The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 09-14-2009AGENDA REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, September 14, 2009 – 7 p.m. Mayor: Clint Herbst Council Members: Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf, Susie Wojchouski 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance. 2A. Approve minutes of August 24, 2009 Special Meeting. 2B. Approve minutes of August 24, 2009 Regular Meeting. 2C. Approve minutes of August 31, 2009 Special Meeting. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments, public service announcements and Council updates. a. Public Service Announcements, if any: 1) “Embrace Open Space” b. Council Updates: 1) 5. Consent Agenda: A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for FiberNet, MCC, Parks, Streets, and Water & Sewer. B. Consideration of approving $250 contribution from Tom Perrault to go into the General Fund. C. Consideration of approving final payments and accepting work for stucco surface and window and door improvements at the Monticello DMV/Monticello Help Center, City Project No. 09C001. D. Consideration of approving agreement with CGI Productions for participation in the 2009 Community Showcase Program, in which CGI will produce city promotional videos at no cost to the City. E. Consideration of approving application for GFOA internship grant. F. Consideration of approving contract with Wright County Sheriff’s Department for police protection for 2010 and 2011. G. Consideration of Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for FiberNet Video Switch Electronics Equipment, City Project No. 09C002. H. Consideration of accepting quotes and authorizing staining/painting improvements for Monticello Fire Hall. I. Consideration of appointing a design planner to assist with MCC and City Hall space needs. J. Consideration of approving replacement of MCC pool lighting. K. Consideration of accepting quotes and approving subcontractors for FiberNet Monticello garage, City Project No. 09C006. L. Consideration of approving Change Order No. 1 for FiberNet Monticello Garage, City Project No. 09C006. M. Consideration of approving a request for City action relating to Downtown Block Party on October 10, 2009 by the Monticello Downtown Business Association. 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. 7. Public Hearing – Fallon Avenue Rehabilitation Improvements, City Project No. 09C005. 8. Consideration of Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for Fallon Avenue Rehabilitation Improvements, City Project No. 09C005. 9. (A) Consideration of revising access modifications to River Street / Hwy 75; (B) Consideration of authorizing preparation of a plan for implementing a Downtown directional sign program; and (C) Consideration of authorizing preparation of a Request For Proposal for traffic and redevelopment study of the Downtown/ Highway 25 corridor. 10. Consideration of amending the terms of the Jefferson Commons (Lot 2, Block1) purchase agreement between the City of Monticello and Michael Krutzig to allow the sale of the parcel by Mike Krutzig. 11. Consideration of establishing 2010 preliminary tax levy. 12. Consideration of establishing Truth-in-Taxation Public Hearing date. 13. Review of Ordinance Authorizing Permits for Use by the Disabled of ATV’s, Motorized Golf Carts or other Mobility Devices on City Streets, Bike Lanes and Trails. 14. Approve payment of bills for September 14th. 15. Adjournment. Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 5A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for FiberNet, MCC, Parks, Streets, and Water & Sewer. (TE) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Council is asked to ratify the hiring and departures of employees that have occurred recently in the departments listed. It is recommended that the Council officially ratify the hiring/departure of all new employees including part-time and seasonal workers. A.1 BUDGET IMPACT: None A.2 STAFF WORK LOAD IMPACT: Until the positions are filled again, existing staff would pick up those hours. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Ratify the hire/departures of the employees as identified on the attached list. C. RECOMMENDATION: By statute the City Council has the authority to approve all hires/departures. There is no other recommendation but for the Council to exercise the authority given to them by state statute. D. SUPPORTING DATA: List of new employees. Name Title Department Effective Date Class Alyssa Weldon Customer Service Representative FiberNet 9/1/09 FT Kim Baker Customer Service Representative FiberNet 9/14/09 FT Nicole Hayda Slide Attendant/Lifeguard MCC 8/24/09 PT Luke Gruhlke Slide Attendant/Lifeguard MCC 8/24/09 PT Carissa Keller Slide Attendant MCC 8/25/09 PT Emily Nordberg Slide Attendant/Lifeguard MCC 8/25/09 PT Deborah Davidson Deputy Registrar Clerk DMV 9/21/09 PT Name Reason Department Last Day Worked Class Joe Brooks Voluntary Parks 8/21/09 Seasonal Ben Weeres Voluntary MCC 7/31/09 PT Kim Baker Voluntary MCC 9/10/09 PT Scott Iano Voluntary Parks 8/28/09 Seasonal David Mitchell Voluntary Water and Sewer 8/21/09 Seasonal Ryan Thompson Voluntary Streets 8/28/09 Seasonal Jaymon DeMarais Voluntary Water and Sewer 9/2/09 Seasonal NEW EMPLOYEES TERMINATING EMPLOYEES 5A council_employee list.xls: 9/10/2009 Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 5B. Consideration of accepting contribution of $250 from Tom Perrault to go into the General Fund. (CS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City has received a donation of $250 from Tom Perrault to go to the General Fund As required by state statute, if the City accepts the donation of funds, the City Council needs to adopt a resolution specifying the amount of the donation and its use. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the contribution and authorize use of funds as specified. 2. Do not approve the contributions and return the funds to the donors. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution accepting the contributions. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Resolution No. 2009-46 5B 2009-46 RES-Perrault Aug contribution.doc: 9/10/2009 City of Monticello RESOLUTION NO. 2009-46 RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is generally authorized to accept contributions of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 465.03 and 465.04 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Said gifts may be limited under provisions of MN Statutes Section 471.895. WHEREAS, the following persons and or entities have offered to contribute contributions or gifts to the City as listed: DONOR/ENTITY DESCRIPTION VALUE Tom Perrault Cash $250 WHEREAS, all said contributions are intended to aid the City in establishing facilities, operations or programs within the city’s jurisdiction either alone or in cooperation with others, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is appropriate to accept the contributions offered. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello as follows: 1. The contributions described above are hereby accepted by the City of Monticello. 2. The contributions described above will be used as designated by the donor. This may entail reimbursing or allocating the money to another entity that will utilize the funds for the following stated purpose: DONOR/ENTITY RECIPIENT PURPOSE Tom Perrault City of Monticello General fund Adopted by the City Council of Monticello this 14 th day of September , 2009. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator City Council Agenda: 09/14/09 1 5C. Consideration of approving final payments and accepting work for stucco surface and window and door improvements at the Monticello DMV / Monticello Help Center, City Project No. 09C001. (BP) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The stucco surfacing project of the DMV building exterior is complete. The work has been inspected by staff and found to be of quality, both of material and workmanship. Many compliments on the improvements have been noted, with patrons recognizing the decorative fence border as a theme of Monticello and a contribution to downtown revitalization. The installation of a replacement window and four doors have been completed by RAS Glass. Two additional costs were incurred during the installations: New doors were placed after tile and carpet were in, the new door thresholds were 2” wide and had to be upgraded to 4” wide thresholds to cover the exposed concrete or additional tiling and carpeting would have been necessary in the DMV and Help Center. During the replacement of the window at the Help Center, the sill was found to be rotted and had to be replaced when the window was installed. RAS Glass informed me there would be an additional charge of $415.00 for the extras. I approved the additional work since the need was immediate and Public Works staff was not available to respond at that time to assist. Remaining exterior improvements included an air lock entrance, minor sanding, painting, maintenance of the remaining doors and a canopy the Public Works salvaged from the bowling alley for the back door of the DMV. Replacement of the signs for Monticello DMV and Monticello Help Center will be created by Public Works this winter. A1. Budget Impact: The final payment due to Progressive Stucco is $10,450.00. The final payment due to RAS Glass is $7,646.00, including the additional sill/threshold work for $415.00. A2. Staff Workload Impact: None. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve final payment to Progressive Stucco in the amount of $10,450.00 and final payment to RAS Glass for $7,646.00, including the additional sill/ threshold work for $415.00, and accept the completed work at the DMV/Help Center building, City Project No. 09C001. 2. Motion to deny final payment and not accept the project. City Council Agenda: 09/14/09 2 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that the Council approve final payment and accept the work of the DMV stucco/door & window project as outlined in Alternative #1. The contractor’s work has been completed and inspected by staff which meets quality, standards and our expectations. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of the final payments due Photos of exterior before and after. Resolution 2009-47 CITY OF MONTICELLO RESOLUTION NO. 2009-47 ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR DMV STUCCO, WINDOWS AND DOORS CITY PROJECT NO. 09C001 WHEREAS, pursuant to written agreements with the City of Monticello awarded to Progressive Stucco and RAS Glass of Minnesota, the contractors have satisfactorily completed the work for the improvements to the DMV Building/Monticello Help Center in accordance with their contract; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINESOTA: that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved and that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payments on such contracts subject to receipt of the following: 1) Satisfactory showing that the contractor has complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding state income tax; 2) Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the contractor by reasons of the contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured; and 3) Two year maintenance bond to extend two years from the date of acceptance of the project by the City Council. Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 14th day of September, 2009. ___________________________ Clint Herbst, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 5D. Consideration of approving an Agreement with CGI Communications, Inc. for participation in the 2009 Community Showcase Program, in which CGI will produce city promotional videos at no cost to the City. (JO/CS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City was contacted by CGI Communications at the end of August to request our participation in their 2009 Community Showcase Program. Through this program, CGI would produce a video showcase program at no cost to the City, which is then placed on our City website. CGI has already produced similar video programs for about 20 cities in Minnesota including New Ulm, Winona, Stillwater, Northfield and Grand Rapids. Over 2000 cities across the United States have contracted with CGI for their services. CGI Communications is endorsed by the National League of Cities and has formed a partnership with the US Conference of Mayors to launch the technology that CGI developed for Streaming Video applications on the internet. Their Streaming Video Tour Book is a tool for enhancing a city’s website by adding a video welcome message and showcasing the community in an innovative manner. CGI will come to Monticello with their film crew to videotape the necessary footage to fully produce the Welcome video plus five additional community highlight videos on a variety of topics from which we choose. The program is customized to show the best of Monticello and, with a click, the video interface can be emailed to an interested visitor or business. There is no cost to the City for this service, as revenue to fund the CGI work is derived from contracts with businesses that are provided links from the City site to the business site. These links are provided in an unobtrusive way and do not diminish the “official” feel of the City site. Staff will be prepared to show an example of the work of CGI at the meeting if desired. CGI actively works with the business community to take advantage of the opportunity to sponsor a link on the city’s Welcome page with their very own promotional video to showcase their business and promote themselves. CGI is responsible for all contacts within the business community, with the City providing an introductory letter to CGI that they use when contacting the business community. The Video Tour Book is a great focal point on the internet for information about Monticello, without an investment of city finances. City staff spent some time on a conference call to talk with CGI and view their products. The samples we looked at were quite impressive and they provided us with links to do further research on their Video Showcase Productions. A1. Budget Impact: None, except for limited staff time needed to assist with development of the script. A2. Staff Work Load Impact: The majority of the work in producing the videos and approaching business sponsors is done by CGI Communications. It is assumed that City staff would provide input into filming locations, script review and possible sponsors. Council Agenda: 9/14/09 2 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion approving an agreement with CGI Communications, Inc. for participation in the 2009 Community Showcase Program for three years. 2. Motion to deny approving an agreement with CGI Communications, Inc. for participation in the 2009 Community Showcase Program. C. RECOMMENDATION: City Staff recommends Alternative #1. This opportunity is offered to a select group of communities each year. It is a program that will showcase our community in a unique way and allow us to utilize the video productions for public relations and recruitment of businesses and residents. D. SUPPORTING DATA: At the meeting, staff can provide a short demo of a completed Video Showcase prepared by CGI for another city, if Council desires Summary of Community Showcase Program. Copy of proposed agreement. Copy of introductory letter to be given to potential sponsors. Council Agenda: 9/14/009 1 5E. Consideration of approving application for GFOA Internship Grant. (TK) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Government Finance Officer’s Association (MnGFOA) has an internship grant program. The grant is a 50/50 matching grant up to $3,000 for the costs of hiring a government finance intern. The finance staff would like to apply for the internship grant and if awarded hire an intern. The City would only hire an intern if awarded the grant from MnGFOA. The City’s share of the cost would come from FiberNet Monticello. One of the reasons an intern is needed is due to all the set up work involve with Fiber Net Monticello and some of the duties an intern would be assigned would be setting up vendor records and account codes for FiberNet Monticello. They would also assist with year-end processing, account reconciliations, and bringing the City’s Annual Financial Report in-house instead being produced by the City’s Audit Firm. This year’s audit will be more complicated than past audits due to the size and number of grants the City has received and the record keeping involve. The intern would take on a lot of the simple routine tasks of the finance department, which frees up the Senior Account, Accounting Clerks, and Finance Director to work on more difficult tasks, although the intern may assist on those task as well. Bringing the producing of the City’s Annual Financial Report in-house will reduce the City’s audit cost approximately $1,000 per year. Due to the amount of work related to setting up FiberNet Monticello, there is no way this task could be accomplished without additional help. If awarded the grant, staff would look to hire an intern to start around the first of the year and if possible stay through May or June, depending on workload and available funds. The City’s audit and Financial Report must be completed by June 30th and most of the work related to setting up FiberNet Monticello should be completed by February/March. The business plan for FiberNet Monticello includes $39,000 for general accounting for 2010. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve applying for the MnGFOA Internship Grant. 2. Do not approve applying for the MnGFOA Internship Grant. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Staff for alternative #1 for approval of applying for the GFOA Internship Grant. D. SUPPORTING DATA: MnGFOA Internship Grant Application. INTERNSHIP GRANT The MnGFOA Internship Grant provides valuable work experience to a student interested in a career in government finance. The Grant also allows an active member of MnGFOA and his or her government to employ an intern who can supplement the current staff by assisting with various tasks and projects. The Internship Grant is a 50/50 matching grant of up to $3,000. The Grant will be awarded by October 31 of each year, and may be used any time during the following calendar year. Grant application deadline is September 30. Each government receiving a Grant may select an intern to fill the position or, if requested, the MnGFOA may assist by providing resumes of interested students. The Grant will be awarded based on the following factors listed in priority order: 1. Duties and projects assigned to the intern. (60%) 2. The applicant’s expectations of the internship including the benefits to both the intern and the government. (30%) 3. Special needs or special circumstances of the government. (10%) Because the intent of this Grant is mainly to provide a wide variety of applicable government finance work experience to a student, internships that offer the intern an opportunity to function as true staff member (not someone assigned to only one project or performing duties that are not a normal function of the finance department) will be given priority. The MnGFOA will reimburse the Grant recipient for fifty percent of the documented internship wage and benefit costs up to a maximum grant of $3,000. The Grant recipient shall provide wage and benefit expenditure documentation to the MnGFOA before the Grant is paid. 6-13 MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION INTERNSHIP GRANT PROGRAM Applicant Information: Applicant Name: Tom Kelly Title: Finance Director Employer: City of Monticello Address: 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello Phone Number: (763)271.3211 Department: Finance Internship Supervisor: Tom Kelly Number of employees in department: 6 Internship Dates: 420 hours-beginning 01/2010 Intern wage to be paid: $12.00 per hour Applicant Signature: ______________________ Date: ____________________________________ 1. Please provide a detailed outline of the duties, tasks, and projects the intern will be assigned during the internship. The City of Monticello has started a Fiber optic business providing phone, internet, and cable television available to every property in the City. The intern will play a significant role in helping set up the accounting records, vendor accounts for payables and receivables and creating various reports for the advisory board, City Council and bond holders. The intern would participate largely in the year-end processing and audit preparation. This would include assistance with the creation of W-2s and 1099s. Also, he/she would assist in updating capital asset records and corresponding inventory. In order to prepare for the audit, he/she would also participate in account reconciliations, analytical review, journal entry preparation and entry into the Springbrook financial system. Account reconciliations would include payroll liabilities, escrow deposits, and various other general ledger accounts. Once these reconciliations were complete, the intern would prepare account lead schedules for supporting documentation for the audit. The City of Monticello is also preparing the CAFR for the first time in house for year -end 2009 and applying for the GFOA award for financial reporting. This intern would play a critical role in obtaining the necessary information for the statistical section, formatting the report itself and helping to verify that we meet the necessary reporting requirements. In addition to year-end, audit and CAFR preparation, he/she would assist the Finance Department in the creation of accounting policies and procedures, long range financial planning, monthly and quarterly reporting to department heads and City Council, grant administration and web-page updates. The intern would also assist with various day to day activities, such as cash receipting, deposit preparation, and general ledger inquiry to better understand the overall function of the Finance Department. He/She would work with other Finance Department Staff and other City Department Heads to provide needed financial information to assist in preparing agenda items, project reports, and supporting documentation. Also, he/she would provide support in various processing functions of the Finance Department. This would include assisting in payroll timesheet entry, proofing payroll entry and processing various online payments. When appropriate, he/she would also assist in accounts payable, accounts receivable, and utility billing processing. 