City Council Agenda Packet 03-22-2010AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 22, 2010 – 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. Approval of Minutes – March 8, 2010 Regular Meeting
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
4. Citizen comments, public service announcements and Council updates
a. Citizen Comments:
b. Public Service Announcements:
1) Donations
2) Wine Tasting (4/16)
3) Breakfast with the Bunny (3/27)
4) Tree Sales (ends 3/26)
c. Council Updates:
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
B. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-12 accepting a contribution
from Tom Perrault to go into the General Fund
C. Consideration of adopting the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map
D. Consideration of accepting proposals and awarding contract for maintenance
rehabilitation of Monticello Deep Well #1, Turbine Pump and Appurtenance
work
E. Consideration of approving revisions to City Purchasing Policy to incorporate
local purchasing language
F. Consideration of approving temporary construction permit for PCI Roads
G. Consideration of approving purchase of two previously-owned Toro zero-
turn turf mowers
SPECIAL MEETING
5:30 pm – Semper Development Sketch Plan Review (Boom Island)
H. Consideration of approving Sunday liquor hours to start at 10 a.m. as allowed
by Minnesota state law and directing City Staff to prepare ordinance
amendments as needed
I. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-15 calling for a Public Hearing
on issuance of a Cable Franchise
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-13 in support of the proposed Rail Park
development in the City of Big Lake
8. Consideration of approving a Request for Proposal for the development of an
“Embrace Downtown Monticello” Guidebook
9. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-14 approving 2010 Street Lighting
Improvements project for School Boulevard and authorizing RFP for bids, City
Project No. 10C003
10. Consideration of authorizing a 2010 acquisition at Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park
in conjunction with Wright County
11. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-11 supporting a request for LCCMR
appropriations from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund
12. Consideration of authorizing a Well Siting Study for the City
13. Approve payment of bills for March 22nd
14. Consideration of authorizing City to join other entities in filing a complaint against
NCTC (National Cable Television Cooperative) related to denial of admittance to the
NCTC (closed session)
15. Consideration of a personnel issue (closed session)
16 Adjournment
Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
5A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments. (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 listed employees including part-time and seasonal workers.
A1. Budget Impact: (positions are generally included in budget)
A2. Staff Work Load Impact: If new positions, there may be some training involved.
If terminated positions, existing staff would pick up those hours, as needed, until
replaced.
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/terminated employees
Name Title Department Hire Date Class
Vicki Leerhoff Receptionist City Hall 3/15/10 FT
Kerry Burri Administrative Asst.City Hall 3/15/10 FT
Name Reason Department Last Day Class
Shelly Malkovec Voluntary Liquor Store 3/6/10 PT
Vicki Leerhoff Transfer to City Hall FNM 3/12/10 FT
Clarence Maanum Voluntary Parks 2/28/10 Seasonal
Frank Robinson Voluntary Parks 2/28/10 Seasonal
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
5A Council_employee list 2010.xls: 3/19/2010
Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
5B. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-12 to accept a 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.
A1. Budget Impact: None
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff accounts for and reconciles donations contributed
through the City.
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. 2010-12
City of Monticello
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-12
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 (March) $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 22nd day of March, 2010.
______________________________
Mayor Clint Herbst
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
5C. Consideration of adopting the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map. (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Attorney has recommended that the City adopt an official zoning map each
year.
The draft attached as supporting data has been reviewed b y the Community Development
Coordinator, City Administrator, and Consulting City Planner for accuracy.
Since the Planning Commission’s initial review of the map in January, staff has noted
one required revision based on annexation records. The Schluender property, located on
the west side of the City, adjacent to the Groveland neighborhood, was annexed to the
City in 2006. The annexation was permitted based on a preliminary plat approval for
Poplar Hill.
The Poplar Hill preliminary plat approval has since lapsed, but the annexation is a
permanent action, unless the Township requests that the property be moved back within
the Township boundary. The Township has not made that request for this property, or
any other undeveloped properties at this time. Upon annexation, the Schluender property
is automatically zoned A-O. Until such time that another plat request is made concurrent
with a rezoning request, the property will remain A-O and is subject to current A-O
regulations. The zoning map included for adoption now includes the Schluender
property.
With this change, staff believes the map presented is an accurate reflection of all zoning
action.
Please note that some minor changes may be made to the base map to show proper road
configurations and alignments.
It should also be noted that as part of the update of the Zoning Ordinance, the zoning map
will require a complete revision. The map that will be presented and prepared as part of
the code revision will include overlay districts and new code boundaries based on the
newly defined or adjusted districts. The revision of the map is included in the overall
code revision project and will be considered as part of the code adoption. A GIS parcel
by parcel zoning district layer will also be provided.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend adoption of the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map.
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
2
2. Motion to recommend tabling of action on the 2010 City of Monticello
Zoning Map for further study.
3. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the City of Monticello Zoning Map as proposed, noting
that minor changes will be made to the underlying base map. This draft represents an
accurate picture of Monticello’s zoning based on a review of all available records,
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Draft 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
5D. Consideration of accepting proposals and awarding contract for maintenance
rehabilitation of Monticello Deep Well 1, Turbine Pump and Appurtenance work
(BP, MT)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Well No. 1 is located at 132 East Broadway and is directly behind Monticello Liquors.
Well No. 1 was constructed in 1964, it is 260’ deep and it has 240’ of 16” casing with 20’
of screen at the lowest point of the casing, it is powered with a 100 hp motor. The static
water level ranges between 12’ 6” to 17’, with drawdown ranges from 22’ to 27’ by
pumping 1200+ GPM. This well is currently on a 7-year duty cycle and is due to be
pulled for maintenance. Often after a 7-year cycle several of the interior columns are
eroded away and need replacement. The reusable columns will be sandblasted and
painted with a special coating suitable for potable water. In addition, all the shafting for
driving the pump, as the pump is located deep in the well, will be checked and replaced if
needed. The pump will be checked for tolerances and wear and will be brought back to
factory specifications.
The electric 100 hp motor will be pulled by the contractor and the Water Department will
deliver to Olson & Sons to have it checked out and returned to factory specifications.
The electric motor repair, if needed, is not part of this contract.
Specifications for this work were developed by the Public Works Director and the Water
& Sewer Superintendent. Proposals for the project were due at 11 a.m. on Friday, March
12, 2010. Attached as supporting data is a tabulation of those proposals.
A total of four proposals were received for the project. Based upon the attached proposal
tabulation, the lowest responsible proposer is Thein Well Co. of Spicer, Minnesota in the
amount of $11,680.
A1. Budget Impact: In preparation for the refurbishment for Well No. 1, and
maintenance on one of the four booster pumps in the water reservoir we placed an
amount of $15,000 in the 2010 Budget. There are sufficient funds to complete the
work.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff workload for this project is relatively minor.
Approximately 15 hours were spent preparing the specifications, bid documents
and request for proposals. Another 20 – 30 hours will be spent working with the
contractor in inspecting the materials to be reinstalled in the well.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve refurbishment of Well No. 1 by Thein Well Co. based upon the
low proposal of $11,680.00 as listed in the proposal tabulation, and to proceed as
scheduled the week of 3-22-2010.
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
2
2. Motion to approve refurbishment of Well No. 1 by Thein Well Co. based upon the
low proposal of $11,680.00 as listed in the proposal tabulation, and to delay the
project until Fall of 2010 when water demand has decreased to similar levels of
spring.
3. Motion to deny the proposals and not award the contract at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff highly recommends the City Council to authorize the work to be performed on
Well No. 1 by Thein Well Co. as outlined in Alternative #1.
To date, in this past 7 year duty cycle, Well 1 has produced 1.023 billion gallons of
water. Hesitating to rehabilitate a well within a reasonable amount of time past its duty
cycle can result in catastrophic malfunction. After rehabilitation and within its next duty
cycle, all parts of the well shaft, pumps, bearings and motor can be salvaged to be used in
other or future 16”wells if relocation becomes necessary. The MN Department of Heath
requires a water supply level designed for a community’s size and demand. Municipal
wells need to function and cannot arbitrarily be abandoned without replacement or
approval from MNDH
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposal tabulation
Copy of advertisement for proposals
A complete set of Specifications provided to Council members
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
5E. Consideration of approving revised purchasing policy (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the March 8th City Council meeting, Council directed staff to review the City’s
purchasing policy to include the use of local vendors when ever possible and feasible.
The current purchasing policy has a local vendor requirement in section 3, paragraph H.
To re-enforce the inclusion of local vendors, staff has revised the purchasing policy to
include the various underlined statements for requiring the inclusion and use of local
vendors in the City’s purchasing process.
A1. Budget Impact: The budget impact should be minimal as many purchases are
already done locally and, to include local vendors on some items, may save the
City money while others could add minimal costs to the purchase.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: The revision of the purchasing policy will have no staff
impact as staff is already required to follow purchasing policies of the City.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve City purchasing policy with revisions.
2. Motion to not approve City purchasing policy.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends alternative 1, to approve the revised City purchasing policy.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Revised City Purchasing Policy
1
City of Monticello, MN
PURCHASING POLICY
1. Purpose
The purchasing policy is designed to provide guidance to City staff involved in the
purchasing process by specifying procedures to be followed. All purchasing by local
units of government is regulated by Minnesota State Statute 471.345.
2. Goals
The goals of the purchasing policy are:
A. Obtain supplies, equipment and services for the City of Monticello as
economically as possible.
B. To support local area businesses when possible and economical.
C. To purchase items that is best suited to the specific needs of the City.
D. To promote fair competition among bidders.
E. Provide effective controls.
F. To comply with all statutes and regulations of the City, State and Federal
government as related to the purchasing of supplies, equipment and services by a
municipal entity.
3. Standards for Purchasing
The following guidelines set forth the standards for City employees to follow in
purchasing supplies, equipment and services.
A. $0 - $500 City employees will be allowed to make purchases
of less than $500 without additional staff approval. These
items could be considered to be daily needs such as
materials and supplies. These items can be purchased on
the open market without obtaining price quotes.
Employees should make a reasonable effort to obtain
supplies and materials as inexpensively as possible and
from local businesses. Department heads are responsible
for policing the purchasing activities of their employees.
B. $500 - $1,000 When possible, price quotes should be obtained from local
and other vendors, (local or otherwise) for purchases of
supplies, service or equipment. When quotes are obtained,
2
the quotes shall be kept on file as required by the State
record retention schedule and a copy of all quotes shall be
provided to the Senior Accounts Payable Clerk or Senior
Finance Officer.
C. $1,000 - $10,000 Purchases over $1,000 but less than $10,000 require at least
two (2) quotations (three (3) when possible) but do not
require City Council approval provided the item was in the
budget, funds are still available, and approved by the City
Finance Director or City Administrator. “State Bids”
obtained through the state’s cooperative purchasing
program is considered to have met this requirement.
Quotes will be obtained from local vendors when possible.
The quotes shall be kept on file as required by the State
record retention schedule and a copy of all quotes shall be
provided to the Senior Accounts Payable Clerk or Senior
Finance Officer.
D. $10,000 - $50,000 Purchases over $10,000 must meet state municipal
purchasing requirements typically requiring at least two (2)
quotations (three (3) when possible) and City Council
approval. Quotes will be obtained from local vendors when
possible. The Department head shall make a
recommendation to the Council for their action. The City
Council does not need to authorize the seeking of quotes
but would have to approve the purchase. “State Bids”
obtained through the state’s cooperative purchasing
program is considered to have met this requirement. The
quotes shall be kept on file as required by the State record
retention schedule and a copy of all quotes shall be
provided to the Senior Accounts Payable Clerk or Senior
Finance Officer.
E. Above $50,000 All purchases over $50,000 require the formal preparation
of specifications. Bids must be advertised in the City’s
official newspaper, publicly opened and approved by
Council resolution. Statutes require all contracts to be
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. Specifications
cannot be written to exclude a specific type of equipment or
supplies. Proposals and specification must allow for free
competition. Bid forms and requirements will be provided
to any possible local vendors.
Bidding requirements cannot be avoided by splitting a
contract into several contacts that are each below the
minimum dollar amount requiring bids. If materials or
3
work logically fall into separate contracts, such as for
contractors specializing in different work, the City can
negotiate the contract individually as long as the individual
contracts so not exceed $50,000. “State Bids” obtained
through the state’s cooperative purchasing program is
considered to have met this requirement. The bids shall be
kept on file as required by the State record retention
schedule and be available for review as part of the City’s
annual audit process.
F. Purchases of
Used Equipment The City may elect to purchase used equipment. When
purchasing used equipment the purchasing policy set forth
above still must be followed. If it is impossible to obtain
similar used equipment quote or bid a quote or bid for new
equipment similar to the used equipment should be
obtained. The quotes or bids shall be kept on file as
required by the State record retention schedule and a copy
of all quotes shall be provided to the Senior Accounts
Payable Clerk or Senior Finance Officer.
G. Emergency
Purchases Emergency purchases are those made by the Department
heads when an immediate purchase is necessary to correct a
situation that would adversely affect the life, health or
safety of Monticello residents. As much as possible the
procedures set forth in this policy should be followed in an
emergency situation. However, in an emergency, a
Department head may purchase directly any supplies,
materials or services needed to alleviate the emergency.
H. Use of Local
Vendors For purchases not requiring the bidding process, whenever
it is reasonably possible the purchase will be made from
local vendors. If the local vendor’s quote does not exceed
the lowest non-local vendor’s quote by more than 5%, the
purchase may be made from the local vendor.
