027.
4. Adjournment
By consensus, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Recorder: Jennifer Schreiber ____________________
Attest: ________________________
City Administrator
1
MINUTES
WORKSHOP – JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
October 7, 2025 – 4:45 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
City Councilmembers: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Kip Christianson (arrived at 5:37 p.m.),
Charlotte Gabler,
Tracy Hinz, Lee Martie (arrived at 5:20 p.m.)
Councilmembers Absent: None
Commissioners: Chair Andrew Tapper, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner
Commissioners Absent: Melissa Robeck and Rob Stark
Staff Present: Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Matt Leonard,
Bob Ferguson, Jim Thares, Jennifer Schreiber
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Mayor Hilgart and Chair Tapper called the joint workshop of the Monticello
Planning Commission and City Council to order at 4:45 p.m.
B. Review and discussion on draft amendment to City Code, Title XV, Land Usage,
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance to define and regulate data center and
technology campus land uses within the City
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director, noted that this is the
second joint workshop of the City Council and Planning Commission held to
discuss the regulatory framework (ordinance) for data center development
which will define how data centers can be developed, including size, density,
noise, setbacks, infrastructure systems, and other standards. She stated that
guidance in these specific areas is critical to development of ordinances that
result in the type of data center development desired by the City. She
commented that no decision would be made at the workshop, but the group
should have discussion and provide feedback to guide staff in refining the
ordinance. She gave a recap of the previous joint meeting where Council and
Commission members were asked to give detailed input on ordinance elements,
including noise standards and land use efficiency.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, led discussion on the ordinance elements. As part
of the discussion, Mr. Grittman also mentioned the public concerns of water and
power consumption, infrastructure demands and funding, transportation and
traffic impacts, fiscal implications and noise.
2
The following areas were discussed:
• Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Land Usage and Tax Base: Mr. Grittman
noted that a minimum FAR of 0.25 was proposed to ensure projects
generate adequate tax base and justify infrastructure investment. Council
Members and Commissioners discussed whether the number is too high.
Mayor Hilgart commented that the City would want enough square
footage to maximize tax base for the area. Commissioner Tapper
questioned the definition for density ratio and noted that the bigger the
area gets, the buffers become less of an issue or less of a percentage.
The group discussed whether wetlands, setbacks, and unbuildable areas
should be excluded from FAR calculations. Mayor Hilgart asked about
removing wetlands from the calculation. In addition, he noted that
setbacks should be established to help mitigate impact. Mr. Grittman
recommended that data centers be handled through a PUD, to set
realistic, goal-oriented standards. The members debated balancing
development density with adequate buffering. Ms. Schumann questioned
what the group would want excluded from the gross density number.
Council Member Gabler suggested wetlands, easements, and
stormwater. Commissioner Tapper added to include any unbuildable
portion. Ms. Schumann noted that the goal is to encourage developed,
productive land use and avoid large undeveloped tracts. There was no
consensus on the proper value for FAR.
• Setbacks, Building Height, and Noise: Mr. Grittman stated that the
current draft ordinance includes a 100-foot setback from property lines
and 200-foot setback from residential or open space zones. There was
some discussion of increasing residential setbacks to mitigate noise and
visual impact. There was consideration about whether parking should be
allowed within setbacks and how to ensure adequate screening. The
group mostly agreed that a 200-foot setback from residential property
was too close. Commissioner Lehner and Council Member Gabler
emphasized noise reduction and screening needs near residential areas.
It was generally supported to increase the residential setback to 300-350
feet to allow better buffering, landscaping, and noise reduction. There
was general agreement that commercial/industrial adjacent properties
could remain at smaller setbacks of 100-200 feet.
3
The group discussed how larger setbacks reduce buildable area, up to 12-
16% of total acreage in some parcel examples. There was support for
balancing development with adequate residential protection.
There was a consensus that setback distance and noise limits are two
separate requirements and that a project must meet both distance and
measurable noise standards.
Mr. Grittman commented on the proposed maximum height of 65 feet
which would allow for multi-story data centers and rooftop mechanical
equipment. There was discussion on using setback-to-height ratios where
taller buildings must be farther from property lines. Others noted that
significant setbacks and screening naturally reduce visual impact, making
height less critical. Commissioners Tapper and Lehner and Council
Member Gabler stated they were comfortable with 65 feet. Most
concurred with the addition of strong setbacks and screening. Mayor
Hilgart noted that he preferred a maximum height of 50 feet.
Mr. Grittman noted that the ordinance could include flexibility - 35 feet
closer in with screening or 65 ft further back if no screening.
There was continued discussion about acceptable decibel levels and
whether setbacks adequately reduce sound impacts. Council Member
Gabler suggested increasing separation distances for additional noise
buffering. Mayor Hilgart doesn’t think moving further back should justify
being louder. It was noted that tripling distance reduces sound by roughly
10 decibels.
• Lighting: Mr. Grittman commented that the current industrial code
requires zero foot-candle at residential property lines and fully shielded
fixtures. It was noted that “dark sky” design standards were mentioned,
with Mr. Grittman explaining that these standards reduce upward light
and glare. Members generally supported limiting light impacts, especially
near residential properties. Commissioner Lehner emphasized
measurable standards to ensure no light impacts on nearby properties.
• Screening and Buffering: Mr. Grittman noted that the current ordinance
requires screening of outdoor equipment, parking, and fencing. It was
noted that screening included walls, fences, berms, or combinations.
Discussion of the group clarified that chain-link or barbed-wire security
fencing must be screened or replaced with decorative alternatives.
Commissioner Tapper questioned the appearance and appropriateness of
4
wall screening. Commissioners Tapper and Lehner suggested prohibiting
walls as screening next to residential areas. Ms. Schumann noted that the
ordinance could require landscape buffering closer to the building, within
the setback zone. Mr. Grittman confirmed that both screening and
buffering would be required.
City Council and Commission Members emphasized landscape buffering
should be required between buildings and residential areas – a 65-foot
wall alone is not sufficient. There was consensus that natural screening is
preferred near residential uses, while walls are acceptable next to
industrial properties.
Council Member Christianson asked whether setbacks and buffering can
be used together and how it applies to parking areas. The response
provided was that setbacks apply primarily to buildings and structures
and that parking may encroach if adequately screened.
Staff confirmed that data centers must comply with all base City codes, including
building, fire, stormwater, wetland standards, and those not specifically identified in the
PUD. Standards will be enforced through development/site agreements.
Council Member Christianson, spoke on previous discussion and suggested considering
wetlands as offsets to the FAR and scaling setbacks with building height.
Ms. Schumann commented on the next steps which include revising the ordinance
based on public feedback, workshop discussion and City Council and Planning
Commission guidance on setbacks, height, lighting, and screening. It was noted that
another workshop is likely followed by a public hearing, to review the revised draft
ordinance.
2. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
Recorder: Jennifer Schreiber __________________________________
Attest: ____________________________________
City Administrator
City Council Minutes: October 13, 2025 Page 1 | 7
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 13, 2025 – 6:30 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Lloyd Hilgart, Kip Christianson, Charlotte Gabler, Tracy Hinz, and Lee Martie
Absent: None
1. General Business
A. Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Hilgart called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
B. Mayor Hilgart read a Minnesota Manufacturing Month proclamation.
C. Approval of Agenda
Motion by Council Member Martie to approve the agenda. Council Member Hinz
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• Regular Meeting Minutes from September 22, 2025
Motion by Council Member Hinz to approve the regular meeting minutes. Council
Member Martie seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
E. Citizen Comments
• Scott Cutsforth – Mr. Cutsforth questioned whether information regarding a
data center proposal would be on the City’s website. Staff noted that
information on a potential prospect is on the website. In addition, any
information regarding a potential project will be added to the website.
F. Public Service Announcements
• Eric Olson, School District 882 Superintendent, gave a presentation on the
school’s Operating Levy and the referendum being held November 4, 2025.
• City Clerk Jennifer Schreiber noted the following public announcements:
- Absentee Voting
- Data Center Ordinance Update
- Parks Winter Preparations
City Council Minutes: October 13, 2025 Page 2 | 7
G. Council Liaison Updates
• Planning Commission – Council Member Christianson gave an update of
meetings held on October 7, 2026. This included a joint meeting of City Council
and Planning Commission regarding a proposed data center ordinance and the
regular meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission and City
Council will hold another joint meeting on November 3, 2026. At the regular
meeting the Planning Commission approved variances, and conditional use
permits as presented.
• Economic Development Authority – Council Member Hinz provided an update
on the meetings held on September 24 and October 8, 2026. During the
September meeting, the EDA reviewed all EDA-owned properties within the core
downtown area and held a closed meeting to discuss property offers. At the
October meeting, the EDA approved membership dues for Wright County
Economic Development Partnership, a façade loan for a business located in Block
35, and a minor amendment to Affordable Housing TIF District 1-43.
• Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Joint Planning Board – Mayor Hilgart
noted that the board reviewed an item for business expansion.
H. Department Updates
• Construction Update – Matt Leonard, Public Works Director/City Engineer, gave
an update on current construction projects.
• Citizen Comments Response regarding Haven Ridge neighborhood concerns.
City Administrator Rachel Leonard provided a response to concerns raised by
Haven Ridge homeowners regarding window issues in their homes. The
homeowners expressed frustration with the builder and questioned the City’s
role in resolving the matter. Ms. Leonard acknowledged that the City recognizes
there are issues with the windows; however, she clarified that the City’s
authority to intervene is limited. City staff have reviewed the zoning approvals
for the development and compliance with building code requirements. In
addition, the City has communicated with the builder to ensure all building
permits are in place and that the required inspections are completed. Ms.
Leonard also noted that the City will continue to be engaged in the situation and
intervene as appropriate.
2. Consent Agenda:
Motion by Council Member Gabler to approve the Consent Agenda excluding item 2K.
Council Member Martie seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes: October 13, 2025 Page 3 | 7
A. Consideration of approving the payment of bills. Action taken: Approved the bill
and purchase card registers for a total of $1,471,554.21.
B. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments.
Action taken: Approved the hires for the Monticello Community Center and
terminations for the Fire Department and Monticello Community Center.
C. Consideration of approving the sale/disposal of surplus city property for the
Public Works Department. Action taken: No report.
D. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-62 accepting donations of $500 from
the Monticello Lions for Monti arts artists and $2,235 from the Coors/MMBA
Fundraiser for Fire Department general use. Action taken: Adopted Resolution
2025-62 accepting the donations.
E. Consideration of approving application for a temporary gambling permit for a
raffle to be conducted by the Wright County Whiskey Club on December 13,
2025, at the Monticello Community Center. Action taken: Approved the
temporary gambling permit for the Wright County Whiskey Club.
F. Consideration of approving an application for a temporary gambling permit for a
raffle to be conducted by the National Wild Turkey Federation – Sand Dunes
Gobbler Chapter for an event to be held on March 7, 2026, at River City Extreme,
3875 School Boulevard. Action taken: Approved the temporary gambling permit
for the National Wild Turkey Federation – Sand Dunes Gobbler Chapter.
G. Consideration of acknowledging receipt of a petition for annexation received
from Anthony Banyai and proceeding with verification of compliance with the
Joint Resolution of Orderly Annexation. Action taken: Acknowledged receipt of
the annexation petition from Anthony Banyai.
H. Consideration of approving a two-year contract with a one-year extension option
with RES Specialty Pyrotechnics for the Riverfest fireworks display for a two-year
total of $36,000. Action taken: Approved the two-year contract with a one-year
extension option with RES Specialty Pyrotechnics in the amount of $36,000.
I. Consideration of accepting the bid from Davis Mechanical for the replacement of
HVAC Controls at the Monticello Library in the amount of $34,220. Action taken:
Accepted the bid from Davis Mechanical in the amount of $34,220.
J. Consideration of approving a contract amendment with AE2S for additional
design services for the Monticello Water Supply Treatment Plant in the amount
of $40,754. Action taken: Approved the contract amendment with AE2S in the
amount of $40,754.
City Council Minutes: October 13, 2025 Page 4 | 7
K. Consideration of authorizing American Engineering Testing (AET) to complete
material testing for the Golf Course Road Trail Project at a cost of $28,427.
Action taken: ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
L. Consideration of approving a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
proposed driveway paving in the rear yard, in an R-1 (Single-Family) residential
district. Applicants: Josh and Andrea Sigler. Action taken: Approved the
Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings
in Resolution PC-2025-38.
M. Consideration of approving a request for extension of final plat, final stage
planned unit development, zoning and development contract approval for
Broadway Plaza to May 25, 2026. Action Taken: Approved the six-month
extension to May 25, 2026, conditioned on: 1) All prior approved conditions
and comments are applicable and shown in Exhibit Z of the November 25,
2024, City Council staff report; 2) The development contract and PUD
Agreement are revised and executed to reflect escrows and fees at prevailing
rate at the time of plat recording; 3) All applicable fees and escrows for site
development and building construction shall be paid at prevailing rate; 4)
Terms and conditions of the Development Contract and PUD Agreement
remain in force, except as noted for fees and escrows; and 5) Final Stage PUD
and rezoning approvals are contingent on the extension of the final plat and
the execution and recording of the final plat.
N. Consideration of approving a request for an amendment to Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development for Carcone Second Addition, for
interim improvements to support the land use of vehicle sales, display, and
storage. Applicant: Aeron Ashbrook. Action taken: Approved the amendment to
the Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions in Exhibit Z and based on
findings in Resolution PC-2025-37.
2A. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion
K. Consideration of authorizing American Engineering Testing (AET) to complete
material testing for the Golf Course Road Trail project at a cost of $28,427
Council Member Gabler stated that she will abstain from the item as she is
employed by the main contractor for the project.
Motion by Council Member Martie to authorize AET to complete material
testing for the Golf Course Road Trail project at a cost of $28,427. Council
Member Christianson seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0; Council
Member Gabler abstained.
City Council Minutes: October 13, 2025 Page 5 | 7
3. Public Hearing:
4. Regular Agenda:
A. Consideration of accepting Keystone Compensation Group’s classification and
compensation study results and implementing the recommendations effective
January 1, 2026
City Administrator Rachel Leonard gave an overview of the compensation study
and noted that the last review was completed in 2019. The City periodically
reviews its job classification and compensation system to ensure accuracy,
equity, and market competitiveness.
The consultant presented the findings to City Council at a special meeting on
September 8. The study reviewed position descriptions, point assignments, and
updated salary data from 19 comparable cities. Findings showed that
Monticello’s pay levels average 91% of the market median and 89% of the
market maximum, placing the City about 9-11% below market averages, with
larger gaps at higher job levels.
Keystone recommended adjusting salary ranges to align range maximums with
market averages while maintaining pay equity. If approved, employees will be
placed at the appropriate pay grade and at the nearest half-step at or above
their current rate of pay. The overall compensation structure, including the
number of grades, steps, and range spreads, will remain unchanged.