2. Please provide a summary of the supervisor’s expected outcomes from the internship. The expectations of this internship would be to provide the City of Monticello Finance Department with additional accounting staff to work through a peak period of activity. Also, by questioning staff on how and why things are done certain ways provide an opportunity and discussion on ways to improve accounting policies and procedures, and overall accounting methods. Finally, assist the Finance Department in completing tasks that are time consuming, one-time type projects, such as, preparing the CAFR in -house for the first time and creating the FiberNet enterprise. 3. What do you want the intern to gain from this experience? The City of Monticello would like to provide a well rounded, real work environment experience. Monticello is an excellent atmosphere for learning several different functions of a local government Finance department. Due to the smaller size of the City, everyone in the Finance Department is involved with many aspects of the Finance function. However, Monticello still has some of the situations and challenges o f a larger city. As an intern for the City of Monticello because of its size, the intern would gain the knowledge of not only the various finance/accounting opportunities government entities have to offer, but how a government operates overall and the connections between departments. 4. Do you have an intern selected? If you do, please provide the education and work background of the intern. No, we do not have an intern selected yet, but if we received this grant, the process would begin soon. 5. Are you able to meet the matching requirements of this Grant? If not, please indicate why. Yes, we are able to meet the matching requirements. The City’s budget for its fiber project included $39,000 for accounting services for 2010, of which will be available to fund this position. 6. Has your department hired interns before? If yes, list some of the projects and duties assigned to the intern(s). No, we have not hired an intern before but greatly look forward to the experience. Return this application form by the due date to the President of the MnGFOA. 6-14 Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 5F. Consideration of approving contract with Wright County Sheriff’s Department for police protection for 2010 and 2011. (BW) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The contract for police protection services with Wright County expires December 31, 2009. Wright County recently submitted a new contract for the 2010-2011 contract period for City Council approval. Under this contract the hourly rate for 2010 is $57.50/hour and $59.00/hour for 2011, and the City is receiving 52 hours of police protection a day which matches our current hourly coverage allocation. The Wright County Sheriff’s Department has indicated that 52 hours per day should be adequate coverage to allow them to continue to provide basic police protection services in 2010 and 2011, but should the City desire enhanced law enforcement services they would likely not be able to provide such services without some additional hours. The last increase in coverage occurred in 2008 when the City requested an additional 4 hours per day, jumping from 48 to 52 hours per day. Please note that actual calls for service have dropped in 2009 thereby reducing the need for additional hours in the near term. At the July Police Advisory Commission meeting the desired coverage for 2010 and 2011 was discussed and the Commission recommended that the City Council continue contracting for police protection at 52 hours per day, which is reflected in the 2010 budget for police protection. Council should note that the contract language regarding the City’s obligation for providing work space to the Sheriff’s Deputies is rather vague, and since staff is currently in the process of defining our own work space needs this might be an opportune time to revise the contract language to better define the City’s obligations for providing work space to the Sheriff’s Deputies. Currently, the Sheriff’s Deputies work out of the Fire Station which they have indicated is adequate for the short-term, but due to data privacy issues this should not be considered a long-term solution. In keeping with a report provided to City Council at a previous meeting plans are being made to move the Sheriff’s Deputies work space to the Community Center employee break room, which is the locked (secure) room at the beginning of the glass-walled hallway along Walnut Street in the Community Center. This move would occur at the time that the MCC / City hall space is reorganized. Reorganization should occur sometime this winter. In order to better define the City’s obligations, and to ensure the Sheriff’s Deputies have an adequate work space in the future, staff recommends the following language be added to the contract in place of the second sentence in note 2 on page 2; “In order to facilitate a local presence of Sheriff’s Deputies, the Municipality shall, if requested by the Sheriff, provide a secure office for the Sheriff’s Deputies having adequate space for two desks with chairs, limited public visibility, a local telephone line and an internet connection.”. This language is consistent with recent discussions with Sheriff’s Office representatives regarding their current and future needs. Council Agenda: 9/14/09 2 It should be noted that the Wright County Sheriff will be in attendance at the next Council meeting on September 28th to present the most recent report on crime statistics in Monticello, and to respond to other recent Council inquiries, so Council could table this item until that time if they have questions regarding the contract that staff is not able to address. A.1 Budget Impact: As indicated above, the City’s 2010 budget includes 52 hours per day coverage from January through December. The budgeted hours were based on the hourly rate of $57.50/hour as noted above. A.2 Staff Workload: Approval of the contract for police protection has no impact on the work load of city staff. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the 2010-2011 contract with Wright County for police protection services contingent on the language revision noted herein to better define the City’s obligation regarding office space provisions for Sheriff’s Deputies. 2. Motion to table approval of the 2010-2011 contract with Wright County for police protection services until a later time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approval of Alternative Action #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of draft contract proposed by Wright County. Council Agenda: 9/14/009 1 5G. Consideration of Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for FiberNet Video Switch Electronic Equipment, City Project No. 09C002. (JO/DP) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Don Patten informed me that the City received a number of bids and is happy to report that multiple bids came in at amounts less than budget. As of the date of preparation of this agenda item the final bid tabulation along with identification of preferred bid alternatives was nearly complete, but not ready for submittal to Council. Therefore, at the meeting on Monday, Don Patten will be providing a verbal report summaring the bid tabulation results and will be making his recommendation as to the bid award. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Accept bids and approve contract with __________ for the FiberNet Monticello Video Switch equipment in the amount of $_______. 2. Do not accept bids and award contract for the video switch. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Pending completion of bid tablulation and anaylsis of alternatives. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Bid Tab – to be provided at the meeting. Resolution 2009-50 – to be provided at the meeting City Council Agenda: 09/14/09 1 5H. Consideration of acceptance of the bids received for the painting/staining of the Monticello Fire Station. (BP, SJ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Monticello Fire Station when completed in 1986, had an exterior that was constructed with a high maintenance cedar siding. From memory of Public Works and Fire Department staff the building was painted once between 1986 and when it was last repainted in 2003 when it was power washed, primed and latex top coated by College Pro House Painters. Since the last maintenance on the exterior, the coating has degraded and is in need of restoration. The painting contractors I have spoken with have informed us that proper preparation is the key to the coating’s longevity. We have been informed that the cedar that is on the building needs to be conditioned prior to recoating. The conditioning will remove the loose, dried and oxidized wood on the outside. If conditioning is not done prior, the new coating applied would eventually flake off because the new paint or stain would adhere to the loose inadequate surface and again flake or separate prematurely. Therefore, the bids were requested to have this pre-conditioning requirement. Types of coatings were also required to be of a quality and used in a system that would hold fast to the clean prepared cedar. Some woodwork will need to be paralleled with the painting process. Hopefully some volunteer fire staff can assist in reworking the sign and some other rotted boards on the fence in the rear to keep costs down. The remaining cedar on the exterior appears to be intact, with a few nails needing to be tightened up. Caulking of joints was suggested by some contractors, which could be requested for bids at a later time. I have received four (4) acceptable bids with three of them being from local businesses. The bids included pressure washing, surface treating and painting with at least two (2) coats of an acrylic stain system to provide the best longevity and lowest maintenance to the cedar siding on the Fire Station exterior. Also to include preparation and repainting of the south facing overhead doors, bollards, other painted metal doors, wrought iron fence and the Fire Station sign. The four (4) bids received are as follows: BIDDER ADDRESS BID AMOUNT OTHER COMMENTS Ed Archambeau Monticello, MN $12,300.00 H. Brothers Painting Monticello, MN $17,795.00 Accent Painting Monticello, MN $33,960.00 Not including a bid of $4,850 to rebuild and stain the Fire Station sign. TMI Coatings St. Paul, MN $28,800.00 City Council Agenda: 09/14/09 2 Each bidder has a minimum of $1,000,000 liability insurance and will provide a certificate of liability insurance to the City of Monticello prior to commencement of the project. Furthermore, each have a workmanship guarantee for a minimum of one (1) year, as well as coatings warranties from the manufacturer. A1. Budget Impact: Fire Department Budget by bid choice of Council. A2. Staff Workload Impact: This will only have a slight impact on time required of staff. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the bids and accept the lowest bid from Ed Archambeau in the amount of $12,300.00. 2. Motion to approve the bids and accept the second lowest bid from H. Brothers Painting in the amount of $17,795.00. 3. Motion to reject the bids. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends approval of Alternative #1 and accept the lowest bid from Ed Archambeau in the amount of $12,300.00. It is staff’s opinion that this alternative represents a good value for the City with respect to cost savings. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the four quotes received Pictures of the Fire Station in its current condition City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 5I. Consideration of appointing a design planner to assist with MCC and City Hall space needs. (KB) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In July, we presented to the City Council a request to obtain quotes for design services for the community center and City Hall’s space needs. The areas discussed were: Community Center office improvements and Warehouse (Teen Center) remodel Sheriff’s office relocation City garage expansion/storage needs Building Technician’s work space Engineering and Finance department staff layout The FiberNet Monticello storefront location and City Hall overflow location has been taken off the list at this time. Their space seems to be move-in ready, requiring no design services. There is currently no additional space to accommodate any other City Department. As space becomes available to FiberNet or City Hall, design services can be contracted at that time. While the project is fairly small, it was determined that the design services of an architect firm would provide the best solutions. I contacted two firms who came highly recommended for their municipal work and one other firm who is somewhat local. Below is a breakdown of the three firms I contacted. 1. George C. Fantauzza and Associates: This firm is out of Buffalo and as you can see by his quote letter, has worked on a number of buildings in and around Monticello. The quote for services is at $85 per hour not to exceed $3,000. 2. Oertel Architects, LTD: This firm is out of St. Paul and has a lot of municipal experience. This firm is also known by Bob Paschke who did say that he would recommend them. Their rates are as follows: a. Designer (who would do the majority of the work) $65 per hour b. Senior Project Architect (small involvement) $115 per hour c. Principal (most likely no involvement) $150 per hour 3. Buetow & Associates Architects: This firm is also out of St. Paul and identified a vast amount of municipal experience. Their organization’s Vice President Randy Engel did come out to Monticello to view the facility to get an idea of what our needs would be. Though I am unsure what level of employee might be required for our project, their rates are as follows: a. Drafter I/II $85/$90 per hour b. Project Designer $100 per hour c. Project Architect $115 per hour City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 2 d. Project Manager $125 per hour e. Principal $135 per hour Once a designer is identified, it would be beneficial to reconvene the committee originally established to determine the scope of the work and determine reasonable time limits for services. It would be in the best interest of the Council to establish a high limit for this part of the project. I would recommend $4,000, although I believe that staying closely in touch with the designer will ensure that the project’s hours do not spiral out of control. A1. Budget Impact: The community center has $20,000 identified for this improvement project in their 2009 budget. Since most of the work does pertain the improving the community center’s offices, the Finance department may wish to have the community center absorb most if not all of this cost. Tom Kelly has also identified $80,000 for building improvements from the 2007 budget. This was set aside for improvements to the garage/storage building. A2. Staff Impact: The staff impact would be to reconvene the facilities need committee to determine the scope of the project and the Community Center Director’s time overseeing the design services. The firm of George C Fantauzza and Associates is a local firm. George worked with Nelson Builders before they disbanded their architect services department. George designed the Swan River Charter School building and the new Moon Motors facility to name a couple recent buildings in Monticello. While his rate was not the lowest, he did establish a project maximum of $3,000 and has shown a great commitment to Monticello. The firm of Oertel Architects, LTD came in with the lowest hourly rate quote and identified a large amount of municipal experience. They also come highly recommended by Bob Paschke who had an opportunity to work with them in St. Anthony. The firm of Buetow and Associates has a lot of municipal experience and their name came to me highly recommended. Their organization’s Vice President came to visit our facility in Monticello to get a scope of the project showing a real commitment. Their rates were not the lowest and they did not define which position would be doing the bulk of the work but their work appears to be very high quality. All design and building plans would be brought back to the Council for further approval of the work. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. To authorize the design services to Oertel Architects, LTD as the lowest quote on the hourly rate for the work with a $4,000 project cap. City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 3 2. To not authorize any of the firms identified above for the work and provide further direction to the staff on how to proceed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends alternative #1. However, we recognize that all three firms would appear to do an exemplary job on this project. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of each firm’s price quote including references and experience information. City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 5J. Consideration of approving replacement of MCC pool lighting. (KB) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As a part of general building maintenance and upkeep, it is strongly recommended by our Maintenance Supervisor, Brian Weldon, and Aquatic Director, Corinne Mitchell, that we replace the lighting that we currently have in the pool area. The reasons for replacing are: 1. The current lights in our pool provide for only as low as seven (7) foot candles, which is extremely low. This is a safety factor when clear visibility around the pool and to the bottom of the pool is extremely critical for the safety of our pool users. 2. Regular maintenance is currently due or will be due within the next few months on the light’s ballasts. To replace a ballast is approximately $150 to replace for a total replacement cost of $4,500 for the entire natatorium. For these reasons, and to also find a more energy efficient lighting solution for the pool, we have received three quotes for replacing the lights in the pool. Since the pool is currently down for annual maintenance, we hope to begin the project immediately upon approval from Council with the hope to complete the project before the pool reopens. If this cannot be accomplished before the pool reopens on Saturday, September 19th, then the electricians will work nights to finish the project. The three vendors that provided quotes were able to include rebates that are made available to them from Excel Energy on the light fixture we chose. One vendor, BLI Lighting Specialists, did recommend a retrofit for our lights fixture, as opposed to changing the light fixture, which our Maintenance Supervisor has determined will not provide a good seal and will be a regular maintenance issue for his department. The company providing the lowest quote is Olson & Sons Electric, a local company. The improvements we expect with this replacement are: (1) 30 foot candles over four times the light level we currently have; (2) 50% reduction in future maintenance fees; and (3) 40% reduction in electrical consumption compared to existing fixtures. All of this equates to a pay back within four years for the light replacement. A1. Budget Impact: The cost of the project from our recommended vendor will be $11,175. The cost of the project has been identified in the community center’s 2009 budget in energy management upgrades for $10,000 and the balance coming out of our building maintenance budget. The payback for this improvement will be within four (4) years. A2. Staff Impact: The most important impact will be on improved visibility and safety in the pool area. City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. To approve hiring Olson and Sons Electric for the replacement of the lights in the pool area of the Community Center in the amount of $11,175. 