4. Credit Card
The City of Monticello does not use general credit cards (Visa, MasterCard,
American Express) for purchases. Specific store credit cards (gas stations, hardware
stores, etc) may be used for purchases if authorized by the City Council. See the
City’s Credit Card Policy for the procedure that must be followed for these types of
purchases or requests.
4
This Purchasing Policy is effective upon approval and supersedes all previous City Purchasing
Policies.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 22nd day of March, 2010.
_____
Mayor
Attest:
City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
5F. Consideration of approving temporary construction permit for PCI Roads
(AS/BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In February, the City Council was asked to consider approval of a temporary construction
permit for PCI Roads as related to the construction and operation of a temporary concrete
batch plant. The temporary plant will be used to support construction of the new
Interstate 94 concrete pavement associated with Mn/DOT’s twin bridge replacement
project. PCI has indicated that they are a designated subcontractor for the Mn/DOT
project.
During the February review, the City Council asked PCI to consider alternate locations
closer to the project area. This request was made primarily due to concern over the
volume of truck traffic along the route from the proposed site at Schluender’s
Construction to the project area, which included the newly paved section of Chelsea Road
between Edmonson Avenue and CSAH 18.
PCI Roads reviewed all undeveloped sites in closer proximity to Mn/DOT’s project. Due
to the potential conflicts and close proximity to the residential neighborhoods east of
CSAH 18, PCI Roads did not consider these areas to be desirable for their plant location.
This included the overflow parking lot west of Freeway Fields, as well as the
undeveloped commercial lot west of the overflow parking lot.
PCI also reviewed the open areas within Mn/DOT’s project site, including the old
eastbound I-94 on-ramp on the east end of East Broadway, as well as the old westbound
I-94 off-ramp to CSAH 75. Both these areas provided challenges in regards to accessing
the project so PCI determined them to be unusable.
PCI Roads contacted the property owner of the parcels west of CSAH 18 between
Chelsea Road and Interstate 94, which are zoned I1A and B2. The property owner agreed
to allow PCI to site their batch plant on the east end of the parcels. PCI developed a
concept plan for the site and shared it with City staff, who informed PCI there is a raised
concrete median island extending approximately 125 feet west of CSAH 18 that would
prevent turning left out of the site. After looking at the site in more detail, PCI is
proposing to site their plant so the access to Chelsea Road is west of the median island.
If PCI is allowed to use this site they would be required to remove several panels of
existing B6 curb and construct a temporary access to the site, west of the raised median
island. They would also be required to install a rock construction entrance to prevent soil
from migrating onto Chelsea Road, and they would be required to sweep the street as
needed to prevent soils from migrating onto Chelsea Road. Then when the batch plant is
removed, PCI would need to remove the rock construction entrance and temporary access
pavement and reconstruct the B6 curb. They would also be responsible for repairing any
damaged areas of the bituminous pathway, including between plant uses so it is useable
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
2
during the summer. And all disturbed areas would need the turf restored, which would be
done by hydro-seeding.
PCI has agreed to comply with the above requirements and noted that it may be more cost
effective for them to locate their plant on Chelsea Road rather than at Schluender’s site.
Staff supports allowing PCI to utilize the site between Chelsea Road and Interstate 94 to
construct and operate their temporary batch plant for the durations and time periods
proposed. Operating out of this site on a temporary basis should not be disruptive to
adjacent uses, and should not negatively impact Chelsea Road, as long as they obey all
spring road restrictions and comply with all the requirements outlined above. However,
staff would also support the use of Schluender’s site for the batch plant as originally
proposed since Chelsea Road was constructed to handle the loads associated with this
type of use, except of course during spring road restrictions.
To follow is information previously presented in regards to the Schluender site, as well as
supplementary information related to the alternate site.
Permit/Land Use
The Schluender property has been annexed in its entirety. Upon annexation, the property
is automatically zoned as A-O (Agriculture/Open Space). Although the A-O district does
not permit a concrete plant as a principal or accessory use, the City may consider
authorizing a temporary construction permit for this type of use given the current use of
the site for construction activity and the fact that the use proposed serves a public
infrastructure improvement. It is noted that beyond these factors, any intensification of
construction activity or mining on the Schluender site would not be permitted. Currently,
the existing activity at the site is allowed as an existing, lawful non-conforming use.
The alternate site on the northwest corner of Chelsea Road and CSAH 18 is zoned I-1A
and B-2. These districts do not permit a concrete plant as a principal or accessory use.
Again, the City may consider authorizing a temporary construction permit for this type of
use given the current use of the site for construction activity and the fact that the use
proposed serves a public infrastructure improvement.
Site
Illustration of the layout and site locations are provided as supporting data. The batch
tower will be deconstructed in the interim period between May and September. The
batch tower will not be lit.
The applicant has indicated that they will meet specifications for construction entrances
and will use best management practices for erosion and dust control.
It is recommended by staff that residents and/or property owners immediately abutting
either site location be notified of the permit and its authorized activity, if approved.
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
3
Operation/Noise
PCI Concrete has indicated that they will operate the plant twice in 2010, during May and
September, for a period not to exceed two weeks for each term. They will be hauling
material into the site and as such expansion of mining uses at Schluender’s will not
intensify.
The facility is proposed to operate between the hours of 6 AM – 6 PM, Monday through
Friday. However, both the City Code for General Offenses and the Zoning Code require
that construction activity must be restricted to a 7:00 AM start time. The City code calls
for a 10:00 PM end time, while the Zoning Code requires ceasing activity at 9:00 PM.
Any approval of this construction permit must restrict activity in accordance with these
code requirements.
Circulation
PCI’s plan for operation indicates that up to 155 trips per day will be generated, including
importing aggregate for concrete production.
For the Schluender site, PCI proposes to run their vehicles down 90th Street, along
Chelsea Road to CSAH 18 and then to the construction site, or directly from Chelsea to I-
94 via Highway 25. For the CSAH 18/Chelsea Road site, the applicant would be able to
access the site directly from the CSAH 18 interchange.
As noted in the supplemental information, the applicant intends to sweep the streets as
necessary. A condition of approval will require an escrow deposit to secure this activity.
In addition, it will be required that the subcontractor abide by requirements related to
Spring Road Restrictions.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve a temporary construction permit for PCI Roads, Inc. at Site 1
between Chelsea Road and I-94, west of CSAH 18, based on the following
conditions:
a. The approval is limited to the activity as described in the letter dated February
22, 2010 as modified below.
i. The hours of operation shall be 7 AM – 6 PM, Monday through
Saturday.
ii. The permittee is required to adhere to Spring Load Restrictions as
mandated by Wright County and the City of Monticello.
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
4
b. The applicant is required to comply with all other requirements as noted
above.
c. The approval is granted only for those services supporting the public
infrastructure project at I-94 and CSAH 75.
d. The applicant is required to supply an escrow deposit in the amount of $5,000
to ensure proper street sweeping/maintenance and turf establishment.
e. A letter of notice regarding the permit will be provided to all property owners
within 1,000 feet of the use.
2. Motion to approve a temporary construction permit for PCI Roads, Inc. at Site 2, the
Schluender Construction site, based on the following conditions:
a. The approval is limited to the activity as described in the letter dated February
22, 2010 as modified below.
i. The hours of operation shall be 7 AM – 6 PM, Monday through
Saturday.
ii. The permittee is required to adhere to Spring Load Restrictions as
mandated by Wright County and the City of Monticello.
b. The approval is granted only for those services supporting the public
infrastructure project at I-94 and CSAH 75.
c. The applicant is required to supply an escrow deposit in the amount of $3,000
to ensure proper street sweeping/maintenance.
d. A letter of notice regarding the permit will be provided to all
residents/property owners within 1,000 feet of the use.
3. Motion to deny a temporary construction permit for PCI Roads, Inc. based on a
finding to be made by the City Council.
4. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of Alternative #1, with the conditions noted, based on
the finding that the proposed use in temporary in nature, generally consistent with the
existing use and supports a public infrastructure project.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Site 1 letter, site plan, aerial, other supporting data
Site 2 letter, site plan, aerial, other supporting data
Supplemental Information
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
5G. Consideration of approving the purchase of two pre-owned 2008 Toro 597-D zero
turn turf mowers. (BP, TP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello has the opportunity to save a significant amount of money now by
purchasing previously owned Toro zero turn turf mowers. In 2009 the Parks Department
budgeted $15,000 to replace a 1995 Toro 325 Grounds Master mower with a new Toro
zero turn mower. Council had directed staff to research the availability of good condition
used equipment vs. new, in turn, staff delayed purchase of mowing equipment and has
been in quest of such a discovery.
Currently eight used 2008 Toro Commercial 72” zero turn mowers are on a 2-year lease
program between MTI Toro and the City of Apple Valley. This lease is up in one month
and the mowers will be available to purchase from MTI Toro. This equipment will range
from 200-400 operating hours each. The State Bid pricing for this equipment new is
$15,000/unit. The retail price is $19,500 each to the general public. They are available to
the City of Monticello with a first choice priority at a bargain price of $6,900/each. Staff
recommends acquiring two (2) units.
The Public Works shop mechanic recently completed major repairs to our 1995 72” Toro
Grounds Master 325-D at a cost of $3,000 for the parts. This unit currently is used by the
Parks Department in the summer for mowing, while the Community Center uses it with a
broom in the winter for the City Hall/Community Center/Library campus walks. Staff is
requesting replacement of the 325-D with one of the described zero turn mowers.
Considering the extent of repairs it is staff’s recommendation is to retain the 325-D for
the Community Center operations during the winter time; relative since trade value is
only $3,000 toward the purchase of new unit at $30,000 and the need is still there for the
Community Center.
The second zero turn would be used to replace summer operation and preserve longevity
of the 2004 328-D (since its age and operational hours are of maintenance concern). This
would then be used for winter sidewalk snow blowing operations primarily and could
serve as a backup if all other turf units were down in the summer. With this plan our
mowing fleet will continue with the same number of mowing units and be updated with
newer equipment. Street and Utility departments frequently use mowing equipment
simultaneously in their maintenance operations as well.
Budgeted for replacement in 2009 and deferred until 2011 the replacement for the 1995
Toro Grounds Master along with replacing the 2004 Toro Grounds Master in 2011, are
outlined in the Capital Outlay. By purchasing these mowers now it would reduce the
Capital Outlay expenditures in 2011 by $52,000, allowing the City to use these funds
elsewhere.
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
2
A program to purchase future lease return machines and trade in these units on a buyback
program was discussed and values are not favorable at this time (see attachment).
A1. Budget Impact: Currently there are no funds in the 2010 Parks Budget for
equipment. The 2009 budget for $15,000 was placed in the capitol revolving fund
to defer purchase of equipment.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: The purchases of the two (2) Toro zero turn mowers
will improve the efficiency and the safety of the operators in the field. The unique
design of the zero turn machines allow the steering of the machine from the main
drive vs. the rear of the machine as the Ground Master mower. Productivity will
increase due to the efficient design of this equipment. It is a proven fact that zero
turn mowers out-produce Ground Masters by 30%.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the purchase of the two (2) used 2008 Toro zero turn turf
mowers at a cost of $6,900 each as outlined in the attached quote from MTI.
2. Motion to deny the purchase at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends the purchase of two (2) used Toro zero turn turf mowers as
outlined in Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Quote from MTI Toro
State of MN Contract Pricing
Statement from Park Foreman
Guaranteed Buyback Letter
Picture of proposed machines
Picture of 325-D under repair
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
5H. Consideration of approving Sunday liquor hours to start at 10 a.m. as allowed by
Minnesota state law and directing City Staff to prepare ordinance amendments as
needed (AS/CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Mayor has requested that the City Council consider directing staff to prepare
ordinance amendments which addresses the current limitations in the City’s Sunday
liquor hours.
In addition to consideration of adjusting the start time for liquor sale hours from 12:00
noon to 10:00 AM, the Deputy City Clerk has also recommended modification of other
language in this section for clarity purposes.
At the direction of Council, those amendments will be prepared for the April 12th, 2010
City Council meeting.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff time will be minimal and will involve research on
statutory requirements and preparation of ordinance amendment language.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to direct staff to prepare ordinance amendments allowing Sunday liquor
hours beginning at 10 AM as allowed by Minnesota state law.
2. Motion to deny action on the development of an ordinance amendment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends alternative 1 above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Current Ordinance sections from Title 3, Chapter 1, 2 and 4 of City Code
City Council Agenda: 3/22/10
1
5I. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-15 calling for a Public Hearing on
Issuance of a Cable Franchise (JO, DP)
A. REFERENCE/BACKROUND:
In conjunction with operation of video services, it is necessary for FiberNet Monticello to
receive authority to operate via a Cable Franchise. Issuance of a cable franchise requires
that a public hearing be conducted on the matter. The Public Hearing is proposed to be
conducted at 7:00 p.m. on April 12, 2010.