There was minimum discussion. Council Member Gabler requested information
on the number of full-time employees over the last few years. Council Member
Christianson added to have the number over the last 10 years. Ms. Leonard
noted that staff will provide that information.
Motion by Council Member Martie to accept Keystone Compensation Group’s
classification and compensation study results and implementing the
recommendations effective January 1, 2026. Council Member Christianson
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Consideration of accepting the Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR) Scoping Document and adopting Resolution 2025-63 ordering
preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review for Monticello Industrial, a
proposed 550-acre industrial development study area including a technology
campus scenario that could include a data center and appurtenant uses as
proposed by Monticello Tech LLC
City Council Minutes: October 13, 2025 Page 6 | 7
Community Development Director Angela Schumann presented the item. She
noted that Monticello Tech LLC has proposed developing a 550-acre technology
campus in the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area, located south of 85th Street
and east of Highway 25. Although no formal land use application has been
submitted, a concept plan was presented to the Planning Commission and City
Council in December 2024. Following that meeting, the property owners
petitioned for annexation, and the City determined that an environmental
review would be the next step.
Under Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 and the Monticello Orderly Annexation
Agreement, the City of Monticello serves as the Responsible Government Unit
(RGU) for the project. The City directed the preparation of an Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) to evaluate environmental impacts and develop
mitigation strategies for two potential development scenarios: a technology
campus or light industrial uses consistent with the Monticello 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
A required AUAR Scoping Document was prepared by Kimley Horn and reviewed
by City staff and WSB. The document was released for a 30-day public comment
period. The City received feedback from four government agencies and 78
members of the public, which was incorporated into the final document.
The AUAR process will include a 120-day review period, a public comment phase,
and Council consideration of the final document—anticipated in late January or
early February 2026. The final AUAR will include a mitigation plan committing
the City to address potential environmental impacts.
Council Member Hinz questioned the ramifications if an AUAR was not
completed. Alison Harwood, WSB, responded that if City Council did not move
forward with the AUAU, the proposed land uses would not be able to move
forward. In addition, if any future developments were proposed for the area,
they would have to do their own environmental reviews.
Motion by Council Member Christianson to accept the AUAR Scoping
Document and to adopt Resolution 2025-63 ordering the preparation of an
Alternative Urban Areawide Review for Monticello Industrial, a proposed 550-
acre industrial development study area including a technology campus scenario
that could include a data center and appurtenant uses as proposed by
Monticello Tech LLC. Council Member Martie seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes: October 13, 2025 Page 7 | 7
C. Consideration of approving Change Order 1 for the Golf Course Road Trail
project in the amount of $82,180
City Engineer/Public Works Director Matt Leonard gave a brief overview of the
item. He noted that Monticello received a $800,000 Transportation Alternatives
grant to build a 10-foot pathway along Golf Course Road between Elm Street and
7th Street, part of the City’s Safe Routes to School Plan. The original project
extended to Chelsea Road but was shortened due to costly bridge improvements
required to cross I-94. MnDOT approved the scope change while maintaining full
funding, split between FY 2025 and FY 2026.
The project includes roadway reclamation, curb and gutter installation, storm
sewer improvements, and restriping for a center turn lane. During construction,
crews found the existing 1970s watermain was two feet higher than expected,
creating conflicts with new storm sewer crossings. About 150 feet of watermain,
a service line, and a hydrant must be lowered and relocated.
This adjustment results in an $82,180 change order, mostly due to revised bid
quantities and a minor material cost increase for upgrading from a 6-inch to an
8-inch watermain. The work was completed to maintain the schedule. As the
project uses federal funds, a formal change order is required to document these
unit quantity changes, which may still fluctuate as work continues.
Motion by Council Member Hinz to approve Change Order 1 for the Golf Course
Road Trail project in the amount of $82,180. Council Member Martie seconded
the motion. Motion carried 4-0-1; Council Member Gabler abstained as she is
employed by the primary contractor of the project.
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
Recorder: Jennifer Schreiber __________________________________
Attest: ____________________________________
City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
2A. Consideration of approving payment of bills
Prepared by:
Finance Director
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
N/A
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the bill and purchase card registers for a total amount of $1,027,686.95.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
City staff submits the attached bill registers and purchasing card registers for approval by
Council. The bill registers contain all invoices processed and the purchasing card registers
contain all card purchases made since the last Council meeting. Subject to MN Statutes, most
invoices require Council approval prior to releasing checks for payment. The day following
Council approval, payments will be released unless directed otherwise. A credit purchasing
agreement and policy was approved by Council initially and card purchases must comply with
the policy.
If Council has no questions or comments on the bill and purchase card registers, these can be
approved with the consent agenda. If requested, this item can be removed from consent and
discussed prior to making a motion for approval.
I. Budget Impact: N/A
II. Staff Workload Impact: No additional work.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommends approval of bill and purchase card registers as presented.
SUPPORTING DATA
• Bill registers and purchase card registers
Accounts Payable
User:
Printed:
julie.cheney@monticellomn.gov
10/21/2025 1:29 PM
Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date
Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount
1426 CITY OF MONTICELLO 10/15/2025 12,230.18ACH
1593 MN DEPT OF REVENUE - ACH 10/15/2025 59,867.00ACH
2282 MRI SOFTWARE 10/15/2025 138.00ACH
2405 WELLS FARGO - Monthly Charges/Returns10/15/2025 17,227.91ACH
2438 VANCO SERVICES LLC 10/15/2025 102.01ACH
2811 US BANK CORPORATE PMT SYSTEM 10/15/2025 30,243.01ACH
3241 LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP 10/15/2025 3,450.87ACH
3679 SUPERIOR PRESS 10/15/2025 320.37ACH
4263 CAYAN 10/15/2025 1,550.87ACH
5147 MN PEIP 10/15/2025 66,897.61ACH
6041 HEALTHEQUITY INC 10/15/2025 32.80ACH
192,060.63Total for 10/15/2025:
Report Total (11 checks): 192,060.63
Page 1AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date (10/21/2025 1:29 PM)
The preceding list of bills payable was reviewed and approved for payment.
Date: 10/27/25 Approved by:____________________________________
Mayor Lloyd Hilgart
The preceding list of billls payable was reviewed and approved for payment.
Date: 10/27/2025 Approved by:___________________________________
Mayor Lloyd Hilgart
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
2B. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
Prepared by:
Human Resources Manager
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
N/A
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve new hires and departures for city departments.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Council is asked to ratify the attached list of new hires and departures for the City. This
listing includes full-time, part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees. The listing may also
include status changes and promotions.
I. Budget Impact: Positions are generally included in the budget.
II. Staff Workload Impact: If new position, there may be some training involved. If
terminated position, existing staff will cover hours as needed, until replacement.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommends approval of new hires and departures as identified on the attached list.
SUPPORTING DATA
• List of new hires and terminated employees.
Name Title Department Hire Date Class
Levi Berning Lifeguard MCC 10/23/2025 PT
Madeline Austin Slide Attendant MCC 10/27/2025 PT
Name Reason Department Effective Date Class
Noah Mahoney Voluntary MCC 5/29/2025 PT
Rachel Peters Voluntary MCC 8/18/2025 PT
Easton Mack Voluntary Streets 8/29/2025 Seasonal
Adam Duszynski Voluntary MCC 9/19/2025 PT
Will Savage Voluntary MCC 9/20/2025 PT
Addison Daluge Voluntary MCC 9/29/2025 PT
Jason Jones Voluntary MCC 10/3/2025 PT
Shawn Gellert Involuntary MCC 10/10/2025 PT
Natalie Weiss Involuntary MCC 10/19/2025 PT
Piper Holmstrom Involuntary MCC 10/19/2025 PT
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
2C. Consideration of approving the sale or disposal of surplus City property
Prepared by:
N/A
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
N/A
Approved by:
N/A
There is no report this City Council Cycle.
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
2D. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-64 Accepting Outdoor Recreation Grant
and Authorizing Execution of Grant Agreement for Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional
Athletic Park
Prepared by:
Park & Recreation Director
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Finance Director
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt Resolution 2025-64 formally accepting a Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Outdoor Recreation Grant in the amount of $254,170 and authorizing the City
Administrator to execute the grant agreement and any other documents necessary to
implement the grant.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Jan 13, 2025: City Council authorized the submission of a 2025 Outdoor Recreation
Grant application for Bertram Chain of Lakes Athletic Park improvements.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City was awarded a $254,170 grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) Outdoor Recreation Grant program to support improvements at the Bertram Chain of
Lakes (BCOL) Regional Athletic Park. The project includes construction of eight pickleball courts,
a dedicated parking area, lighting, site amenities, landscaping, and trail access.
The agreement requires the City to complete the approved project scope and expend the
matching funds by the grant’s expiration date of December 31, 2027. Acceptance of this
agreement establishes a contractual commitment between the City and the State of Minnesota.
At this time, the City Council’s action is limited to accepting the grant award and its specific
financial obligations. Future decisions regarding the project's scope and funding from the BCOL
Sales Tax Fund will be brought before the City Council for consideration at a later date.
I. Budget Impact: A detailed cost estimate for this project from WSB is in progress. This
project will require additional funds from the voter-approved BCOL Sales Tax Fund. The
sales tax was specifically authorized to fund new construction and rehabilitation at the
park, making it a suitable source for this project.
II. Staff Workload Impact: N/A
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
2
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: The Comprehensive Plan supports the long-term, phased
development of the BCOL Regional Athletic Park. The grant-funded improvements,
including pickleball courts, parking, and trail access, are a key part of this ongoing,
phased approach. The plan recognizes that development will occur as funding becomes
available.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommend adopting a resolution to formally accept the DNR Outdoor Recreation
Grant of $254,170 and to authorize the City Administrator to execute the grant agreement and
any other necessary documents to implement the grant.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Draft Resolution
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-64
ACCEPTING BOND AWARD, CONSTRUCTION GRANT FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, BERTRAM
CHAIN OF LAKES REGIONAL ATHLETIC PARK
WHEREAS, City of Monticello (“City”) has been awarded the 2026 Funds in the amount
of $254,170.00 from the 2026 bonding bill by the State of Minnesota (“State”) to design and
build eight pickleball courts, including fencing, nets, benches, shade structures on a plaza, wind
screens, two ADA-accessible parking stalls, and ADA accessible gravel walkways.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City has the legal authority to apply for financial assistance,
and financial capability to fully and completely pay for the project and all other expenses that
may occur to ensure adequate construction, operation, maintenance and replacement of the
proposed project for its design life.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will comply with all applicable laws, environmental
requirements, regulations, terms and conditions stated in the grant agreement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City has read the Conflict of Interest Policy and certifies it
will report any actual, potential, perceived, or organizational conflicts of interest upon
discovery to the state related to the application or grant award.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City has or will acquire fee title or permanent easement
over the land described in the site plan and the contemplated use thereof are permitted by and
will comply with all applicable use or other restrictions and requirements imposed by applicable
zoning ordinances or regulations, and, if required by law, have been duly approved by the
applicable municipal or governmental authorities having jurisdiction there over.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Administrator is hereby authorized to execute
such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 27th day of October, 2025.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_____________________________________
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:________________________________
Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
2E. Consideration of accepting the bid from WH Security for the replacement of fire
monitoring system at the Monticello Library in the amount of $10,565
Prepared by:
Facilities Maintenance Manager
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Public Works Director/City Engineer,
Finance Director
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve bid from WH Security for the replacement of fire monitoring system at the
Monticello Library in the amount of $10,565.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City received a Community Facility Projects Grant from the Minnesota Department of
Education to support improvements to the Monticello Public Library. The $500,000 grant will
fund the following improvements to the library, with no local match required:
• Upgrading the HVAC system controls
• Installing a new fire monitoring system
• Completing site improvements, including ADA upgrades and parking lot rehabilitation
The current fire system at the library is 21 years old and lacks current monitoring capabilities.
As part of the planned improvements, the system components will be replaced, and monitoring
will be added with the new annunciator panel.
Quotes were requested from installers, and the following three were received:
• WH Security - $10,565.00
• Brothers Fire and Security - $12,717.56
• IFS Fire and Security - $15,971.00
Installation of the new fire monitoring system is expected to be completed this year. Staff will
coordinate with the library staff to minimize impacts on operations.
I. Budget Impact: The project isn’t included in the 2025 budget; however, the project has no
impact to fund balance because the project would be funded from grant funds received,
which were also not budgeted in 2025.
II. Staff Workload Impact: Staff estimate 15 hours for project coordination.
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
2
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: Chapter 6: Public Utilities of the Monticello 2040
Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the importance of maintaining essential infrastructure to
ensure reliable service delivery and long-term operational efficiency. This project aligns
with the city's vision for sustainable infrastructure investment, as outlined in Chapter 10:
Implementation, which encourages timely upgrades to extend the life of public facilities
and support future growth.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommend approval of bid from WH Security for the replacement of fire monitoring
system at the Monticello Library.
SUPPORTING DATA
• Quote Sheet
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
2F. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-67 accepting bids and awarding contract to
eRoof LLC for the replacement of hail damaged property at thirteen city facilities in
the amount of $145,779.89
Prepared by:
Facilities Maintenance Manager
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Public Works Director/City Engineer,
Finance Director
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt Resolution 2025-67 accepting bids and awarding contract to eRoof LLC for the
replacement of eleven roofs and other damaged property on a total of thirteen city facilities as
outlined in the League of MN Cities hail damage claim in the amount of $145,779.89.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
May 12, 2025: Council approved a contract with HCM Architects for bid documents for
roof replacement due to storm damage in the amount of $82,368.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Following the July 2024 hailstorm, the League of MN Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) and staff
inspected all City-owned facilities. The assessment determined thirteen buildings were
damaged during the storm. LMCIT indicated they would cover the repair costs as outlined in the
table below.
Location Building Covered Damage
WWTP Admin
Building
Front Elevation - 1 Downspout
Right Elevation - 1 Downspout
Left Elevation - All Fascia
Left Elevation - 1 Downspout
Parks Barn Back Left Siding
Roof Replacement
Building Inspection
Garage Roof Replacement
Booster Station
Front Downspout
Left Fascia
Roof Replacement
4th St Shelter Left Fascia
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
2
Roof Replacement
Well House #5
Front - Overhead Garage Door
Back - Louvered Vent
Left - Louvered Vent
Roof Replacement
Bridge Park West Roof Replacement
DMV Roof Replacement
Xcel Ball fields Roof Replacement
200 River St W 1 Roof Elevation
Groveland Park Shelter Roof Replacement
Reservoir Broken Skylight
Pump House #2 Broken Skylight
Sealed bids were solicited through Quest CDN, and twelve bids were received as follows:
• eRoof – $145,779.89
• Pro Tech Restorations – $185,427.99
• Proficient Construction – $211,950.00
• Refresh Exteriors - $214,910.00
• Sela Roofing Commercial Division - $238,185.00
• Dering Pierson Group - $252,903.37
• Minnesota Exteriors Commercial - $253,546.00
• GV Builders Inc. - $314,800.00
• Equity Builders & Construction Services, Inc. - $329,500.00
• Huot Construction and Services, Inc. - $367,627.45
• Ponderosa Builders - $395,000.00
• Brennan Construction of MN, Inc. - $471,656.35
I. Budget Impact: The City’s property insurance provider will cover 100% of the cost.
II. Staff Workload Impact: Staff time managing construction is estimated at 50 hours.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: This project meets goal five of the maintenance of
facilities and utility infrastructure as outlined in chapter 8, Community Facilities and
Infrastructure.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends awarding the contract to eRoof to repair the hail damaged property.