2. To not approve the replacement of the lights in the pool area of the Community Center. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends alternative #1. We recommend having the work done by Olson and Sons Electric, a local company and the lowest quote for the project. We have a good working relationship with them and feel very confident with their work. The Community Center Director will be working with Public Works Director Bob Paschke to find grant opportunities to attempt to recover some of the installation costs associated with the replacement. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of the three quotes submitted. Picture of the replacement light fixture. Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 5K. Consideration of accepting quotes and approving subcontractors for FiberNet Monticello Garage, City Project No. 09C006. (GA, BP) [Agenda Item and supporting materials to be provided at Monday’s meeting] City Council Agenda: 09/14/09 1 5L. Consideration of approving Change Order No. 1 for the Monticello FiberNet Garage, City Project No. 09C006. (BP, GA) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Installation of electrical and plumbing is underway on the FiberNet Garage Project #09C006. A conflict has surfaced relative to three electrical conduits to the garage that were found to be 1½ inch each. That size is too small to carry the electrical current necessary to power the boiler and the demand water heater on single phase power. Two separate alternatives to correct this are; 1) Install an additional conduit for single phase at a cost of approximately $1500.00; or 2) Upgrade from a single phase boiler to a 3-phase boiler for an additional cost of $400.00. The upgraded boiler is manufactured by a local business Electro Industries. Olson Electric can install 3-phase wiring in the existing conduit and there will not be an additional charge for the electrical upgrade. Olson Electric states that this will actually be a more efficient boiler. A1. Budget Impact: Change Order No. 1 will increase the cost by $400.00 to the Monticello FiberNet Garage Project. A2. Staff Workload Impact: This change order will only have a slight impact on time required of staff. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the additional cost of Change Order No. 1 for the modification of the boiler spec to 3-phase from Purcell Plumbing in the amount of $400.00. 2. Motion to deny Change Order No. 1. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Alternative #1 and authorize approval Change Order No. 1. It is staff’s opinion that the change order addresses the problem and the cost is a good value for the City. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Single phase and upgraded 3-phase boiler estimates from Purcell Plumbing City Council Agenda: 09/14/09 1 5M. Consideration of approving a request for City action relating to Downtown Block Party on October 10th, 2009 by the Monticello Downtown Business Association. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council is asked to consider approval of the closure of a portion of Walnut Street for the purpose of a fall festival for the Monticello Downtown Business Association. The request includes approval of street closure, use of municipal parking lots, use of City utility structures, and staff support associated with these three items. The Monticello Downtown Business Association is requesting the closure in order to coordinate Autumn Aire Festival, which will be promoted and held in cooperation with the downtown businesses. Autumn Aire is another event aimed at promoting Downtown Monticello as a community destination. This public event is proposed to occur Saturday, October 10th, 2009. The event will require the closing of Walnut Street between Broadway West and Third Street. The Downtown Business Association would like Walnut Street to be closed from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. between West Broadway and Third Street to accommodate volunteer set-up and take-down before and after the event. The event itself will occur from 12 Noon to 6 p.m. A site map illustrating the proposed configuration, including closure points, is included with the supporting data. As illustrated, the event will utilize the entire right of way, including portions of the boulevard in front of Walnut Street businesses in that area. The MDBA is also requesting Council approval for use of the municipal parking lots along 3rd Street for participant parking. As part of the street closure and parking lot use, the group is also seeking City assistance for providing and placing barricades, picnic tables and garbage cans for the event. The Public Works Department has indicated that they are able to put up and take down the barricades, as well as set and remove picnic tables and garbage containers. These services will require a limited amount of overtime, but it is highly recommended that the Streets Department set the barricades to ensure proper placement for safety purposes. The Public Works Department will also contact the Wright County Sheriff’s Department. They will be notified of the date and time of this event so that they are able to monitor the activity. The City Engineer will also notify Wright County of this closure, as it is closed at the intersection of County Highway 75. Temporary signage signaling this closure will be placed along West Broadway/County Highway 75 during the event. As part of this event, the MDBA will be utilizing City-owned street light and utility posts along Walnut and Broadway for a scarecrow decorating contest. The group has also requested to run a hayride including a tractor-drawn wagon along the Walnut and 3rd Street portions of the City streets. Both of these items have been reviewed with the Street Superintendent and have his recommended approval. City Council Agenda: 09/14/09 2 The MDBA has indicated that they will be obtaining insurance to cover the event and its activities with the City named as second insured. Cornerstone Café & Catering Co. will also have insurance coverage as they will be catering the food and serving beverages, including beer. Cornerstone Café & Catering does have a Caterer’s Liquor License from the State of Minnesota. As such, no temporary liquor license is required. However, the State regulations for Caterer’s Liquor Licenses do allow the local municipality to set certain restrictions or limitations relating the distribution of liquor. As such, the following conditions are recommended as part of this approval. a) Provide copy of Caterer’s Permit to the City and display copies of Caterer’s Permit and On Sale Liquor License at site of liquor sales. b) Liquor license holder and/or manager must be on site during event hours c) Bartenders (sellers/servers) must be employees of Cornerstone Café & Catering d) Sales of liquor must be attached to or adjacent to food sales e) Consumption of liquor is allowed only within perimeter of event The property/business owners along this section of Walnut Street have been contacted about the Block Party and support the effort. Residents in the apartments along this section will also be notified in advance of the event date. If the City Council approves these actions, the City will issue a Temporary Outdoor Sales & Display permit as required by the City Zoning Ordinance. A1. Staff Impact: Staff impact would include a small amount of overtime for the Streets Department. C. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to approve the temporary closing of Walnut Street from 8 AM until 8 PM on Saturday, October 10th, 2009, including the use of public parking facilities and amenities, as described contingent on proper proof of insurance coverage and the stated conditions. 2. Motion to deny temporary closure of Walnut Street. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff supports the Downtown Association’s efforts and does not object to the temporary closure. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Monticello Downtown Business Association Block Party Narrative Monticello Downtown Business Association Block Party Site Plan (to be provided at the meeting) Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 7. Public Hearing – Fallon Avenue Rehabilitation Improvements, City Project No. 09C005. (BW) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Fallon Avenue’s bituminous pavement is in extremely poor condition and needs to be reconstructed. The City has known this for quite some time but has been waiting to reconstruct the road until such time that the deep sanitary sewer trunk line needed to be extended under Fallon Avenue to serve future development to the south. Since it is now anticipated that this sanitary sewer trunk line will most likely not be needed for 8 years or more, and since the existing pavement will not hold up to the existing heavy truck traffic for much longer without completely breaking up, staff requested Council authorization to prepare a Feasibility Report for completing a pavement rehabilitation project on Fallon Avenue in 2009. On May 26, 2009 the City Council authorized preparation of a Feasibility Report to explore street and utility improvements for Fallon Avenue between School Boulevard and Chelsea Road, designated as City Project No. 09C005. The Council directed staff to investigate costs not only to reclaim the existing pavement and repave the road as a rural section, but given the favorable bidding environment the Council also instructed staff to explore the costs associated with constructing the deep sanitary sewer interceptor line under Fallon Avenue and reconstructing it as a full urban section. On July 13, 2009 the City Council reviewed and approved the Feasibility Report for City Project No. 09C005. Based on the estimated costs identified by the Feasibility Report, Council authorized preparation of plans and specifications to reconstruct Fallon Avenue as a 24-foot wide rural section, along with an option for reconstructing it as a 28-foot wide rural section. The project would consist of reclaiming the existing bituminous pavement section, laying the reclaimed material back down in place and compacting it, then paving over it with 4-inches of new bituminous pavement. The centerline of the reconstructed road would remain unchanged, and aggregate shoulders would be provided along both edges of the pavement, along with restoration of turf outside the shoulders. Five bids were received on Thursday, September 10th. The bids were competitive and came in well below the engineer’s estimates of $239,120 and $293,803 for the 24-foot and 28-foot wide street options, respectively. The low bids for the 24-foot wide street option and the 28-foot wide street option were $146,523.94 and $178,537.25, respectively, which represents a 39% reduction in costs from the engineer’s estimates, which used unit bid prices for similar work on similar size projects. Per Council’s request, staff explored the use of special assessments to help fund this project. To be consistent with past projects, staff recommends assessing project costs through special assessments to benefiting property owners, that the assessments be based on an assessable front footage calculation, and that assessments have a payoff term of 5- years. Attached as supporting data is Figure A which shows all benefiting properties, Figure B which shows the preliminary assessment roll for each of the properties, and the Council Agenda: 9/14/09 2 cost calculations for the front footage special assessment rates of $36.90 per foot for the 24-foot wide street option, and $44.96 per foot for the 28-foot wide street option. As previously stated, staff assumes Fallon Avenue will not be reconstructed for at least another 8 years and likely longer. If the road needs to be reconstructed within the next 25 years, the estimated life of the new pavement, assessments levied under this project could then be prorated and credited toward future assessments for widening of Fallon Avenue. Council should note that City staff invited all assessable property owners to a preliminary assessment information meeting at City Hall on Wednesday, September 9th in case they had questions on the project itself, or on how their preliminary assessments were being calculated. However, none of the property owners attended the meeting. A1. Budget Impact: All costs associated with this project will be paid for through a combination of sources. The City’s portion of the project, which includes the front footage along the Klein Farms development and all right-of-way frontages at School Boulevard, Stoneridge Lane and Dundas Road, will be paid for through the Street Reconstruction Fund. Special assessments levied against benefiting properties will be used to fund the remainder of the project as outlined in the previous Council agenda item, which is consistent with past practice on similar projects. Indirect costs for this project were reduced by utilizing City staff to prepare the Feasibility Report and by providing project inspection duties. A2. Staff Impact: This project will require the services of one City construction observer on a part-time basis, and several other staff members will need to devote minimal time overseeing and managing the project. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to authorize staff to fund the project using the special assessment process as outlined herein. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Alternative #1, to fund the project using special assessments as outlined herein, which is consistent with past practice. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Front footage assessment cost calculations (3 sheets) Figure A - Assessed properties Figure B - Preliminary Assessment Rolls (2 sheets) Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 8. Consideration of Accepting Bids and Awarding Project for Fallon Avenue Rehabilitation Improvements, City Project No. 09C005. (BW) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Bids for the above referenced project were received and publicly opened on Thursday, September 10, 2009. The City received five (5) bids, which were very competitive, with Knife River Corporation submitting the low bids of $146,523.94 for the 24-foot wide street option, and $178,537.25 for the 28-foot wide street option. The Engineer’s estimates were $239,120 and $293,803, respectively. These bid prices represent a 39% reduction in costs from the engineer’s estimates, which used unit bid prices for similar work on similar size projects. All bids received were checked for accuracy and completeness. The Letter of Recommendation, Bid Tabulation, Bid Summary and are included as supporting data. A1. Budget Impact: All costs associated with this project will be paid for through a combination of sources. The City’s portion of the project, which includes the front footage along the Klein Farms development and all right-of-way frontages at School Boulevard, Stoneridge Lane and Dundas Road, will be paid for through the Street Reconstruction Fund. Special assessments levied against benefiting properties will be used to fund the remainder of the project as outlined in the previous Council agenda item which is consistent with past practice on similar projects. Indirect costs for this project were reduced by utilizing City staff to prepare the Feasibility Report and by providing project inspection duties. A2. Staff Workload: This project will require the services of one City construction observer on a part-time basis, and several other staff members will need to devote minimal time overseeing and managing the project. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to accept bids and award the project to Knife River Corporation of Sauk Rapids, Minnesota, in the amount of $146,523.94 for the 24-foot wide street option for City Project No. 09C005. 2. Motion to accept bids and award the project to Knife River Corporation of Sauk Rapids, Minnesota, in the amount of $178,537.25 for the 28-foot wide street option for City Project No. 09C005. 3. Motion to accept bids but deny awarding the project at this time. Council Agenda: 9/14/09 2 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the favorable bids received and the stated need for the project, City staff recommends approving either Alternative Action No. 1 or Alternative Action No. 2. Staff is not making a specific recommendation for the 24 or 28-foot option since we aren’t certain how long it will be before future development south of the City drives the need to reconstruct Fallon Avenue, or how long it will be before the Fallon avenue overpass is constructed, both of which will add traffic to Fallon Avenue. The main benefit to constructing the street 28-feet wide would be to provide a safer pedestrian corridor since there are no pathways or sidewalks along Fallon, but since pedestrian traffic is sparse along this road staff is not recommending one width street over the other. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Letter of Recommendation from WSB and Associates Bid Summary Bid Tabulation Resolution 2009-48 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-48 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FALLON AVENUE REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 09C005 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the rehabilitation of Fallon Avenue and all other necessary appurtenant work, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID – SCHEDULE A TOTAL BID – SCHEDULE B Knife River Corporation $146,523.94 $178,537.25 Rum River Contracting, Co. $151,125.07 $184,743.52 Hardrives, Inc. $163,084.25 $199,985.87 ASTECH Corporation $165,163.25 $207,413.40 Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix, Inc. $177,768.75 $215,542.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Knife River Corporation, Sauk Rapids, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Knife River Corporation, Minnesota for the improvement of Fallon Avenue by reconstruction of the bituminous pavement and all other necessary appurtenant work, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file at the city offices. 2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the City Council this 14th day of September, 2009. _________________________________ Clint Herbst, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator Infrastructure Engineering Planning Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 September 10, 2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Fallon Avenue Improvements and Appurtenant Work City of Monticello, MN WSB Project No. 1546-15 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Bids were received for the above-referenced project on Thursday, September 10, 2009, and were opened and read aloud. Five bids were received. The bids were checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated. It should be noted that the project included a 24-foot-wide street option (Schedule A) and a 28-foot-wide street option (Schedule B). Please find enclosed the bid tabulation indicating Knife River Corporation, Sauk Rapids, Minnesota, as the low bidder with the following bid amounts: Knife River Corporation Engineer’s Estimate 24-Foot-Wide Street $146,523.94 $239,120.00 28-Foot-Wide Street $178,537.25 $293,802.50 Based on the results of the bids received and the current competitive bidding market, we recommend that the City Council consider these bids and award a contract for either street option to Knife River Corporation. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Shibani K. Bisson, PE Project Manager Enclosure cc: Bruce Westby, City of Monticello Jeff O’Neill, City of Monticello John Quade, Knife River Corporation srb K:\01546-15\Admin\Construction Admin\LTR RECMMDTN-hmcc-091009.doc PROJECT: Fallon Avenue Improvements and Appurtenant Work City of Monticello Project No. 2009-05C OWNER: City of Monticello, MN WSB PROJECT NO.: 1546-15 Bids Opened: Thursday, September 10, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Contractor Bid Security (5%) Addendum Received Total Schedule A 24-Foot-Wide Option Total Schedule B 28-Foot-Wide Option 1Knife RiverXN/A$146,523.94$178,537.25 2Rum River Contracting Co.XN/A$151,125.07$184,743.52 3Hardrives, Inc.XN/A$163,084.25$199,985.87 4ASTECH CorporationXN/A$165,163.25$207,413.40 5Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix, Inc.XN/A$177,768.75$215,542.00 Engineer's Opinion of Cost$239,120.00$293,802.50 Denotes corrected figure Shibani K. Bisson, PE, Project Manager BID TABULATION SUMMARY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on September 10, 2009. K:\01546-15\Admin\Construction Admin\1546-15 Bid Tab Summary-091009-signed.xls 9/10/2009 WS B Pr o j e c t B i d A b s t r a c t Pr o j e c t N a m e : F a l l o n A v e n u e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n C o n t r a c t N o . : Cl i e n t : Ci t y o f M o n t i c e l l o P r o j e c t N o . : 0 1 5 4 6 -15 Bi d O p e n i n g : 9/ 1 0 / 2 0 0 9 1 0 : 0 0 A M O w n e r : M i n n e a p o l i s Pr o j e c t : 0 1 5 4 6 - 1 5 - F a l l o n A v e n u e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n En g i n e e r s E s t i m a t e Kn i f e R i v e r Ru m R i v e r C o n t r a c t i n g Hardrives, Inc. (Rogers) It e m N o . It e m Un i t s Qu a n t i t y Un i t P r i c e To t a l P r i c e Un i t P r i c e To t a l P r i c e Un i t P r i c e Total Price Unit Price Total Price SC H E D U L E A - 2 4 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N 1 20 2 1 . 5 0 1 MO B I L I Z A T I O N LU M P S U M 1 $1 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4,000.00$9,100.59$9,100.59 2 21 0 4 . 5 0 1 RE M O V E P I P E C U L V E R T S LI N F T 14 0 $3 . 0 0 $4 2 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $7 0 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $700.00$4.99$698.60 3 21 0 4 . 5 0 5 RE M O V E C O N C R E T E D R I V E W A Y P A V E M E N T SQ Y D 85 $1 0 . 0 0 $8 5 0 . 0 0 $9 . 0 0 $7 6 5 . 0 0 $3 . 5 0 $297.50$4.44$377.40 4 21 0 4 . 5 0 5 RE M O V E B I T U M I N O U S D R I V E W A Y P A V E M E N T SQ Y D 76 5 $3 . 5 0 $2 , 6 7 7 . 5 0 $3 . 5 0 $2 , 6 7 7 . 5 0 $2 . 1 5 $1,644.75$2.22$1,698.30 5 21 0 4 . 5 1 1 SA W I N G C O N C R E T E P A V E M E N T ( F U L L D E P T H ) LI N F T 45 $6 . 0 0 $2 7 0 . 0 0 $4 . 0 0 $1 8 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $225.00$2.77$124.65 6 21 0 4 . 5 1 3 SA W I N G B I T U M I N O U S P A V E ME N T ( F U L L D E P T H ) LI N F T 54 0 $4 . 0 0 $2 , 1 6 0 . 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $1 , 0 8 0 . 0 0 $2 . 5 0 $1,350.00$2.22$1,198.80 7 21 0 4 . 5 2 3 SA L V A G E & R E I N S T A L L S I G N EA C H 11 $1 0 5 . 0 0 $1 , 1 5 5 . 0 0 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $1 , 6 5 0 . 0 0 $5 0 . 0 0 $550.00$166.36$1,829.96 8 21 0 4 . 6 0 2 SA L V A G E A N D R E I N S T A L L M A I L B O X EA C H 2 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $2 0 0 . 0 0 $1 1 3 . 3 6 $2 2 6 . 7 2 $9 0 . 0 0 $180.00$127.55$255.10 9 21 0 5 . 5 0 1 CO M M O N E X C A V A T I O N ( E V ) CU Y D 89 0 $1 2 . 0 0 $1 0 , 6 8 0 . 0 0 $9 . 0 0 $8 , 0 1 0 . 0 0 $9 . 3 0 $8,277.00$4.71$4,191.90 10 21 0 5 . 5 2 1 GR A N U L A R B O R R O W ( C V ) CU Y D 85 0 $1 4 . 0 0 $1 1 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $2 . 8 5 $2 , 4 2 2 . 5 0 $1 1 . 3 6 $9,656.00$9.43$8,015.50 11 21 0 5 . 5 2 6 SE L E C T T O P S O I L B O R R O W ( C V ) CU Y D 10 0 $1 8 . 0 0 $1 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $1 8 . 0 0 $1 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $1 4 . 9 1 $1,491.00$9.43$943.00 12 21 0 5 . 6 0 3 MI N O R G R A D I N G LI N F T 15 5 $5 0 . 0 0 $7 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $7 . 5 0 $1 , 1 6 2 . 5 0 $5 . 0 0 $775.00$11.09$1,718.95 13 21 1 2 . 5 0 1 SU B G R A D E P R E P A R A T I O N RO A D S T A 26 $1 7 5 . 0 0 $4 , 5 5 0 . 0 0 $1 1 5 . 6 3 $3 , 0 0 6 . 3 8 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $2,600.00$123.47$3,210.22 14 22 1 1 . 5 0 1 AG G R E G A T E B A S E C L A S S 5 M O D TO N 90 $1 5 . 0 0 $1 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 $1 5 . 6 2 $1 , 4 0 5 . 8 0 $1 3 . 6 6 $1,229.40$16.50$1,485.00 15 23 3 1 . 6 0 4 BI T U M I N O U S P A V E M E N T R E C L A M A T I O N SQ Y D 73 0 0 $5 . 5 0 $4 0 , 1 5 0 . 0 0 $0 . 8 6 $6 , 2 7 8 . 0 0 $0 . 8 5 $6,205.00$1.06$7,738.00 16 23 5 0 . 5 0 1 TY P E M V 3 W E A R I N G C O U R S E M I X T U R E ( B ) TO N 90 0 $6 1 . 0 0 $5 4 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $4 9 . 9 0 $4 4 , 9 1 0 . 0 0 $4 8 . 7 5 $43,875.00$56.40$50,760.00 17 23 5 0 . 5 0 2 TY P E M V 3 N O N W E A R I N G C O U R S E M I X T U R E ( B ) TO N 90 0 $5 9 . 0 0 $5 3 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 $4 9 . 9 0 $4 4 , 9 1 0 . 0 0 $4 8 . 7 5 $43,875.00$52.90$47,610.00 18 23 5 7 . 5 0 2 BI T U M I N O U S M A T E R I A L F O R T A C K C O A T GA L L O N 42 0 $2 . 0 0 $8 4 0 . 0 0 $1 . 9 0 $7 9 8 . 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $840.00$1.80$756.00 19 25 0 1 . 5 1 5 12 " C S P I P E A P R O N EA C H 8 $2 0 5 . 0 0 $1 , 6 4 0 . 0 0 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $1 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $9 1 . 0 2 $728.16$94.27$754.16 20 25 0 3 . 6 0 3 12 " H D P E P I P E S E W E R LI N F T 19 0 $2 7 . 0 0 $5 , 1 3 0 . 0 0 $1 5 . 0 0 $2 , 8 5 0 . 0 0 $1 4 . 7 1 $2,794.90$14.42$2,739.80 21 25 0 4 . 6 0 2 VA L V E B O X EA C H 1 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $1 1 3 . 3 6 $1 1 3 . 3 6 $5 7 4 . 6 1 $574.61$200.00$200.00 22 25 0 4 . 6 0 2 AD J U S T V A L V E B O X EA C H 3 $2 5 0 . 0 0 $7 5 0 . 0 0 $2 5 0 . 4 3 $7 5 1 . 2 9 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $450.00$150.00$450.00 23 25 0 6 . 5 2 2 AD J U S T F R A M E & R I N G C A S T I N G EA C H 2 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $5 4 9 . 0 7 $1 , 0 9 8 . 1 4 $3 1 3 . 0 0 $626.00$225.00$450.00 24 25 3 5 . 5 0 1 BI T U M I N O U S C U R B LI N F T 50 $1 5 . 0 0 $7 5 0 . 0 0 $7 . 3 9 $3 6 9 . 5 0 $1 0 . 0 0 $500.00$23.89$1,194.50 Page 1 Pr o j e c t : 0 1 5 4 6 - 1 5 - F a l l o n A v e n u e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n En g i n e e r s E s t i m a t e Kn i f e R i v e r Ru m R i v e r C o n t r a c t i n g Hardrives, Inc. (Rogers) It e m N o . It e m Un i t s Qu a n t i t y Un i t P r i c e To t a l P r i c e Un i t P r i c e To t a l P r i c e Un i t P r i c e Total Price Unit Price Total Price 25 25 6 3 . 6 0 1 TR A F F I C C O N T R O L LU M P S U M 1 $4 , 8 5 0 . 0 0 $4 , 8 5 0 . 0 0 $1 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $1 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4,000.00$1,552.72$1,552.72 26 25 7 3 . 5 0 2 SI L T F E N C E , T Y P E M A C H I N E S L I C E D LI N F T 23 6 5 $1 . 5 0 $3 , 5 4 7 . 5 0 $1 . 4 5 $3 , 4 2 9 . 2 5 $1 . 5 5 $3,665.75$1.94$4,588.10 27 25 7 3 . 5 0 8 BI T U M I N O U S L I N E D F L U M E SQ Y D 10 $5 0 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $5 4 . 0 0 $5 4 0 . 0 0 $4 0 . 0 0 $400.00$45.00$450.00 28 25 7 5 . 5 0 5 SO D D I N G , T Y P E L A W N ( I N C L . T O P S O I L & F E R T . ) SQ Y D 50 0 $3 . 5 0 $1 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $4 . 2 5 $2,125.00$4.10$2,050.00 29 25 7 5 . 5 2 3 ER O S I O N C O N T R O L B L A N K E T S C A T E G O R Y 3 SQ Y D 48 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $9 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 $1 . 0 5 $5 , 0 4 0 . 0 0 $1 . 3 0 $6,240.00$1.16$5,568.00 30 25 8 2 . 5 0 2 4" D O U B L E S O L I D L I N E Y E L L O W - E P O X Y LI N F T 25 0 0 $1 . 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $0 . 5 0 $1 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 $0 . 5 0 $1,250.00$0.55$1,375.00 To t a l S C H E D U L E A - 2 4 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N : $2 3 9 , 1 2 0 . 0 0 $1 4 6 , 5 2 3 . 9 4 $151,125.07 $163,084.25 SC H E D U L E B - 2 8 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N 31 20 2 1 . 5 0 1 MO B I L I Z A T I O N LU M P S U M 1 $1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $5,000.00$9,100.59$9,100.59 32 21 0 4 . 5 0 1 RE M O V E P I P E C U L V E R T S LI N F T 14 0 $3 . 0 0 $4 2 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $7 0 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $700.00$4.99$698.60 33 21 0 4 . 5 0 1 RE M O V E C U R B A N D G U T T E R LI N F T 20 $6 . 0 0 $1 2 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $100.00$11.09$221.80 34 21 0 4 . 5 0 5 RE M O V E C O N C R E T E D R I V E W A Y P A V E M E N T SQ Y D 85 $1 0 . 0 0 $8 5 0 . 0 0 $9 . 0 0 $7 6 5 . 0 0 $3 . 5 0 $297.50$4.44$377.40 35 21 0 4 . 5 0 5 RE M O V E B I T U M I N O U S D R I V E W A Y P A V E M E N T SQ Y D 76 5 $3 . 5 0 $2 , 6 7 7 . 5 0 $3 . 5 0 $2 , 6 7 7 . 5 0 $2 . 1 5 $1,644.75$2.22$1,698.30 36 21 0 4 . 5 1 1 SA W I N G C O N C R E T E P A V E M E N T ( F U L L D E P T H ) LI N F T 45 $6 . 0 0 $2 7 0 . 0 0 $4 . 0 0 $1 8 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $225.00$2.77$124.65 37 21 0 4 . 5 1 3 SA W I N G B I T U M I N O U S P A V E ME N T ( F U L L D E P T H ) LI N F T 54 0 $4 . 0 0 $2 , 1 6 0 . 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $1 , 0 8 0 . 0 0 $2 . 5 0 $1,350.00$2.22$1,198.80 38 21 0 4 . 5 2 3 SA L V A G E & R E I N S T A L L S I G N EA C H 11 $1 0 5 . 0 0 $1 , 1 5 5 . 0 0 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $1 , 6 5 0 . 0 0 $5 0 . 0 0 $550.00$166.36$1,829.96 39 21 0 4 . 6 0 2 SA L V A G E A N D R E I N S T A L L M A I L B O X EA C H 3 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $3 0 0 . 0 0 $1 1 3 . 3 6 $3 4 0 . 0 8 $8 0 . 0 0 $240.00$127.54$382.62 40 21 0 5 . 5 0 1 CO M M O N E X C A V A T I O N ( E V ) CU Y D 17 2 0 $1 2 . 0 0 $2 0 , 6 4 0 . 0 0 $8 . 0 0 $1 3 , 7 6 0 . 0 0 $5 . 2 0 $8,944.00$4.44$7,636.80 41 21 0 5 . 5 2 1 GR A N U L A R B O R R O W ( C V ) CU Y D 16 1 0 $1 4 . 0 0 $2 2 , 5 4 0 . 0 0 $2 . 8 5 $4 , 5 8 8 . 5 0 $1 1 . 3 6 $18,289.60$9.43$15,182.30 42 21 0 5 . 5 2 6 SE L E C T T O P S O I L B O R R O W ( C V ) CU Y D 15 0 $1 8 . 0 0 $2 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 $1 8 . 0 0 $2 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 $1 4 . 9 1 $2,236.50$9.43$1,414.50 43 21 0 5 . 6 0 3 MI N O R G R A D I N G LI N F T 15 5 $5 0 . 0 0 $7 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $7 . 5 0 $1 , 1 6 2 . 5 0 $5 . 0 0 $775.00$11.09$1,718.95 44 21 1 2 . 5 0 1 SU B G R A D E P R E P A R A T I O N RO A D S T A 26 $2 0 0 . 0 0 $5 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $1 1 5 . 6 3 $3 , 0 0 6 . 3 8 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $2,600.00$123.47$3,210.22 45 22 1 1 . 5 0 1 AG G R E G A T E B A S E C L A S S 5 M O D TO N 77 5 $1 5 . 0 0 $1 1 , 6 2 5 . 0 0 $1 1 . 4 0 $8 , 8 3 5 . 0 0 $1 0 . 8 0 $8,370.00$11.74$9,098.50 46 23 3 1 . 6 0 4 BI T U M I N O U S P A V E M E N T R E C L A M A T I O N SQ Y D 73 0 0 $5 . 5 0 $4 0 , 1 5 0 . 0 0 $0 . 8 6 $6 , 2 7 8 . 0 0 $0 . 8 5 $6,205.00$1.06$7,738.00 47 23 5 0 . 5 0 1 TY P E M V 3 W E A R I N G C O U R S E M I X T U R E ( B ) TO N 10 3 0 $6 1 . 0 0 $6 2 , 8 3 0 . 0 0 $4 9 . 8 0 $5 1 , 2 9 4 . 0 0 $4 8 . 7 5 $50,212.50$56.40$58,092.00 48 23 5 0 . 5 0 2 TY P E M V 3 N O N W E A R I N G C O U R S E M I X T U R E ( B ) TO N 10 3 0 $5 9 . 0 0 $6 0 , 7 7 0 . 0 0 $4 9 . 8 0 $5 1 , 2 9 4 . 0 0 $4 8 . 7 5 $50,212.50$52.90$54,487.00 49 23 5 7 . 5 0 2 BI T U M I N O U S M A T E R I A L F O R T A C K C O A T GA L L O N 49 0 $2 . 0 0 $9 8 0 . 0 0 $1 . 9 0 $9 3 1 . 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $980.00$1.80$882.00 50 25 0 1 . 5 1 5 12 " C S P I P E A P R O N EA C H 8 $2 0 5 . 0 0 $1 , 6 4 0 . 0 0 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $1 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $9 1 . 0 2 $728.16$94.27$754.16 51 25 0 3 . 6 0 3 12 " H D P E P I P E S E W E R LI N F T 19 0 $2 7 . 0 0 $5 , 1 3 0 . 0 0 $1 5 . 0 0 $2 , 8 5 0 . 0 0 $1 4 . 7 1 $2,794.90$14.42$2,739.80 52 25 0 4 . 6 0 2 VA L V E B O X EA C H 1 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $1 1 3 . 3 6 $1 1 3 . 3 6 $5 7 4 . 6 1 $574.61$200.00$200.00 53 25 0 4 . 6 0 2 AD J U S T V A L V E B O X EA C H 3 $2 5 0 . 0 0 $7 5 0 . 0 0 $2 5 0 . 4 3 $7 5 1 . 2 9 $1 7 0 . 0 0 $510.00$150.00$450.00 54 25 0 6 . 5 2 2 AD J U S T F R A M E & R I N G C A S T I N G EA C H 2 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $5 4 9 . 0 7 $1 , 0 9 8 . 1 4 $3 1 3 . 0 0 $626.00$225.00$450.00 55 25 3 1 . 5 0 1 CO N C R E T E C U R B & G U T T E R , D E S I G N M O D I F I E D D LI N F T 20 $2 5 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $4 0 . 0 0 $8 0 0 . 0 0 $2 0 . 0 0 $400.00$33.27$665.40 56 25 3 5 . 5 0 1 BI T U M I N O U S C U R B LI N F T 50 $1 5 . 0 0 $7 5 0 . 0 0 $7 . 3 9 $3 6 9 . 5 0 $1 0 . 0 0 $500.00$23.89$1,194.50 57 25 6 3 . 6 0 1 TR A F F I C C O N T R O L LU M P S U M 1 $5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $1 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4,000.00$1,552.72$1,552.72 Page 2 Pr o j e c t : 0 1 5 4 6 - 1 5 - F a l l o n A v e n u e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n En g i n e e r s E s t i m a t e Kn i f e R i v e r Ru m R i v e r C o n t r a c t i n g Hardrives, Inc. (Rogers) It e m N o . It e m Un i t s Qu a n t i t y Un i t P r i c e To t a l P r i c e Un i t P r i c e To t a l P r i c e Un i t P r i c e Total Price Unit Price Total Price 58 25 7 3 . 5 0 2 SI L T F E N C E , T Y P E M A C H I N E S L I C E D LI N F T 36 1 0 $1 . 5 0 $5 , 4 1 5 . 0 0 $1 . 3 5 $4 , 8 7 3 . 5 0 $1 . 5 0 $5,415.00$1.94$7,003.40 59 25 7 3 . 5 0 8 BI T U M I N O U S L I N E D F L U M E SQ Y D 10 $5 0 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $5 4 . 0 0 $5 4 0 . 0 0 $4 0 . 0 0 $400.00$43.75$437.50 60 25 7 5 . 5 0 5 SO D D I N G , T Y P E L A W N ( I N C L . T O P S O I L & F E R T . ) SQ Y D 50 0 $3 . 5 0 $1 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $4 . 2 5 $2,125.00$4.10$2,050.00 61 25 7 5 . 5 2 3 ER O S I O N C O N T R O L B L A N K E T S C A T E G O R Y 3 SQ Y D 51 9 0 $2 . 0 0 $1 0 , 3 8 0 . 0 0 $1 . 0 5 $5 , 4 4 9 . 5 0 $1 . 2 5 $6,487.50$1.16$6,020.40 62 25 8 2 . 5 0 2 4" D O U B L E S O L I D L I N E Y E L L O W - E P O X Y LI N F T 25 0 0 $1 . 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $0 . 5 0 $1 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 $0 . 5 0 $1,250.00$0.55$1,375.00 To t a l S C H E D U L E B - 2 8 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N : $2 9 3 , 8 0 2 . 5 0 $1 7 8 , 5 3 7 . 2 5 $184,743.52 $199,985.87 To t a l S C H E D U L E A - 2 4 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N : $2 3 9 , 1 2 0 . 0 0 $1 4 6 , 5 2 3 . 9 4 $151,125.07 $163,084.25 To t a l S C H E D U L E B - 2 8 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N : $2 9 3 , 8 0 2 . 5 0 $1 7 8 , 5 3 7 . 2 5 $184,743.52 $199,985.87 To t a l s f o r P r o j e c t 0 1 5 4 6 - 1 5 $5 3 2 , 9 2 2 . 5 0 $3 2 5 , 0 6 1 . 1 9 $335,868.59 $363,070.12 % o f E s t i m a t e f o r P r o j e c t 0 1 5 4 6 - 1 5 -3 9 . 0 0 % -36.98% -31.87%Page 3 Pr o j e c t : 0 1 5 4 6 - 1 5 - F a l l o n A v e n u e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n En g i n e e r s E s t i m a t e AS T E C H Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix, Inc. It e m N o . It e m Un i t s Qu a n t i t y Un i t P r i c e To t a l P r i c e Un i t P r i c e To t a l P r i c e Unit Price Total Price SC H E D U L E A - 2 4 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N 1 20 2 1 . 5 0 1 MO B I L I Z A T I O N LU M P S U M 1 $1 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $8 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $8 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $5,500.00$5,500.00 2 21 0 4 . 5 0 1 RE M O V E P I P E C U L V E R T S LI N F T 14 0 $3 . 0 0 $4 2 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $7 0 0 . 0 0 $5.00$700.00 3 21 0 4 . 5 0 5 RE M O V E C O N C R E T E D R I V E W A Y P A V E M E N T SQ Y D 85 $1 0 . 0 0 $8 5 0 . 0 0 $8 . 0 0 $6 8 0 . 0 0 $4.00$340.00 4 21 0 4 . 5 0 5 RE M O V E B I T U M I N O U S D R I V E W A Y P A V E M E N T SQ Y D 76 5 $3 . 5 0 $2 , 6 7 7 . 5 0 $3 . 0 0 $2 , 2 9 5 . 0 0 $4.00$3,060.00 5 21 0 4 . 5 1 1 SA W I N G C O N C R E T E P A V E M E N T ( F U L L D E P T H ) LI N F T 45 $6 . 0 0 $2 7 0 . 0 0 $3 . 5 0 $1 5 7 . 5 0 $5.00$225.00 6 21 0 4 . 5 1 3 SA W I N G B I T U M I N O U S P A V E ME N T ( F U L L D E P T H ) LI N F T 54 0 $4 . 0 0 $2 , 1 6 0 . 0 0 $2 . 5 0 $1 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 $4.00$2,160.00 7 21 0 4 . 5 2 3 SA L V A G E & R E I N S T A L L S I G N EA C H 11 $1 0 5 . 0 0 $1 , 1 5 5 . 0 0 $1 7 5 . 0 0 $1 , 9 2 5 . 0 0 $50.00$550.00 8 21 0 4 . 6 0 2 SA L V A G E A N D R E I N S T A L L M A I L B O X EA C H 2 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $2 0 0 . 0 0 $1 2 5 . 0 0 $2 5 0 . 0 0 $100.00$200.00 9 21 0 5 . 5 0 1 CO M M O N E X C A V A T I O N ( E V ) CU Y D 89 0 $1 2 . 0 0 $1 0 , 6 8 0 . 0 0 $7 . 5 0 $6 , 6 7 5 . 0 0 $5.00$4,450.00 10 21 0 5 . 5 2 1 GR A N U L A R B O R R O W ( C V ) CU Y D 85 0 $1 4 . 0 0 $1 1 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $1 2 . 0 0 $1 0 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $10.00$8,500.00 11 21 0 5 . 5 2 6 SE L E C T T O P S O I L B O R R O W ( C V ) CU Y D 10 0 $1 8 . 0 0 $1 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $1 6 . 0 0 $1 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 $25.00$2,500.00 12 21 0 5 . 6 0 3 MI N O R G R A D I N G LI N F T 15 5 $5 0 . 0 0 $7 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $3 . 0 0 $4 6 5 . 0 0 $11.00$1,705.00 13 21 1 2 . 5 0 1 SU B G R A D E P R E P A R A T I O N RO A D S T A 26 $1 7 5 . 0 0 $4 , 5 5 0 . 0 0 $1 2 5 . 0 0 $3 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 $340.00$8,840.00 14 22 1 1 . 5 0 1 AG G R E G A T E B A S E C L A S S 5 M O D TO N 90 $1 5 . 0 0 $1 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 $1 4 . 0 0 $1 , 2 6 0 . 0 0 $40.00$3,600.00 15 23 3 1 . 6 0 4 BI T U M I N O U S P A V E M E N T R E C L A M A T I O N SQ Y D 73 0 0 $5 . 5 0 $4 0 , 1 5 0 . 0 0 $1 . 3 5 $9 , 8 5 5 . 0 0 $1.00$7,300.00 16 23 5 0 . 5 0 1 TY P E M V 3 W E A R I N G C O U R S E M I X T U R E ( B ) TO N 90 0 $6 1 . 0 0 $5 4 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $4 7 . 8 9 $4 3 , 1 0 1 . 0 0 $55.25$49,725.00 17 23 5 0 . 5 0 2 TY P E M V 3 N O N W E A R I N G C O U R S E M I X T U R E ( B ) TO N 90 0 $5 9 . 0 0 $5 3 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 $4 7 . 8 9 $4 3 , 1 0 1 . 0 0 $55.25$49,725.00 18 23 5 7 . 5 0 2 BI T U M I N O U S M A T E R I A L F O R T A C K C O A T GA L L O N 42 0 $2 . 0 0 $8 4 0 . 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $8 4 0 . 0 0 $2.00$840.00 19 25 0 1 . 5 1 5 12 " C S P I P E A P R O N EA C H 8 $2 0 5 . 0 0 $1 , 6 4 0 . 0 0 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $2 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $340.00$2,720.00 20 25 0 3 . 6 0 3 12 " H D P E P I P E S E W E R LI N F T 19 0 $2 7 . 0 0 $5 , 1 3 0 . 0 0 $2 3 . 0 0 $4 , 3 7 0 . 0 0 $29.00$5,510.00 21 25 0 4 . 6 0 2 VA L V E B O X EA C H 1 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $190.00$190.00 22 25 0 4 . 6 0 2 AD J U S T V A L V E B O X EA C H 3 $2 5 0 . 0 0 $7 5 0 . 0 0 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $4 5 0 . 0 0 $130.00$390.00 23 25 0 6 . 5 2 2 AD J U S T F R A M E & R I N G C A S T I N G EA C H 2 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $2 5 0 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $180.00$360.00 24 25 3 5 . 5 0 1 BI T U M I N O U S C U R B LI N F T 50 $1 5 . 0 0 $7 5 0 . 0 0 $3 . 0 0 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $10.00$500.00 25 25 6 3 . 6 0 1 TR A F F I C C O N T R O L LU M P S U M 1 $4 , 8 5 0 . 0 0 $4 , 8 5 0 . 0 0 $3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1,400.00$1,400.00 26 25 7 3 . 5 0 2 SI L T F E N C E , T Y P E M A C H I N E S L I C E D LI N F T 23 6 5 $1 . 5 0 $3 , 5 4 7 . 5 0 $1 . 7 5 $4 , 1 3 8 . 7 5 $1.75$4,138.75 27 25 7 3 . 5 0 8 BI T U M I N O U S L I N E D F L U M E SQ Y D 10 $5 0 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $1 5 . 0 0 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $50.00$500.00 28 25 7 5 . 5 0 5 SO D D I N G , T Y P E L A W N ( I N C L . T O P S O I L & F E R T . ) SQ Y D 50 0 $3 . 5 0 $1 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $3.70$1,850.00 29 25 7 5 . 5 2 3 ER O S I O N C O N T R O L B L A N K E T S C A T E G O R Y 3 SQ Y D 48 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $9 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $9 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 $1.05$5,040.00 30 25 8 2 . 