At the time of the hearing, the City Council will be reviewing an application from
FiberNet Monticello. As a reminder, the standards of operation of FiberNet Monticello
as identified in the franchise agreement will be the same as the standards identified in the
franchise governing Charter Communications. The minimum system design and services
to be offered must meet or exceed those required of the incumbent cable operator
pursuant to the City’s existing cable franchise. The desired design includes a system that:
serves the entire City based on a reasonable service area/line extension policy; is capable
of delivering in excess of 100 video programmed channels with the potential for
increasing channels; provides a reasonable number of public, educational and
governmental access channels and reasonable access support; and provides connections
and free services to the City Hall and other City facilities. Desired operations and
services include: reasonable rates; a mix, level and quality of programs and services
comparable to other systems; and customer service and system maintenance plans to
ensure the provision of high quality services to the subscriber.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt resolution #2010-15 calling for a Public Hearing on Issuance of a
Cable Franchise to be held on April 12, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.
Under this alternative, posted notice of the hearing will be executed and
application materials prepared by FiberNet Monticello will be made available for
review.
2. Motion to deny calling for a public hearing as requested.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution #2010-15
City Of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-15
CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ISSUANCE OF A
CABLE FRANCHISE IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello intends to consider issuance of a franchise authorizing
operation of a system to provide cable service in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is required to post and publish a public notice for applicants
seeking to provide cable service in the City and call for a public hearing to hear proposals from
franchise applicants, according to Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 238;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. The City Clerk shall prepare and publish in the official paper a public notice for
applications from persons seeking to provide cable service in the City of Monticello; said
notice to be published on March 25, 2010 and April 1, 2010, with applications due by 4:00
p.m. on April 7, 2010.
2. A public hearing shall be held to hear proposals for a cable franchise on the 12th day of
April, 2010 in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7 p.m., and the Clerk shall give mailed
and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 22nd day of March, 2010.
_________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 3/22/10
1
7. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-13 in support of the proposed Rail Park
development in the City of Big Lake (MB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Big Lake is proposing to develop a 210-acre Rail Park through a public and
private partnership. The focus of the park would be to attract food processing and metal
fabricating industries that would benefit from a rail spur. The City is looking to obtain
regional funding to cover the large infrastructure investments that will need to be
completed in order to attract the desired industries.
Attached you will find the report completed by Economic Development Services
outlining where they are proposing to implement the park. The analysis states there is a
potential for approximately 1,500 jobs to be created.
The City of Big Lake is requesting the City adopt a resolution supporting this initiative.
The City believes obtaining regional support will increase their opportunities to receive
regional support.
The IEDC reviewed the proposal and recommended the City Council adopt a resolution
supporting the City of Big Lakes regional economic development initiatives.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution #2010-13 supporting Big Lake’s proposed Rail Park
development.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the resolution.
3. Motion to table.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff, the IEDC, and the EDA recommend the City Council adopt the resolution as
outlined in Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution #2010-13
Big Lake Rail Park Feasibility Report
City of Monticello, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13
SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE CITY OF BIG LAKE TO ESTABLISH A
REGIONAL RAIL PARK
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello and the City of Big Lake, as neighboring cities in a rapidly
growing area, understand the importance of effectively addressing regional planning and economic
growth; and
WHEREAS, due to rapid growth and increased traffic volumes along and across State Highway
25, the City of Monticello and the City of Big Lake are currently working together in planning and
financing a second Mississippi River Bridge and related traffic circulation improvements; and
WHEREAS, The City of Monticello and the City of Big Lake have established a dialogue and
continue to explore opportunities to share or consolidate waste water treatment facilities for the
sake of providing cost effective service to this growing area; and
WHEREAS, The City of Monticello recognizes that job creation in Big Lake benefits the local
economy including Monticello; and
WHEREAS, the City of Big Lake is proposing to create a Rail Park within its City limits that is
expected to serve as a major economic engine in the area by creating additional tax valuation and
approximately 1,500 new full time employment jobs; and
WHEREAS, City of Big Lake is requesting the City of Monticello support its efforts in
establishing a Regional Rail Park; and
WHEREAS, the City of Big Lake will need to raise $125 million dollars of private and public
financing to facilitate necessary infrastructure investments; and
WHEREAS, establishment of a Rail Park as proposed further drives the need for cooperative
strategies in regional planning as it relates to utilities, transportation, land use, and economic
development; and
WHEREAS, the Industrial and Economic Development Committee (IEDC) and the Economic
Development Authority supports the regional impacts of job creation and the potential to attract
supportive type of businesses locating in Monticello due to the creation of a rail park in Big Lake;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO supports Big Lake’s efforts to obtain regional, state, and federal funding to
encourage the creation of a Rail Park in the City of Big Lake; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Monticello will continue to work in cooperation with
the City of Big Lake to address any acceleration of regional impacts on utilities, transportation,
wastewater treatment, land use, and housing that result from development of the proposed
development.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 22nd day of March, 2010.
__________________________________
Mayor Clint Herbst
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Jeff O’Neill City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
8. Consideration of approving a Request for Proposal for the development of an
“Embrace Downtown Monticello” Guidebook, “moving forward with creativity,
innovation, and collaboration” (MB, JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On February 10, 2010, the EDA discussed appropriate project allocations for surplus TIF
funds in District 2. Various projects were presented including parking lot improvements
and community signage. The EDA decided they would like to explore the option of
purchasing property within downtown from willing sellers and initiate a downtown study
that incorporates transportation, land use/design, and financing components.
Potential Land Acquisition:
At the direction of the EDA, City staff sent a letter to downtown real estate owners
requesting any willing seller to fill out an inquiry form by Friday, March 12, 2010. A list
of respondents will be forwarded to the EDA at their April meeting. Staff anticipates the
EDA will establish a set of criteria to assist in determining what properties are most
desirable to purchase.
Downtown RFP
At the direction of the EDA, staff prepared a draft RFP that attempts to address the many
different facets, dynamics, challenges, and complexities that will be faced in creating a
vibrant downtown. The RFP incorporates each of the disciplines requested by the EDA
along with adding in a Market Analysis component. The document addresses community
background, purpose, public input expectations, and attempts to portray a creative, “out-
of-the-box” methodology is expected.
It should be mentioned that the RFP does require a different format and selection process.
Typically one consultant or firm will provide an RFP that includes a cost for the entire
scope of services. In the event the respondents firm is not qualified or experts in one
section of the requested services, the respondent will obtain a sub-consultant to complete
that section. However, the sub-consultant services are still included in the overall project
costs and typically follow the approach determined by the respondent submitting the
RFP. Staff is suggesting each component (Market Analysis, Transportation, Land
Use/Design, Financing) be submitted and viewed as a separate RFP. The idea behind this
method is to allow the flexibility to choose the best most qualified consultant or firm per
component.
The EDA reviewed a draft Downtown Redevelopment and Revitalization Guide RFP at
their March 10, 2010 meeting. The EDA recommended the City Council adopt the RFP
and direct staff to post accordingly. One suggestion was to add language or create a
different title that radiates a more vibrant and creative tone. Several members of the EDA
desire an “out of the box” approach. The EDA also desires to remain cost conscientious.
It is their opinion the scope should remain true to elements applicable to the downtown
and not over emphasis regional issues.
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
2
Selection & Steering Committee:
The EDA recommended the selection committee consist of EDA, Planning Commission,
City Council, and downtown business and real estate owners. Subsequent to the EDA
meeting, staff met to discuss what groups or commission the selection and steering
committee should include. Based on the EDA’s recommendation and looking at what
governing bodies the RFP includes, staff would propose the following representation for
both the selection and steering committee:
EDA: 2 members
Planning Commission: 2 members
City Council: 2 members
Park Commission: 1 member
IEDC: 1 member
Downtown Business/Land owners: 2 representatives (1 business owner / 1 land owner)
City Staff: as required
It will be important to obtain support and create collaboration among various
stakeholders at the forefront of the proposed project. Therefore staff is recommending the
selection and steering committee consists of the same group of participants.
The Monticello Downtown Association provided a letter of comment to the draft RFP
(attached to report). Lynne Dahl-Fleming and Doug Schneider attended the March EDA
meeting and provided general comment. Overall it appears the proposed RFP was well
received by the Downtown Board. Staff did revise the RFP to incorporate a few of their
suggestions. The Market Analysis section was expanded to state “office” and the
selection committee was expanded to include downtown business and land owner
representation.
Staff is in the process of planning a downtown informational meeting. The idea would be
to invite business and real estate owners to a forum where Staff can present the direction
the EDA and City Council has provided regarding initiating a downtown
redevelopment/revitalization plan. This would also open the door to hopefully obtaining a
couple volunteers to serve on the Steering (selection) Committee.
A1. Budget Impact: Funds are being allocated from surplus TIF District 2 to pay for
a majority if not all of the requested services. Final budget allocation will be
determined once all RFP’s have been submitted and a final cost and scope of
services determined.
A2. Staff workload Impact: The Economic Development Director will act as the
overall project coordinator. Additional staff will share workload responsibilities
as directed by the City Administrator. This project is considered a high priority
project, therefore staff will focus accordingly.
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
3
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the RFP for development of an “Embrace Downtown
Monticello” Guidebook.
2. Motion to deny moving forward with the RFP as proposed.
3. Motion to table action on this item and direct staff accordingly.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff and the EDA recommend Alternative #1. City Staff believes the RFP
adequately incorporates a broad scope of work to initiate a positive, comprehensive,
innovative, progressive, yet practical approach to ultimately creating a vibrant downtown.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for an update to the 1997 Downtown
Redevelopment Plan. The proposed RFP addresses this required next step.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Request for Proposal
Letter from Monticello Downtown Business Association
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
EMBRACING DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO GUIDEBOOK
MOVING FORWARD WITH CREATIVITY, INNOVATION, AND COLLABORATION
REQUEST
The Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA) is requesting proposals from qualified firms to
develop an innovative and creative Guidebook that addresses market study, land use, transportation, and
financing components to ultimately initiate the creation of a rejuvenated and vibrant downtown.
SUBMISSION DEADLINE
Proposals Due Date/Time
April 30, 2010
4:00pm
Request for proposals must be received prior to 4:00pm (CST) on Friday, April 30, 2010. Late submittals
will not be considered. Fifteen (15) copies of the RFP should be submitted to the address below:
City of Monticello:
Attn: Megan Barnett
505 Walnut Street
Monticello MN 55362
763.271.3208 or Megan.Barnett@ci.monticello.mn.us
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 3
PURPOSE & FORMAT 4
SCOPE OF WORK 5 - 9
PUBLIC STRUCTURE 9
PROJECT COST & FEE SCHEDULE 9
STAFF SUPPORT 10
PROJECT TIMELINE 10
DELIVERABLES 10
FIRM CREDENTIALS 10
SELECTION PROCESS 11
SELECTION/EVALUATION CRITERIA 12
RESOURCES 13 - 15
3
COMMUNITY BACKGROUND
The City of Monticello is situated in a prime location on Interstate 94 between Minneapolis/St. Paul and
the City of St. Cloud. Monticello has experienced tremendous growth within the last fifteen years in the
residential, commercial, office, and retail sectors. The City of Monticello is now a rapidly growing, free-
standing urban fringe city encompassing approximately 5,000 acres and a population of 11,000.
Monticello was founded by second-generation Americans who migrated west in the mid 1800’s. Early
settlers found the gently sloping banks and shallow river levels of the Mississippi River made a logical
place for a river crossing. Founded in 1856, the City grew quickly during the early settlement years and
then leveled to a population of about 1,300. It was this original settlement that became the core city and
survives today as downtown Monticello.
The general vicinity of the downtown encompasses a full range of services and amenities for greater
Monticello. These include the New River Medical Center, the Monticello Middle School and Community
Education Offices, Swan River Montessori School, and the Monticello Community Center which features
a water park, fitness center, senior center, indoor playground, meeting space and City Hall. The City also
maintains five parks and open space facilities in the downtown area, providing both passive and active
play areas.
Monticello’s recent increase in residential population along the I-94 corridor, coupled with good
transportation access, has propelled recent commercial growth. Commercial growth will continue, with
specific opportunities and challenges for the downtown. Two newer, classic “suburban” commercial
districts are in close proximity to the original downtown area and are connected to the downtown by
collector roads. A goal of the planning effort will be to increase synergy between commercial areas so
the growth of one area does not come at the expense of another. This is a necessity for the continued
economic health of the entire City.
The NorthStar commuter rail station, located just across the Highway 25 river bridge in Big Lake, is
within three miles of the City limits, also creates new growth challenges and opportunities for the
downtown area.
The Monticello Economic Development Authority (which has incorporated Monticello’s Housing and
Redevelopment Authority) has been very aggressive in its economic development strategies. The City
has created a number of TIF districts, which support both new development in industrial areas and
redevelopment in the original downtown. Redevelopment of the downtown area is at times complicated
by unmotivated property owners and the high cost of redevelopment.
In summary, because of its river crossing location and rich history, Monticello features aspects of an older
small town in need of redevelopment, as well as the needs of a growing suburb outside the
Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan area. With the completion of a Comprehensive Plan update in 2008,
the City directed an update to the 1997 Downtown Plan in order to address these issues.
4
PURPOSE
The City of Monticello completed a downtown revitalization guide in 1997. Many great projects
including: the development of the Monticello Community Center, relocation of the Simpson United
Methodist Church, development of the Town Center complex, and other great projects were accomplished
from this plan. However, at this point in time factors have changed primarily relating to the positive and
negative that comes from an increase in regional traffic requiring a need to rethink and perhaps reorganize
the downtown/river setting. Currently downtown has the highest commercial vacancy rates. Traffic
congestion through and adjacent to downtown appears to be a factor in discouraging customers.