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
3
SUPPORTING DATA
• Draft Resolution 2025-67
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-67
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF HAIL DAMAGED
PROPERTY AT THIRTEEN CITY FACILITIES
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the replacement of hail damaged
property at thirteen City facilities; and
WHEREAS, bids were received, opened, and tabulated, and the following twelve bids
were received:
Contractor Grand Total Bid
eRoof $145,779.89
Pro Tech Restorations $185,427.99
Proficient Construction $211,950.00
Refresh Exteriors $214,910.00
Sela Roofing Commercial Division $238,185.00
Dering Pierson Group $252,903.37
Minnesota Exteriors Commercial $253,546.00
GV Builders Inc. $314,800.00
Equity Builders & Construction Services, Inc. $329,500.00
Huot Construction and Services, Inc. $367,627.45
Ponderosa Builders $395,000.00
Brennan Construction of MN, Inc. $471,656.35
WHEREAS, the bid from eRoof in the amount of $145,779.89 for the total bid for the
replacement of hail damaged property at thirteen city facilities, in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications and advertisement for bids, is the lowest responsible bidder
and shall be and hereby is accepted.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO:
1. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a
contract with said bidder for the construction of said improvements for and on behalf of
the City of Monticello.
2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all
bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful
bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been executed .
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 27th day of October, 2025.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
____________________________________
ATTEST: Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
_______________________________
Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
2G. Consideration of approving a contract with HCM Architects to develop the scope and
specifications for water intrusion repairs at the Monticello Community Center in the
amount of $63,580
Prepared by:
Facilities Maintenance Manager
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☒Consent Agenda Item
☐Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Public Works Director/City Engineer,
Finance Director
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve a contract with HCM Architects in the amount of $63,580 to provide
architectural services related to water intrusion repairs at the Monticello Community Center.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
October 14, 2024: Council approved a contract with HCM Architects to analyze and develop
a master plan to guide future utilization of current spaces and
improvements at the Monticello Community Center and to investigate
water intrusion issues and to identify solutions.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Over the past several years, the Monticello Community Center has continued to experience
water intrusion issues. Although the facility’s roof was replaced (excluding the pool area) in
2020, many leaks have persisted. Several roof leaks have been repaired under the existing 15-
year warranty as they were discovered.
The upper-level openings over the central hall/corridor, upper curtain wall window systems,
and northwest facing windows of the indoor track have been identified as areas where water
intrusion is occurring.
To address these ongoing issues, the City Council authorized HCM Architects and Encompass
engineering consultants to complete a water intrusion investigation, which identified multiple
sources of moisture intrusion and provided recommendations for mitigation and remedial
work.
This study identified several conditions contributing to moisture intrusion and damage to
interior finishes. The following improvements are recommended:
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
2
• Remove and replace the curtainwall window systems, including the glass and
framing
• Remove and reinstall the siding metals and flashing near the window locations
• Install new curtain wall waterproofing and flashing
• Repair interior finishes as needed
In addition, the study recommended modifications to the termination of the roofing membrane
to the walls. This work is currently being completed by the roofing contractor who replaced the
roof. Finally, the sealant between dissimilar materials throughout the building was found to
have failed. Replacement of these sealants is planned for future consideration.
To efficiently deliver the project, the City plans to utilize Sourcewell Gordian purchasing
cooperative. This allows the use of pre-bid unit prices for interior finish repairs, which are
unknown, rather than relying on negotiating change orders.
HCM and their subconsultant Encompass would prepare plans and specifications for the various
components required for obtaining bids and for building permit requirements. This contract
also includes assistance with approving material shop drawings and periodic construction
inspection and testing to ensure that the improvements are installed correctly. Once drawings
are completed, bids will be solicited for the improvements, and a construction contract will be
brought back to City Council for consideration. Construction is anticipated to begin in the spring
of 2026.
I. Budget Impact: The 2025 Capital Projects Funds has $100,000 allocated for these services,
about half of which has been spent to date. The 2026 draft budget includes $1,500,000 for
architectural, design, and construction costs to fix the water leak issues.
II. Staff Workload Impact: Facilities maintenance staff will manage and coordinate this
project.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: The Monticello 2040 Plan includes a chapter for Community
Facilities and Infrastructure that highlights the Monticello Community Center as a City
asset of significance and calls for continued investment in maintenance of the facility.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommend approval of contract with HCM Architects.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Proposal
B. Curtainwalls Moisture Intrusions Assessment
Proposal for Architectural, Structural, and MEP Services
Dear Dan,
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this proposal for architectural,
services related to the removal of the existing curtainwall systems,
identified in the Encompass report as needing removal, new glazing,
updated flashing and reinstallation.
Scope of Project
We propose to provide exterior elevations identifying the location and
approximate size of the curtainwall systems in question utilizing the
original building drawings as our basis. We will meet with the City and KA
to review. We have included Encompass for support with redlining our
details and for work associated with field inspections and testing during
reinstallation of the work. Please see attached for their more detailed
scope of work.
Scope of Professional Services
1. General
• Review meetings with the City, KA and Encompass as needed.
4. Construction Documents
• General locations, elevations and basic details related to the window
reinstallation and glazing replacement. Note that existing conditions are
likely to yield further work scopes that will be handled through RFI work
with KA during construction.
October 17, 2025
Dan Halverson
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street #1
Monticello, MN 55362
Cc Matt Leonard
Re: City of Monticello
MCC Complex Glazing Replacement and Curtainwall Re-installation
2G (1)
Faribault Viaduct Park Covered Ice Sheet –
Structural Proposal
September 23, 2025
Page 2 of 2
• Provide basic detailing and direction around scope for damaged gyp. bd. as
visible at this time.
5. Construction Administration
• Assistance with bidding, permitting, etc. as needed.
• Provide written responses to questions, open items, field conditions, etc. as
needed.
• Review of shop drawings and submittals.
• Provide direction related to patch and repair scope for rot, damage, and
other items as discovered during construction.
• Attend construction-phase virtual meetings as needed.
• Encompass will provide in-place testing and inspections per the attached.
Scope Assumptions
• KA will be the General Contractor and work with a small group of selected
vendors.
FEE
HCM Architects $32,950.00
Encompass $29,650.00
Reimbusible Expenses $ 980.00
Total $63,580.00
•
•
Additional Services
Structural Engineering
Destructive Testing
Work beyond 2026
Abatement scope of any kind
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to prepare this proposal. Please
let us know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Matt
Matthew D Lysne, AIA, NCARB
2G (2)
5435 Feltl Road
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Phone 952-854-4511
October 17, 2025
Matthew D Lysne, AIA, NCARB
Principal
HCM Architects
4201 Cedar Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Lysne@hcmarchitects.com
Re: Professional Services Proposal: Curtainwall Repair Project - CD & CA/CO Phases
Monticello Community Center
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Matt:
In accordance with your request, we are pleased to present our proposal to perform Design
Phase and limited Construction Administration services for the Curtainwall repairs at the
Monticello Community Center.
SCOPE OF PROPOSED SERVICES
Encompass, Inc. proposes to provide the following services:
Construction Documents Phase
• Assist HCM in preparation of Construction Documents to be issued to the City selected
Contractor for pricing.
• Based on our conversations, Encompass anticipates that Construction Documents (drawings
and specifications) will be primarily developed and issued by HCM with technical input from
Encompass based on our 2024 Assessment of window leakage at upper-level windows.
Encompass will provide the following:
o Attend a Repair Concept Development Meeting with HCM to review preliminary details
and scope of work. We anticipate that this meeting will be held onsite at HCM or
Monticello CC.
o Review and redline details drafted by HCM for the removal and reinstallation of
curtainwall systems, siding, metals, and flashings as recommended in our Exterior Leak
Assessment report. We anticipate providing HCM with redlined/annotated details and
elevations at 50% and 90% stages of completion prior to issuance for pricing.
o Review technical specifications sections relative to curtainwall restoration and related
waterproofing/flashing aspects. Provide HCM with redlined/annotated sections at the
90% stage of completion.
o Review glass replacement options and fitment within existing framing. Preliminary glass
selection by HCM.
2G (3)
HCM Architects - Professional Services Proposal - Page 2
o Attend design review meeting with HCM following our 90% review.
o This phase allows (1) site visit to review outstanding/misc. existing conditions. No testing
or invasive openings are included.
Construction Administration Phase
• Attend (1) preconstruction meeting with HCM, Owner, and Contractor to review curtainwall
details and conditions.
• Review product submittals for curtainwall related components.
• Conduct (6) construction phase site observation visits, we anticipate that one visit will
include review of an in-place mockup.
• Conduct (1) Punchlist walkthrough.
Quality Assurance Testing
• Conduct (3) quality assurance tests of the completed curtainwall installation in accordance
with AAMA 501.2. Tests will occur over (3) separate site visits. We anticipate that the testing
will include an in-place mockup, (1) window at 20%, and (1) at 50% completion. Testing will
require that exterior finishes and caulking are in place prior to the test.
• Testing will be completed from the contractors scaffolding and/or high lift. Owner will supply
access to a water connection for testing.
• Failure of any testing requiring retesting is above and beyond the scope of this proposal.
COST OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
The cost to perform design and limited construction phase services for the curtainwall repair
project at the Monticello Community Center, will not exceed $29,650.
BASIS OF PAYMENT
Basis of Payment for the services outlined above shall be per hour of service rendered at the
rates below. In addition to hourly service, all direct project expenses shall be billed at cost.
Expenses could include, but not limited to, the cost of printing and reproduction of documents
and automobile mileage at the rate of $.70 per mile. Invoicing for professional engineering
services will be made monthly. Hourly rates for professional services, by classification, are:
1. Principal Engineer $235.00
2. Associate Principal $215.00
3. Senior Mechanical Engineer $215.00
4. Senior Civil/Structural Project Engineer $195.00
5. Licensed Mechanical Engineer $195.00
6. Licensed Civil/Structural Project Engineer $185.00
7. Licensed Project Architect $185.00
8. Degreed Engineer $170.00
9. Senior Construction Consultant $165.00
10. Technician II $140.00
11. Technician I $125.00
2G (4)
HCM Architects - Professional Services Proposal - Page 3
WARRANTY
No warranty is implied or intended. Encompass does not warranty the work performed by
others. We do not warranty the work of contractors and/or subcontractors.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
The liability of Encompass (including its employees) for any actions, damages, claims, demands,
judgments, losses, costs, or expenses arising out of or resulting from Encompass’ or its
employee’s negligent acts, errors, or omissions is limited to an amount equal to the fees paid by
Client to Encompass for professional services rendered pursuant to this Proposal, including any
claims for contribution or indemnity.
MOLD DISCLAIMER
Evaluation and/or abatement of any fungal growth is outside the scope of our proposed
services.
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
Neither party shall be liable to the other for loss of profits or revenue; loss of use or
opportunity; loss of good will; cost of substitute facilities, goods, or services; cost of capital; or
for any special, consequential, indirect, punitive, or exemplary damages.
MINNESOTA STATUTORY LIEN NOTICE
Any person or company supplying labor or materials for this improvement to your property
may file a lien against your property if that person or company is not paid for the
contributions.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
Upon Client's acceptance, this Proposal represents and contains the entire agreement and
understanding between Encompass and the Client with respect to the subject matter of this
Proposal and supersedes any and all prior oral and written agreements and und erstandings.
MODIFICATIONS
The accepted Proposal may be modified only by a written instrument executed by both parties.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal. We will be pleased to review the scope
of this proposal with you at your convenience. If this proposal meets with your approval, please
indicate your acceptance by signing below and returning one copy to Encompass, Inc. Upon
receipt of your acceptance, we will coordinate commencement with you. Should you have any
questions, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
ENCOMPASS, INC.
Mark Blazevic, P.E.
Associate Principal
2G (5)
HCM Architects - Professional Services Proposal - Page 4
ENCOMPASS, INC.
PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE
MONTICELLO COMMUNITY CENTER
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
CURTAINWALL REPAIR PROJECT
PROPOSAL DATED: OCTOBER 17, 2025
We accept the scope, terms and conditions of this proposal as described herein.
HCM ARCHITECTS
__________________________________ Date: __________________
Matthew D Lysne, AIA, NCARB
Principal
HCM Architects
2G (6)
Encompass, Inc. | 5435 Felt Road | Minnetonka, MN 55343 | Main 952.854.4511
December 18th, 2024
Matthew D Lysne
Principal
HCM Architects
4201 Cedar Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Re: Monticello Community Center - Curtainwall Moisture Intrusion Assessment
505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362
Encompass, Inc. Project # 24-4559-003
Dear Matthew:
At your request, Encompass has conducted an assessment into reported water intrusion at
curtainwall window systems at the Monticello Community Center, located on Walnut Street in
Monticello, MN. The primary purpose of the assessment was to perform an evaluation to identify
source(s) of ongoing moisture intrusion at the East-West clerestory curtainwall framing along the
central corridor and select NW facing windows, and based upon this assessment, provide general
repair recommendations for repair.
1.0 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
1.1. The two-story Community Center was constructed in 1998. In general, the building
consists of a combination of steel framing (columns, beams, and roof joists) along
with insulated tilt-up precast concrete wall panels. Curtainwall window systems
throughout consist of aluminum framed curtainwall. Exterior walls are clad with a
combination of metal shingles, composite metal panels, and painted concrete.
1.2. Based on a conversation with onsite maintenance personnel, we understand that
moisture intrusion above and below curtainwall windows systems, particularly
along the two-story central corridor clerestory, has been occurring for an extended
period. In response, various repairs including installation of sealants, temporary
coverings, and additional metal flashing have been implemented, however, leaks
have persisted. In addition, we understand that the building roof has been replaced
in the last two years with a mechanically attached, single-ply TPO membrane.
1.3. The scope of our assessment is to address and isolate reports of water intrusion
occurring along the East-West clerestory curtainwall framing along the central
corridor and the NW facing window in the walking track area. As part of the
assessment, diagnostic water testing was conducted at windows and flashings,
2G (7)
Monticello Community Center – Curtainwall Moisture Intrusion Assessment Page 2
December 18th, 2024
along with visual observations, and partial disassembly of metal flashings and
window components, see Figure 1 for areas of water testing.