5 0 2 4" D O U B L E S O L I D L I N E Y E L L O W - E P O X Y LI N F T 25 0 0 $1 . 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $0 . 5 0 $1 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 $2.10$5,250.00 To t a l S C H E D U L E A - 2 4 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N : $2 3 9 , 1 2 0 . 0 0 $1 6 5 , 1 6 3 . 2 5 $177,768.75 SC H E D U L E B - 2 8 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N 31 20 2 1 . 5 0 1 MO B I L I Z A T I O N LU M P S U M 1 $1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $8 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $8 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $8,100.00$8,100.00 32 21 0 4 . 5 0 1 RE M O V E P I P E C U L V E R T S LI N F T 14 0 $3 . 0 0 $4 2 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $7 0 0 . 0 0 $5.00$700.00 Page 4 Pr o j e c t : 0 1 5 4 6 - 1 5 - F a l l o n A v e n u e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n En g i n e e r s E s t i m a t e AS T E C H Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix, Inc. It e m N o . It e m Un i t s Qu a n t i t y Un i t P r i c e To t a l P r i c e Un i t P r i c e To t a l P r i c e Unit Price Total Price 33 21 0 4 . 5 0 1 RE M O V E C U R B A N D G U T T E R LI N F T 20 $6 . 0 0 $1 2 0 . 0 0 $7 . 0 0 $1 4 0 . 0 0 $10.00$200.00 34 21 0 4 . 5 0 5 RE M O V E C O N C R E T E D R I V E W A Y P A V E M E N T SQ Y D 85 $1 0 . 0 0 $8 5 0 . 0 0 $8 . 0 0 $6 8 0 . 0 0 $4.00$340.00 35 21 0 4 . 5 0 5 RE M O V E B I T U M I N O U S D R I V E W A Y P A V E M E N T SQ Y D 76 5 $3 . 5 0 $2 , 6 7 7 . 5 0 $3 . 0 0 $2 , 2 9 5 . 0 0 $4.00$3,060.00 36 21 0 4 . 5 1 1 SA W I N G C O N C R E T E P A V E M E N T ( F U L L D E P T H ) LI N F T 45 $6 . 0 0 $2 7 0 . 0 0 $3 . 5 0 $1 5 7 . 5 0 $5.00$225.00 37 21 0 4 . 5 1 3 SA W I N G B I T U M I N O U S P A V E ME N T ( F U L L D E P T H ) LI N F T 54 0 $4 . 0 0 $2 , 1 6 0 . 0 0 $2 . 5 0 $1 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 $4.00$2,160.00 38 21 0 4 . 5 2 3 SA L V A G E & R E I N S T A L L S I G N EA C H 11 $1 0 5 . 0 0 $1 , 1 5 5 . 0 0 $1 7 5 . 0 0 $1 , 9 2 5 . 0 0 $50.00$550.00 39 21 0 4 . 6 0 2 SA L V A G E A N D R E I N S T A L L M A I L B O X EA C H 3 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $3 0 0 . 0 0 $1 2 5 . 0 0 $3 7 5 . 0 0 $100.00$300.00 40 21 0 5 . 5 0 1 CO M M O N E X C A V A T I O N ( E V ) CU Y D 17 2 0 $1 2 . 0 0 $2 0 , 6 4 0 . 0 0 $7 . 5 0 $1 2 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $4.00$6,880.00 41 21 0 5 . 5 2 1 GR A N U L A R B O R R O W ( C V ) CU Y D 16 1 0 $1 4 . 0 0 $2 2 , 5 4 0 . 0 0 $1 2 . 0 0 $1 9 , 3 2 0 . 0 0 $10.00$16,100.00 42 21 0 5 . 5 2 6 SE L E C T T O P S O I L B O R R O W ( C V ) CU Y D 15 0 $1 8 . 0 0 $2 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 $1 6 . 0 0 $2 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $25.00$3,750.00 43 21 0 5 . 6 0 3 MI N O R G R A D I N G LI N F T 15 5 $5 0 . 0 0 $7 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $3 . 0 0 $4 6 5 . 0 0 $11.00$1,705.00 44 21 1 2 . 5 0 1 SU B G R A D E P R E P A R A T I O N RO A D S T A 26 $2 0 0 . 0 0 $5 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $1 2 5 . 0 0 $3 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 $340.00$8,840.00 45 22 1 1 . 5 0 1 AG G R E G A T E B A S E C L A S S 5 M O D TO N 77 5 $1 5 . 0 0 $1 1 , 6 2 5 . 0 0 $1 4 . 0 0 $1 0 , 8 5 0 . 0 0 $12.00$9,300.00 46 23 3 1 . 6 0 4 BI T U M I N O U S P A V E M E N T R E C L A M A T I O N SQ Y D 73 0 0 $5 . 5 0 $4 0 , 1 5 0 . 0 0 $1 . 3 5 $9 , 8 5 5 . 0 0 $1.00$7,300.00 47 23 5 0 . 5 0 1 TY P E M V 3 W E A R I N G C O U R S E M I X T U R E ( B ) TO N 10 3 0 $6 1 . 0 0 $6 2 , 8 3 0 . 0 0 $4 7 . 8 9 $4 9 , 3 2 6 . 7 0 $55.25$56,907.50 48 23 5 0 . 5 0 2 TY P E M V 3 N O N W E A R I N G C O U R S E M I X T U R E ( B ) TO N 10 3 0 $5 9 . 0 0 $6 0 , 7 7 0 . 0 0 $4 7 . 8 9 $4 9 , 3 2 6 . 7 0 $55.25$56,907.50 49 23 5 7 . 5 0 2 BI T U M I N O U S M A T E R I A L F O R T A C K C O A T GA L L O N 49 0 $2 . 0 0 $9 8 0 . 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $9 8 0 . 0 0 $2.00$980.00 50 25 0 1 . 5 1 5 12 " C S P I P E A P R O N EA C H 8 $2 0 5 . 0 0 $1 , 6 4 0 . 0 0 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $2 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $340.00$2,720.00 51 25 0 3 . 6 0 3 12 " H D P E P I P E S E W E R LI N F T 19 0 $2 7 . 0 0 $5 , 1 3 0 . 0 0 $2 3 . 0 0 $4 , 3 7 0 . 0 0 $29.00$5,510.00 52 25 0 4 . 6 0 2 VA L V E B O X EA C H 1 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $3 5 0 . 0 0 $190.00$190.00 53 25 0 4 . 6 0 2 AD J U S T V A L V E B O X EA C H 3 $2 5 0 . 0 0 $7 5 0 . 0 0 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $4 5 0 . 0 0 $130.00$390.00 54 25 0 6 . 5 2 2 AD J U S T F R A M E & R I N G C A S T I N G EA C H 2 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $2 5 0 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $180.00$360.00 55 25 3 1 . 5 0 1 CO N C R E T E C U R B & G U T T E R , D E S I G N M O D I F I E D D LI N F T 20 $2 5 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $3 5 . 0 0 $7 0 0 . 0 0 $40.00$800.00 56 25 3 5 . 5 0 1 BI T U M I N O U S C U R B LI N F T 50 $1 5 . 0 0 $7 5 0 . 0 0 $3 . 0 0 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $10.00$500.00 57 25 6 3 . 6 0 1 TR A F F I C C O N T R O L LU M P S U M 1 $5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1,400.00$1,400.00 58 25 7 3 . 5 0 2 SI L T F E N C E , T Y P E M A C H I N E S L I C E D LI N F T 36 1 0 $1 . 5 0 $5 , 4 1 5 . 0 0 $1 . 7 5 $6 , 3 1 7 . 5 0 $1.75$6,317.50 59 25 7 3 . 5 0 8 BI T U M I N O U S L I N E D F L U M E SQ Y D 10 $5 0 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $1 5 . 0 0 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $50.00$500.00 60 25 7 5 . 5 0 5 SO D D I N G , T Y P E L A W N ( I N C L . T O P S O I L & F E R T . ) SQ Y D 50 0 $3 . 5 0 $1 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $3.70$1,850.00 61 25 7 5 . 5 2 3 ER O S I O N C O N T R O L B L A N K E T S C A T E G O R Y 3 SQ Y D 51 9 0 $2 . 0 0 $1 0 , 3 8 0 . 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $1 0 , 3 8 0 . 0 0 $1.05$5,449.50 62 25 8 2 . 5 0 2 4" D O U B L E S O L I D L I N E Y E L L O W - E P O X Y LI N F T 25 0 0 $1 . 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $0 . 5 0 $1 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 $2.10$5,250.00 To t a l S C H E D U L E B - 2 8 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N : $2 9 3 , 8 0 2 . 5 0 $2 0 7 , 4 1 3 . 4 0 $215,542.00 To t a l S C H E D U L E A - 2 4 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N : $2 3 9 , 1 2 0 . 0 0 $1 6 5 , 1 6 3 . 2 5 $177,768.75 To t a l S C H E D U L E B - 2 8 - F O O T W I D E S T R E E T O P T I O N : $2 9 3 , 8 0 2 . 5 0 $2 0 7 , 4 1 3 . 4 0 $215,542.00 To t a l s f o r P r o j e c t 0 1 5 4 6 - 1 5 $5 3 2 , 9 2 2 . 5 0 $3 7 2 , 5 7 6 . 6 5 $393,310.75 % o f E s t i m a t e f o r P r o j e c t 0 1 5 4 6 - 1 5 -3 0 . 0 9 % -26.20% I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s i s a n ex a c t r e p r o d u c t i o n of b i d s r e c e i v e d . Ce r t i f i e d B y : Li c e n s e N o . 41 8 6 0 Da t e : 9- 1 0 - 0 9 Page 5 City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 9. (A) Consideration of revising access modifications to River Street / Hwy 75; (B) Consideration of authorizing preparation of a plan for implementing a Downtown directional sign program; and (C) Consideration of authorizing preparation of a Request For Proposal for traffic and redevelopment study of the Downtown/ Highway 25 corridor. (JO,AS,BW) City Council is asked to review short and long term short and longer term initiatives for enhancing the climate for redevelopment of the Downtown Area. The ideas to follow are intended to build off of years of effort by the City to stimulate downtown redevelopment activity and also to build off the momentum by the Monticello Downtown Business Association (MDBA) that has recently become engaged in a coordinated effort to improve business viability. The focus of this report includes the following areas: (A) Consideration of revising access modifications to River Street/Hwy 75. (B) Consideration of authorizing preparation of a plan for implementing a Downtown directional sign program. (C) Consideration of authorizing preparation of a Request for Proposal to study Downtown/Highway 25 traffic, redevelopment, and financing. (A) Consideration of revising access modifications to River Street / Hwy 75 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Council is asked to review the history noted below and provide further direction. Please note that this history leads to a staff/mayoral recommendation, supported by the Downtown Association that meets the following goals. Maintain Highway 25 traffic as free-flowing as possible at River Street especially during rush hour. Remove cut-through traffic from East River Street. Provide signalized pedestrian crossing at River Street. Provide satisfactory access to West River business district area. Retain availability of signal for potential future benefit TBD. Support development plans identified by owner of Bank/Theater block Provide for convenient access to West Bridge Park. History. On July 24, 2008 the City of Monticello, in cooperation with Mn/DOT, instituted an access control pilot project to determine the effects of traffic on TH 25, East and West River Streets, and other surrounding streets, as a result of closing all access to East and West River Streets at TH 25 and deactivating the signal s ystem at that intersection. This pilot project resulted in a decrease in traffic volumes on East and West River Streets of about 85%, which consequently increased traffic volumes on CSAH 75 by almost 15%. It was also found that vehicle speeds on East and West River Streets decreased by about 5 mph, while speeds on CSAH 75 remained about the same. The City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 2 residents along East and West River Street who commented on the project overwhelmingly supported it due to the reduction in traffic volumes and speeds, while numerous local business owners opposed the project noting it reduced their accessibility. On October 27, 2008 a second access closure pilot project was instituted to increase client accessibility to the local businesses by opening all access to West River Street, with the exception of allowing left-turns from West River Street onto northbound TH 25. Traffic data gathered during this second pilot project indicated that traffic volumes on West River Street increased to about 70% of the pre-access closure traffic volumes, while average vehicle speeds ranged from about 22 - 26 mph and 85th percentile vehicle speeds ranged from 26 - 30 mph. Comments received from residents along West River Street during this second pilot project indicated they did not favor this project since it opened access again to West River Street from TH 25. On February 9, 2009, the City Council reviewed traffic data gathered during the two pilot projects. Some of the traffic counting tubes had been dislodged intermittently by snow plows during the second pilot project so Council directed staff to gather additional data over a prolonged duration. Council requested that all new traffic data collected on West River, Third and Fourth Streets be gathered over a 2-week period so as to get a better feel for what constitutes “local” traffic volumes. Council also requested that the new traffic data be gathered as inconspicuously as possible to prevent people from purposely slowing down when they know their speed is being recorded. As such, tubes that lay directly on the pavement were used to gather the new data. The new data showed the 85th-percentile speeds on West River, Third and Fourth Streets were slightly more than 20 mph. Various residents and business owners addressed the Council on February 9th and, in general, residents along West River Street were still concerned with vehicle volumes and speeds, while business owners were still concerned with decreased exposure and accessibility to their businesses, stating that the increase in access provided during the second pilot project did not appreciably increase their business. On July 14, 2009 staff met with several Monticello Downtown Business Association (MDBA) representatives to discuss the project. At the meeting the MDBA presented a pedestrian expert and stressed the importance of adequate pedestrian access, mobility and safety, noting these should be primary goals with any improvements proposed for the downtown area. While pedestrian accessibility, mobility and safety will be addressed by staff with any proposed improvements in the downtown area, there are other elements to consider such as enhancing vehicle access, circulation and parking, and discouraging non-local traffic from using adjacent residential streets as cut-through routes. In addition, comments and concerns voiced by City Council members, local business owners, residents of East and West River Street, and the MDBA will also be addressed. Staff discussed our proposed plans for this intersection with Mn/DOT and was informed that while Mn/DOT will allow us to leave the temporary traffic control devices (orange barrels) in place on TH 25 until fall, they will require a more permanent solution to be in place before late October when the snow season arrives. City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 3 Staff was also informed that Mn/DOT will allow the City to determine which turning movements will be allowed at the intersection, and whether the signal system should be reactivated. Staff met with MDBA representatives on more than one occasion in August to review the proposed access modifications at TH 25 and River Street that will be presented to Council this evening (see figure A). With this input and with input from Mayor Herbst the following recommendation has evolved: Leave all access to/ from East River Street closed as it is today but activate the signal system at TH 25 and River Street allowing all movements to/from West River Street at TH 25, except during peak traffic volume hours from 4 to 7 PM Monday through Friday. During those peak hours the light will remain red for traffic on West River Street and green for all traffic on TH 25, which means that the only traffic movements that will be allowed at West River Street during peak hours will be right-in, right-out movements. During non-peak hours, right turns on red would be allowed at West River Street, and both left-turn movements to/from West River Street will be permissive movements only, requiring drivers to wait for a gap in traffic to turn left as there will be no green arrows. No other access modifications are being proposed on either East or West River Street. “In only” access is to be allowed at the alley/Highway 25 intersection. This is not a long-term solution for this intersection, but rather a short-term solution that will be in place until we know how block 53 will be developed, and until the City completes further studies to identify what improvements will be made to the TH 25 corridor and surrounding downtown area. This recommendation was supported because it appeared to do the best job of satisfying the list of goals each held as important to varying degrees by members of the community. To repeat, these goals included; Maintain Highway 25 traffic as free-flowing as possible at River Street especially during rush hour. Remove cut-through traffic from East River Street. Provide signalized pedestrian crossing at River Street. Provide satisfactory access to West River business district area. Retain availability of signal for potential future benefit TBD. Support development plans identified by owner of Bank/Theater block Provide for convenient access to West Bridge Park. A1. Budget Impact: Budget impacts will depend on Council’s motion and Mn/DOT’s response. Costs could range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on which signal system and roadway modifications are approved by Council. Preliminary discussions with Mn/DOT indicate they will likely require the City to construct a permanent raised median to prevent traffic from entering the left-turn lane to East River Street from southbound TH 25, which could cost City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 4 the City several thousand dollars to complete. Staff has also requested Mn/DOT to touch up the striping on TH 25 at this intersection, but since the striping is in poor condition along all of TH 25 it is doubtful Mn/DOT would stripe just one intersection. The City may therefore be forced to stripe TH 25 itself, should Council want the striping to be touched up. A2. Staff Impact: Implementing additional pilot projects would require the services of select Public Works staff and the City Engineer. Maintenance costs for the City should be minimal. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion authorizing staff to modify access at River Street and TH 25 as noted herein, including activating the signal system, with all work to be completed before November 1, 2009. 2. Motion to leave intersection as is. 3. Motion to restore intersection to a signalized, full-access intersection. 4. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Alternative Action #1 based on the finding that traffic volumes and speeds on East and West River Streets are lower than what they were before the pilot projects began and are lower than what is being observed on other local streets. No matter what action Council takes, staff will continue to monitor pedestrian and traffic impacts at this intersection, along TH 25 between the Mississippi River and I-94, and on other adjacent streets. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A – Proposed Access at TH 25 & River Street (B) Consideration of authorizing preparation of a plan for implementing a Downtown directional sign program A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Many cities utilize public directional signage to assist the traveling public in understanding how to reach important points of destination. Directional is thus important for both practical and promotional reasons. The sign system proposed will identify important points of interest to include but not limited to: City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 5 Parking Historic District Park location/names Public Institutions – MCC, City Hall, Schools DMV, Public Works, Police, Fire, Library ETC Civic Organizations – Legion, VFW Historic Points of Interest Senior Center, National Guard As you know, directional signage already exists along our boulevards, but it is installed in a somewhat haphazard manner. Many of the signs that are up today could be consolidated into one sign and thus enhance the look of the town. A1. Budget Impact: Staff time needed to prepare plan. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to authorize staff to prepare a plan for implementation of a public directional sign system. The plan is to include sign design, sign locations, named destinations and policy considerations. Plan to also include a budget for sign manufacturing and installation. It is expected that Council will support purchase of a sign manufacturing unit for FiberNet. Then cost estimates will be based on use of this equipment included in the plan. Staff will prepare a sign plan for future review by Council to occur prior to installation. The goal is to have the sign program reviewed by Council and in place by Thanksgiving. 2. Motion to deny authorization to prepare a plan for development of a public directional sign system. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 6 (C) Consideration of authorizing preparation of a Request For Proposal for traffic and redevelopment study of the Downtown/ Highway 25 corridor A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In addition to proceeding on projects (A) and (B) that can be completed this year, it is proposed that City Council consider granting authorization to preparation of an RFP for initiating important planning studies that are necessary for key investment of resources. Ultimately, the planning effort is linked to addressing the following: 1. Transportation Component - Highway 25 and business district circulation improvements identifying options for enhance traffic movement through and within the Downtown Area. Intersection design options Access closures or restrictions Median locations Identification of Parking lot locations Identification of Pedestrian safety improvements – sidewalks, crossing locations, design Evaluation of the cost/benefit of the Fallon Avenue overpass as a means to enhance local traffic circulation River Crossing location 2. Redevelopment Planning Identification of optimum redevelopment patterns in unison with Transportation Planning intended to maximize development potential of corridor. Areas of study to include Land use Urban design Land acquisition priorities Opportunities for on-going collaboration with Downtown Organization This information will be extremely useful in identifying priorities for use of pooled funds and identifying to what extent added tax capacity resulting from decertification should be employed to assist with funding transportation and redevelopment related improvements. Finally, completion of the planning studies as proposed is consistent with direction identified in the Comprehensive Plan. A1. Budget impact: Staff is requesting authorization to complete a request for proposal document to be submitted to qualified planning and transportation firms. At this point only staff time will be involved. There is a significant likelihood that the actual cost to complete the study can be funded by TIF funds on hand. The cost will be established at such time that the proposals are submitted. City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 7 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion authorizing staff to prepare a request for proposal for the study of transportation and redevelopment along the highway 25 Corridor and Downtown areas. 2. Motion to deny authorizing staff to prepare a request for proposal for the study of transportation and redevelopment along the highway 25 Corridor and Downtown areas. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. In order for the Downtown area to maximize its potential, longstanding issues relating to traffic need to be resolved and a strategy for enhancing access in and out of the Downtown area needs to be established. Traffic along Highway 25 was the number one issue, which has been only partially addressed with the River Street access modifications. In the long term, more work needs to be done along and adjacent to the Highway 25 corridor for the sake of the economic health of the Downtown area and the Community at large. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. City Council Agenda: 09/14/09 1 10. Consideration of amending the terms of the Jefferson Commons (Lot 2, Block 1 ) purchase agreement between the City of Monticello and Michael Krutzig to allow the sale of the parcel by Mike Krutzig. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In November 2004, the City Council authorized entering into a purchase agreement with Mr. Mike Krutzig on a 2.7 acre parcel in Jefferson Commons. This property lies directly along Highway 25 and is legally described as Lot 2, Block 1 of Jefferson Commons. In November of 2005, modifications were made to Mr. Krutzig’s agreement, which allowed the City architectural approval of a project, a six month timeframe for governmental and financing approvals and the right for the City to buy back the property if a project was not completed within 18 months. The addendum to the purchase agreement approved by the City Council specifically stipulated that if the Buyer (Mr. Krutzig) failed to construct a building within 18 months, the Seller (City) had the right to re-purchase the property for the original sale price. Further, the development agreement approved at that time also stipulated that the contract could not be assigned without the permission of the City Council. Therefore, Mr. Krutzig could not sell the property or assign the conditions of the approval or contract without consent of the City Council. The original 18-month development timeline expired on September 9, 2006 and was subsequently extended by the City Council to August 1, 2007. Staff has been unable to find a subsequent extension as of the time of this report. As the new deadline has passed, and the City Council recently indicated that there is no interest at this time in purchasing the parcel back, Mr. Krutzig is requesting that the City Council allow him the option to sell the property to an outside party. Mr. Krutzig has indicated that after years of extensive marketing of the site, he has been unable to secure a prospect for the site and is interested in selling the property outright. Mr. Krutzig has indicated that even with a waived timeline, his preference is to sell the property at this time. In addition to considering relaxing the requirement that Mr. Krutzig develop the land, the Council will also want to provide direction on whether a new timeline for development should be applied at the time a purchase agreement is signed with a new buyer, or whether given market conditions, the sale of this property without a development timeline is acceptable. It should be noted that the newly assigned development contract with any new buyer could not be re-assigned without the Council’s approval. This would seem to provide some protection against future speculation on the property. Should the City Council approve Mr. Krutzig’s request, a second addendum to the purchase agreement would be drafted, as well as an amendment to the development City Council Agenda: 09/14/09 2 contract. These will be drafted by the City Attorney in accordance with Council’s direction. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to approve amendment of the purchase and development agreement with Mr. Mike Krutzig for Lot 2, Block 1, Jefferson Commons, to allow the Buyer to re-sell the property to an outside party. This approval is conditioned on the following: All other previously assigned items listed in the Addendum to Purchase Agreement will carry forward to a new purchase agreement. The City retains the right to approve any assignment of the development contract. Any prospective buyer will be required to meet a {to be defined by the City Council} development timeline. 2. Motion to deny the request for amending the agreement. 3. Motion to exercise the option under the recorded warranty deed to purchase the property at the original purchase price of $1,057,104.00 and obtain title to the property. 4. Motion to table the item for further discussion to refine alternatives. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although the minutes of the City Council meetings illustrate that the intent of the Buyer- development provisions was to prohibit speculation on the land, due to the current market and prospects for immediate future commercial development, the City Council may now be inclined to amend the development and purchase agreement to allow for Mr. Krutzig to sell the property. It would be recommended that all previously-assigned conditions be required to carry over to a purchase agreement with any prospective buyer, including the requirement for architectural approval. D. SUPPORTING DATA: a) City Council Agenda/Minutes of November 22, 2004 b) City Council Agenda/Minutes of November 14, 2005 c) City Council Agenda/Minutes of September 11, 2006 d) 2005 Development Agreement w/Mike Krutzig City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 11. Consideration of adopting 2010 preliminary tax levy. (TK) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City is required to certify a preliminary levy to the County Auditor/Treasurer on or before September 15th. Staff has been developing a proposed 2010 budget and property tax levy and has held two workshops with City Council to arrive at a preliminary levy. As you may recall, once the preliminary tax levy is set the final property tax levy can not exceed the preliminary levy, but can be lower. At the August 31st budget workshop, there was some discussion of City reserves and the use of City reserves to balance the budget. Based on the City’s 2009 budget and the preliminary 2010 the City would have approximately $60,700,027 in fund balance at the end of 2010. Of that $26,873,195 has been committed for bond payments, equipment purchase, or capital projects. Of the remaining $33,826,832, $12,015,544 is in the Water Fund to be used in the future to replace water infrastructure and $18,382,274 is in the Sewer Fund to replace sewer infrastructure. This would leave an uncommitted or unrestricted fund balance of only $3,508,787. Also based on bond payment commitments by the various Access Funds, these funds are over committed by $8,040,319; however, once new development picks up, there will be some revenues to offset these projected deficits. Also, projects not included in these fund balance, but needing funding, are: the land purchases of the Bertram Chain of Lakes property and development of the park, the Fallon Street overpass, improvements for Highway 25, a second river crossing, a new public works facility, and fire station. Attached are two spreadsheets, the first one taking the 2008 fund balance of each fund and adjusting the fund balance based on the 2009 and 2010 budgets, to provide a projected 12/31/2010 fund balance for each fund and, of that fund balance, how much of it is reserved or restricted. Because of bond payments, the fact that utility rates do not fully cover depreciation and the City use of reserves to balance the budget, the spreadsheet shows the City using over $5.9 in reserves in 2009 and 2010. It should be noted that of the $5,965,500 of reserves being used only $824,786 is being used to balance the budget. The remaining use of reserves was planned based on bond fund revenues and expenditure flows and not funding all of the enterprise funds depreciation. The second spreadsheet compares fund balance levels from 2004 through 2010. During this period the City had a fund balance high of $86,110,511 in 2005 and again for the reasons listed above these fund balances have been drawn down to $60,700,027 by the end of 2010. Based on the future projects the City has and the current amount of fund balance the City has on hand, it would be my recommendation that we refrain from using reserves in the future to balance the budget and keep the tax levy low. If the City continues to use reserves in this manner, when the City moves forward with the various projects listed above, the only funding source will be to levy for them, which will result in some real significant levy increases from one year to the next. City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 2 At the August 31st workshop, the Council directed staff to develop a budget using a preliminary levy of $8,000,000. Based on the discussions of the two budget workshops (August 24th and 31st) staff is proposing a preliminary 2010 General Fund budget of $7,165,027 and a proposed 2010 preliminary levy of $8,000,000. This levy would result in the City’s tax rate increasing from 46.191% to 47.598%, which would mean if a home value remained at the 2009 value, a home of $135,000 would see a $19 increase in City taxes, while a home valued at $250,000 would increase $35. A business valued at $100,000 would increase $21 and a business valued at $1,000,000 would increase $211. See attached summary of City property tax levies. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the 2010 preliminary property tax levy of $8,000,000. 2. Adopt a preliminary tax levy at an alternative amount. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of staff to approve Alternative #1 for a 2010 preliminary levy of $8,000,000. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Preliminary levy Resolution Fund Balance Spreadsheets Property Tax Levy Summaries CITY OF MONTICELLO RESOLUTION NO 2009-49 ADOPTING THE 2010 PRELIMINARY BUDGET AND SETTING THE PRELIMINARY TAX LEVY WHEREAS, the Finance Director has prepared and submitted to the City Council a preliminary budget setting forth therein his estimated needs of the City of Monticello for all operations and the debt service for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the same and has made such changes therein as appear to be in the best interest of the City of Monticello; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO that the preliminary budget so submitted by the Finance Director, together with the changes made therein by the City Council, be and same hereby is adopted as a preliminary budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2010; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Monticello that there be and hereby is a preliminary levy for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2010, and the following sums for t he respective purposes indicated therein upon the taxable property of the City of Monticello, to wit: PRELIMINARY LEVY REVENUE General $6,002,303 Community Center $1,149,449 Library $34,715 HRA 0 OAA 0 Shade Tree $35,000 DEBT RETIREMENT Deb Service Funds $778,533 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Street Reconstruction Fund 0 TOTAL TAX LEVY $8,000,000 The above resolution was introduced by Councilmember__________, was duly seconded by Councilmember ___________, with the following voting in favor thereof: The following voting in the opposition: The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota. Adopted this 14th day of September, 2009. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Administrator City Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 12. Consideration of establishing the Truth-In-Taxation Public Hearing date. (TK) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In the past, the City was required to hold a Truth-In-Taxation (TNT) Hearing and a Continuation Hearing for its annual budget and property tax levy, if the levy increased above a certain percentage. However, legislation was passed that eliminated the previous requirements of a separate TNT Hearing. Cities with a population over 500 are now required to hold a public hearing at which the budget and levy is discussed. The meeting must be held between November 25 and December 26 and held after 6:00 pm. The public must be allowed to speak at the public hearing. Due to this change, it is staff’s recommendation to hold the public hearing at the regular City Council meeting on December 14, 2009. After the public hearing, the City Council would then need to adopt the final 2010 property tax levy and 2010 budget. Other options would be to hold a special meeting on either November 30 (the Monday after Thanksgiving), December 7, or some other date between December 1st and December 11th. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Call for the public hearing for the 2010 property tax levy and budget on December 14, 2009 at 7:00 pm. 2. Call for the public hearing for the 2010 property tax levy and budget on some other date between November 25th and December 26th after 6 pm. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1, to call for the public hearing for the 2010 property tax levy and budget on December 14, 2009 at 7:00 pm. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Minnesota Revenue Instructions and explanation for TNT payable 2010. Council Agenda: 9/14/09 1 13. Review of Ordinance Authorizing Permits for Use by the Disabled of ATV’s, Motorized Golf Carts or other Mobility Devices on City Streets, Bike Lanes and Trails. (JO/JJ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous meeting of the City Council, this item was discussed and tabled for further action pending input from the City Attorney who was not able to attend due to a traffic accident. Joel Jamnik is slated for attendance at the upcoming and thus should available to answer additional questions. The balance of this report is copied from the agenda item prepared for the previous meeting, with the addition of state information on low power vehicles that was not available for the previous meeting. The initiation of this discussion resulted from a Citizen request for permission to operate an ATV on city streets and rights of way. Under current law, operation of such a vehicle is not allowable without establishment of an ordinance that identifies terms and conditions for such use. In response to the direction by the City Council, the City Attorney has prepared language that would enable a disabled individual to operate motor vehicles on City Streets. The purpose of this ordinance is to promote mobility for those with disabilities within the community consistent with public safety considerations for the operator and for others using public streets, trails and other public ways within the City. Following is a summary of the ordinance; please see attached draft for detail. Types of vehicles that would need a permit under this code include Motorized or Electric Wheel Chairs, All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV’s) Low-Speed Vehicles (LSVs) Motorized golf carts Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) and other self-propelled vehicles Permits may only be issued to disabled persons as defined by Minnesota Statutes section 169.345, subdivision 2, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), or other law to those who have a physician's statement certifying that the person is a disabled person within the meaning of the statute or law and that the person is able to safely operate the specific mobility device on public streets and ways. Permits shall be issued for a one year period. A permit may be revoked at any time if there is evidence that the permittee cannot safely operate the mobility device. The permit may be revoked following a hearing conducted by the Director of Public Works or his or her designee following written notice to the permittee. The Director of Public Works may suspend the permit prior to the hearing if public safety would otherwise be endangered. Council Agenda: 9/14/09 2 These are some of the considerations for operating a mobility device on public streets and ways: May only be operated on bike paths, designated streets and bike lanes from sunrise to sunset. Shall not be operated in inclement weather or when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke or other conditions, or at any time when there is insufficient light to clearly see persons on the bike paths or designated streets at a distance of five hundred feet (500'). Use of sidewalks limited to single-person devices. Mobility devices that allow for more than a single person may not be operated on sidewalks or trails that are less than six feet in width. Maximum speed of any mobility device on city sidewalks shall be 10 miles per hour. Slow-Moving Vehicle Emblem required. Operate within speed limits on trails. Insurance required. Public Works can designate the local streets and bike lanes upon which the mobility device may be operated taking into consideration the design and use of the streets and trails. Joel Jamnik will be present to answer additional questions that could include but not limited to: Does this set an actual or political precedent whereby the door is opened up to non-disabled using mobility devices? Can the type of mobility device be limited or required to match the physical capabilities of the permit holder? Does the permit holder need to meet standards for understanding traffic laws and, if so, how would this be determined? Is there a legal requirement for adoption of this type of ordinance in order to provide disabled with reasonable accommodation? B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Review, discuss and move for potential adoption of the proposed ordinance. 2. Review, discuss and table adoption of the ordinance pending gathering of additional information or pending input from others. 3. Motion denying adoption of the ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a general review of the ordinance by Council followed by a question and answer session. Council may elect to refer this item to the Police Commission for further scrutiny . Council Agenda: 9/14/09 3 D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed ordinance Latest information on Low Power vehicles Copies of this publication are available by calling 651-296-6753. This document can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities by calling 651-296-6753 (voice) or the Minnesota State Relay Service at 711 or 1-800-627-3529 (TTY) for assistance. Many House Research Department publications are also available on the Internet at: www.house.mn/hrd/hrd.htm. INFORMATION BRIEF Research Department Minnesota House of Representatives 600 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Matt Burress, Legislative Analyst 651-296-5045 Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles There has been an upsurge in recent years in the number and types of motorized low-power vehicles available in Minnesota, including mini-trucks, motor scooters, motorized foot scooters, pocket bikes, neighborhood electric vehicles, and Segways. They range from recreational devices intended primarily for children to more powerful vehicles aimed at young adults and even seniors. This information brief describes the various types of vehicles and their status under Minnesota law, and looks at how some other states have addressed them. Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................................................................................2 Summary of Low-Power Vehicles ...........................................................................3 Vehicle Descriptions and Regulations .....................................................................4 Golf Carts and All-Terrain Vehicles ....................................................................5 Mini-trucks ...........................................................................................................6 Motor Scooters and Motorcycles .........................................................................8 Motorized Bicycles (Mopeds) and Electric-Assisted Bicycles ............................9 Motorized Foot Scooters ....................................................................................11 Neighborhood Electric Vehicles and Medium-Speed Electric Vehicles ...........13 Segways .............................................................................................................15 Wheelchairs .......................................................................................................16 Identifying the Type of Vehicle .............................................................................16 Legislation in Other States .....................................................................................17 House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 2 Introduction Minnesota law regulates vehicle operation on public streets and highways, establishing licensing, insurance, and equipment requirements for different types of vehicles. Recent legislation has established new classifications for vehicles and devices. This reflects an expansion in the variety of vehicles available to consumers. This information brief summarizes low-power vehicle laws in Minnesota. Low-power vehicles include golf carts, mini-trucks, motor scooters, motorized foot scooters, motorized bicycles (or mopeds), and neighborhood electric vehicles. Although all of the vehicles are motorized, they vary greatly in form, size, features, and intended use. They can resemble small motorcycles or passenger automobiles, but have unique characteristics that set them apart from other motor vehicles. House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 3 Summary of Low-Power Vehicles The tables below outline the basic requirements for each type of low-power vehicle. Subsequent sections provide more detail on vehicle descriptions and regulations. Golf Cart & Certain ATVs Mini-truck Motor Scooter & Motorcycle Motorized Bicycle Key characteristics ATV: 800 cc engine, four flotation tires, max. weight of 600 pounds Golf cart: not defined 600 cc or 7,500- watt engine, 900 to 2,200 pounds dry weight, does not meet federal safety standards Motor scooter: not defined Motorcycle: seat or saddle, up to three wheels 50 cc and 2 hp engine, top speed of 30 m.p.h. Registration Local permit; possible DNR registration for ATVs Local permit; possible DNR registration as ATV Title, registration, and license plate Registration and license plate Licensing None Driver’s license or permit Driver’s license with two-wheeled vehicle endorsement Driver’s license or permit Insurance Liability and personal injury coverage (same as passenger autos) Liability and personal injury coverage (same as passenger autos) Liability coverage (same as passenger autos) Liability coverage (same as passenger autos) Operation rules Generally same traffic laws as other motor vehicles; no operation at night Generally same traffic laws as other motor vehicles Generally same traffic laws as motorcycles and other motor vehicles Generally same traffic laws as motorcycles and other motor vehicles Safety equipment Rearview mirror; slow-moving vehicle emblem Headlights; taillights; turn signals; mirrors; windshield; seat belt; parking brake Helmet if under 18; eye protection for all operators; headlight must be on at all times Helmet if under 18; eye protection for all operators; headlight must be on at all times; taillight required for night House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 4 Electric-Assisted Bicycle Motorized Foot Scooter Certain Electric Vehicles Segway Key Characteristics Saddle, pedals, two to three wheels, max. 1,000-watt electric motor, top speed of 20 m.p.h. Handlebars, motor, max. 12-inch wheels, top speed of 15 m.p.h. NEV: electric motor, four wheels, top speed of 20-25 m.p.h. MSEV: electric motor, misc. items, top speed of 35 m.p.h. Electric motor, two nontandem wheels, designed for one person, top speed of 15 m.p.h. Registration Registration and license plate None Title, registration, and license plate None Licensing Driver’s license or permit None; minimum operator age is 12 Driver’s license or permit None Insurance None None Liability and personal injury coverage (same as passenger autos) None Operation rules Generally same traffic laws as motorcycles and motor vehicles; can be operated on certain bike paths Generally same traffic laws as bicycles; no operation on sidewalks; can be operated on certain bike paths and trails Generally same traffic laws as other motor vehicles; no operation on roads with speed limit above 35 Generally same traffic laws as pedestrians; can be operated on bike paths Safety equipment Helmet; headlight must be on at all times; taillight required for night Helmet if under 18; headlight and reflector required for night Must meet federal equipment requirements Reflectors required Notes “NEV” refers to a neighborhood electric vehicle. “MSEV” refers to a medium-speed electric vehicle. Vehicle Descriptions and Regulations Motorized vehicles are not usually subject to state regulation while they are being operated on private land, including private driveways. However, once they venture onto streets, roads, and even alleys they are subject to state, and in some places local, regulations. With the introduction of mini-trucks, motorized foot scooters, and neighborhood electric vehicles, recent changes in Minnesota law have expanded the assortment of vehicles that can be operated on public roadways. This section describes the basic classifications of different low-power vehicles under Minnesota law, outlines their legal definitions and general characteristics, and provides an overview of regulatory provisions for each. House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 5 Golf Carts and All-Terrain Vehicles Classifications1 Golf carts are not specifically defined in statute. They were originally manufactured for use on golf courses, but their variety and uses have increased. The vehicle usually seats two to four people and can be powered by an electric or gasoline engine ranging from under 4 to over 20 horsepower. Vehicle weight can go from 500 to over 2,000 pounds. Top speed is typically less than 20 miles per hour. Some models can go up to 25 miles per hour and may be considered a neighborhood electric vehicle or medium-speed electric vehicle under Minnesota law. For purposes of limited use by permit on public roads, four-wheel all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are defined in statute as a motorized flotation-tired vehicle with four tires and an engine displacement of no more than 800 cc, weighing less than 600 pounds. Minn. Stat. § 169.045, subd. 1. Note that while ATVs are not registered for on-road use, they generally must be registered with the Department of Natural Resources (which is not discussed in this publication). Regulations Both motorized golf carts and ATVs are not titled or registered with the Department of Public Safety, and ordinarily they cannot be operated on public roads. However, Minnesota law does allow local units of government, such as counties and cities, to authorize both motorized golf carts and certain four-wheel ATVs to use streets and highways under their jurisdiction. Minn. Stat. § 169.045. Registration Operation of golf carts and certain four-wheel ATVs can be allowed via a special permit issued by counties, cities, or towns. Minn. Stat. § 169.045, subd. 1. The Minnesota Department of Transportation cannot issue the permit for use on trunk highways. If a local unit of government so chooses, it can issue the permit to operate a motorized golf cart or four-wheeled ATV on roadways under its jurisdiction. However, a permit does not allow use on roads that are not under the authority of the issuing unit of government. A city-issued permit, for instance, would not authorize operation on county roads. The permit can limit use to certain roads and must be renewed annually. It can be revoked at any time based on evidence of inability to safely operate the vehicle. The governing body must establish an ordinance that provides for permit application and confirmation that insurance requirements are met. The ordinance can establish additional conditions as well as require 1 Image sources: www.floridaslargestgolfshow.com/register.htm; http://www.gekgo.com/cpi-gas-atvs.html House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 6 certification by a physician of ability to safely operate the vehicle. Licensing A driver’s license or instruction permit is not required. Minn. Stat. § 169.045, subd. 7. Insurance Insurance requirements match that of other passenger automobiles, including liability coverage (which covers certain claims from another driver) and personal injury protection under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (which establishes minimum coverage levels for medical, lost wages, and related expenses).2 If insurance cannot be obtained on the private market, it can be purchased from the Minnesota Automobile Insurance Plan with a rate determined by the Department of Commerce. Operation Drivers of golf carts and ATVs are subject to the same traffic laws as operators of other motor vehicles. The vehicle can only be operated between sunrise and sunset, and cannot be used in bad weather or if there is not enough light to see people and other vehicles from 500 feet away. The vehicle can only be operated on designated roadways, although they may cross other roads and highways. Safety equipment Standard equipment requirements for motor vehicles do apply to vehicles operating under the permit, except that a rearview mirror is needed. It must provide a view to the rear for at least 200 feet. Golf carts must also display a triangular slow-moving vehicle emblem. Mini-trucks Classification3 Mini-trucks often resemble pickup trucks, but are notably smaller in size and capacity. They are produced by a number of Asian manufacturers such as Daihatsu, Honda, Mitsubishi, Subaru, and Suzuki. They have generally been imported for off-road uses. In some cases, importers install a governor limiting the top speed to 25 miles per hour. The vehicle taxation structure in Japan, which creates incentives for owning newer vehicles that meet higher emissions standards, appears to have helped spawn exports to the United States. The trucks typically weigh between 1,400 and 1,800 pounds and have 12-inch wheels. Although they come in different forms, the standard is an open flat bed behind a small enclosed cab for the driver and one passenger. Most engines range from 550 cc to 660 cc and have 3 or 4 cylinders. Other features can include air conditioning and all-wheel drive. Uses of mini-trucks include 2 The minimum liability coverage is $30,000 per person for injuries, $60,000 per occurrence for injuries, and $10,000 for property damage. The minimum personal injury protection coverage is $40,000 per person per accident ($20,000 for hospital and medical expenses, and $20,000 for other expenses such as lost wages). 3 Image source: http://www.made-in-china.com House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 7 recreational off-road activity, work on farms and ranches, at construction sites, in industrial parks, and for grounds maintenance. The vehicles typically do not meet federally mandated equipment standards for motor vehicles (such as for vehicle lighting and occupant safety) and may not meet certain emissions requirements for on-road vehicles. Mini-trucks were formally classified in statute under a 2009 law that authorized their operation under some circumstances. They are defined as a motor vehicle that: • has four wheels; • uses an electric motor rated at 7,500 watts or less, or uses an engine with a maximum displacement of 660 cc; • weighs between 900 and 2,200 pounds; • has an enclosed cabin; • resembles a pickup truck or van and has a cargo area; and • was not originally manufactured to meet federal safety standards for “low-speed vehicles.” Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 40a. Regulations Mini-trucks cannot be registered with the Department of Public Safety to drive on public roads in Minnesota. However, under a 2009 law the vehicles can be operated on authorized streets and highways via a special permit issued by local units of government, such as counties or cities. Laws 2009, ch. 158, § 10. The permit and regulations are mostly the same as allowed for golf carts and some ATVs (discussed in a previous section). Minn. Stat. § 169.045. The authority for mini-truck operation expires July 31, 2012. Registration Operation of mini-trucks can be allowed via a special permit issued by counties, cities, or towns. Minn. Stat. § 169.045, subd. 1. The Minnesota Department of Transportation cannot issue the permit for use on trunk highways. If a local unit of government so chooses, it can issue a permit to operate the vehicle on roadways under its jurisdiction. However, a permit does not allow use on roads that are not under the authority of the issuing unit of government. A city-issued permit, for instance, would not authorize operation on county roads. The permit can limit use to certain roads and must be renewed annually. It can be revoked at any time based on evidence of inability to safely operate the vehicle. The governing body must establish an ordinance that provides for permit application and confirmation that insurance requirements are met. The ordinance can establish additional conditions as well as require certification by a physician of ability to safely operate the vehicle. Licensing Unlike golf carts and ATVs under the local permit, a driver’s license or instruction permit is required. Minn. Stat. § 169.045, subd. 7. Insurance Insurance requirements match that of other passenger automobiles, including liability coverage (which covers certain claims from another driver) and personal injury protection under the Minnesota No-Fault House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 8 Automobile Insurance Act (which establishes minimum coverage levels for medical, lost wages, and related expenses).4 If insurance cannot be obtained on the private market, it can be purchased from the Minnesota Automobile Insurance Plan with a rate determined by the Department of Commerce. Operation Drivers are subject to the same traffic laws as operators of other motor vehicles. Mini-trucks are not restricted from operation at night or in inclement weather. The vehicles can only be driven on designated roadways, although they may cross other roads and highways. Safety equipment Some equipment requirements apply, including headlights and taillights; turn-signal lamps; some rearview mirrors; a windshield; front driver and passenger seat belts; and a parking brake. Motor Scooters and Motorcycles Classification5 Motor scooters, as they are commonly known, generally differ from motorcycles in a couple of ways. The engine is most often located underneath where the operator sits, and the standard design is step-through with a low platform for the operator’s feet. They are generally lighter (200 pounds), smaller (145 cc engine), and slower (top speed under 60 miles per hour) than the average motorcycle. Vespa and Honda are among the best-selling manufacturers. Motor scooters are not actually defined in Minnesota law separately from motorcycles and are therefore classified as a type of motorcycle. “Motorcycles” are defined as motor vehicles that have no more than three wheels and a seat or saddle for the driver. The classification excludes motorized bicycles, electric-assisted bicycles, and tractors. Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 44. Regulations Motor scooters are treated under Minnesota law in the same manner as motorcycles, and the following summary is the same for motor scooters and motorcycles. Minn. Stat. §§ 169.011, subd. 44; 169.974. 4 The minimum liability coverage is $30,000 per person for injuries, $60,000 per occurrence for injuries, and $10,000 for property damage. The minimum personal injury protection coverage is $40,000 per person per accident ($20,000 for hospital and medical expenses, and $20,000 for other expenses such as lost wages). 5 Image source: http://www.vespausa.com House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 9 Registration The vehicle must be registered and carries a registration tax of $10. Minn. Stat. § 168.013, subd. 1b. The license plate must be displayed on the rear of the vehicle. A certificate of title also needs to be obtained. Licensing A valid driver’s license with a two-wheeled vehicle endorsement is required. A two-wheeled vehicle instruction permit is available to a person who is over 16 years old, has a driver’s license, is enrolled in a two- wheeled driver’s safety course, and passes a written exam. Insurance Liability insurance (which covers certain claims from another driver) is required and is the same as for passenger automobiles.6 Minn. Stat. §§ 65B.43, subd. 13; 65B.48, subd. 5. Motor scooters and motorcycles are exempt from the requirements of personal injury protection under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (which establishes minimum coverage levels for medical, lost wages, and related expenses). Operation Operation is allowed on streets but not sidewalks. Motor scooter and motorcycle operators are subject to the same traffic laws as operators of other motor vehicles (except those that by their nature would not be relevant). Instruction permit holders face additional limits on vehicle operation, including prohibitions on carrying passengers and driving at night. Additional passengers are allowed under some circumstances. Safety equipment The vehicle must have at least one rearview mirror, a brake light, a horn, and a headlight that is lighted at all times. A helmet is required for operators and passengers under the age of 18, and eye protection is required for all operators. Motorized Bicycles (Mopeds) and Electric-Assisted Bicycles Classifications7 Bicycles with attached motors are available in a number of styles that generally resemble a bicycle, although they weigh more (from 55 to over 250 pounds), have additional features such as built-in headlights and turn signals, and may not necessarily have pedals for manual use. Many are commonly referred to as “mopeds,” although that term can describe other vehicles as well. 6 The minimum liability coverage is $30,000 per person for injuries, $60,000 per occurrence for injuries, and $10,000 for property damage. Note that the insurance requirements do not appear to apply to all motorcycles: under the definition of “motorcycle” in the chapter on automobile insurance, the vehicle’s engine must be “rated at greater than five horsepower.” Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 13. 7 Image sources: http://www.egovehicles.com; http://www.electric-bikes.com/others.htm House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 10 Motorized bicycles. A motorized bicycle resembles a bicycle with motorized capability. State law defines it as a bicycle propelled by an electric or liquid fuel motor that has an engine displacement of up to 50 cc and up to 2 brake horsepower, and is capable of a top speed of 30 miles per hour on a flat surface. Although it is classified as a bicycle in law, pedals are not specifically required. Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 45. Electric-assisted bicycles. Electric-assisted bicycles are a subset of motorized bicycles. To be classified as an electric-assisted bicycle in Minnesota, it must have a saddle and operable pedals, two or three wheels, and an electric motor of up to 1,000 watts, as well as meet certain federal motor vehicle safety standards. The motor must disengage during braking and have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (whether assisted by human power or not). Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 27. Regulations Motorized bicycles and electric-assisted bicycles are regulated in a manner similar to motor scooters. Most of the laws for motorcycles and motor scooters also apply to motorized bicycles, with a few exceptions. A few regulations are different for electric-assisted bicycles. Minn. Stat. § 169.223. Registration The bicycle must be registered, with an annual tax of $6. Minn. Stat. § 168.013, subd. 1h . The license plate must be displayed on the rear of the vehicle. A title is not required. Licensing An operator must have a driver’s license (a two-wheeled vehicle endorsement is not required), motorized bicycle operator’s permit, or motorized bicycle instruction permit. Minors at least 15 years old can obtain an operator’s or instruction permit. Minn. Stat. § 171.02. Insurance For a motorized bicycle, liability insurance (which covers certain claims from another driver) is required and is the same as for passenger automobiles.8 However, liability coverage is not required for an electric- assisted bicycle. Minn. Stat. §§ 65B.43, subd. 13; 65B.48, subd. 5. Both types of bicycles are exempt from the requirements of personal injury protection under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (which establishes minimum coverage levels for medical, lost wages, and related expenses). Operation The bicycle may not be operated on a sidewalk, except to cross it. An electric-assisted bicycle, but not other motorized bicycles, can be operated 8 The minimum liability coverage is $30,000 per person for injuries, $60,000 per occurrence for injuries, and $10,000 for property damage. House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 11 on a bicycle path or lane unless (1) it is reserved for nonmotorized use, or (2) operation is restricted by local government. Operators must ride as close as is practical to the right-hand side of the road, and must follow the same traffic laws as operators of motor scooters, motorcycles, and other motor vehicles (except those that by their nature would not be relevant). Safety equipment The bicycle must have at least one rearview mirror, a horn, and a headlight that is on at all times. A taillight is additionally required for operation at night. A bicycle helmet is mandatory for operators under the age of 18 or if operating an electric-assisted bicycle. Eye protection is required except for operators of electric-assisted bicycles. Motorized Foot Scooters Classification9 In the past few years, motorized foot scooters have become increasingly popular among youth. They are also called “motorized scooters” and “go-peds.” The devices are usually lightweight platforms with two small wheels, having a design similar to a skateboard but with a motor as well as steering and acceleration control via handlebars mounted on the front. Braking is from a hand brake on the handlebar or by using a foot-operated rear-wheel brake. Some have a seat or saddle that sometimes is removable, which is typically found on more powerful and expensive models. Many motorized foot scooters weigh around 20 to 65 pounds, although heavier designs are available. Types include both gas and electric motors. Electric models generally have a top speed below 15 miles per hour and a range of up to 20 miles. Models with gas engines commonly range from 25 to 50 cc (1.5 to 2.5 horsepower), and can have a top speed of over 30 miles per hour. Under a Minnesota law passed in 2005 and modified in 2008, a motorized foot scooter is defined as a device that: • has handlebars; • can be stood or sat on by the operator (a seat or saddle is not required); • is powered by an internal combustion engine or an electric motor; • has wheels no more than 12 inches in diameter; and 9 Image sources: http://www.electrikmotion.com/GTscootersmain.htm; http://www.lifesaversconference.org/webfiles2006/porter.ppt House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 12 • has an engine capable of a maximum speed of not more than 15 miles per hour on a flat surface. Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 46. Pocket bikes. Pocket bikes (also referred to as mini-bikes, mini- motorcycles, and mini-choppers) have become popular in recent years and are marketed as toys. They come in a variety of styles, but often resemble a miniature-sized motorcycle, with a saddle that is most commonly located about two feet off the ground. The vehicles are typically powered by a 49-cc gas engine (although electric models are available). They have wheel sizes around 10 inches, weights ranging from just over 30 pounds to about 100 pounds, and top speeds ranging from 30 to over 50 miles per hour. Starting August 1, 2008, a legislative change increased the maximum wheel size of motorized foot scooters from 10 to 12 inches, which effectively eliminated pocket bikes from the motorized foot scooter classification. Before the changes, motorized foot scooters had been defined based on having a small wheel size or a modest top speed, which meant that the category included many pocket bikes. Since most pocket bikes are no longer treated as a type of motorized foot scooter, it is likely that they can no longer be legally operated on public roads. Some pocket bikes may fit within the motorized bicycle classification while others will be treated as motorcycles, but will not be able to be registered (see the section Identifying the Type of Vehicle on page 16 for more information). Regulations Minnesota law treats motorized foot scooters like bicycles, meaning that operators have the same rights as bicyclists and must generally follow the same laws. Minn. Stat. § 169.225. Registration A motorized foot scooter does not need to be registered, and a certificate of title is not necessary. Licensing A driver’s license or permit is not required for operation. The minimum operator age is 12 years old. Insurance The device does not need to be insured. Operation A motorized foot scooter may not be operated on a sidewalk, except to cross it. The device can be operated on a bicycle path, bicycle trail, bicycle lane, or bikeway unless (1) the pathway is reserved for nonmotorized use, or (2) operation is restricted by local government. Operators must ride as close as is practical to the right-hand side of the road, and must follow the same traffic laws as bicyclists. This includes a House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 13 requirement that when making a left turn, the rider must dismount and cross the roadway on foot (the person is then subject to any restrictions applicable to a pedestrian). No passengers besides the operator can be carried. Safety equipment Any person under age 18 must wear a helmet. The device can be operated when it is dark out, but under current Department of Public Safety regulations it must meet the same lighting requirements that apply to a bicycle: a headlight that is visible at least 500 feet ahead and a red reflector that can be seen from 600 feet behind when in the path of a motor vehicle’s headlight. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles and Medium-Speed Electric Vehicles Classifications10 Neighborhood electric vehicles and medium-speed electric vehicles are similar to golf carts, but have more power, can carry more passengers or cargo, and are designed for potential operation on public roads. Neighborhood electric vehicle. A Minnesota law passed in 2006 defines a neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) as a four-wheeled, electrically powered motor vehicle that has a maximum speed of between 20 and 25 miles per hour on a flat surface. Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 47. Medium-speed electric vehicle. A 2008 law created a related classification: the medium-speed electric vehicle (MSEV). An MSEV is defined similarly to an NEV. It too is four-wheeled, electrically powered motor vehicle, but it can have a top speed of up to 35 miles per hour on a flat surface. It also must be fully enclosed, have at least one door for entry, be equipped with a roll cage or crush-proof design, have a minimum wheelbase of 40 inches, have wheels with a diameter of at least 10 inches, and other than speed capability, it must meet the federal safety standard for low-speed vehicles. Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 39. The electric vehicles are rechargeable through the electrical grid and have a range of between 30 to 75 miles before needing to recharge. Models come in styles ranging from two-seaters to small-scale trucks, normally weighing 1,000 to around 1,500 pounds. They have primarily been produced for niche uses such as military bases and retirement communities, but their use is 10 Image sources: http://www.gemcar.com; http://electriccarsofamerica.com/ev-car-news/1-latest-news/2-30- electric-cars House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 14 widening. Demand also grew out of combined use on golf courses and adjacent streets. The largest U.S. market is in California. Federal Low-Speed Vehicle Classification Both NEVs and MSEVs must meet a federal safety standard for “low-speed vehicles” in order to be legally operated on public roads in Minnesota.11 However, the NEV and MSEV definitions under state law do not completely match the federal classification. There are a couple of differences, but a key one regards the top speed capability of MSEVs, which under state law is allowed to be higher than the 25 miles per hour maximum allowed under the federal low-speed vehicle standard. This may raise issues with federal preemption as well as the ability of vehicle manufacturers to legally produce MSEVs. Regulations Under Minnesota law NEVs and MSEVs are treated similarly to passenger motor vehicles, but their use is restricted to slower streets. See Minn. Stat. § 169.224. Because of registration, titling, and vehicle equipment requirements, most golf carts would not be considered an NEV or an MSEV that could be operated on public roads (except under the permit discussed earlier). Similarly, because of safety standards that must be met by manufacturers, mini-trucks could not be classified as an NEV or MSEV. Registration Both NEVs and MSEVs are considered passenger automobiles and must be registered. They are subject to the same registration tax (based on vehicle value, depreciated over time) as cars, pickup trucks, and vans. License plates must be displayed on the vehicles. A certificate of title also must be obtained, which requires a vehicle identification number and a manufacturer’s certificate of origin.12 Homemade electric vehicles and retrofitted golf carts do not qualify for titling. Minn. Stat. § 168A.05, subd. 9. Licensing A valid driver’s license or instruction permit is required, and no special endorsement is necessary. Insurance Insurance requirements match that of other passenger automobiles, including liability coverage (which covers certain claims from another driver) and personal injury protection under the Minnesota No-Fault 11 Federal law establishes a number of safety standards that regulate manufactured motor vehicles. The U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) establishes and oversees the safety standards through federal regulations. 49 U.S.C. § 30111; 49 C.F.R. § 571. The regulations cover technical and engineering specifications for motor vehicle safety equipment, ranging from windshield wipers and brake hoses to crash resistance and material flammability. Each specification is referred to as a “federal motor vehicle safety standard.” 12 The certificate of origin is created by the vehicle manufacturer and sent to a dealer along with the vehicle itself. The dealer then provides the certificate to the Department of Public Safety when the vehicle is sold. House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 15 Automobile Insurance Act (which establishes minimum coverage levels for medical, lost wages, and related expenses).13 Operation Drivers of an NEV or MSEV are subject to the same traffic laws as operators of other motor vehicles. Neither type of vehicle can be operated on a street or highway with a speed limit above 35 miles per hour, except to directly cross it. A local government can restrict use of the vehicle on its roads. Safety equipment The vehicle may only be operated on public streets and highways if it meets federal equipment standards established for low-speed vehicles. This includes: a windshield, headlamps, tail-lamps, brake lights, front and rear turn signals, reflectors at the rear, rearview mirrors, a parking break, a seat belt, and a vehicle identification number. 49 CFR § 571.500. An NEV or an MSEV must have a slow-moving vehicle emblem. Minn. Stat. § 169.522, subd. 1. Segways Classification14 Segways were first introduced in 2001. They are referred to in law as “electric personal assistive mobility devices.” They have two wheels that are parallel rather than tandem and handlebars that a standing operator uses for steering. They are designed to be self-balancing, which contrasts with the other two-wheeled low- speed vehicles that require balancing by the vehicle operator. The latest Segways have a top speed of 12.5 miles per hour and a range of about 24 miles. To be considered an electric personal assistive mobility device under Minnesota law, a device must have two nontandem wheels, be able to transport only one person, use an electric motor, and have a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour on a flat surface. Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 26. Regulations Operators of a Segway (or other electric personal assistive mobility device) have the same rights and responsibilities as pedestrians, with some additional requirements. Minn. Stat. § 169.212. Registration They do not need to be registered, and a certificate of title is not necessary. Licensing A driver’s license or permit is not required for operation. 13 The minimum liability coverage is $30,000 per person for injuries, $60,000 per occurrence for injuries, and $10,000 for property damage. The minimum personal injury protection coverage is $40,000 per person per accident ($20,000 for hospital and medical expenses, and $20,000 for other expenses such as lost wages). 14 Image source: http://www.segway.com House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 16 Insurance The device does not need to be insured. Operation The device may be operated on a bicycle path. Operators must use due care and go at speeds that are “reasonable and prudent under the conditions.” Minn. Stat. § 169.212. Segways can only be operated on a road if directly crossing the roadway, the sidewalk is obstructed or unavailable, under direction of a traffic control device, or temporarily to reach a motor vehicle. No passengers may be carried. Safety equipment The device must have reflectors on its front, back, and wheels, which can be seen from 600 feet when in the path of a motor vehicle’s headlight. Wheelchairs Wheelchairs are in a separate category from most vehicles. The statutory classification includes scooters and tricycles “used by a disabled person as a substitute for walking.” Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 93. Under Minnesota law, persons in wheelchairs are considered pedestrians rather than vehicle operators and have the same rights and responsibilities as pedestrians. This is true whether the wheelchair is powered or not. Wheelchairs are required to remain on sidewalks and stay off streets except to cross them, or in situations where a passable or useable sidewalk is not available. Identifying the Type of Vehicle A wide variety of low-power vehicles and devices have come onto the market in recent years. Determining whether a specific model is classified as a motor scooter, motorized bicycle, motorized foot scooter, or motorcycle can be challenging. The characteristics of a particular vehicle, such as engine size, top speed, and safety equipment, determine how it is treated under Minnesota law. Although other features are relevant, engine size can be an important factor in classifying scooters, mopeds, and motorcycles. A key question is whether the vehicle fits one of the definitions of those vehicles identified under Minnesota law. With a vehicle that does not clearly fit any low-power vehicle definition, if it has two or three wheels as well as a seat or saddle, it is likely to be classified as a motorcycle. Vehicle title and registration would therefore be required. However, smaller devices such as pocket bikes that might fall into the motorcycle classification often lack safety equipment required under federal regulations, preventing a vehicle identification number (VIN) from being assigned. Since a VIN is needed in order to issue a title, the vehicle would not be able to be titled and registered, which is necessary for legal operation of motorcycles on public roads. See Minn. Stat. §§ 168.013, subd. 1; 168A.04, subd. 1; 168A.085. House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 17 The default categorization for a vehicle or device that does not conform to any other low-power vehicle definition is likely a motor vehicle. As such, it would need to be registered and have license plates, the operator must have a driver’s license, full insurance coverage is required, and the vehicle must have safety equipment that includes lights, turn signals, and brakes at both the front and rear. Legislation in Other States Electric vehicles. Almost all states now have regulations governing NEVs. The definition of an NEV generally matches Minnesota’s, which is based on a federal safety standard. States commonly allow operation only on roads with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour or less. A handful of states allow further regulations by local units of government. Nationally, the MSEV classification is quite recent. At least five states have enacted legislation establishing the new class (Minnesota, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington), and the vehicle is defined similarly as in Minnesota. As with NEVs, MSEV operation is restricted to relatively slower roads, with a top speed limit between 35 and 45 miles per hour. Motorized foot scooters. Many states have addressed the status of motorized foot scooters, and there is variation among those states that have specific laws. Some, including Delaware and New Jersey, prohibit operation on public roads, trails, and sidewalks. Others have different provisions for: • minimum operator age (ranging from no minimum in Washington to age 16 in California, Florida, and Oregon); • helmet requirements (generally required); • driver’s license (required in a couple of states including Florida and Maine); and • maximum speed limit of streets on which they can be operated (25 miles per hour in a few states, such as California and Oregon). Legislative activity on pocket bikes has primarily consisted of prohibiting their operation on public streets and roads, sidewalks, trails, and other public lands. Concerns about the vehicles include engine noise, lack of safety equipment such as horns and mirrors, stability at higher speeds, and reduced visibility of both the vehicle (due to its small size) and the operator (due to positioning quite low to the ground). A couple of states have also recently enacted labeling and disclosure laws. California, New Hampshire, and Connecticut require that manufacturers or retailers affix a label stating that pocket bikes cannot be legally operated on public roads. New Hampshire additionally requires disclosure by the retailer that the vehicle might not be covered under an operator’s insurance policy. Mini-trucks. Nationally, mini-trucks have been another area of recent legislative activity, with a number of laws having gone into effect within the past two years. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 12 states, including Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, allow their use on some public roads. The vehicles are generally restricted from operating on certain roads, such as prohibited use on interstates or multilane highways. Often, local units of government such as counties and cities can further House Research Department Updated: August 2009 Low-Power Vehicles Page 18 restrict vehicles from roads under their jurisdiction. Top speed capability restrictions vary from 25 miles per hour to no limit. Some states require that the truck meets federal safety standards for “low-speed vehicles.” This is the same standard that Minnesota requires for operation of NEVs and MSEVs. Other types of vehicles. There are relatively longstanding laws addressing motorcycles and motor scooters in most states. The majority of states allow Segways to be used on public sidewalks and bike paths. A handful have not enacted legislation governing their use, and they are not allowed in a couple of states. For more information about vehicles and traffic regulation, visit the transportation area of our web site, www.house.mn/hrd/hrd.htm.