City Council Agenda Packet 04-26-2010AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 26, 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 – April 12, 2010 Special Meeting
2B. Approval of Minutes – April 12, 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) Spring Leaf Pickup (5/1)
2) March of Dimes Walk for Babies (5/8)
3) Bertram Chain of Lakes Park Open House (5/18)
c. Staff Updates:
1) Parker McDonald Proclamation
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
B. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-22 to accept contributions of $250
from Tom Perrault and $500 from Dahlheimer Distributing
C. Consideration of accepting Quarter 1, 2010 financial report
D. Consideration of approving reapportionment of special assessments for River City
Extreme
E. (Pulled from Agenda)
F. Consideration of appointing a member to the EDA to fill a vacancy
G. Consideration of adopting Resolution # 2010-20 approving Carcone Addition
Final Plat, approving the Carcone Addition development agreement, and
reestablishing drainage and utility easements
H. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-23 authorizing final payment to
Motzko Companies and accepting work for Grading and Drainage Improvements
at the Monticello Middle School and A Glorious Church Ponds, City Project
No.06C009 (2006-09C)
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
5B. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-22 to accept contributions of $250 from
Tom Perrault and $500 from Dahlheimer Distributing (CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City has received a donation of $250 from Tom Perrault to go to the General Fund.
Dahlheimer Distributing sponsored an early bird tournament for the Community Center
at the Xcel Ballfields in the amount of $500. 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 contributions 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. 2010-22
I. Consideration of approving temporary on-sale liquor license for St Henry’s
Church for an event on June 25, 2010
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7. Public Hearing – Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-18 to grant vacation of
drainage and utility easements for lots in Sandberg South and Plaza Partners Additions,
Petitioner: Chrysler Financial
8. Public Hearing – Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-21 granting a Cable
Franchise to FiberNet Monticello
9. Public Hearing – Consideration of adopting Resolution #2009-26 approving assessment
roll for delinquent utility bills and certification to County Auditor for 2011 payable tax
year
10. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-19 calling for a Public Hearing on vacating a
portion of Minnesota Street, Petitioner: Renae Hauge
11. Consideration of adopting a Business Expansion Incentive Pilot Program
12. Consideration of approving a request for subsidy under the proposed Business Expansion
Incentive Pilot Program
13. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-24 approving final plans and specifications
and authorizing advertisement for bids for 2010 Street Reconstruction, City Project No.
01C001
14. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-25 approving Feasibility Report and
authorizing preparation of Plans and Specifications for Fenning Avenue Pathway
Improvements, City Project No. 07C010 (2007-10C)
15. Consideration of a request for revising City policy and practice as related to sidewalk
snow removal along Minnesota Trunk Highway 25
16. Consideration of accepting proposals and authorizing negotiation of a contract with
selected electrician
17. Informational Update - Building Department
18. Added items (if any)
19. Approve payment of bills for April 26th
20. Adjournment.
Council Agenda: 04/26/10
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. Motion to ratify the hire/departures of the employees as identified on the attached
list.
2. Motion to deny the recommended hires and departures.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
By statute the City Council has the authority to approve all hires/departures. City staff
recommends Alternative #1, for the Council to approve the hires and/or departures as
listed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of new/terminated employees
Name Title Department Hire Date
Frank Robinson Seasonal Parks Worker Parks 5/3/10
Herb Schoenborn Seasonal Parks Worker Parks 5/3/10
Clarance Maanum Seasonal Parks Worker Parks 5/3/10
Jarrid Schienbein PT Liquor Store Clerk Liquor Store 4/15/10
Jon Hirschey Seasonal Streets Worker Streets 5/3/10
Name Reason Department Last Day
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
5A Council_employee list 2010: 4/23/2010
Class
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
PT
Seasonal
Class
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
5A Council_employee list 2010: 4/23/2010
City of Monticello
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-22
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 (April) $250
Dahlheimer Distributing Cash $500
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
Dahlheimer Distributing Monticello Community Center Sponsor ball tournament
Adopted by the City Council of Monticello this 26th day of April, 2010.
______________________________
Mayor Clint Herbst
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
5C. Consideration of accepting the 1st Quarter Financial Report (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Attached is the 2010 1st Quarter Financial Status Report. The report has little activity so
far, as more activity occurs during the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the year. Through the first
quarter the City is in good shape compared to budget and is very similar to last year’s
revenue and expenditure activity.
The only concerns through the 1st quarter of the year is that building permit revenue
compared to budget appears to be falling short and will need monitoring over the next
few months. Also interest earnings may be below budget as interest rates remain very
low and some of the City’s government securities with interest rates at 4% or above
continue to be called, which forces us to reinvest at lower rates or extend the length of
maturities to achieve similar rates.
All other revenue and expenditures appear to be in-line with budget amounts.
A1. Budget Impact: The quarterly reports have very little budget impact other than
staff time to prepare the report.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: The report takes staff a couple of hours to prepare, but
the hope is the new software system will reduce this time in the future.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept the 2010 1st quarter financial status report.
2. Do not accept the 2010 1st quarter financial status report.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City staff supports Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
2010 1st Quarter Financial Status Report
March Investment Schedule
2010 1st Quarter Financial Status Report
The finance staff continues to work to complete the 2009 audited financial report. The
goal is to have the report presented to the Council on June 14th in a workshop, similar to
last year’s presentation. This year’s audit process has been much smoother than last year,
with many of the issues discussed in previous years being cleared up.