1.4. Testing and evaluation was conducted on the following dates:
1.4.1. November 19th, Mark Blazevic, P.E., Joe Casanova, P.E., and Jim Manfred,
Technician of Encompass, Inc., visited the site to perform a visual
inspection, water testing, and flashing/cover removals of the East-West
clerestory.
1.4.2. November 21st, Joe Casanova P.E., Tristan Burt, Technician, and Layo
Hernandez, Technician of Encompass, Inc., visited the site to perform a
visual inspection, water testing, and flashing/cover removals of the south
side of the East-West clerestory and the NW facing window in the walking
track area.
1.4.3. On the night before the first day of testing rainfall occurred. Areas of active
leaking were noted along the north side of the East-West clerestory
curtainwall framing along the central corridor in the gym and walking track
area (Photos 1 and 2).
1.5. Referenced photographs can be found in the attached Appendix A. Original
drawings for the building were able to be viewed.
2G (8)
Monticello Community Center – Curtainwall Moisture Intrusion Assessment Page 3
December 18th, 2024
Figure 1 – Overall Roof Plan.
2G (9)
Monticello Community Center – Curtainwall Moisture Intrusion Assessment Page 4
December 18th, 2024
2.0 OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
2.1. East-West Clerestory
2.1.1. The upper level of the East-West clerestory consists of steel beams and
columns with full length/height curtainwall systems that are set atop a curb
between steel columns. Composite metal panels and/or metal shingles
enclose the openings at the head and jambs of the curtainwall system
(where steel columns exist), Photos 3-5.
2.1.2. Visual observation of the construction of the curtainwall and surrounding
clerestory area noted the following:
A. At the head/upper roof level, the TPO roof membrane on the north side
extends over a short (3”) roof edge curb and onto the short section of
wall immediately above the curtainwall head. The metal coping was
removed which noted the top of a keeper for the metal coping which is
nailed in place. The keeper for the coping is attached to the composite
metal panel above the curtainwall system and the TPO roof membrane
laps over the keeper creating a positive lap and does not appear to be
problematic (Photo 6).
B. The prefinished metal sill flashing along the base of the curtainwall is
flat and/or back sloped, with areas of standing water atop the flashing,
below the snap cover for the curtainwall frame (Photo 7).
C. Sealant is installed in 3 ft lengths between the sill flashing and the
mullion snap cover. The openings in the sealant align with weep holes
drilled in the underside of the mullion snap cover. This method of “skip
caulking” the sill cover at weep holes is prone to allowing water to be
driven/migrate behind the sealant at the open sections if the sealant is
not detailed carefully or if the sill is sloped backwards. Removal of the
sill snap cover for the curtainwall frame noted that water was being
trapped behind the sealant between the snap cover and the sill flashing.
From here water works its way through the sill flashing at jamb and sill
splice locations and into the building (Photo 8).
D. Removal of the sill flashing exposed the top edge of the TPO roofing
membrane. The TPO is installed over the underlying (original) roofing
EPDM in a reverse manner, no water block or continuous termination
bar is present along the lap between the two roofing membranes.
Furthermore, the counter flashing is fastened very intermittently and
does not provide sufficient compression to retain the TPO tight to the
underlying EPDM. The original EPDM in some areas terminates at the
2G (10)
Monticello Community Center – Curtainwall Moisture Intrusion Assessment Page 5
December 18th, 2024
underside of the curtainwall framing rather than extending below the
framing to protect the rough opening from incidental moisture (Photos
9 and 10). The as-built roofing termination combined with the absence
of membrane rough opening flashing is problematic and prone to
moisture intrusion.
E. The sealant between the composite metal panels, curtain wall
perimeters, and metal shingles is at or near the end of its useful life. The
sealant is eroded with numerous voids and openings. (Photo 21). The
failed sealant allows excess moisture behind cladding and exposes
deficiencies in the weather barriers which can lead to leakage.
2.1.3. Water testing was performed at select locations along the North side of the
East-West clerestory to induce leakage that corresponds with areas of
active leaking, see Figure 1 for locations. Testing was as follows:
A. Water was sprayed along the TPO roof, immediately below the sill
flashing at the base of the curtainwall. This testing did not result in any
water intrusion.
B. Water was sprayed along the sill of the curtainwall frame in line with
where the two noted areas of water infiltration in the gym were noted
(Photo 1; Location 1 and 2 in Figure 1). Testing resulted in water
infiltration at both locations (Photos 11 and 12). Due to the skip
caulking between the curtainwall snap cover and the sill flashing, water
works its way behind the sealant and under the sill flashing at splices
and jambs. With the water below the sill flashing it can accumulate and
then flow into the wall cavity below.
C. Water was sprayed along the jamb-sill corner of the curtainwall at
location 3 in Figure 1. Testing resulted in water infiltration down the
interior face of the tilt-up precast concrete wall with the water
infiltration following a similar path to locations 1 and 2 (Photo 13).
However, unlike in Locations 1 and 2, the curtainwall system frames
into the tilt-up precast concrete wall. Once water works its way under
the sill flashing at splices and jambs it accumulates on top of the tilt-up
precast concrete plank wall and finds its way inside at discontinuities
and holes in the original EPDM membrane.
D. Water was sprayed along the base of the short parapet on the roof
surface as well as at the top of the roof coping to the west of the North
elevation of the clerestory (Location 4 on Figure 1; to the right of where
Photo 5 was taken) where leakage was occurring below. Testing of the
2G (11)
Monticello Community Center – Curtainwall Moisture Intrusion Assessment Page 6
December 18th, 2024
roof curb and coping did not result in any leaks. The leaking that is
occurring at this location is likely due to water migration from the leak
at Test Location 3.
2.1.4. Similar to the North elevation, water testing was performed at the South
elevation of the East-West clerestory to induce leakage that corresponds
with areas of past leakage/staining. Testing was as follows:
A. Water was sprayed along the jamb directly above an area of known
staining/water intrusion (Photos 15 and 16). After several minutes of
spraying, water was observed at the interior. There is an electrical
outlet set into the ceiling on either side of the steel column cover. Like
locations 1 and 2, water infiltrates into the wall cavity and from here
works out the hole created by the electrical outlet in the wall cavity.
B. Water was sprayed along the top of the clerestory at the coping and
head of the window in-line with areas of noted interior steel corrosion
(Photos 17 and 18). Testing did not result in any active leakage. The
source of staining is not known at this area and it is not known if this is
an active leak location; however, it is possible that the staining predates
the roofing replacement project which modified the roof edge coping
and membrane termination details.
2.1.5. Based on testing the following observations were made:
A. Overall, the framing for the curtainwall system is in good condition and
water intrusion was not noted directly through the curtainwall
framing/glazing. However, the sealant applied between the snap cover
for the curtainwall system and sill flashing is starting to fail. As noted
above “skip caulking” was done around weep holes for the curtainwall
system and allowing for water to be trapped between the snap cover
and the curtainwall frame. This, combined with the sill flashing being
backsloped allows for standing water around the sealant joint causing
accelerated degradation (Photo 8).
2.2. NW facing (Upper-Level) window in the walking track area
2.2.1. The curtainwall at this location is set between precast concrete wall panels
and sits on precast concrete wall panels below (Photo 22). A Composite
panel system is installed immediately above the curtainwall system. The
curtainwall and panel systems are supported by a steel framed structure
that ties into the adjacent precast concrete wall panels (Photo 23). Water
staining on framing and drywall is evident along the head of the curtainwall
in this area.
2G (12)
Monticello Community Center – Curtainwall Moisture Intrusion Assessment Page 7
December 18th, 2024
2.2.2. The curtainwall frame in this location has some oil canning occurring to the
snap covers, but overall, the curtainwall frame system appears in good
condition (Photo 24).
2.2.3. The sealant installed between joints in the composite metal panels above
the window are substantially failed and have exceeded their useful life
(Photo 25).
2.2.4. The top of the composite panels are covered by roof coping and TPO
membrane that wraps the roof edge and is retained by a keeper. At the
upper corners of the composite panels, the TPO membrane was improperly
cut short of the full width of the panel, resulting in exposed wood blocking
as well as gaps/voids that allow water behind the composite panels (Photo
26).
2.2.5. Water testing was performed at select locations to induce leakage that
corresponds with existing staining. Testing was as follows:
A. Water was sprayed along the horizontal and vertical mullions of the
curtainwall system, this did not result in any leakage.
B. Water was sprayed along the horizontal and vertical joints of the metal
panel system, this did not result in any leakage.
C. Water was sprayed along the intersection of the roof coping and the top
of the metal composite panel system, which resulted in leakage. The
leakage is occurring in two different ways. The first is through the
deficiency at the jamb condition of the roof transition described above
in 2.2.4 where the TPO membrane terminates short of the wall opening.
The second is due to water working its way behind the metal keeper
and into the gap at the top of the composite metal panel and entering
the framing behind (Photo 27).
2.3. Metal Shingles
2.3.1. Numerous upper-level walls that terminate above the level 1 roof are clad
with copper shingles (Photo 19). The following items were noted regarding
the metal shingles:
A. The felt paper weather barrier behind the panel system does not fully
extend down past the counter flashing installed along the top edge of
the TPO roofing membrane (Photo 20). At this location, and as
discussed in section 2.1.2, a reverse lap condition exists due to a lack in
2G (13)
Monticello Community Center – Curtainwall Moisture Intrusion Assessment Page 8
December 18th, 2024
continuity between the felt, original EPDM, and newer TPO. Water
migration behind the copper shingles can easily migrate behind the TPO
resulting in water infiltration in the walls/ceiling below.
B. The metal shingles have tight joints between each section. The metal
shingles extend down past the counter flashing for the TPO roof (Photo
19). Water infiltration due to the poor detailing behind the metal
shingles will occur at jambs or discontinuities in the system allowing for
water to work behind the metal shingle. Based on onsite evaluation the
felt paper behind appears in good condition.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
3.1. Investigative testing at the East-West clerestory window systems has identified
multiple contributing sources including both primary and exacerbating conditions
that are leading to moisture intrusion and damage to interior finishes. Specifically,
leaks are attributed to the following:
3.1.1. The as-built construction of the curtain wall sill, supporting curb, and
associated roofing and flashing details are poor. Currently, there is not a
continuous membrane or waterproofing system below the curtainwall sill
that manages incidental moisture. As a result, moisture that enters through
failed sealant, metal flashing seams, or elsewhere along the curtainwall sill
is directed into the framing below. This condition is resulting in damage to
drywall, steel, and stud framing on all elevations of the clerestory system.
3.1.2. Brake metal sill flashing along the curtainwall sill frame is unsealed at laps,
butts, and along the underside. Furthermore, this flashing is installed flat or
negatively sloped making it prone to ponding water. This condition allows
moisture to bypass the metal sill flashing and enter below the curtainwall
framing that is unprotected as discussed above.
3.1.3. Sealant installed between the curtainwall sill and brake metal flashing is
failed or is installed in a manner that leaves openings for water to migrate
behind the sealant and below the curtainwall framing. This condition is
exacerbated by the poorly sloped sill metal.
3.1.4. Sealant installed between the curtainwall and adjacent metal panels and
metal shingles has exceeded its useful life and is substantially failed. The
sealant is in need of replacement throughout.
3.1.5. The replacement TPO roofing membrane termination is a poor construction
detail. The membrane is reverse lapped with the original EPDM membrane
and a termination bar was not used to secure the TPO to the EPDM. The
2G (14)
Monticello Community Center – Curtainwall Moisture Intrusion Assessment Page 9
December 18th, 2024
metal counter flashing installed by the roofing contractor is fastened
intermittently and does an insufficient job at sealing the top edge of the
EPDM. This construction detail is prone to moisture intrusion below the
roofing and is present along all roof/wall intersections on the upper level,
including walls without windows. It should be noted that this is not
considered a primary source of leaks at this point, however, due to its
configuration, repair is recommended in conjunction with curtainwall repair
work.
3.2. It is our opinion that the moisture intrusion has been occurring for an extended
period of time and that deterioration of underlying (concealed) framing and finishes
likely exists that may be encountered at the time of repair. Continued leakage
should be expected until comprehensive repairs can be completed.
3.3. Testing of the NW facing window at the upper-level walking track determined that
moisture intrusion is occurring above the window at the transition of the composite
metal panel system to the roof membrane due to the following:
3.3.1. The first is the ability for wind-driven rain to work its way between the
metal keeper and metal panel into the open joint in the system at the head
of the composite metal panel system.
3.3.2. The second, and more severe, is at the jambs, above the window corners
where the TPO membrane roofing is cut short and does not run far enough
down and over onto the adjacent wall to cover the opening between the
top of the metal panel and the roof. Any wind-driven rain at this location
that gets behind the coping will get into the wall framing behind.
3.3.3. Continued leakage should expected until repairs are completed, similar to
the clerestory areas, underlying damage to framing may be present in the
stud-framed wall above the window.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. Based on testing, Encompass recommends the following remedial work. Please note
that repair to interior finishes beyond visible drywall damage should be anticipated,
however its extent may not be known until conditions are exposed.
4.1.1. At all clerestory curtainwalls it is recommended that the curtainwall system
(glass & framing) be removed to facilitate the installation of a continuous
subsill flashing membrane including end dams and a back dam. Removal of
this system is expected to be disruptive and require access to both the
interior and exterior sides of the system. As part of this work, the following
additional items should be performed:
2G (15)
Monticello Community Center – Curtainwall Moisture Intrusion Assessment Page 10
December 18th, 2024
A. Removal and replacement of the break metal sill flashing below the
window sill.
B. Modification of the TPO roofing membrane termination at the wall curb
below the windows. This work would include the replacement of the
counter flashing, installation of a termination bar, and lapping of the
new sub-sill membrane flashing over the TPO/termination bar.
C. As part of reinstallation of the curtainwall, all zone dams, gaskets, and
internal seals should be replaced, along with any failed insulated glass
units.
At the NW facing window area it is recommended that the TPO is peeled
back and the metal coping and keeper are removed to allow for the the
TPO to be extended onto the adjacent precast wall panel at both sides of
the opening. Once complete the metal coping and keeper can be reinstalled
and the TPO can be reintegrated.
A. In addition, the joint between the top of the composite metal panel and
the roof membrane should be covered with ice& water and/or sealed
shut.
B. Repair interior finishes as needed.
1.1.2. Based on site observations the following secondary issues were noted and
Encompass recommends that the following additional work is conducted.
A. Failed sealant between dissimilar materials was pervasive and it is
recommended that new exterior sealant is installed throughout. This
work is likely to extend throughout much of the building based on
similarity in age.