Downtown should be a place where commercial enterprises can be accessed easily as well as a place for
pedestrians to enjoy a great shopping, dining, and entertainment experiences. Many stakeholders,
including business and landowners, elected officials, residents, and others have clearly stated, given the
new conditions it’s time to move forward in taking a fresh look at developing a downtown that captures
the benefits of a high traffic volume location, while mitigating the negative effects.
RFP FORMAT:
The RFP format for the Guide will be structured into four separate components: 1. Market Analysis
2. Transportation 3. Land Use/Design 4. Finance and Implementation. Each component requires a
different set of services and objectives. Respondents will need to complete an RFP for each component
for which they are proposing to offer services. Firms may also choose to provide an RFP that offers
services for all components.
RFP Components:
•Market Analysis
•Transportation
•Land Use
•Financing &
Implementation
Required
All inclusive RFP:
•Firm can also
submit a RFP that
provides a full
service option
Option
See Selection
Process for further
details
Decision
5
SCOPE OF WORK
In conjunction with the items listed below, each RFP must address the following:
a. Approach to obtaining and including public input
b. Alternative options for review by public body
c. Method for obtaining and distributing data (i.e. GIS)
d. Estimated timeline
e. Coordination & communication with staff and applicable consultants
A final scope of work will be developed in collaboration with the selected firm(s).
1. MARKET ANALYISIS:
Achieving a good market analysis in this economic climate may be challenging. However, a creative
and progressive approach should be applied in order to gain valuable information. Traditional market
analysis & research strategies should be incorporated, however not considered the only appropriate
means to determining what the new downtown “market” will look like.
a) Identify market area
b) Identify the distribution, location, and density of the current uses of land within the “downtown”
including: commercial, retail, office, industrial, open/civic spaces, and residential
c) Analyze appropriate mix of retail, office, commercial, and service providers most likely to thrive
in the downtown based on existing and future business potential, transportation patterns, and
adjacent competitive market areas.
d) Analyze existing and future opportunities.
e) Analysis of the type and mix of current housing, including the distribution of housing patterns
and mix.
f) Provide phasing analysis from existing business & housing mix to proposed future commercial,
retail, and housing uses.
g) Provide analysis on why type of businesses and sectors Monticello should target and attract to
City, especially taking into consideration:
a. the availability of ultra-fast broadband – complete fiber optic connectivity the City
b. Mississippi River
___________________________________________________________________________________
2. TRANSPORTATION:
A transportation system that provides effective and efficient access, circulation, and parking for
motorists, and ease of mobility and access for pedestrians, is critical to the success of any downtown
area. The successful respondent will therefore be required to provide recommendations on the
following transportation components as they pertain to the redevelopment & revitalization of
downtown Monticello.
6
Access Considerations
1. Review existing transportation facilities and recommend system improvements necessary for
enhancing access to the downtown area along State Trunk Highway 25 (TH 25) from 7th Street to
River Street (corridor). Such improvements should include and not be limited to:
a. Strategies for enhancing flow through the realignment of gen eral traffic patterns or
redistribution of traffic leading to corridor
b. Modifications to intersection design along the corridor
c. Modification to private or alley drive access points serving the corridor
2. Review existing business accesses and recommend options for enhancing business access
including:
a. Adding, removing or relocating alleys behind businesses
b. Relocating, removing or consolidating accesses
c. Signing options
d. Other options as appropriate
Circulation Considerations
1. Review existing traffic circulation patterns and recommend options for enhancing vehicle
circulation to and from proposed parking areas in the corridor.
2. Complete an origin and destination study on vehicles accessing and circulating through the
downtown area. This study will be cross-referenced with the market analysis and land use
component.
Parking Considerations
1. Review existing off-street parking lot facilities and recommend options for enhancing off-street
parking throughout the downtown area including:
a. Develop a parking plan that is integrated with traffic circulation planning
b. Identify the most preferable location(s) for off-street parking lots including:
c. Adding, combining, modifying, removing or relocating off-street parking lots
d. Signing options
e. Parking ramp considerations
f. Other options as appropriate
3. Review existing on-street parking facilities and recommend options for enhancing on-street
parking throughout the downtown area including:
a. Adding, removing or relocating on-street parking stalls
b. Signing options
c. Preferred parking stall design(s) and application(s)
7
4. Recommend an appropriate mix of off-street and on-street parking facilities to enhance
pedestrian access to downtown businesses and adjacent amenities, including the City Parks,
Community Center, Library, etc.
Pedestrian Facility Considerations
1. Review existing and proposed pedestrian facilities and recommend options for enhancing
pedestrian access and mobility throughout the downtown area including:
a. Provide a strategy for providing safe crossings off of Highway 25
b. Provide safe crossings off of CSAH 75
c. Adding, removing or relocating pedestrian facilities
d. Use of on-street bicycle facilities
e. Providing signing, including directional kiosks and historical information signs
f. Other options as appropriate
2. The successful respondent will be required to develop and provide design guidelines as deemed
appropriate. All design guidelines must:
a. Include an appropriate mix of text and graphics
b. Be provided in the appendix of the guide
c. Be provided electronically in AutoCAD 2010 (dwg) and portable document (pdf)
formats.
Traffic Modeling
a. Identify how existing transportation modeling and resources will be incorporated into
recommended transportation improvements.
______________________________________________________________________________
3. LAND USE/DESIGN & PROJECT MANAGER.
The selected consultant will use integrated information, including that obtained from the market analysis
and transportation components, as a foundation for the Land Use section. The Guide should provide
attainable final recommendations based on a comprehensive analysis of different development scenarios
and on whether or not they are suited to Monticello over the long term. The Land Use section is vital in
coordinating obtained data from all components and will set the foundation for achieving established
goals.
Project Manager (The selected firm will be deemed the overall Project Manager)
1. Provide an overall approach on how to coordinate and sequence all components.
Development Strategy Considerations
1. Include a statement of the relationship to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map, TIF
Management Plan, and proposed Transportation Plan.
2. The consultant will incorporate a process which defines the coordinated goals for the
downtown based on the input from a diverse group of stakeholders.
8
3. The guide will consider the long-term social, economic and environmental costs of
development in providing the framework for downtown planning.
4. Provide guidance on whether to expand, move, or secure current land uses based on outcomes
of the market analysis and transportation component.
a) For commerce specifically examine the business mix of downtown to provide a guide
that includes strategies for arranging/locating current and future businesses within the
mix to positively impact pedestrian traffic and sales.
b) For residential specifically outline the types of residential uses that are appr opriate for
the central community district; an analysis of what mix of housing types and price points
best suit the subject area market niche.
5. The process should also define the geographic boundary of the downtown.
6. Suggest design elements and standards (appealing to businesses, residents and visitors alike)
for the creation of an attractive and strong “sense of place’ within the downtown.
7. Detail urban design opportunities, standards, and examples with an emphasis on graphics as
opposed to text. These may be accomplished through recommendations on physical
improvements that may include, but are not limited to:
a. Streetscape and corridor design
b. Pedestrian access and mobility
c. Sidewalk treatments
d. Lighting standards
e. Signage
f. Landscaping
g. Building standards
h. Public spaces
8. Identify development strategies that use land efficiently and appropriately.
9. Develop a plan for a unified strategy to orient people to and within the downtown by using site
design, pedestrian access modifications, signage, information guides and other resources.
10. Identify methods for creating better connectivity and compatibility between land uses and
densities within the downtown and with other commercial nodes within the City.
11. Develop broad recommendations for standards for the conservation, development, and
utilization of natural resources and incorporation of civic spaces as related to the Mississippi
River.
Implementation Considerations
1. Provide concrete examples of implementation strategies to jump-start redevelopment and
revitalization such as changes to existing policies, rules and regulations, bylaws, zoning changes,
ordinance changes, or other tools.
2. Develop an implementation plan, outlining potential catalyst projects that have the ability to
stimulate new downtown development.
9
4. FINANCE & IMPLEMENTATION:
Financing is vital to implementing proposed land use and transportation improvements. Creative and
aggressive approaches should be considered. This section will need to cost compare alternatives and
provide attainable and sequencing recommendations.
a) Compare and evaluate financial implications for each proposed alternative. This analysis should
assist in determining which alternative becomes the preferred plan.
b) Provide options for available financing
c) Outline the process and related timeline of available financing
d) Recommend how the City would implement the recommendations outlined in the market
analysis, land use/design, and transportation components.
e) Outline a comprehensive recommendation, including sequencing, on how to structure financing
for the preferred redevelopment & revitalization scenario.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC STRUCTURE
The City is governed by a City Council and receives recommendations from the Planning Commission,
Economic Development Authority, and Industrial & Economic Development Committee. The Monticello
Downtown Business Association is also an active group that is passionate about creating a viable
downtown. The proposal should include a creative pro-active public process.
PROJECT COST & FEE SCHEDULE
All required information pursuant to the RFP shall be prepared at the sole cost and expense of the
Respondent. There shall be no claims whatsoever against the City, its staff, or its consultants for
reimbursement costs or expenses incurred in the preparation of the RFP(s).
The proposal shall include a total cost estimate per component and an all inclusive cost (if applicable).
Total project cost should include anticipated legal review (if applicable), coordination with existing City
consultants, coordination with other selected firms, and City staff. A clear delineation of communication
and reporting relationships between consultants should be provided.
In addition, a section should be included detailing potential additional costs including; hourly fees,
extraneous expenses associated with travel, electronic & verbal communication services, production,
legal, and administration, etc.
10
STAFF SUPPORT
All proposals should include a detailed summary of required staff support to complete each component. It
is expected each firm will be responsible for the collection of baseline data resources.
The City has a City Administrator, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Economic
Development Director, City Engineer, Public Works Director, and Building Official. The City also retains
a legal firm, planning firm, and financial firm for both broad-scale and day-to-day matters. Proposals
must include any costs for consultation with other consultants both currently retained by the City and as
appointed to complete the Guide.
PROJECT TIMELINE
The proposal should include an estimated time allotment per component based on a start date of June 1,
2010 and a desired completion date of December 1, 2010.
DELIVERABLES
The selected Land Use firm will be required to provide a final document that ties each component in a
cohesive, systematic, and logical manner. Printed (20) and digital copies will be required. Digital version
must be an interactive document that has the ability to link to other resources . Digital copies of any GIS
layers used to create maps or data bases shall be provided. The final Guide will include both text and
graphical segments. The plan should capitalize on as many visual components and GIS data base as
possible.
FIRM CREDENTIALS
Include a section detailing the firm’s background and experience. List the names of all consultants
assigned to the project and in what capacity. Credentials must include a summary of past projects,
including location, size, scope, and nature of services.
11
SELECTION PROCESS
The selection committee will review each properly completed component as a separate RFP. Firms are
welcome to provide a full service option. However, the committee will determine what approach merits
the best end result.
Proposals will be pared down to three (3) firms (per component) for presentation and interview based on
the Selection/Ranking Criteria. Presentations/interviews are expected to occur in late May 2010.
The selection committee will require a formal presentation and interview. The final selection process will
not be made by Selection/Evaluation Criteria ranking alone, but will be based on a combination including,
but not limited to: ranking, presentation, proposal merit and other qualifications. Once authorized to
proceed, the “most qualified” firm(s) will be expected to immediately assist in developing a final scope of
services and contractual agreement.
The City of Monticello reserves the right to waive any irregularity in any submittal or reject any or all
proposals.
12
SELECTION/EVALUATION CRITERIA
Proposals will be reviewed on a point’s basis, with a maximum of 100 points to determine ranking of
each proposal.
1. Demonstrated Experience – a maximum of 15 points
What direct experience do the consultants assigned to the project have working with diverse stakeholders
in the development of City plans, redevelopment projects, or other applicable initiatives?
What relevant past experiences and performance do the consultants assigned to the project have that will
enable them to successfully assist the City in the creation of a viable Downtown Redevelopment Guide?
2. Project Approach and Organization – a maximum of 45 points
Proposals shall include a detailed approach for accomplishing the Guide.
How will services be performed?
Has the proposal addressed each of the considerations included within this RFP?
What additional scope of services has been identified?
How will the public process be incorporated?
How will communication about the project be handled?
How will coordination and communication with other solicited consultants be approached?
What “social media” tools can be utilized to capture a higher level of participation?
What creative ideas are proposed to address the anticipated diverse desired results from e ach
participating organization and/or citizenship?
3. Cost-Efficiency – a maximum of 25 points
The proposal shall include a detailed cost estimate for completing the project. Hourly costs for additional
time should also be provided, along with any extraneous expenses associated with travel, communications
services, legal, coordination with outside consultants, production, etc.
4. Project Timeline and Consultant Availability – a maximum of 15 points
The proposal shall include an evaluation of time allotted to each component and if applicable overall
completion of Guide.
Describe the proposed consultant project schedule and staffing plan, including the number of on-site
visits/meetings and public involvement meetings.
13
RESOURCES
The following resources are available online at the City of Monticello website, www.ci.monticello.mn.us:
Current Monticello Zoning Ordinance
City Code
2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan
2008 Monticello Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment
1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan
Downtown Geographic Area
Generally speaking the downtown boundary is considered from the Mississippi River to Interstate 94 and
from Washington Street to Elm Street. However based on the results of the market study and potential
change in transportation configuration, the area considered downtown may be defined a different
geographic area.