B. The termination of the TPO requires the installation of a proper
termination bar to prevent water from infiltrating between the layers of
the roof membrane. At all roof/wall terminations, a termination bar
should be installed along the top edge of the roofing membrane to
prevent water from bypassing the new membrane.
This report has been prepared based on observations and review of the material available as of
this date. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein represent our professional
opinions. Recommendations contained within this report are conceptual in nature, and are not
intended to be used for bidding, construction, or repair purposes. These opinions were arrived
2G (16)
Monticello Community Center – Curtainwall Moisture Intrusion Assessment Page 11
December 18th, 2024
at in accordance with accepted engineering practices at this time and location. Our opinions
may be revised based on the availability of additional data.
The services performed by Encompass, Inc. were conducted in a manner consistent with the
level of skill and care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession that are currently
practicing in this area and under similar fee, scope, and schedule requirements.
No other warranty is implied or intended. Should you have any questions, please call.
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
Joe Casanova, P.E. Mark Blazevic, P.E.
Project Engineer Associate Principal
2G (17)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 1 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 1 – Active leaking in the gym area along the north side of the east-west clerestory, Location 1 and
2 on Figure 1.
2G (18)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 2 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 2 – Active leaking in the walking track area of the east-west clerestory.
2G (19)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 3 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 3 – Overall of the north side of the east-west clerestory.
Photo 4 – Overall of the south side of east-west clerestory.
2G (20)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 4 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 5 – Typcial makeup of the north side of the east-west clerestory.
Photo 6: Coping condition above the east-west clerestory windows.
2G (21)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 5 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 7: Standing water on prefinished metal sill slip flashing.
Photo 8: Typical sill slip flashing splice. Inset: snap cover flipped showing bottom side up.
2G (22)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 6 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 9: Typical sill condition at east-west clerestory curtainwalls.
2G (23)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 7 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 10: Original membrane lapping under curtainwall sill framing.
Photo 11: Interior view where water infiltration occurred.
2G (24)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 8 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 12: Looking into dead space above drop ceiling in gym where water damage was noted at ceiling
panels.
Photo 13: Sill at Location 3 where water is infiltrating.
2G (25)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 9 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 14: Water staining of precast concrete plank wall.
Photo 15: Staining around column below east-west clerestory. Water came out the outlet (red arrow).
2G (26)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 10 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 16: Closeup of exterior where water testing occurred.
Photo 17: Staining of the metal deck and around the steel column box out.
2G (27)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 11 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 18: Partial view of the top of the clerestory roof where water testing was conducted.
Photo 19 – Typical transition of copper metal shingles to clerestory curtainwall.
2G (28)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 12 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 20: Felt paper stopping short of TPO roof.
Photo 21: Sealant between panel and curtainwall/sill flashing.
2G (29)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 13 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 22 – Overall of NW facing window in the walking track area.
Photo 23 – Interior of NW facing window head and wall.
2G (30)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 14 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 24 – Typical framing of curtainwall system at NW window.
2G (31)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 15 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 25: Typical sealant condition of metal panels above curtainwall.
2G (32)
Monticello Community Center – Appendix A Page 16 of 16
ENC Project# 24-4559-003 December 17 th, 2024
Photo 26: Typical transition detail at NW window panels to roof.
Photo 27: Exposed and open joint behind the metal keeper, with noted wet sheathing.
2G (33)
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
2H. Consideration of approving a utility easement at Freeway Fields, PID 155043000100
Prepared by:
Assistant City Engineer
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Public Works Director/City Engiener
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve a utility easement at Freeway Fields, PID 155043000100.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Xcel energy contacted City staff to request an easement along the eastern edge of the Freeway
Fields parcel (PID 155043000100) to install an underground service line providing power to
MnDOT right-of-way lighting along the freeway. Staff recommend granting a 12-foot non-
exclusive utility easement along the eastern edge of the outlot. The proposed easement is not
expected to affect future development of the property, as the City’s current subdivision code
already requires the parcel to have a 12’ drainage and utility easement platted around the
perimeter of the parcel at the time of development.
I. Budget Impact: N/A
II. Staff Workload Impact: N/A
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommend approval of a non-exclusive utility easement.
SUPPORTING DATA
• Map
October 22, 2025
Map Powered By Datafi
±
1 in = 125 Ft
Proposed Easement Location
City Boundary
Parcels Proposed 12' wide
utility easement
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
3A. Public Hearing – Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-65 approving the
certification of delinquent utility billing accounts to the 2026 payable tax year
Prepared by:
Finance Director
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☐ Consent Agenda Item
☒ Public Hearing Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
N/A
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt Resolution 2025-65 approving the certification of delinquent utility billing
accounts to the 2026 payable tax year.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The finance department issues monthly bills to residents and customers for utility charges
including water, sewer, stormwater, and garbage/recycling charges in accordance with the Fee
Schedule ordinance passed by the City Council. Certifying unpaid accounts that are more than
60 days past due to a property’s tax statement is one avenue the City can take to collect
delinquent balances. A public hearing must be held no less than 30 days after the affected
property owner is given notice of the public hearing to give the property owner an opportunity
to address the Council regarding the unpaid charges.
After the public hearing is held and Council approves the certification of delinquent balances to
Wright County, the customer is given 30 days to pay the balance in full. Upon certification to
Wright County, an additional $75 is applied to the customer’s account for administrative costs
associated with processing the delinquent notices and certifying the delinquent account
balances. The certified charges will bear an interest rate of six (6.0) percent from the date of
the public hearing as allowed by Minnesota State Statute 116A.17.
A history of delinquent utility billing accounts to be certified is as follows:
Amount # of Accounts
2020 $138,861.70 189
2021 $137,713.82 174
2022 $169,731.32 213
2023 $218,871.41 212
2024 $281,740.76 208
2025 $326,822.47 264
Delinquent Utility Billing Accounts
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
2
The 2020 – 2024 numbers shown on the chart reflect final delinquent balances certified to
Wright County. The 2025 amount will change since payments can be made against the
delinquent balances for another month, and the $75 processing fee on those sent to Wright
County is not included in this preliminary number. 64% of the properties to be certified and
payable in 2026 were included on the delinquent listing in payable 2025, which is consistent
from last year’s delinquent listing compared to 2025.
I. Budget Impact: Minimal. This action would reimburse the City for costs it has incurred,
including county fees charged for adding these to the taxes.
II. Staff Impact: The process for collecting delinquent utility bill amounts requires a
significant amount of staff time. It includes preparing and mailing delinquent notices,
preparing and mailing notices of the public hearing, as well as other clerical work in
preparing the amounts for certification. The most time-consuming step of the process is
verifying the delinquent account data against Wright County property tax records. The
$75 fee that is added to the delinquent accounts upon certification helps defray the cost
of staff time and publication expenses.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommend adopting Resolution 2025-65 approving the certification of delinquent
utility billing accounts to the 2026 payable tax year.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2025-65
B. List of delinquent utility billing accounts to be certified
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Delinquent Utility Billing Accounts
Amount # of Accounts
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-65
APROVING THE CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLING ACCOUNTS TO THE 2026
PAYABLE TAX YEAR
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met
and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed certification of delinquent utility
billing account charges;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota:
1. Such proposed delinquent utility account listing to be certified , a copy of which is
attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted for the amount shown plus
an additional $75 processing fee at the time of certification to Wright County; and shall
constitute the lien against the parcels named herein, and each tract of land therein
included is hereby found to be benefitted by the lien certified against it.
2. Such certified balances shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable in the tax
year of the first Monday in January 2026 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum from the date of the adoption of this delinquent utility account listing. To the
first installment shall be added interest on the entire balance from the date of this
resolution until December 31, 2026.
3. The owner of any property included on the accompanying delinquent utility account
listing may, at any time up to and including November 26, 2025, pay the whole of the
lien on such property to the City Treasurer, and that no processing fee or interest shall
be charged if the entire balance is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this
resolution.
4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certification of this lien to the county auditor to be
extended on the property tax list of the county. Such lien shall be collected and paid
over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 27th day of October, 2025.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_____________________________________
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk
Account No PID Name Delinquent Balance
005123-000 155-086-007060 JAYRED & LORI KITTELSON $1,006.10
005137-000 155-109-004030 MELODY LANG $1,013.51
005207-000 155-040-001020 MICHAEL PELARSKI $1,128.73
005235-000 155-061-002060 KEVIN & PATRICIA FAIR $717.30
005355-000 155-086-005080 LOIS MARSH $183.44
005445-000 155-114-003020 TRACEY & TIFFANY MORGAN $3,144.31
005480-000 155-010-044061 NIGEL SCHUETTE $1,029.49
005510-000 155-010-067130 MARK MICHAELIS $1,289.87
005649-000 155-045-006010 KEVIN & KENDA LANG $1,156.23
005693-000 155-059-003070 WAYNE & ALYCE WITRY $1,296.86
005713-005 155-097-002060 ERIK & NANCY GOHL $2,610.25
005778-000 155-080-005070 JIM & TONI FREEBERG $218.51
005828-000 155-080-006160 MICHAEL & NATALIE NELSON $1,271.63
005832-000 155-080-006200 DEBRA EDWARDS $178.95
005838-000 155-080-007140 GREG & JENNIFER ASHFELD $935.21
005903-000 155-103-003170 COREY & CASSANDRA BENSON $2,378.61
005913-000 155-103-003070 JODY FELIX-JENSEN $1,273.56
005915-000 155-103-003050 BARBARA STEARNS $1,045.27
005931-000 155-103-002040 NANCY BARTHEL $784.75
005946-000 155-082-001090 TRACEY ELLIS $864.70
005954-000 155-082-001010 PATRICK & JEANNE WINSOR $125.39
005970-000 155-073-005030 CARL SCHMIDT $119.19
005992-000 155-088-007020 RYAN & ANGELA HARSTEAD $326.50
006015-000 155-082-005030 KIMBERLY SCHNEIDER $921.24
006025-000 155-082-004020 HARRY & DIONA GRIMLEY $1,748.99
006041-000 155-078-003140 RICHARD & BRENDA ANDERSON $863.91
006096-000 155-073-006010 SANDY MERICKEL $1,872.12
006285-000 155-090-005080 NICK & ROSA LAZAROFF $1,299.23
006286-000 155-090-005090 TIMOTHY & JODI TERWEY $202.50
006313-000 155-096-003020 BRENT & TAMMY BELLAND $1,803.59
006375-000 155-102-001030 MICHAEL & KIMBERLY WATTERS $377.78
006390-000 155-105-001030 BRENT SCHUMACHER $1,882.34
006396-000 155-102-002110 BRETT & CARMEN MAKI $998.90
006406-000 155-102-002010 ENRIQUE MUNOZ & DIANA RAMOS $2,982.05
006492-000 155-124-003180 DALE & ALEA STANGER $1,257.48
006534-000 155-130-001040 KEVIN FIETEK $918.66
006677-000 155-123-005020 MICHAEL MURPHY $1,900.99
006683-000 155-134-002050 ANTHONY & KIMBERLY BARTZ $623.73
006686-000 155-134-002080 PAMELA STEFFES $897.05
006693-000 155-134-001070 JARED & ANGELA HARTFIEL $968.32
006719-000 155-156-003020 DAVID & GINA BROWN $912.79
006743-001 155-037-008060 CHERYL GANGNON ESTATE $144.17
006793-000 155-183-001080 LISA INGERSOLL $673.91
006815-000 155-125-001020 DAVID & SHAWNA DARVILLE $1,058.21
006860-000 155-125-007140 MATTHEW GMACH $208.81
006879-000 155-125-006030 RYAN & DAYNA BITZ $1,230.02
006913-000 155-132-005090 CHRIS & SHELLY MATUSKA $2,087.94
006947-000 155-132-010050 GARY & TINA HANGSLEBEN $2,490.36
006950-000 155-132-010080 ROCHELLE CAVNESS $1,112.49
006963-000 155-132-001050 SCOTT & LAURA MCFARLIN $213.41
006987-000 155-132-003220 JEFFREY & KAREN CHRISTOPHERSON $973.42
007080-000 155-142-005080 BRENDA WHITTAKER $969.90
007118-000 155-147-007010 DIANE FRENCL $961.65
007201-000 155-155-004040 DUSTIN & ELIZABETH KRUCHTEN $1,334.15
007331-000 155-163-005040 GINA ARCHER $1,608.50
007333-001 155-134-001100 MARLYS ELIASON $3,731.56
007472-000 155-040-003110 KENDALL SCHUMANN $890.03
10/27/25 DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLING ACCOUNTS
007503-000 155-159-002120 KEITH & DAWN COX $1,817.05
007509-001 155-159-003010 HECTOR & RAMONA GOMEZ $76.63
007531-000 155-159-007020 JASON KELLY $1,543.72
007534-001 155-159-007050 JOSEPH & BRANDY VOLLBRECHT $1,235.86
007568-001 155-033-002070 JEREMY RICKSON $642.33
007680-000 155-160-010060 KRISTA LEE $1,851.53
007737-001 155-086-001170 CARRIE HEIL $1,646.39
007974-000 155-015-035060 STEVEN & JENNIFER VAN DYKE $1,832.07
008053-000 155-010-022080 BRENT & LANETTE AITCHISON $1,591.93
008159-000 155-500-113205 RIDGEMONT APARTMENTS (MONTI APTS)$17,614.33
008160-000 155-500-113205 RIDGEMONT APTS-COM ROOM (MONTI APTS)$732.65
008161-000 155-500-113205 RIDGEMONT APARTMENTS (MONTI APTS)$21,307.59
008261-000 155-145-001020 NALENGE & WEHOANU WAGBALA $1,081.37
008264-000 155-145-001050 LINDSEY KING (WALTERS)$964.81
008343-000 155-020-003010 KIMBERLY LEGRO $1,167.87
008435-003 155-048-001040 JASON & LINDA HINZ $1,812.58
008486-000 155-013-001130 CORREY PETERS $213.43
008493-001 155-013-001120 JACOB J & ANNE E SAVAGE $85.75
008687-000 155-048-001130 RANDY & ALLISON BAKKEN $1,144.83
008722-000 155-049-001050 GARRY EKEGREN $154.14
008870-000 155-035-001140 TERESITA KOJETIN $2,072.05
008973-000 155-033-001080 BENJAMIN KOLLES $1,046.08
008976-000 155-033-001050 TIMOTHY BENSON $941.18
009325-001 155-022-001010 LITICIA DECHENE-FULDA $341.22
009370-000 155-129-001050 MICHAEL & JOY YONAK $76.43
009531-000 155-010-050111 TREVOR LINK $827.43
009594-001 155-159-007190 RANDALL PUNDZUS $389.30
009595-004 155-159-007540 KEIRDEN-RY PROPERTIES LLC $1,599.57
009759-000 155-121-005080 ANGELA SCHULTZ $1,756.12
009919-000 155-134-002070 DUSTIN WATERHOUSE $3,490.03
009984-000 155-105-007050 JOSEPH PFEIL $325.59
010129-000 155-010-085030 JAMES M & LESLIE J HOLT $139.62
010207-000 155-111-002060 AMBER & GREG HENDEL $1,460.68
010290-000 155-010-040020 GAYLE POEPPING $982.92
010304-000 155-024-001030 JASON & MICHELLE RISLUND $927.28
010371-000 155-182-011030 STEVE & MARCIA KNASE $1,970.79
010388-001 155-059-003050 TOM & DONNA OLSON $459.35
010512-000 155-159-002090 JAMIE CLINE $1,257.64
010525-000 155-015-036030 RYANNE POCI $986.40
010539-000 155-154-006010 TIMOTHY & KRISTEN SWAIN $314.52
010587-000 155-015-002011 ANDI I TISCHNER $1,841.68
010833-000 155-090-002090 THERESA PARTHUM $2,434.01
011056-000 155-126-001100 BRAD & KELSEY HEINZ $107.51
011140-000 155-088-002080 JAMES DITTFACH $835.30
011259-000 155-172-002010 MEGHAN O'BRIEN $271.42
011336-000 155-086-007080 GREGORY JENNINGS $2,336.71
011527-000 155-082-003150 ANDREW STEVENS $1,490.31
011572-000 155-142-001040 JESSIE SEIB $1,635.18
011619-000 155-035-004020 JACOB TORKELSON $859.65
011621-000 155-078-002120 AMY BOETTCHER $967.61
011627-000 155-151-004280 SYTHA & SENGMANY INTHISANE $2,303.72
011686-000 155-124-001050 TANNER SCHMIDT $1,132.02
011716-006 155-015-032060 WIDELL REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES $813.78
011716-007 155-015-032060 WIDELL REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES $78.33
011905-001 155-700-006120 LENA POTVIN $2,079.11
011940-001 155-070-001010 JAMES LONG $525.95
012242-023 155-153-001030 PFEIFER PROPERTY MGMT LLC $771.34
012609-000 155-035-004190 KATHLEEN WICKLUND $903.52
012632-000 155-016-000020 CHRISTOPHER HOLTZ $1,725.09
012655-000 155-082-005020 ROSS YINGLING $1,013.41
012661-000 155-159-004090 MATHIAS & STEPHANIE URKE $883.94
012899-000 155-180-004010 ANTHONY & HEATHER JOHNSON $1,457.88
012904-000 155-195-001140 RYAN & MELISSA LILJEQUIST $501.72
013023-000 155-010-038090 OWEN THURSTON $959.96
013109-000 155-177-002030 ALISON SCHULLER $2,258.37
013125-000 155-133-001190 DANIELLE SMITH $1,396.56
013130-000 155-123-002200 HEIDI RANCOUR $591.28
013226-001 155-124-002020 EASTMAN & RETRIEVIA QUAQUA $2,403.49
013227-001 155-122-002030 BRANDON LOBERG $163.15
013249-000 155-151-004250 KRIS & AMBER TURNER $142.37
013361-000 155-151-004070 HEIDI GRAY $1,092.62
013374-000 155-149-001020 RANDY & SARA SCHWARTZ $1,619.71
013530-000 155-151-004110 MAIKHOU VANG $561.78
013659-000 155-086-002070 MICHELLE ADAIR $760.80
013712-000 155-014-003120 RANDALL WOLD ESTATE $102.04
013775-000 155-096-002100 CAROLINE MALONE $171.63
013851-000 155-159-007470 RACHEL BOUCHARD $1,555.51
013970-000 155-180-004040 MATTHEW & JESSICA NORTON $2,228.45
013992-000 155-175-005110 BRITTANY LAUNDERVILLE $1,214.59
013994-000 155-159-008350 JACOB ENGNELL $634.65
014076-000 155-086-003040 JAMES & MICHELLE MONTROY $1,501.29
014122-000 155-132-003230 LAKERAM BISRAM $2,358.07
014125-000 155-180-002030 JAMES & JESSICA DUNHAM $1,823.10
014176-001 155-026-002010 JESSICA DEPATTO $1,497.09
014180-000 155-151-005160 KATHERINE ALVARADO $1,461.10
014188-000 155-132-001060 SISAVANH SENGSOURICHANH $81.62
014241-000 155-080-007130 JOHN & APRIL RICHTER $821.64
014244-002 155-154-005030 BLAKE MILLER $76.79
014325-000 155-151-004230 MARVIN HILL $1,060.90
014328-000 155-132-008020 BORIS & CASSANDRA MENDEZ $418.07
014401-000 155-105-008040 MONICA JAMPSA $1,419.15
014403-000 155-102-001020 CARLOS SERRANO CARRILLO $3,288.60
014472-001 155-259-001130 HEROLD & AMIE PAGE $480.66
014504-000 155-010-009081 FAHMI KATABAY $3,141.92
014552-000 155-037-010020 JENIFER KOHOUT $1,254.19
014557-000 155-235-001040 ALBERT & PEHSEHLYN ALLISON $81.03
014621-000 155-235-003140 JOSEPH MARTINSON $1,271.98
014630-000 155-186-001020 SHANE & JULIE PRIBYL $95.25
014654-000 155-159-001040 ROSS BECKMAN $1,680.58
014719-000 155-235-003330 LIA RAMIREZ $453.60
014754-000 155-126-002040 RODNEY SHELTON $1,316.88
014768-000 155-155-003020 BRENT & BRIDGETTE ERICKSON $943.41
014815-000 155-134-001040 CORY & SAMANTHA CASEY $1,546.58
014898-000 155-125-005060 ROBERT COLUCCI $770.41
014925-000 155-187-001010 GEOFFREY JOHNSON $1,948.54
014940-000 155-105-005130 REGINALD & RACHEL DOBIE $2,395.81
014989-000 155-010-040080 MARK WALTERS $171.63
014995-000 155-031-004040 WARD & TINA BEAVERS $198.84
015005-000 155-021-002020 DEREK SWENSON $127.55
015023-000 155-090-001040 ROBERT & JAMIE RANDALL $1,853.57
015024-000 155-017-001010 JESSE TYGUM $1,322.45
015028-002 155-175-005100 J & L REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLC $1,457.32
015087-000 155-132-002050 DORIS ALEJANDRA HENRIQUEZ $4,847.33
015092-000 155-070-002150 JESSICA STRONG $1,219.22
015133-000 155-170-001030 MATT BEUMER $1,485.00
015315-000 155-159-007590 JEFFERSON TABLER $252.25
015329-000 155-173-003160 INDRA GONZALEZ GOMEZ $155.17
015342-000 155-123-003110 CLINTON JORDAN $304.54
015379-000 155-014-003070 DANIEL AKERS $1,535.51
015395-000 155-159-008410 JENNIFER AMUNDSON $106.60
015412-000 155-013-002071 SYLVESTER Y G & PANDORA S HARRIS $1,780.31
015415-000 155-015-004110 PATRICK KELLY $78.31
015428-000 155-125-006040 ASHLEY HAMM $395.66
015488-000 155-125-003030 OSCAR MIRANDA $1,138.55
015520-000 155-086-004180 KATHY LOGAN $1,042.36
015555-000 155-078-002110 BRIAN & MELISSA NISTLER $415.56
015639-000 155-019-005030 KARA EATON $1,167.90
015788-000 155-055-001070 JACQUELINE SANTOPIETRO $286.60
015908-000 155-010-055030 JACKSON YOUNG $215.94
015909-000 155-159-003040 JESTINE FENUKU $747.04
016013-000 155-250-008020 TRISHA JOHNSON $565.22
016032-000 155-123-003050 RYAN VOJTECH $1,097.27
016038-000 155-168-001070 JOSHUA CAMERON $244.52
016051-000 155-252-001090 CHRISTINE FOX $1,675.31
016055-000 155-700-006060 HALEY WILLIAMSON $479.07
016122-000 155-121-001030 JULIA DEAH $452.27
016153-000 155-102-002130 LARRY HATELLA $4,394.31
016205-000 155-090-001090 GENELLE RASSMUSSEN $2,683.06
016219-000 155-168-002030 WILLIAM KENNEDY $1,746.83
016256-000 155-259-002020 LUCILLE OQUINN $914.20
016296-000 155-086-004190 BRIE YE $635.27
016328-000 155-147-007020 JESSICA NEUMAN $87.72
016333-000 155-235-003270 DAVID & TARLO PEAL $155.77
016335-000 155-132-010100 DAVID & FAITH BABBITT $1,934.13
016339-000 155-010-039010 JEANINE MULHERON $432.73
016369-000 155-195-002020 MAXWELL & JACQUELINE TARPEH $730.64
016388-000 155-179-004010 JUSTIN BERMEL $1,367.71
016478-000 155-235-003180 LAINEY SOTO $1,148.98
016483-000 155-010-029070 CHARLES & MELANIE BONKOWSKE $108.06
016498-000 155-179-006020 GREG PARRISH $229.14
016500-000 155-147-004030 OLUWATOBI & BRIANNE OLAWORE $1,670.08
016523-000 155-183-003030 CHAD & LISA MCNIESH $141.18
016524-000 155-259-001120 CHASE TOPP $535.53
016549-000 155-010-010011 NEIL MARTH $1,242.81
016653-000 155-044-004090 PUSKY DUKULY $731.63
016670-001 155-250-016030 PEDRO AYORA $1,417.58
016670-002 155-250-014020 PEDRO AYORA $1,117.18
016670-003 155-250-016040 PEDRO AYORA $156.96
016671-000 155-160-010010 KEVIN YANG $682.45
016713-000 155-250-003030 EUMEKA KUFUOR $418.62
016722-000 155-024-001010 RYAN STANEK $905.97
016738-000 155-250-015040 RAQUELLE SMITH $89.69
016743-000 155-250-002030 JAMES GBILEE $1,390.62
016747-000 155-088-002030 KAITLYN & PATRICIA CROWLEY $1,009.98
016772-000 155-123-002070 CODY MORAN $541.87
016806-000 155-125-005230 AMBER RICHARDSON $568.88
016807-001 155-015-009030 SPENCER SANFORD $229.90
016856-000 155-261-001050 MUSAID MASSAN $2,240.90
016879-000 155-142-001110 ABASS DONZO $3,558.15
016883-000 155-116-006030 MENDY NYEMA $1,823.47
016895-000 155-088-001030 MOISES MORENO $2,284.04
016896-000 155-700-006140 MARGARET KEESLING $906.02
016995-000 155-088-004030 ERIC & KRISTEN AGUILAR $1,868.68
017137-000 155-015-012060 JAMES & MELANIE MARDIS $1,653.26
017141-000 155-010-055050 ETHAN EMMEL $579.30
017175-000 155-079-001020 SUPER 8 MOTEL - MONTICELLO $5,251.89
017179-000 155-080-005110 OUSMAN BAMBA $1,269.38
017312-000 155-133-001430 TERESA LEHNER $917.12
017349-000 155-142-002040 DANIEL DWYER $97.08
017410-000 155-086-004090 JORDON AVERY $205.85
017419-000 155-014-001130 NICK ANDERSON $1,061.09
017429-000 155-097-002090 MERCY CARDENAS $107.34
017431-000 155-142-002100 MERCY TOULUE $252.16
017473-000 155-250-003010 GERARD AKUMCHI $1,028.94
017524-000 155-250-009010 STEPHANIE BORN $334.49
017575-000 155-155-003070 DEAN & CHERYL MALOTKY $257.11
017580-000 155-172-002090 CHELSEA MORSE $468.35
017597-000 155-142-001060 SENY TONAMOU $297.65
017608-000 155-271-002050 ADAM & MUY LAIR $84.69
017780-000 155-010-035150 MATTREROSE FOODS LLC $5,049.13
017844-000 155-132-003160 PAUL & JUDY BAUMGARTNER $1,407.67
018045-000 155-048-001050 BRETT WARD $317.42
018090-000 155-159-007560 MANSION BLDRS $1,709.70
018174-000 155-010-081010 KAREN ROWLAND $380.17
018310-000 155-264-003040 KAYLA KLEVEN $581.00
018320-001 155-010-052130 NORDIC TAPHOUSE $76.57
018337-000 155-082-002180 MIYOKO OMORI $199.68
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
3B. Public Hearing – Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-66 approving the
assessment roll for delinquent miscellaneous accounts to be certified for 2026 payable
tax year
Prepared by:
Finance Director
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☐ Consent Agenda Item
☒ Public Hearing Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
N/A
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt Resolution 2025-66 approving the assessment roll for delinquent
miscellaneous accounts to be certified for 2026 payable tax year.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Throughout the year, the finance department bills residents and customers for miscellaneous
charges per the Fee Schedule ordinance passed by Council. Certifying unpaid accounts that are
more than 60 days past due as a lien on a property’s tax statement is one method the City can
take to collect delinquent balances. A public hearing must be held no less than 30 days after the
affected property owner is given notice of the public hearing to give the property owner an
opportunity to address the Council regarding the unpaid charges.
After the public hearing is held and Council approves the certification of delinquent balances to
Wright County, the customer is given 30 days to pay the balance in full. Upon certification to
Wright County, an additional $75 is applied to the customer’s account for administrative costs
associated with processing the delinquent notices and certifying the delinquent account
balances. The certified charges will bear an interest rate of six (6.0) percent from the date of
the public hearing as allowed by Minnesota State Statute 116A.17.
I. Budget Impact: Minimal. This action would reimburse the city for costs it incurred
including county fees charged for adding these to the taxes.
II. Staff Impact: Due to the traditionally minimal number of delinquent accounts, the tasks
involved fall within the normal workload of the finance department and city clerk.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
2
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommend adopting Resolution 2025-66 approving the assessment roll for
delinquent miscellaneous accounts to be certified for 2026 payable tax year.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2025-66
B. List of delinquent miscellaneous accounts to be certified
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-66
APROVING THE CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TO
THE 2026 PAYABLE TAX YEAR
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met
and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed certification of delinquent
miscellaneous accounts receivable account charges;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota:
1. Such proposed delinquent account listing to be certified, a copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted for the amount shown plus an
additional $75 processing fee at the time of certification to Wright County; and shall
constitute the lien against the parcels named herein, and each tract of land therein
included is hereby found to be benefitted by the lien certified against it.
2. Such certified balances shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable in the tax
year of the first Monday in January 2026 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum from the date of the adoption of this accounts listing. To the first installment
shall be added interest on the entire balance from the date of this resolution until
December 31, 2026.
3. The owner of any property included on the accompanying delinquent accounts listing
may, at any time up to and including November 26, 2025, pay the whole of the lien on
such property to the City Treasurer, and that no processing fee or interest shall be
charged if the entire balance is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution.