Transportation
To assist the successful candidate in preparing their responses and recommendations, we are including
information on the existing transportation system, existing and projected traffic volumes along major
transportation corridors, and some of the anticipated constraints that must be considered with any
redevelopment of the downtown area.
Existing Transportation System
The majority of traffic entering or leaving the downtown area does so from the north and south on
State Trunk Highway 25 (TH 25), and from the east and west on Wright County State-Aid
Highway 75 (CSAH 75). CSAH 75 is also referred to as East or West Broadway, depending on
which side of TH 25 it is on.
TH 25 is a four-lane highway that is divided in some areas through the use of a narrow raised
concrete median, but remains undivided in other areas. The posted speed on TH 25 through the
downtown area is 30 mph. The existing right-of-way along TH 25 in the downtown area varies
between 80 and 150-feet.
CSAH 75 is a four-lane highway that is divided in some areas through the use of a raised concrete
median area, yet remains undivided in other areas. The posted speed on CSAH 75 through the
downtown area is 30 mph. The existing right-of-way along CSAH 75 in the downtown area is
100-feet.
The existing transportation network is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix B.
Traffic Volumes
Existing (2008) traffic volumes on all State-Aid routes within the City are included in figure 2 of
Appendix B, whereas projected traffic volumes (2030) are shown in figure 3.
14
Anticipated Constraints
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has a policy of limiting access along
their highways, and we have no reason to believe that this will not be their policy for accesses
along TH 25 as redevelopment occurs along the corridor, including the downtown area. Mn/DOT
will therefore likely require all accesses between intersections to be removed and/or consolidated
into one access mid-block, with all mid-block accesses being limited to right-in, right-out only
turn movements.
Mn/DOT will also likely extend raised median islands through various intersections along TH 25
to minimize left-turn movements along TH 25.
Mn/DOT may also require dual-left turn lanes to be constructed at the intersection of TH 25 and
CSAH 75 at some point in the future. We are currently discussing this issue with Mn/DOT to see
if they support the concept of dual-left turn lanes at this intersection due to turn lane length
constraints. In addition, right-of-way is limited in this area so additional right-of-way would
likely need to be acquired to construct dual-left turn lanes on any of the legs at this intersection.
Wright County typically follows Mn/DOT’s lead, so they too may require that all accesses onto
CSAH 75 be removed or consolidated into one mid-block access, and that accesses be limited to
right-in or right-in/right-out movements. They may also require the use of dual-left turn lanes on
CSAH 75 at TH 25, and they may extend raised median islands through intersections to limit left
turns onto CSAH 75. They have mentioned their desire to extend the median island on CSAH 75
across the intersection of Walnut Street, but to date there are no firm plans to do so yet.
Proposed Improvements
The City of Monticello has a draft Transportation Plan that identifies several proposed
improvements for the TH 25 corridor, as well as for other areas of the City. The draft plan is
available on-line under the Engineering Department page of the City’s web site at
www.ci.monticello.mn.us. A hard copy will be provided to the successful applicant for their use.
Congestion on the TH 25 corridor has been identified as the number one issue facing the City. As
such, improvements to the TH 25 corridor are ranked as the number one priority within the draft
Transportation Plan. This was done at the request of the Planning Commission and the City
Council, among others.
The intersection of TH 25 and CSAH 75 has the highest traffic volumes of any intersection in the
City, and is one of the most inhospitable to pedestrians. This combination, along with the
shortage of available right-of-way, makes it difficult to determine a desirable solution for
relieving traffic congestion while providing safe pedestrian accommodations. Two potential
solutions include constructing a roundabout or constructing dual -left turn lanes. Of these two
options, a roundabout would do the best job of relieving congestion based on preliminary
analysis. A roundabout would also be the more pedestrian friendly option. The city is currently
reviewing the right-of-way impacts associated with each of these proposed improvements and
will share our results with the successful applicant to allow the Downtown Redevelopment Guide
to reflect the most desirable solution.
Construction of a second river crossing, which is identified in the draft Transportation Plan,
would have the greatest effect on relieving congestion on TH 25, but this is a long-term goal that
will not likely become a reality for ten or more years.
15
Construction of an overpass for Interstate 94 at Fallon Avenue will likely occur within the next
five years, and while this will help relieve congestion along the TH 25 corridor, it will not relieve
congestion at the intersection of TH 25 and CSAH 75.
Financing
2009 TIF Management Plan
Additional Information
City Staff will provide additional information as requested. In order to ensure all candidates receive
similar information a consolidated list of questions and answers will be posted on the City’s website a
week prior to the submission deadline.
RECOMMENDATIONSfor EDA
PROPOSEDREDEVELOPMENT &REVITALIZATIONGUIDE RFP
To: Members of the EDA, City of Monticello
From: MBA(Monticello Downtown Business Association) Date: March 10, 2010
On Friday, March 5 the MBAreceived a copy of the EDAAgenda. Item #5 and a draft of the RFPand have been
asked by City Staff to review the information and provide feedback. These are our recommendations:
1) Take a fresh look with the Downtown Plan and seek a planner who has not been involved with the past
Downtown Plan (1997) or the recent Comprehensive Plan update in 2008. Due to the fact that it was the same
firm who developed both of these plans we encourage the City to take a fresh look at the current downtown
issues, its future and start with a clean slate of ideas.
2) Aplanner with extensive experience in the private development side of the industry should be a preferred
criteria in the selection process rather than a firm who has most of its experience with municipalities. The
preferred downtown planner should have the mindset of private developers needs including both retail and
commercial uses as well as office space and lease issues.
3) The City has elected to forgo finishing the Downtown Chapter of the currently revised 2008 Comprehensive
Plan and the Transportation Plan. The consultant for the Downtown Plan should work towards assisting consultants
with the completion of both of the Downtown update for the Comp Plan and work with the city’s engineer and engi-
neering consultant to complete the transportation plan related to downtown. However, while TIF funds should be
allocated towards the Downtown Plan, funds for the finishing work of the Comp Plan and Transportation Plan
should come from general funds.
The RFPshould require the land planner/project manager to set up a formal process for incorporating the findings,
recommendations and experience of the market, transportation, and financial consultants in the Strategic Plan
Analysis and overall comprehensive plan document. This can be best accomplished with all consultants
4)Page 4, Item 1. Market Analysis should be expanded to include office uses.
5) Page 7, Item (b) at the top of the page, the identification and analysis of housing mix and price points and
market niche should be derived from the market analysis.
6) Page 8, Section 4. Finance and Implementation seems to address public costs. This could and probably will
include some form of development assistance such as land write down. The RFPshould require preliminary
financial feasibility for the recommended housing and other building types to determine how much
assistance will be needed and the likely tax increments created by the development.
7) The MBAshould have one or two members on the selection committee as well as the steering committee.
If the City wants the downtown business association involved this is best achieved by including members in
the process from start to finish including review of the RFPs, interviews and selection of the planner as well as
providing input with involvement on the steering committee.
ADDITIONALCOMMENTREGARDINGUSEOF TIFFUNDS:
• During a meeting with City Staff and two Council Members last month to discuss downtown municipal park-
ing lot renovation, several downtown property owners who were present voiced comment that the City should
consider utilizing TIF funds for improving these lots as a way to offset assessments to property owners. This
would show that the City is interested in investing in the redevelopment of downtown areas especially in light of
current economic conditions and due to the fact that these TIF monies came from downtown districts, the money
should be reinvested back into downtown projects.
• If the EDAis interested in purchasing property in the downtown area focus should be concentrated on a
single block to maximize effectiveness with any potential developers (ie. across from recently purchased Cedar
Street Garden center and the block with the old movie theatre building). There are two downtown
property owners with buildings for sale (Dennis Anderson and Udall Lawson) on the corner of that block
facing the City’s vacant lot and adjacent to Cedar Street.
The MBAappreciates the City’s renewed interest in redeveloping downtown and for including our association in the
process. We currently have 54% of the our geographical area as MDBAmembers with a fairly equal
balance of both property/land owners and business owners. We believe our input is valuable to the process.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this input for downtown planning in Monticello.
Council Agenda: 3/22/10
1
9. Consideration of adopting Resolution No. 2010-14 authorizing preparation and
advertising of Request for Proposals for 2010 Street Lighting Improvements project
on School Boulevard, City Project No. 10C003. (BW/BP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Staff last presented the proposed School Boulevard street and pathway lighting
improvements to the City Council in September of 2006. At that time, Council voted to
table any lighting improvements on School Boulevard until after various questions they
had regarding appropriate pedestrian crossing locations and the potential to restripe
School Boulevard to add left-turn lanes were resolved. Since then, the pedestrian
pathway west of Fallon Avenue was constructed, and the School Boulevard signing and
striping improvement project was completed. These projects defined the pedestrian
crossing locations and introduced center two-way left-turn lanes and protected left-turn
lanes along School Boulevard from Fenning Avenue/CSAH 18 to Stoneridge Drive.
Upon completing these improvements, staff reviewed and revised the proposed street and
pathway lighting improvements for School Boulevard to account for the new pedestrian
crossing locations. The new proposed lighting plan is attached as supporting data. In
summary, the proposed lighting system provides typical lighting levels found on other
similar streets and pathways in the City. The proposed design incorporates our standard
non-ornamental fixture and pole designs, similar to what is used on East 7th Street by the
Ryan development, which includes full cut-off street light fixtures and non-cutoff
pedestrian pathway lighting. Pictures of the various light poles and fixtures installed
throughout the City are attached as supporting data for reference.
The proposed lighting design also reflects our standard pole spacing of 300 to 350-feet,
which are located on alternating sides of the roadway, wherever possible. On this project
we were not able to alternate the poles as regularly as we normally would since Great
River Energy (GRE) has overhead transmission lines that run the extent of the project,
alternating between the south and north sides of School Boulevard. GRE requires that
specified clearances be maintained between their overhead power lines and any
permanently mounted infrastructure under or near their lines. As such, City staff met
with GRE representatives on site to determine the allowable placement for our light
poles, which is reflected in the proposed design. If any changes are made to the proposed
locations of the poles, we will need to meet with GRE again to get their approval.
This year, staff included an option to use light emitting diode (LED) lighting fixtures, in
place of our standard high-pressure sodium (HPS) fixtures. While LED fixtures are
relatively new to the street lighting market, they have been commonly used for years in
flashlights and other small electronic devices with good success. Staff recognizes that
there are concerns associated with being one of the first to try new technologies, but
several other cities in Minnesota are currently testing LED street lights. The City of
Brooklyn Park began testing 9 LED street lights for Xcel Energy in the fall of 2008, and
the City of Shoreview recently installed 5 LED street lights on a test basis. These are just
a couple of examples, although we aren’t aware of any City’s that have an LED lighting
system in place with as many lights as are proposed with this project.
Council Agenda: 3/22/10
2
The primary advantages to LED lighting include decreased maintenance and energy
costs, along with a more uniform lighting distribution. Various publications have
claimed that LED lights last up to 5 times longer than conventional street lights, such as
high pressure sodium, and consume up to 50% less energy. So while LED light fixtures
do cost more to purchase, they are thought to more than pay for themselves over their
lifetime. Below is a summary of some of the life-cycle costs and energy savings, which
will be discussed in more detail during the Council meeting.
LED versus HPS Life Cycle Cost Savings
HPS lamps have an average life of approximately 24,000 hours, which equals 6 years @
11 hours burn time per day. Typically, the output of HPS lamps will drop to 80% of their
initial light output after the first year or 4,000 hours, after which the light output will
decrease rather sharply over the remaining 20,000 hours until it burns out. And on
average, 50% of all HPS lamps installed will burn out before their life span of 24,000
hours is reached. As such lamps are often replaced during their 5th year of service.
LED lamps have a minimum life of approximately 65,000 hours, which equals 16 years
@ 11 hours burn time per day. Typically, the output of LED lamps will drop to 76% of
their initial light output after 12 years, or 50,000 hours, after which the light output very
gradually tapers off over the remaining 15,000 hours. And in test installations, no LED
lights burned out before 65,000 hours.
Based on these numbers, LED lights last more than 3 times longer than HPS lamps. And
in HPS fixtures, the ballast, starter, transformer and photocontrol all could fail earlier
then the lamp. In LED fixtures, only the driver can wear out but the life expectancy of a
driver is 50,000 hours, although field tests have not verified this yet.
For a simple maintenance cost savings comparison, the LED fixture is expected to outlast
the HPS fixture by a little over 3 maintenance cycles. Therefore, if the average cost of
changing a lamp is $80 to $125 (material and labor), we should save $240 to $375 per
lamp over 16 years. And on a 40 light system, such as we are proposing, our savings
should be $9,600 to $15,000 over the life of the LED system.
Comparing energy savings, a typical 250W HPS lamp uses $0.28 per day of electricity,
whereas a 116W LED light uses $0.11 per day, a savings of $0.17 per day. This equates
to $5.10 per month, $61.20 per year, or $980 over a 16 year period. So in terms of
energy savings alone, the LED light fixture we are proposing to use has a payback period
of about 9 years if compared to a comparable HPS fixture since the cost difference
between them is about $525.
High Pressure Sodium Lighting System Design Elements
The proposed HPS lighting system utilizes 250-watt HPS rectilinear (shoebox) full cut-
off fixtures mounted on 25-foot tall aluminum poles for street lights. Along pedestrian
pathways, 100-watt HPS lantern-style fixtures would be mounted at a height of about 14-
feet. These light fixtures would either be mounted on 2-foot long arms off the backside
of existing or proposed streetlight poles, or they would be mounted on separate 18-foot
Council Agenda: 3/22/10
3
tall aluminum poles buried 4-feet deep to achieve a maximum spacing of roughly 300
feet along all existing pedestrian facilities.