4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certification of this lien to the county auditor to be
extended on the property tax list of the county. Such lien shall be collected and paid
over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 27th day of October, 2025.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_____________________________________
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk
PID Address First Name Last Name Balance Invoice Description
155-069-003070 5110 Starling Dr Michael Brevig 299.43$ Blight
155-020-001020 1021 Oak Lane Mike Clawson 85.41$ Brush Chipping
155-180-001030 4305 89th St NE Richardo Dasilva 159.00$ Water Meter Charges
155-116-006030 6112 Wildwood Way Jason Habiger 87.19$ Brush Chipping
155-132-005090 10019 Somerset Lane Shelly Matuska 88.90$ Brush Chipping
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
4A. Consideration of approving policies related to the Minnesota Paid Leave (Paid Leave)
program including a 50/50 premium split between the City of Monticello and non-
bargaining unit employees, utilizing the State of MN as the Plan provider, and the
discontinuation of the weekly disability benefit for non-bargaining employees
effective January 1, 2026
Prepared by:
Human Resources Manager
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☐ Consent Agenda Item
☒ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Finance Director
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve Paid Leave policies including a 50/50 premium split between the City of
Monticello and non-bargaining unit employees, utilizing the State of MN as the Plan provider,
and discontinuing the weekly disability benefit for non-bargaining staff effective 1/1/26.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Beginning January 1, 2026, the Minnesota Paid Leave (Paid Leave) program allows most
employees to apply for a paid leave benefit to cover a portion of lost wages when they need to
take time off to care for themselves and/or their family members. Eligible employees include all
full-time, part-time, paid on-call, and seasonal employees, as well as elected officials.
Participation in the program is a requirement for all Minnesota employers and employees.
The majority of the program and its requirements are dictated by law but there are a few policy
decisions employers must make in advance of January 1, 2026. Policy decisions include the level
of premium contribution (bargaining unit employee premiums are subject to negotiation), the
Plan provider, and coordination of existing disability coverage and the new Paid Leave benefits.
The policy decisions will be incorporated into an overall Paid Leave policy that will come back to
the City Council for final approval in November.
Premium Contributions
Paid Leave is funded by premiums. Employers are required to submit contributions to the State
of Minnesota’s Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) on a quarterly
basis. The first payment is due April 30, 2026.
When Paid Leave begins in 2026, the premium rate will be 0.88%. This rate is the percentage of
an employee’s wages that employers must collect and submit to the State. Employers must pay
at least 50 percent and up to 100% of the total premium and can deduct any remainder from
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
2
employee pay. After the first year, the premium rate will be set annually by July 31 for the
following year.
A poll of other cities shows the vast majority will be passing the remaining 50% of the premium
onto employees. The main reason most organizations are opting for the 50/50 split is for
budget reasons. Additionally, contributing more than the required 50% comes with
administrative income tax complications.
Paid Leave Provider
A new department of the State of Minnesota will operate the Paid Leave program. Duties of the
new department will include collecting premiums, processing online applications, and issuing
payments. Organizations have the option to use an equivalent plan as long as it meets or
exceeds the State’s requirements. An equivalent plan can be either a private insurance carrier
or a self-insured plan managed by the employer.
Staff reviewed all options and would not recommend self-insuring due to the unknown impact
on the budget and the lack of internal staff to manage the leave requests and payments. The
City gathered information from two local brokers regarding the private carrier option; however,
a private carrier would require additional administrative staff time and wouldn’t result in cost
savings for the City. For these reasons, staff recommend utilizing the State’s plan. There is no
longevity requirement on the State’s plan, so there is the potential to switch to an equivalent
plan in the future.
Weekly Disability Benefits
The City of Monticello currently provides a short-term weekly disability benefit through Lincoln
Financial to all full-time non-bargaining unit employees in the amount of $300 per week. The
benefit provides partial income replacement for up to 12 weeks when recovering from an
employee’s own injury, surgery, or childbirth. The bargaining unit employees have a similar
weekly disability benefit under the union’s benefit program. However, it is currently unknown
whether the union will continue with this benefit in 2026.
Under the new Paid Leave program all employees are eligible for a more generous benefit
including replacement income up to 90% of wages, based on income level (maximum
$1423/wk. for 2026) for both medical and family leave.
Employers are not allowed to require PTO usage during Paid Leave, but employees are allowed
to “top off” their Paid Leave benefit with supplemental benefits such as a private or employer
sponsored disability or PTO benefit as long as the total benefit collected by the employee does
not exceed 100% of the employees’ weekly wage. Given the benefit rate of the new Paid Leave
program and the option to supplement with PTO, staff recommend discontinuing the short-
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
3
term weekly disability. Ultimately, employees retain the intent of the benefit, the City is simply
providing it in a new way within the requirements of the state program.
I. Budget Impact: Estimated budget impacts of an employer premium contribution of
0.44% of wages are as follows:
Fund
New Paid
Leave
Premium
Elimination of
Current Weekly
Benefit Total Impact
General $15,800 ($4,000) $11,800
Community Center $4,900 ($900) $4,000
Water $1,500 ($300) $1,200
Sewer $1,300 ($300) $1,000
Stormwater $500 ($100) $400
Liquor $3,400 ($1,500) $1,900
Deputy Registrar $2,400 ($900) $1,500
Facilities Maintenance $900 ($400) $500
IT Services $400 ($200) $200
Economic Development Authority $800 ($300) $500
Total $31,900 ($8,900) $23,000
II. Staff Workload Impact: There is expected to be moderate short-term increase in staff
workload developing a specific City Paid Leave policy and FAQs, distributing and
collecting signatures for required employee notices, and educating employees on the
new program. There will also be a long-term impact on staff workload reviewing
applications submitted by employees, coordinating leave with other benefits, issuing job
protection notices and tracking time; however, we will not know the extent of the
impact until the program is underway.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
4
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff reviewed the three policy decisions above with the Personnel Committee on two
occasions and for the reasons noted above, the Personnel Committee members recommend
approving a 50/50 premium split between the City of Monticello and non-bargaining unit
employees, utilizing the State of MN as our Plan provider, and the discontinuation of the
weekly disability benefit for non-bargaining staff effective 1/1/26.
SUPPORTING DATA
• MN Paid Leave Employment Poster
Minnesota Paid Leave | 180 E 5th St Suite 1200 | Saint Paul, MN 551017/2025
What can I use Paid Leave for?
Medical Leave:
l To care for your own serious health condition, including
care related to pregnancy, childbirth, and recovery
Family Leave:
l Bonding Leave – to care for and bond with a new child
welcomed through birth, adoption, or foster placement
l Caring Leave – to care for a family member with a serious
health condition
l Military Family Leave – to support a family member called
to active duty
l Safety Leave – to respond to issues related to domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking for yourself or a family
member
Generally, conditions must last more than seven days
and be certified by a healthcare provider or other
professional.
Am I covered by Paid Leave?
Most workers in Minnesota are covered by Paid Leave.
You are covered no matter the size of your employer, or
the hours or days you work. Independent contractors and
self-employed individuals are not automatically covered
but may opt in. You may qualify for payments if you’ve
been paid a minimum amount for work in Minnesota in
the last year ($3,900 for the start of Paid Leave in 2026).
How long can I take leave?
You may qualify to take up to 12 weeks of family
or medical leave per benefit year. If you need both
family and medical leave in the same benefit year,
you may qualify for up to 20 weeks in total.
How much will I get paid?
When you use Paid Leave, the state makes payments to
you. Paid Leave will pay up to 90% of your wages, based
on your income level, with a maximum weekly amount set
at the state’s average weekly wage. This amount changes
each year, and is $1,423 for the start of Paid Leave in 2026.
Who pays for Paid Leave?
Paid Leave is funded by premiums paid by employees
and employers. The initial premium rate is 0.88% of
covered wages. Your employer may deduct up to 0.44%
of your wages to fund your portion of the premium.
What are my employment protections?
l Job protections: Generally, you must be restored to your
job or an equivalent position when returning from leave.
Job protections take effect 90 days after your date of hire.
l Health insurance continuation: Generally, employers
must continue to fund their portion of healthcare
insurance premiums while you are on leave.
l No retaliation or interference: Employers must not
interfere with or retaliate against you if you apply for or
use Paid Leave. Employers cannot take your Paid Leave
payments.
For inquiries related to Paid Leave, please contact Minnesota
Paid Leave at 651-556-7777 or visit our website.
If you think your employer is violating employment
protections, contact the Labor Standards Division at the
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry.
This information can be provided in alternative formats
to people with disabilities or people needing language
assistance by calling the Paid Leave Contact Center at
651-556-7777 or 844-556-0444 (toll-free).
LEARN MORE: paidleave.mn.gov
Effective January 1, 2026
Minnesota Paid Leave provides payments and job protections when you
need time off to care for yourself or your family.
MINNESOTA PAID LEAVE
4B. Consideration of
Implementing a Gas Energy
Franchise Fee
October 27, 2025
•Minnesota State Statute § 216B.36 allows
municipalities to impose franchise fees on utilities to
operate within the public right-of-way.
•Currently, the City has electric franchise agreements
with Xcel Energy and Wright Hennepin Electric.
o Residential - $1.95 monthly
o Small Commercial and Industrial - $5.50 monthly
o Large Commercial and Industrial - $190 monthly
Franchise Authority
10/27/2025City of Monticello 2
•The City can implement a gas franchise fee and
increase the electric franchise fee to replace the use
of assessments for pavement management projects,
such as mill and overlays and roadway
reconstructions.
o The City currently assesses property owners about 30% of
the costs for roadway reconstruction projects and 50% for
mill and overlay projects.
o Assessments are planned to continue for urban to rural
conversion projects where curb and gutter is being
installed for the first time.
Franchise Fees Use
10/27/2025City of Monticello 3
•CenterPoint Energy has a rate class for residential and
commercial accounts based on their energy usage.
•The proposed gas franchise fee structure is as follows:
o Residential: $7 per month
o Firm A: $7 per month
o Firm B: $24 per month
o Firm C: $83 per month
o Small Volume, Dual Fuel A: $83 per month
o Small Volume, Dual Fuel B: $175 per month
o Large Volume, Firm and Dual Fuel: $292 per month
•The proposed gas franchise fee is estimated to generate
$735,000 annually.
Franchise Fee Structure
10/27/2025City of Monticello 4
•If approved, franchise fees will take affect 90 days
after notification to CenterPoint Energy and will be
filed with the Public Utilities Commission prior to
implementation.
•The franchise fee is estimated to go into effect on
February 1, 2026.
Franchise Fee Implementation
10/27/2025City of Monticello 5
Questions?
10/27/2025City of Monticello 6
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
4B. Consideration of adopting Ordinance 859 implementing a gas energy franchise fee on
CenterPoint Energy Minnesota Gas
Prepared by:
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☐ Consent Agenda Item
☒ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Finance Director
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve Ordinance 859 implementing a gas energy franchise fee on CenterPoint
Energy Minnesota Gas.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City strives to incorporate diverse funding sources to fulfill its obligations and
responsibilities to the public. In an effort to be strong financial stewards, staff and Council
periodically review alternative funding sources to evaluate their efficacy for Monticello.
One of the current funding sources for repairs and improvements related to the City’s
pavement management program is special assessments levied against benefiting properties. In
2019 the City’s pavement management plan was updated and provides an overview of the
funding levels required to maintain the approximately 65 miles of roadways within the city.
Since completing the update to the pavement management plan, staff annually complete
pavement ratings on a section of the city’s roadways and utilize the plan for scheduling
roadway maintenance and capital improvements.
The City currently utilizes a combination of property tax dollars allocated to the Capital Projects
Fund, Municipal State-Aid Funds administered through MnDOT, and the assessments to
benefiting property owners to fund the pavement management program. However, some cities
utilize franchise fees as an alternative funding option. The City of Monticello currently has an
electric franchise fee and has the option to incorporate a gas franchise fee. The City Council
reviewed possibly transitioning to this structure at special meetings on April 28, 2025, and
August 11, 2025. Following these discussions, the Council directed staff to pursue implementing
a gas franchise fee to help fund the City’s pavement management program.
Under state law, cities may impose franchise fees on utilities that operate within the public
right-of-way. The implementation of a gas franchise fee would create a dedicated funding
source to support pavement management projects and could serve as a local match for future
state and federal grant applications.
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
2
Revenues generated from the gas franchise fee would be dedicated by the City Council to the
maintenance of existing city streets. This dedicated funding could eliminate the need for special
assessments on pavement management projects such as roadway reconstructions and mill and
overlays. Currently, residential properties are assessed approximately 30% of the total project
cost for reconstructions and 50% for mill and overlays. Assessments would continue to apply
only on urban to rural conversion projects where curb and gutter are installed for the first time.
The proposed gas franchise fee structure is as follows:
• Residential: $7 per month
• Firm A: $7 per month
• Firm B: $24 per month
• Firm C: $83 per month
• Small Volume, Dual Fuel A: $83 per month
• Small Volume, Dual Fuel B: $175 per month
• Large Volume, Firm and Dual Fuel: $292 per month
Franchise fee amounts for commercial and industrial accounts are based on natural gas usage
compared to an average residential property.
The franchise fee would take effect 90 days after notification to CenterPoint Energy and would
be filed with the Public Utilities Commission prior to implementation. The franchise fee is
anticipated to go into effect on February 1, 2026.
I. Budget Impact: The gas franchise fees received, estimated at $735,000 annually, would be
placed into a new Transportation Improvement capital projects fund and would be used
solely for pavement management projects.
II. Staff Workload Impact: Staff will be involved with the collection and administration of the
franchise fees, which fall within normal work duties.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: The Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Mobility and
Connectivity outlines the city's commitment to maintaining and enhancing transportation
infrastructure, providing a policy foundation for using franchise fees to fund pavement
management as part of a broader mobility strategy.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommend approval of the implementation of a gas franchisee fee.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Ordinance 859
B. Pavement Management Map
237470v1
ORDINANCE NO. 859
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A GAS ENERGY FRANCHISE FEE ON
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNESOTA GAS, A NATURAL GAS UTILITY FOR
PROVIDING GAS ENERGY SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN THAT:
Section 1. A Gas Franchise Fee on CenterPoint Energy (“Company”) is established and
implemented as follows:
(a) Purpose. The City of Monticello City Council has determined that is in the best interest of the
City to impose a franchise fee on those utility companies that provide natural gas and electric
services within the City. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.36 and Section 7.1 of the
Franchise Ordinance, the City has the authority and right to impose a franchise fee on Company.
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish such franchise fees to be paid to the City by the
Company.
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the following
meanings:
(1) City. The City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota.
(2) Company. CenterPoint Energy Minnesota Gas (“CenterPoint Energy”), its successors
and assigns.