Light Emitting Diode Lighting System Design Elements
The proposed LED lighting system utilizes 100-watt LED rectilinear (shoebox) full cut-
off fixtures mounted on 25-foot tall aluminum poles for street lights. Along pedestrian
pathways, 70-watt LED acorn-style fixtures would be mounted at a height of about 14-
feet. As with the HPS system, these light fixtures would either be mounted on 2-foot
long arms off the backside of existing or proposed streetlight poles, or they would be
mounted on separate 18-foot tall aluminum poles buried 4-feet deep to achieve a
maximum spacing of roughly 300 feet along all existing pedestrian facilities.
A total of 20 street lights without backside pedestrian lighting, 14 street lights with
backside pedestrian lighting, and 16 individual pedestrian lights are proposed with this
project, regardless of which system is chosen.
Council had numerous questions in September of 2006 on the level of lighting provided
with the proposed improvements. As such, staff worked with Signature Lighting to
develop layouts showing the lighting footprints for each of the proposed lighting systems;
one for the proposed HPS lighting system and one for the LED system. The two layouts
are attached as supporting data. Due to the small scale it is hard to distinguish the
differences so staff will review the layouts during the Council meeting.
If Council wishes to provide greater levels of lighting for either the street or pedestrian
facilities, or even both, staff can revise the proposed design accordingly and prepare
revised cost estimates and lighting footprint layouts for Council’s review at a future
Council meeting. In addition, should Council wish to review other light pole or fixture
styles, staff can gather that information and bring it back for review at a future meeting.
The estimated construction cost of this project is $230,155 for the proposed HPS system,
and $284,860 for the proposed LED system. There is a total of 12,360 lineal feet of
property adjoining School Boulevard, of which 3,810 feet belongs to the school district,
1,325 feet is City park property, and 7,225 feet is backyard single family or townhouse
residential property. If all of the property fronting School Boulevard were to be assessed,
including the City Parks, the assessment would amount to $18.62 per linear foot for the
HPS system, and $23.05 per lineal foot for the LED system.
Staff is asking Council to consider the proposed School Boulevard street and pathway
lighting improvements as shown in the attached layout, and if no changes are desired,
staff is seeking Council authorization to prepare and submit a Request for Proposals for
bidding the project to Xcel Energy and Wright-Hennepin Electric, which are the only two
companies that provide the services required. The RFP would request bids including
both construction and maintenance cost considerations.
A1. Budget Impact: The estimated costs for the two proposed project areas are as follows:
HPS lighting project estimated construction cost = $255,000
HPS lighting maintenance cost = $310/month
Council Agenda: 3/22/10
4
LED lighting project estimated construction cost = $310,000
LED lighting maintenance cost = $480/month
The 2010 City Budget includes $561,354 in the Street Light Improvement Fund, which
was generated through the City’s electric franchise and is specifically designated for such
street lighting improvements. Staff proposes to pay for the proposed improvements from
this fund.
Assessments are not being proposed for any portion of this project. This is because the
majority of property along School Boulevard is backyard residential property which
probably does not benefit directly from the improvements and as such is probably not
assessable. The only assessable properties along the project would be those of the
Monticello School District between Fallon Avenue and Fenning Avenue/CSAH 18 north
of School Boulevard, and City’s park properties. Staff did contact the School District to
discuss this project, and while they are in favor of the proposed improvements, they are
opposed to being assessed for this project in any amount since they did not budget for the
improvements.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Several staff members from the Engineering and
Public Works Departments will spend a small amount of time managing and
inspecting the work on this project.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2010-14 authorizing preparation and advertising of a
Request for Proposal for the 2010 Street Lighting Improvements project for School
Boulevard, City Project No. 10C003.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. 2010-14 at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approving Alternative Action No. 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-14
2010 Street Lighting Improvements project plan
Lighting footprint layouts for HPS & LED systems
Photos of existing light poles/fixtures in Monticello (14 photos)
Proposed lighting fixture cut sheets (8 pgs)
Designer Date Scale Drawing No. Brandon Smith,LC Feb 10 2010 AS NOTED 1 of 1 School Blvd
0.
1
0.
6
0.
2
1.
0
0.
2
0.
3
0
.
4
0
.
1
0
.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
3
0.
4
0.
2
0.
1
0.
8
0.
8
0.
3
0.
1
1.
8
1.
2
0.
4
0.
2
2.
9
0.
7
0.
3
4.
8
0.
9
0.
3
0.
5
4.
2
1.
1
0.
4
0.
5
2.
0
0.
7
0.
3
0.
3
0.
8
0.
4
0.
4
0.
3
0.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0.
3
0.
4
0.
5
1.
0
0.
4
0.
4
1.
0
0.
6
0.
5
1.
5
4.
6
1.
2
0.
5
1.
1
5.
5
0.
7
0.
3
0.
7
2.
7
0.
5
0.
4
0.
8
0.
2
0.
3
0.
7
0.
6
0.
1
0.
2
0.
3
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
3
0.
2
0.
1
0.
3
0.
9
0.
8
0.
1
0.
3
0.
9
2.
3
0.
1
0.
4
1.
7
4.
9
0.
1
0.
4
1.
8
0.
1
0.
4
1.
5
5.
0
0.
1
0.
3
0.
7
2.
1
0.
1
0.
3
0.
7
0.
9
0.
1
0.
2
0.
3
0.
3
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0
.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
3
0.
7
0.
8
0.
1
0.
2
0.
6
1.
8
0.
1
0.
3
1.
2
4.
3
0.
1
0.
3
1.
4
7.
7
0.
1
0.
3
1.
3
4.
7
0.
1
0.
3
0.
8
2.
3
0.
1
0.
2
0.
6
1.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
4
0.
3
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0
.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
2
0.
5
0.
8
0.
1
0.
2
0.
4
1.
3
0.
1
0.
2
0.
7
3.
2
0.
1
0.
2
0.
8
4.
8
0.
1
0.
2
0.
8
3.
7
0.
1
0.
2
0.
5
2.
0
0.
1
0.
2
0.
5
1.
1
0.
2
0.
3
0.
4
0.
4
0.
6
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
6
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
9
0.
2
0.
3
0.
3
0.
6
0.
3
0.
5
0.
9
0.
5
0.
1
0.
3
1.
3
6.
8
0.
1
0.
3
1.
1
4.
0
0.
1
0.
2
0.
5
1.
7
0.
1
0.
3
0.
6
0.
7
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0
.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
3
0.
3
0.
2
0.
1
1.
2
0.
7
0.
3
0.
3
2.
0
0.
5
0.
3
0.
3
2.
9
0.
6
0.
3
0.
4
2.
2
0.
5
0.
2
0.
4
3.
7
1.
3
0.
4
0.
2
0.
2
1.
4
0.
5
0.
3
0.
1
0.
7
0.
5
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
4
0.
4
0.
3
0.
3
0.
6
1.
2
0.
3
0.
3
0.
8
2.
4
0.
4
0.
4
1.
2
4.
7
0.
5
0.
4
1.
2
6.
7
0.
3
0.
4
1.
0
3.
9
0.
4
0.
3
0.
5
1.
7
0.
1
0.
3
0.
6
0.
7
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0.
2
0
.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
4.
9
0.
9
0.
7
3.
3
0.
8
0.
4
1.
6
0.
5
0.
2
0.
9
0.
5
0.
2
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
5
0.
3
0.
3
0.
2
0.
4
0.
4
0.
9
0.
8
0.
7
0.
4
0.
8
2.
3
0.
6
0.
5
1.
8
5.
0
0.
5
0.
4
2.
0
8.
9
0.
3
0.
5
1.
8
4.
9
0.
2
0.
3
0.
9
2.
3
0.
1
0.
3
0.
9
0.
8
0.
1
0.
2
0.
3
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
6
0.
8
0.
4
0.
2
2.
0
0.
8
0.
3
0.
5
4.
6
1.
9
0.
5
0.
5
8.
3
2.
3
0.
6
0.
8
5.
2
2.
1
0.
6
0.
6
2.
5
1.
2
0.
4
0.
5
1.
0
0.
9
0.
4
0.
3
0.
3
0.
4
0.
3
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
4
0.
4
0.
2
1.
1
0.
5
0.
3
1.
9
0.
5
0.
4
3.
7
0.
9
0.
4
4.
7
0.
9
0.
5
3.
3
0.
8
0.
4
1.
3
0.
4
0.
4
0.
8
0.
5
0.
3
0.
2
0.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
3
0.
1
0.
4
0.
9
0.
2
0.
3
1.
0
2.
0
0.
2
0.
5
2.
2
4.
7
0.
2
0.
5
2.
6
0.
2
0.
5
2.
3
4.
9
0.
2
0.
3
1.
1
2.
2
0.
1
0.
4
1.
0
0.
7
0.
1
0.
3
0.
3
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0
.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
7
0.
6
0.
2
0.
1
1.
5
0.
5
0.
2
0.
1
3.
5
0.
9
0.
3
0.
1
5.
4
1.
1
0.
3
0.
1
0.
4
0.
4
0.
4
2.
0
0.
1
0.
2
0.
3
1.
3
0.
1
0.
2
0.
5
0.
2
0.
2
0
.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
3
0.
4
0.
4
0.
1
0.
3
0.
7
1.
3
0.
1
0.
4
1.
1
2.
8
0.
1
0.
4
1.
7
5.
0
0.
1
0.
4
1.
8
0.
1
0.
4
1.
5
4.
2
0.
1
0.
3
0.
6
1.
9
0.
1
0.
3
0.
7
0.
6
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
3
0.
4
0.
3
0.
1
0.
8
1.
0
0.
3
0.
1
2.11.50.40.2 4.02.40.50.20.2 2.60.50.40.5 2.10.50.30.7 0.90.40.42.0 0.70.50.31.3 0.20.20.20.5 0.10.10.20.20.1 0.10.20.20.20.1 0.70.60.20.1 1.60.50.20.1 3.81.00.30.2 5.91.10.30.5 4.01.10.40.4 2.20.70.40.7 1.20.60.30.5 0.40.40.30.5 0.10.10.10.20.1 0.10.10.10.1 0.30.40.40.2 0.81.00.40.6 2.11.50.50.50.9 4.02.40.60.82.7 5.32.60.60.52.3 3.42.10.50.60.5 1.40.90.40.30.1 0.50.70.40.20.1 0.10.20.20.1 0.10.10.10.10.1 0.40.40.20.1 1.20.60.40.3 2.30.70.40.6 4.11.10.51.5 5.71.20.52.0 3.61.00.40.7 1.60.50.40.5 0.70.60.30.2 0.20.20.20.1 0.10.10.10.1 0.10.20.30.40.2 0.10.20.51.10.5 0.10.20.51.91.7 0.10.20.83.74.7 0.10.20.84.75.0 0.10.20.73.23.5 0.10.20.41.31.1 0.10.20.50.80.4 0.10.10.20.20.1 0.10.1 0.10.20.4 0.10.4 0.10.7 0.10.3 0.10.4
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0
8.
8
7.
3
9.
3
7.
8
Pl
a
n
V
i
e
w
Sc
a
l
e
1
"
=
2
0
0
'
LU
M
I
N
A
I
R
E
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
Sy
m
b
o
l
L
a
b
e
l
Q
t
y
Fi
l
e
L
u
m
e
n
s
L
L
F
W
a
t
t
s
Ca
t
a
l
o
g
N
u
m
b
e
r
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
L
a
m
p
A
3
0
LT
L
1
4
4
7
7
.
I
E
S
9
5
0
0
0
.
8
1
1
3
2
B
2
0
AE
3
8
1
9
-
25
0
.
i
e
s
28
5
0
0
0
.
8
1
2
8
5
AV
P
1
0
S
R
3
A
Y
VX
VA
L
I
A
N
T
V
I
E
U
X
S
E
R
I
E
S
10
0
W
H
P
S
T
Y
P
E
3
M
E
D
NO
N
C
U
T
O
F
F
ON
E
1
0
0
-
W
A
T
T
C
L
E
A
R
ET
2
3
.
5
H
I
G
H
P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E
SO
D
I
U
M
,
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
PO
S
.
15
3
2
5
S
R
3
F
G
15
3
S
E
R
I
E
S
2
5
0
W
H
P
S
TY
P
E
3
M
E
D
C
U
T
O
F
F
ON
E
2
5
0
-
W
A
T
T
H
I
G
H
PR
E
S
S
U
R
E
S
O
D
I
U
M
ST
A
T
I
S
T
I
C
S
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
S
y
m
b
o
l
A
v
g
Ei
d
e
r
t
o
F
e
n
n
i
n
g
Fa
l
l
o
n
t
o
E
i
d
e
r
Fa
r
m
s
t
e
a
d
t
o
F
a
l
l
o
n
Sc
h
o
o
l
B
l
v
d
-
E
d
m
o
n
s
o
n
t
o
Fa
r
m
s
t
e
a
d
0.
5
f
c
0.
7
f
c
0.
4
f
c
0.