(3) Franchise Ordinance. The franchise ordinance adopted by the City on June 8, 2009,
City Ordinance No. 500.
(4) Notice. “Notice” means a writing served by any party or parties on any other party or
parties. Notice to the Company shall be mailed to CenterPoint Energy, Minnesota
Division Vice President, 505 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55402. Notice to
the City shall be mailed to the City Clerk at 505 Walnut Street, Monticello MN 55362.
(c) Franchise Fee Statement and Schedule. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on Company
commencing with the January 2026 billing month, and in accordance with the following fee
schedule:
237470v1
Customer Classification
Amount Per Account
Per Month ($)
Residential $7 per month
Firm A $7 per month
Firm B $24 per month
Firm C $83 per month
Small Volume, Dual Fuel A (“SVDF A”) $83 per month
Small Volume, Dual Fuel B (“SVDF B”) $175 per month
Large Volume, Firm and Dual Fuel (“LVDF”) $292 per month
(e) Payment. Franchise fees are to be collected by the Company, consistent with the Minnesota
Public Utility Commission’s March 23, 2011, Order establishing franchise fee filing requirements
in Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970, and submitted to the City as follows:
January – March collections due by April 30
April – June collections due by July 31
July – September collections due by October 31
October – December collections due by January 31
(f) Record Support for Payment. The Company shall make each payment when due and, if
requested by the City, shall provide a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was
determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total made to account for any
non-collectible accounts, refunds or error corrections. The Company shall permit the City, and its
representatives, access to the Company’s records for the purpose of verifying such statements.
(g) Payment Adjustments. Payment to the City will be adjusted where the Company is unable to
collect the franchise fee. This includes non-collectible accounts.
(h) Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission may allow the
Company to add a surcharge to customer rates of city residents to reimburse the Company for the
cost of the fee, consistent with the Minnesota Public Utility Commission’s March 23, 2011 Order
establishing franchise fee filing requirements in Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970.
(i) Dispute Resolution. If either party asserts that the other party is in default in the performance
of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and
the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must promptly
meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved
within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to facilitate further
discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. If a mediator is
not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after first meeting with
the selected mediator, either party may commence an action in District Court to interpret and
enforce this ordinance or for such other relief permitted by law.
(j) Effective Date of Franchise Fee. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be after its
publication and ninety (90) days after sending written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted
Ordinance to Company by certified mail. Collection of the fee shall commence as provided above.
237470v1
(k) Relation to Franchise Agreement. This ordinance is enacted in compliance with the Franchise
Ordinance and shall be interpreted as such.
(l) Periodic Review. The City Council shall review this ordinance every two (2) years in whatever
manner the City Administrator then determines to be appropriate, including, but not limited to,
review by the City Council in either a work session or a regular meeting. Failure to review this
ordinance shall not in any way invalidate or limit it.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be published and take effect as provided by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 27th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
City Clerk
Ayes: Christianson, Gabler, Hilgart, Hinz, and Martie
Nays: None
Absent: None
Published in the Monticello Times newspaper the 6th day of November, 2025.
ELM
S
T
7TH ST E
95TH ST NE
RIVE
R
S
T
W
RIV
E
R
S
T
W
90TH
S
T
N
E
7
T
H
S
T
W
C
H
E
L
S
E
A
R
D
CH
E
L
S
E
A
R
D
85TH ST NE
2025 Pavement Management
Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, METI/
NASA, EPA, USDA
MonticelloRoadSegments2022 Shapefile
Poor (0-39)
Fair (40-49)
Satisfactory (50-69)
Good (70-89)
Excellent (90-100)
1/28/2025
0 0.7 1.40.35 mi
0 1 20.5 km
1:45,000
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
1
4C. Consideration of approving a Professional Services Proposal from WSB for a Step One
Grant Application through the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails
Commission
Prepared by:
Parks, Arts & Recreation Director
Meeting Date:
10/27/2025
☐Consent Agenda Item
☒Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Community Development Director,
Finance Director
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve a Professional Services Proposal from WSB for a Step One Grant Application
through the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission for The Pointes at Cedar
project.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
September 27, 2021: Adopted Resolution 2021-73 approving the Chelsea Commons Small Area
Plan
April 25, 2022: Adopted Ordinance 776 establishing the Pointes at Cedar District (PCD)
September 26, 2022: Adopted the Pointes at Cedar Master Plan
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City of Monticello is seeking professional assistance to complete the Step One application
for regional designation of The Pointes at Cedar through the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks
and Trails Commission (GMRPTC). Achieving regional significance for the public park portion of
the project area would open the door to potential state grant funding from the Legacy Parks
and Trails Fund, which the GMRPTC recommends to the legislature. The designation process
also includes a professional assessment to ensure the park meets high standards for recreation
and natural environments.
The Pointes at Cedar is envisioned as a year-round recreational hub that will attract visitors
from outside the local area, highlighting unique biomes that create a rich and engaging
atmosphere. The Step One application is critical, as approval is required for the park to achieve
regional designation and advance toward inclusion in the Greater MN Regional Park and Trail
System. This initial screening ensures the park meets the criteria for regional significance,
City Council Agenda: 10/27/2025
2
allowing the City to make informed decisions before implementing components or phases of
the comprehensive Master Plan.
I. Budget Impact: The initial proposal for Step One outlines a total fee capped at $16,500,
which will be charged at an hourly rate and funded through the parks department in the
General Fund, which has allocated $10,000 for this application in 2025. Costs over budget
are anticipated to come from other underspent accounts in the parks department.
II. Staff Workload Impact: City staff will handle the resolution of support, and organize
meetings with city staff and or project partners.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: The Monticello 2040 Plan provides a blueprint for the
community's future and translates the city's vision for land use, transportation, and parks
into specific outcomes. The plan emphasizes the importance of parks, trails and open space
to achieving the community’s vision. The City has also approved a Small Area Plan for the
project, adopted as an appendix to the 2040 Plan and a Master Plan that outlines the vision
for public spaces, including a trail system and public amenities. The Parks, Arts, &
Recreation (PAR) Master Plan, which will be added to the comprehensive plan when
complete, will directly address The Pointes as a recreational asset filling a gap in the
current park system. The PAR Master PLan is intended to guide the development and
maintenance of the parks system, identify gaps, and align investments with community
needs.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommend approval of the Professional Services Proposal with WSB.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Professional Services Proposal from WSB
B. The Pointes Master Plan
G:\.Clients All\Monticello\Proposals\2025 Pointes of Cedar GMRPTC\LTR Proposal_Pointes of Cedar_Step1 GMRPTC.docx
7
0
1
X
E
N
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
|
S
U
I
T
E
3
0
0
|
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
|
55
4
1
6
|
7
6
3
.
5
4
1
.
4
8
0
0
|
W
S
B
E
N
G
.
C
O
M
October 16, 2025
Tom Pawelk
Parks, Arts & Recreation Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Professional Services Proposal – Step 1 Grant Application for “The Pointes at Cedar”
project to Greater MN Regional Parks and Trails Commission for Regional Designation
consideration
Dear Mr. Pawelk,
I am pleased to submit this letter proposal on behalf of WSB LLC (Consultant) to the City of
Monticello (Client) for completing the “Step 1” application for regional designation consideration
through the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission (GMRPTC).
I. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
It is understood that the City of Monticello seeks professional services for completing the
GMRPTC’s online portal application for regional designation Step 1.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. PROJECT STARTUP AND MANAGEMENT
A. Project Startup
1) Consultant will facilitate a project startup meeting with Client to review the project
schedule, process, and deliverables along with a discussion of site programming
and any work to be completed by the City. Consultant will prepare and distribute
meeting summary notes to those in attendance.
B. Project Management:
1) Provide updates to, and coordination with, Client through the duration of the
planning process to include one (1) virtual review meeting of application prior to
submittal.
2) Facilitate internal meetings with staff resources to deliver the project. This
includes monitoring and managing the scope of services, budget, and schedule
to align with the professional services agreement, and quality control / quality
assurance to ensure the final deliverables meet required standards.
C. GMRPTC Meetings:
1) Consultant will facilitate up to two (2) virtual meetings with the GMRPTC Contact
to include a pre-application discussion and a review of the application materials
prior to final application submission.
2. APPLICATION PROCESS – STEP 1 INITIAL APPLICATION
A. Portal Application
1) Consultant will develop text, graphics, and support materials for the initial Step 1
application requirements, to include the following:
4C (1)
Mr. Tom Pawelk
October 16, 2025
Page 2
G:\.Clients All\Monticello\Proposals\2025 Pointes of Cedar GMRPTC\LTR Proposal_Pointes of Cedar_Step1 GMRPTC.docx
a. General Tab: Consultant will answer questions, upload the master plan
graphic, owner contact information, Resolution of Support (provided by
Client), and project supporters (provided by Client).
b. Description Tab: Consultant will provide descriptions and graphics meeting
the requirements for the Regional Significance Statement, Classification,
Overview/Description of Park, Total Acreage, and Acquisition / Development
Status. This includes a regional analysis within a 30-mile radius.
c. Facility Listing Tab: Consultant will provide descriptions and graphics for
Proposed Facilities, General Site Characteristics, Imagery uploads, and
written description information.
d. Master Plan Tab: Consultant will upload the existing master plan with the
clarification that the master plan will need to be updated to meet the strategic
plan requirements if deemed “Eligible for Designation.”
e. Classification Details Tab: Consultant will provide descriptions and graphics
for each of the four Criteria. Each component of the master plan must be
labeled and described individually with corresponding graphics and imagery
to identify how each contributes to the following:
• Criteria 1: Provides High-Quality Outdoor Recreation Experience
• Criteria 2: Provides a Natural and Scenic Setting Offering a Compelling
Sense of Place
• Criteria 3: Well-located to Serve Regional Need
• Criteria 4: Fills a Gap in Recreational Opportunity Within the Region
f. Attachments Tab: Consultant will upload any additional supporting materials
g. Submit Tab: Consultant will submit all uploads for official submittal. This task
includes follow-up and potential minor revisions based on feedback from the
GMRPTC and one resubmittal.
III. ASSUMPTIONS
Consultant has based the scope of work and fee upon the following assumptions. We
understand that the Client will be responsible for:
1. Full program coordination with one individual representing the Owner’s interests.
2. Providing legal counsel, advice and services available to the Consultant during the term
of this Agreement on any or all matters related to the project such as, but not limited to,
title opinions, interpretations of agreements, covenants and laws affecting the project,
advice and assistance in processing applications, review and preparation of project
agreement documents, participation in presentations to public agency staff and boards
and general counsel on the legal implications of all substantive or proc edural aspects of
the project itself.
3. Coordinating all meetings with City staff, associations, and project partners.
4. Provide all necessary Resolution(s) of Support.
5. Provide City related financials (revenue, expenditures, operations & maintenance, etc.)
IV. EXCLUSIONS
1. The following items are excluded from this Agreement; however, Consultant can provide
these professional services for additional compensation by amendment to this
Agreement.
a) Community Engagement
b) Cultural / Archaeological work / SHPO / THPO coordination.
c) Environmental / Endangered Species Reviews.
d) Wetland Delineations.
e) Land Appraisals.
4C (2)
Mr. Tom Pawelk
October 16, 2025
Page 3
G:\.Clients All\Monticello\Proposals\2025 Pointes of Cedar GMRPTC\LTR Proposal_Pointes of Cedar_Step1 GMRPTC.docx
V. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Additional services may be added upon approval by both Client and Consultant via
amendment to this Agreement.
VI. PROPOSED FEES
The scope of services outlined in Paragraph II above will be delivered at an hourly rate, with
total fees not to exceed $16,500.
VII. ACCEPTANCE
This letter represents our entire understanding of the project scope. All work under this
proposal will be governed by the Professional Services Agreement entered into between the
City of Monticello and WSB on January 8, 1996. If the scope and fee appear to be
appropriate, please sign on the space provided and return one copy to our office. We are
available to begin work once we receive signed authorization.
Thank you for this opportunity to assist the city with this grant application process and continue
with this important community project. Please contact me at 612-518-3696 or via
jamberg@wsbeng.com if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB
Jason L. Amberg, PLA, ASLA
Principal / Director of Landscape Architecture
Ph. (612) 518-3696
CITY OF MONTICELLO
I hereby authorize WSB to proceed with the above-referenced work
under the terms and conditions of the Professional Services Agreement
entered into between the City of Monticello and WSB on January 8,
1996.
______________________________________
Authorized Signature
______________________________________
Title
______________________________________
Date
4C (3)
Scale in Feet
0’200’100’
MASTER PLAN
Monticello, Minnesota
September 2022 | WSB Project number: 019376-000
STORAGE LINK
S
C
H
O
O
L
B
L
V
D
CE
D
A
R
S
T
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
5
CHELSEA RD
ED
M
O
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
E
COMMERCIAL
P
O
W
E
R
L
I
N
E
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
ALDI
8
10
11 12
23
13
15
14
11
16
17
19
22
18
20
21
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
24
25
26
9
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
COMMERCIAL
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
FUTURE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
44 STALLS
22 STALLS
46 FUTURE STALLS
Legend
Callout Key
PADDLE SPORT
LAUNCH
PLAY AREAS
FISHING PIER
FOOD TRUCKS
ICE SKATING
INTERACTIVE WATER
FEATURE BIOME TRANSITION
PICNICKING
PUBLIC ART
RESTING POINTS
FITNESS
RESTROOMS
NORTH BIOME | POPULUS
1. ENTRY MONUMENT/PLAZA
2. GATEWAY & INFORMATIONAL KIOSK
3. NATURE TRAIL
4. “THE CLEARING” OVERLOOK
5. BABBLING CREEK WITH BRIDGE
6. SECONDARY GATEWAY
7. LAKESIDE TRAIL
CENTRAL BIOME | TILIA
8. MURAL ALLEY (COMMERCIAL ENTRY)
9. OVERLOOK PIER
10. “BACKYARD GAME” PLAZA
11. THE MIDWAY - MAJOR GATEWAY
12. BRIDGE OVERLOOK PLAZA
13. PADDLEBOAT DOCK
14. SNACK SHACK PLAZA
15. FLEX LAWN / INTERACTIVE WATER FEATURE
16. THE PROMENADE GARDENS - MAJOR GATEWAY
17. SUNSET OVERLOOK TERRACE
18. GREAT EVENT LAWN
19. PICNIC SHELTER AND RESTROOM
20. THE PARK - MAJOR GATEWAY
21. SKATE PARK
22. 2-STORY PARK PAVILION & LAKE PLAZA
23. MAINTENANCE & STORAGE FACILITY
SOUTH BIOME | QUERCUS
24. NATURE TRAIL & BOARDWALK
25. SCULPTURE ALLEY - SECONDARY GATEWAY
26. THE RIBBON - SECONDARY GATEWAY
MINI ARBORETUM
4C (4)