5
f
c
Designer Date Scale Drawing No. Brandon Smith,LC Feb 10 2010 AS NOTED 1 of 1 School Blvd
LU
M
I
N
A
I
R
E
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
Sy
m
b
o
l
L
a
b
e
l
Q
t
y
Fi
l
e
L
u
m
e
n
s
L
L
F
W
a
t
t
s
Ca
t
a
l
o
g
N
u
m
b
e
r
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
L
a
m
p
C
3
0
50
0
3
3
0
.
I
E
S
A
b
s
o
l
u
t
e
0
.
9
0
1
1
5
.
5
D
2
0
LE
D
R
_
1
0
L
E
D
_
E3
5
_
M
V
O
L
T
_
AR
3
.
I
E
S
11
2
0
0
0
.
9
0
1
1
0
AW
E
1
1
6
A
S
X
3
N
X
AC
R
Y
L
I
C
G
R
A
N
V
I
L
L
E
PR
E
M
I
E
R
LE
D
A
R
R
A
Y
LE
D
R
1
0
L
E
D
E
3
5
MV
O
L
T
A
R
3
AE
L
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
L
E
D
WI
T
H
3
5
0
m
A
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
DR
I
V
E
R
.
T
E
M
P
4
0
.
0
C
24
4
-
W
A
T
T
L
E
D
S
,
A
I
M
E
D
DO
W
N
ST
A
T
I
S
T
I
C
S
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
S
y
m
b
o
l
A
v
g
Ei
d
e
r
t
o
F
e
n
n
i
n
g
Fa
l
l
o
n
t
o
E
i
d
e
r
Fa
r
m
s
t
e
a
d
t
o
F
a
l
l
o
n
Sc
h
o
o
l
B
l
v
d
-
E
d
m
o
n
s
o
n
t
o
Fa
r
m
s
t
e
a
d
0.
3
f
c
0.
4
f
c
0.
3
f
c
0.
3
f
c
0.
1
0.
5
0.
1
0.
2
0.
7
0.
1
0.
2
0.
4
0.
1
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
3
0.
5
0.
7
0.
1
0.
1
0.
7
1.
1
0.
4
0.
1
2.
2
1.
2
0.
1
2.
5
2.
1
0.
2
0.
4
1.
4
1.
5
0.
2
0.
4
0.
9
0.
9
0.
1
0.
2
0.
7
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
1
0.
3
0.
7
0.
2
0.
2
1.
1
0.
5
0.
3
2.
0
1.
6
0.
8
0.
3
2.
3
2.
5
0.
6
0.
2
1.
0
1.
8
0.
2
0.
2
1.
0
0.
1
0.
1
0.
6
0.
5
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
8
0.
5
0.
1
1.
0
0.
9
0.
3
2.
1
1.
6
0.
3
2.
8
2.
1
0.
2
1.
9
1.
3
0.
1
0.
9
0.
9
0.
6
0.
6
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
6
0.
6
0.
1
0.
8
0.
9
0.
1
1.
6
1.
3
0.
1
2.
6
2.
0
0.
1
2.
0
1.
5
0.
1
0.
9
0.
9
0.
6
0.
6
0.
3
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
4
0.
6
0.
1
0.
5
1.
0
0.
1
1.
1
1.
5
0.
1
1.
8
0.
1
1.
4
2.
1
0.
1
0.
7
1.
0
0.
1
0.
4
0.
7
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
5
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
8
0.
2
0.
1
0.
2
0.
5
0.
2
0.
2
0.
8
0.
4
0.
1
0.
2
2.
3
1.
9
0.
1
1.
4
1.
2
0.
1
0.
7
0.
8
0.
5
0.
5
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
6
0.
6
0.
1
0.
1
1.
0
0.
6
0.
1
0.
2
2.
6
0.
9
0.
2
0.
4
1.
6
0.
7
0.
2
0.
4
1.
2
1.
7
0.
2
0.
1
0.
2
0.
9
0.
6
0.
1
0.
1
0.
6
0.
3
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
3
0.
3
0.
1
0.
1
0.
6
0.
7
0.
2
0.
2
1.
0
0.
9
0.
4
0.
2
2.
0
1.
8
0.
4
0.
2
2.
4
2.
2
0.
2
0.
2
1.
4
1.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
6
0.
8
0.
1
0.
1
0.
5
0.
5
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
3.
7
1.
9
0.
2
2.
0
1.
1
0.
2
1.
1
0.
5
0.
1
0.
7
0.
3
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
1
0.
2
0.
1
0.
3
0.
1
0.
8
0.
6
0.
6
0.
3
1.
1
0.
9
0.
4
0.
4
2.
1
1.
5
0.
3
0.
5
3.
1
1.
6
0.
1
0.
3
2.
0
1.
5
0.
1
0.
2
1.
0
0.
9
0.
1
0.
7
0.
5
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
5
0.
7
0.
1
0.
1
0.
7
1.
0
0.
2
0.
2
1.
2
1.
9
0.
4
0.
3
1.
6
3.
4
0.
7
0.
6
1.
2
2.
8
0.
6
0.
5
0.
9
1.
2
0.
3
0.
3
0.
6
0.
9
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
4
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
2
0.
1
0.
7
0.
3
0.
1
1.
0
0.
7
0.
2
2.
1
1.
4
0.
3
3.
0
1.
9
0.
4
1.
6
1.
1
0.
2
1.
0
0.
5
0.
2
0.
6
0.
4
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0
.
1
0.
2
0.
1
0.
8
0.
1
0.
2
1.
0
0.
8
0.
1
0.
5
2.
2
1.
2
0.
1
0.
8
1.
8
0.
1
0.
6
2.
4
1.
3
0.
1
0.
2
1.
1
0.
8
0.
1
0.
8
0.
5
0.
1
0.
2
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
5
0.
4
0.
7
0.
6
0.
1
1.
0
1.
2
0.
1
2.
2
2.
3
0.
1
0.
1
0.
4
0.
2
0.
3
1.
0
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
7
0.
1
0.
1
0.
3
0.
1
0.
1
0.
4
0.
3
0.
1
0.
8
0.
7
0.
2
1.
3
0.
9
0.
3
2.
4
1.
6
0.
3
2.
7
2.
0
0.
2
1.
6
1.
1
0.
1
0.
8
0.
8
0.
6
0.
5
0.
1
0.
1
0.
2
0.
4
0.
1
0.
4
0.
8
0.
1
0.61.20.40.1 1.33.00.80.10.1 0.90.20.2 1.80.60.20.5 1.00.30.41.0 0.70.20.20.7 0.10.10.10.3 0.10.1 0.10.1 0.50.5 0.80.60.1 1.01.40.10.1 2.12.40.20.2 1.61.90.20.3 0.90.90.30.6 0.60.60.20.4 0.30.30.10.2 0.10.10.1 0.1 0.20.40.10.1 0.40.80.20.2 0.61.20.40.30.4 1.33.00.90.60.8 1.31.00.40.6 0.91.80.60.30.2 0.51.00.20.10.1 0.40.70.10.1 0.10.10.1 0.20.30.1 0.60.50.10.1 0.90.90.20.3 1.62.00.30.7 2.22.30.41.0 1.11.40.20.5 0.80.60.20.2 0.50.50.10.1 0.10.10.20.30.1 0.30.70.3 0.10.71.00.5 0.11.32.10.9 0.11.83.01.0 0.11.11.50.8 0.10.40.90.3 0.30.60.2 0.10.10.1 0.10.2 0.10.4 0.10.20.6 0.10.3 0.10.2
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.0
2.
9
3.
6
4.
0
3.93.9
Pl
a
n
V
i
e
w
Sc
a
l
e
1
"
=
2
0
0
'
CITY OF MONTICELLO
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-14
ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING REQUEST
FOR PROPOSAL FOR BIDS
2010 STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS – SCHOOL BOULEVARD
CITY PROJECT NO. 10C003
WHEREAS, the City Council on September 11, 2006, directed City Staff to prepare a Street Lighting
Plan for School Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the plan and design for 2010 Street Lighting Improvements for School Boulevard has
been completed;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Cit y of Monticello, Minnesota
as follows:
1. Said improvements are necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the design plan,
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and are hereby approved.
2. It is advisable, expedient and necessary that said improvements be constructed, and the same
are hereby ordered made.
3. The City Engineer is hereby directed to prepare a Request for Proposal for said improvements,
and advertise the RFP for bids.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the
Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bid upon the making of such improvement under
such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for ten days,
shall specify the work to be done, and shall state that bids will be opened at 10 a.m. on April
28, 2010 and that the award of the bid and the responsibility of the bidders will be considered
by the City Council at 7 p.m. on May 10, 2010 in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Any
bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an
opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered
unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier’s check, bid
bond or certified check payable to the City for five percent of the amount of such bid.
5. The RFP submissions shall be reviewed and City Council shall let the contract for all or part of
the work for said improvements or order all or part of the work done by day labor or otherwise
as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.041, Subdivision 2 within one year of the
date of this resolution ordering said improvements.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 22nd day of March, 2010.
___________________________________
ATTEST: Clint Herbst, Mayor
____________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
10. Consideration of authorizing a 2010 acquisition at Bertram Chain of Lakes
Regional Park in conjunction with Wright County (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is asked to consider authorizing the use of City funds for a 2010
property acquisition at the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park.
The funding request is made in order to utilize a 2009 grant award from the Department
of Natural Resources Metro Greenways Program. Metro Greenways awarded the
Bertram Lake project $299,628 in 2009. These grants funds must expended on a land
acquisition prior to June 30th, 2010.
In 2008, the City of Monticello partnered with Wright County and property owner
YMCA of Minneapolis in a Memorandum of Understanding which allows for the City
and County to purchase the entire 1200 acres of the Bertram Chain of Lakes property.
The MOU sets a funding structure for the purchase of the entire property at $20.5 million.
The funding structure proposed included $9 million of State funding and $5.75 million in
County and $5.75 million in City funding.
In 2008, the City and County were awarded Metro Greenway funds in the amount of
$200,000 and Legislative and Citizens Commission on Minnesota’s Resources funding in
the amount of $1 million. The City and County matched the $1.2 million in State funding
equally for the first acquisition and purchased $3.6 million in Bertram Lakes property in
late 2008. The 2008 purchase was for 318 acres and included parcels 5A, 6 and 11 on the
attached map. This property is currently fully accessible to the public.
For 2010, the City is asked to fund a matching share of the 2009 Metro Greenways
award. As illustrated in the attached financial structure diagram, the City and County’s
match for the 2009 Greenways grant ($299,628 as noted above) is $166,668 each.
By funding the match and authorizing the acquisition, the City and County will purchase
additional acreage at Bertram Lake in an amount to be determined based on a final
required appraisal. The purchase will include property running along on the north
boundary of parcel 5A. As such, that parcel boundary will shift northward.
As illustrated in the attached financial structure table, other grants were also received in
2009.
The Bertram Lakes Advisory Council has asked that staff pursue other 2010-2011 grants
to be combined with these 2009 funds. This will allow for the purchase of parcel 7 in its
entirety as the next acquisition.
A1. Budget Impact: The funding for this purchase would come from the
Park/Pathway Dedication Fund, which has a current cash balance of $401,097.
In 2011, the City will owe the County for the final payment for the first property
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
2
purchase (approximately $331,500), which will also come from this fund. These
two payments will deplete the cash balance of the Park/Pathway Dedication Fund
until more development occurs and pays into the fund.
It should be noted that Council did provide direction at a previous workshop that
future Bertram acquisitions could also be funded through the sale of commercial
property at Jefferson Commons.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: If the City Council authorizes the match and
acquisition, City staff and the City Attorney will work with Wright County to
begin drafting the necessary purchase agreement documentation in preparation for
a June 30th, 2010 closing.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve 2009 Metro Greenways grant match funding in the amount of
$166,668.00 for a 2010 acquisition at Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park in
conjunction with Wright County and to direct staff to prepare appropriate closing
and purchase documentation.
2. Motion to deny 2009 Metro Greenways grant match funding in the amount of
$166,668.00 for a 2011 acquisition at Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park in
conjunction with Wright County.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Continuing to acquire property at Bertram Lakes is consistent with the stated goals in the
2008 Comprehensive Plan and the recently adopted Capital Improvement Plan.
The authorization to fund the grant match for the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park
is also consistent with previous Council actions, including authorization to apply for the
2009 Metro Greenways grant and with the provisions of the approved Memorandum of
Understanding between the City, County and the YMCA. As such, staff supports funding
the match for this acquisition.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Bertram Chain of Lakes Parcel Acquisition Map
Bertram Chain of Lakes Funding Table
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
11. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-11 supporting a request for LCCMR
appropriations from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The joint City of Monticello and Wright County continue to work to secure State funding
for future acquisitions at the Bertram Chain of Lakes property. As part of that process,
Wright County, in cooperation with the City of Monticello, will be submitting a request
for grant funding to the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota’s Resources
(LCCMR) on or before April 9th, 2010.
As Council is aware, LCCMR awarded $1 million in funding for the acquisition of the
YMCA as part of the 2008 cycle. This funding was used to successfully acquire the first
318 acres of land at the Bertram Chain of Lakes.
The LCCMR makes recommendations to the legislature for funding of significant natural
resource projects. These funds come primarily from the Environment and Natural
Resources Trust Fund. Since 1963, over $600 million has been appropriated to more than
1,250 projects recommended by the Commission to protect and enhance Minnesota's
environment and natural resources. For the 2011-2012 biennium, approximately $52
million is available for project funding.
It should be noted that in this application cycle, one of the eight funding criteria
categories is for Land Acquisition for Habitat and Recreation. This particular funding
priority pairs well with the goals for Bertram Lakes. In past application cycles, the
funding categories did not include acquisition for recreation.
The purpose of the resolution is to illustrate the City’s support for the funding application
for this MCCMR cycle. The resolution does not represent a financial commitment or
contract to utilize LCCMR funds.
A1. Budget Impact: The City/County 2011 LCCMR application will request $6.4
million in funding, which is the balance of the 1/3 State share planned under the
financial model for the full park acquisition. The full financial model is attached
for reference.
The City and County request the full State share balance with each annual
LCCMR request. For example, in 2008, $8 million was requested and $1 million
was funded.
If LCCMR funds all or part of the request, the City and County will determine the
payment strategy for a future acquisition. The City and County will have over
two years to determine a funding source and payment program.
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
2
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Monticello City staff will be preparing this year’s
submission to LCCMR on behalf of the City and Wright County. It is estimated
that the grant will take approximately 8 hours to prepare, review and submit.
County staff will be asked to review the application and provide input as part of
the joint submittal process.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2010-011 supporting a joint request by the City of Monticello
and Wright County for LCCMR appropriations from the Environmental and Natural
Resources Trust Fund to support acquisition of the Bertram Chain of Lakes property.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution 2010-011 based on a finding to be made by the
City Council.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As noted in the previous item, continuing to acquire property at Bertram Lakes is
consistent with the stated goals in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and the recently adopted
Capital Improvement Plan.
Staff supports adoption of the resolution. Participation by the State is critical to the
financial package for acquisition of the YMCA property. The grant application to
LCCMR represents the next step in joint efforts to secure additional State funding.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution #2010-011
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-11
SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR LCCMR APPROPRIATIONS
FROM THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST FUND
WHEREAS, the Monticello City Council supports an application to the LCCMR Environment
and Natural Resources Trust Fund to be submitted on or before April 9th, 2010 and that Angela
Schumann, Community Development Director, is hereby authorized to submit the request on
behalf of the City of Monticello, in partnership with Wright County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello, in partnership with Wright County, has developed the
necessary financial structure meet the match requirement and proper acquisition of the proposed
project; and
WHEREAS, upon approval of its application by the LCCMR, Wright County, in cooperation
with the City of Monticello, may enter into an agreement with the LCCMR and that Wright
County certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the
request;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Angela Schumann, Community Development
Director, is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the
project on behalf of the applicant.
Adopted by the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota on the 22nd day of March, 2010.
__________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda – 03/22/10
1
12. Consideration of authorizing a Well Siting Study for the City (WSB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In July 2009, WSB completed an analysis of the City water system and then met with
City staff to discuss the current status of the City’s water infrastructure and to evaluate
what improvements are necessary at this time and what improvements should be
considered in the future. The following is a brief synopsis of the analysis and results.
Well capacity appears to be currently adequate. Planning for future wells will be
growth dependent. Since the process of finding property, conducting test wells,
and then drilling a well and constructing a pumping facility is over a two year
process, a well siting study is recommended in the near future. (Estimated Budget
Impact: $6,800)
The addition of chemicals at the well head is adequate at the present time.
However, planning for future treatment is critical because many decisions need to
be made such as whether one central facility or two separate facilities are
recommended, the type of treatment, land requirements, and estimated cost. We
recommend a water treatment feasibility study be conducted in conjunction with
the well siting study, since the two are interrelated. (Estimated Budget Impact:
$7,400)
The current volume of water storage is adequate. The need for additional storage
in the future will be growth dependent.
The water CAD model should be updated and utilized as a planning tool to
identify areas of concern and the benefits of upgrades. (Estimated Budget Impact:
$1,500)
Continue monitoring chlorine residual levels and conduct a study once the water
CAD model is updated to evaluate potential improvements that would balance the
chlorine levels throughout your system. (Estimated Budget Impact: $3,800)
Continue exploring energy savings options at Well 5, the Chelsea Road lift
station, and other facilities. The recommended initial step includes coordination
with Xcel and the inspection of each site with a power analyzer and memo
summarizing conclusions. (Estimated Budget Impact: $3,200)
Continued routine inspection of water storage facilities is recommended to obtain
their intended life.
Continue water main looping and repair/replacement of water main.
Evaluate the adequacy of WAC fees and user rates to cover future capital and
operation and maintenance expenses. (Estimated Budget Impact: $9,400)
City Council Agenda – 03/22/10
2
As a result of this analysis, a well siting study was discussed and it was agreed that a well
siting study was needed in 2010 and WSB provided a cost of $6,800 to complete the
study. It should be noted that the City completed an observation well installation study
in 2002 that analyzed water and well quality for the growing City. The study proposed
here will not duplicate the analysis completed with that study, but rather utilize that
information as the basis for identifying potential well locations relative to the possible
replacement of Well #1 and location impacts relative to a future water treatment facility.
The 2010 well siting study will consist of an examination of published geologic
information, combined with an analysis of wells in the area. By examining both the
published data and local wells, geologic conditions can be identified that affect well
placement and design and the placement of other water infrastructure, such as treatment
facilities. The City will be developing wells in the future as growth occurs and also has
some wells with marginal quality that may be better sealed and a new well developed due
to potential ongoing future treatment costs. The City also has a well that is located
downtown which may be located in an area that could be impacted by future
redevelopment plans. Developing a plan for the future wells will provide many benefits
to the City as noted below.
Identification of optimal future well sites.
Knowledge of issues and concerns early on in future well construction and
rehabilitation projects.
Avoidance of problem well sites.
Maximized well capacity.
An understanding of well interference.
Early communication with state agencies that will aid a permitting process that is
becoming increasingly more difficult.
An aquifer map that can be used to locate wells anywhere in the City at any point
in the future.
Given periodic updates, this data will not become obsolete, since the geology is
unlikely to significantly change.
A well siting study will aid in determining the location(s) of a water treatment
facility, and what type of treatment is necessary since aquifers have differing
water quality.
A1. Budget Impact: It is proposed that the funding for this study will come from the
City Water Fund.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: WSB & Associates will prepare this study after
determining final project scope at the direction of the City Engineer with
assistance from the Water Superintendent. The City Engineer and Water
Superintendent will also monitor the progress and results of the study and provide
applicable analysis as needed.
City Council Agenda – 03/22/10
3
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize a well siting study in an amount not to exceed $6,800 to be completed
by WSB & Associates, Inc.
2. Do not authorize a well siting study.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends selecting Alternative #1. The City will need additional wells in the
future and the first step in the process is a well siting study. By completing the study
now, the City will be prepared to move forward with the drilling and construction of a
pumping facility when it is needed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
WSB Proposal
M:\WaterWastewater\Monticello\LTR PROP-j oneill-031710-WellSitingStudy.doc
Infrastructure Engineering Planning Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
March 17, 2010
Mr. Jeff O’Neill
City Administrator
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Proposal to Provide Professional Engineering Services for
Preparation of a Well Siting Study
City of Monticello, MN
Dear Mr. O’Neill:
In July 2009, WSB completed a complimentary analysis of the City water system and then met with
City staff to discuss the current status of the City’s water infrastructure and to evaluate what
improvements are necessary at this time and what improvements should be considered in the future.
The benefits of a well siting study were discussed, and it was agreed that a well siting study was
needed in 2010 to locate optimal sites for future wells in the City of Monticello.
A delineation of tasks to be performed by WSB & Associates, Inc. and by the City of Monticello
follows directly. Assumptions related to these same items are also defined in a subsequent section.
Project Understanding
A well siting study consists of an examination of published geologic information, combined with an
analysis of wells in the area. By examining both the published data and local wells, geologic
conditions can be identified that affect well placement and design. WSB has a geologist on staff that
is experienced with review and examination of geological information. Completion of a well siting
study will result in the following value to the City:
Knowledge of issues and concerns early on in future well construction and rehabilitation
projects.
Avoidance of problem well sites.
Maximized well capacity.
An understanding of well interference.
Early communication with state agencies that will aid a permitting process that is becoming
increasingly more difficult.
The City of Monticello requires the completion of a well location study and report that provides short
and long-term, cost-effective solutions to serve the City’s water needs. Based on our discussions
with City staff members, our understanding of the City’s goals and objectives is as follows:
1. Determine optimal locations for new wells. The City presently has five wells. These wells are
in three separate aquifers that produce water with different water quality and available capacity.
All three of these aquifers appear to be unevenly distributed, and there may be additional aquifers
Mr. Jeff O’Neill
March 17, 2010
Page 2
M:\WaterWastewater\Monticello\LTR PROP-j oneill-031710-WellSitingStudy.doc
available that the City does not currently tap. A well siting study can show the distribution of all
of these aquifers, allowing the City to locate future wells while accounting for volume, water
quality, and sustainability.
2. Optimize water production. Monticello has access to multiple aquifers. Locating the highest
quality, sustainable aquifer for any location in the City can be accomplished through careful
study of existing wells and review of published geological and hydrogeologic studies. This
allows capacity and treatment requirements to be more accurately estimated, allowing for
evaluation of any site before committing public money to that site.
Over the course of the study, WSB will focus on solutions that encompass all of these goals.
Proposed Scope of Services
WSB’s project scope and proposed work plan is based on our understanding of the project and
experience on similar projects. The following are the major tasks that will be performed in preparing
the City’s well location study and memo:
Task 1: Project Management and Coordination
This task will consist of management and administration, project coordination, and communication
with the City of Monticello and applicable agencies on the project. The proposed work plan will
include the following meetings with the City:
Project kick-off meeting with City of Monticello staff.
Draft conclusions review meeting – meeting with the City of Monticello to review the draft
memorandum.
Task 2: Well Siting Study Development
Subtask 2.1: Review of Previously Published Geological and Hydrogeologic Studies
Establish a preliminary general hydrogeologic assessment of the aquifers available to
Monticello through examination of existing studies, reports, and well data.
Subtask 2.2: Detailed Geologic Study of Proposed Well Sites
Using GIS-based mapping, create a map that identifies parcels, located wells, and
wetlands in Monticello.
Using existing property and well data and the preliminary hydrogeologic assessment,
create a detailed quaternary geologic map of the area near the proposed well sites.
Identify potential well interference problems for particular sites.
Identify surficial and sub-surface conditions that affect the suitability of a particular site
for well construction. Potential problems, such as well interference, poor water quality,
sustainability, and links to surface water can be identified.
Mr. Jeff O’Neill
March 17, 2010
Page 3
M:\WaterWastewater\Monticello\LTR PROP-j oneill-031710-WellSitingStudy.doc
Subtask 2.3: Proposed Well Locations
Make recommendations for location of wells.
Develop opinions of probable cost at each recommended well location.
Meet with City staff to discuss pros and cons of constructing test wells at potential well
sites. Test wells are constructed to verify subsurface conditions and test water quality.
Test wells may be required by the DNR prior to approving any in increase water
appropriations.
Task 3: Preparation of Technical Memorandum
Subtask 3.1: Prepare a technical memorandum that incorporates the findings and
recommendations of the well siting study.
Subtask 3.2: Meeting with City staff to review the technical memorandum.
Subtask 3.3: Incorporate City staff comments into the technical memorandum.
Subtask 3.4: Finalize the technical memorandum and submit copies to the City.
Fee
We propose to perform the well siting study for a not-to-exceed fee of $6,800. We will bill at our
2010 hourly rates. We will review our progress monthly and will not exceed this amount unless the
scope changes and we obtain your prior approval.
City of Monticello’s Tasks
In order to complete our tasks, we will need the City to provide the following:
Identify properties that may be used as sites for production wells. These must have the
potential to be City owned and controlled to at least a 52-foot radius from each proposed
production well location. Smaller sites require a variance from the Minnesota Department of
Health.
Provide a copy of previous well location studies.
Provide drillers reports, video logs, and boring logs for existing wells.
Time Schedule
WSB will complete the well siting study and memo within 60 days after authorization to proceed is
given by the City.
Proposal Assumptions
WSB tasks and estimated fees are based on the following assumptions:
Ground water modeling will not be required.
The need for test wells will be discussed. Design and construction of test wells is not
included.
Mr. Jeff O’Neill
March 17, 2010
Page 4
M:\WaterWastewater\Monticello\LTR PROP-j oneill-031710-WellSitingStudy.doc
Potential well sites will be based on ultimate buildout as described in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and will be ranked based on potential yield of high-quality water.
This letter represents our understanding of the project scope. If you are in agreement, please sign on
the space provided and return one original signed copy to us for our records. We will start
immediately upon receipt of the signed agreement.
If you have any questions concerning the work plan or fee as discussed herein, please feel free to
contact me at 763-287-8316. We look forward to working with you and greatly appreciate the
opportunity to assist you and your staff in the completion of this project.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Nancy D. Zeigler, PE
Associate/Senior Project Manager
ACCEPTED BY:
City of Monticello, Minnesota
Name
Title
Date
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
14. Consideration of authorizing City to join other entities in filing a complaint
against NCTC (National Cable Television Cooperative) related to denial of
admittance to the NCTC (closed session) (JO, DP)
Materials for this item are provided under separate cover.
City Council Agenda: 03/22/10
1
15. Consideration of a personnel issue (closed session) (JO, TE)
Materials for this item are provided under separate cover.