Overall
The 1st quarter of the year is generally relatively slow, with the largest activity being the
February 1st bond payments, however due to workload the operating transfers related to
those bond payments wasn’t recorded until April this year. The City debt payment was
$5,151,084 for 2010 compared to $6,813,270 in 2009. Construction expenditures for
City projects and building permit activities generally don’t start up until the 2nd quarter.
On the revenue side of things, one of my concerns is interest earnings on investments.
While the 2010 budget has less funds budgeted for interest earnings, some of the City’s
investment at higher interests (4% or above) continue to be redeemed. The City can only
reinvest the funds at around 3%. So the City may fall short of its budget for interest
earnings. The other issue is still the State budget. So far no budget balancing proposals
at the State have cut into the City’s Utility Market Value Transition Aid, but the State
hasn’t balanced their budget yet either and until they do it is uncertain the City will
receive part or any of this aid.
The table below compares budget to actual revenue and expenditures for both 2009 and
2010 and as you can see both revenues and expenditures are below budget and below last
year’s actual.
Revenues: 2009 2009 % 2010 2010 %
Budget 1st QTR YTD Received Budget 1st QTR YTD Received
General Fund 7,157,601 514,907 7.19% 6,329,450 97,393 1.54%
Special Revenue Funds 6,632,144 2,308,191 34.80% 6,110,647 477,789 7.82%
Debt Service Funds 6,192,140 2,432,519 39.28% 6,064,497 12,983 0.21%
Capital Improvement Funds 4,495,643 0 0.00% 5,602,320 20,000 0.36%
Enterprise Funds 6,257,325 924,227 14.77% 8,620,167 894,492 10.38%
Total Revenues 30,734,853 6,179,844 20.11% 32,727,081 1,502,657 4.59%
Expenditures: 2009 2009 % 2010 2010 %
Budget 1st QTR YTD Spent Budget 1st QTR YTD Spent
General Fund 7,157,601 1,581,418 22.09% 6,329,450 1,278,148 20.19%
Special Revenue Funds 9,065,958 4,692,314 51.76% 7,521,338 526,424 7.00%
Debt Service Funds 9,134,080 6,940,458 75.98% 6,845,275 5,159,325 75.37%
Capital Improvement Funds 4,715,000 57,678 1.22% 4,289,220 -62,046 -1.45%
Enterprise Funds 7,960,546 1,626,487 20.43% 9,909,830 1,630,942 16.46%
Total Expenditures 38,033,185 14,898,355 39.17% 34,895,113 8,532,793 24.45%
The rest of this report will summarize the activity of each fund type.
General Fund
General Fund revenues for 2010 are for the most part very similar to revenues for 2009.
The exception is the transfer from other funds. In 2009 the $350,000 transfer was for the
land purchase for the possible new public works site. The land purchase in 2007 was
paid from the General Fund, but $350,000 was set aside in the Capital Revolving Fund
for this project, so the transfer uses those funds and reimburses the General fund for most
the land purchase.
2009 2009 % 2010 2010 %
Budget 1st QTR YTD Received Budget 1st QTR YTD Received
Property Taxes 5,272,397 0 0.00% 5,297,065 -26,580 -0.50%
Licenses & Permits 591,900 53,598 9.06% 296,650 19,981 6.74%
Intergovernmental Revenues 498,056 64,378 12.93% 114,801 43,712 38.08%
Charges for Services 383,950 26,276 6.84% 306,023 15,501 5.07%
Fines & Forfeits 750 35 4.67% 300 35 11.67%
Miscellaneous 291,452 20,620 7.07% 269,611 44,744 16.60%
Transfers from Other Funds 119,114 350,000 293.84% 45,000 0 0.00%
Total General Fund Revenues 7,157,619 514,907 7.19% 6,329,450 97,393 1.54%
The biggest concern right now is building permit revenue. In 2009 the City collected
$52,984 for building permits through the 1st quarter. In 2010 the City has collected
$16,910. As the weather has warmed up so has the building permit activity but staff will
need to monitor building permit activity over the next couple of months and, based on
revenues received, may request some sort of council action to adjust budgets accordingly.
On the expenditure side the City has spent 20% of its budget. While it may seem
reasonable to expect the City to have spent 25% of their budget a quarter of the way
through the year, the reality is the majority of expenses occur in the summer and fall of
the year. The table below compares 2009 and 2010 budget to actual expenditures by
department.
2009 2009 % 2010 2010 %
Budget 1st QTR YTD Spent Budget 1st QTR YTD Spent
General Government 1,441,244 373,615 25.92% 1,372,973 359,047 26.15%
Public Safety 1,977,997 469,185 23.72% 1,697,794 307,128 18.09%
Public Works 2,524,089 607,770 24.08% 2,275,156 456,398 20.06%
Miscellaneous 345,601 43,112 12.47% 165,593 40,189 24.27%
Parks 793,974 67,700 8.53% 744,590 96,713 12.99%
Economic Development 74,714 20,036 26.82% 73,344 17,043 23.24%
Total General Fd Expenditures 7,157,619 1,581,418 22.09% 6,329,450 1,276,518 20.17%
The general government department appears to be slightly over budget amounts (over
26% spent), but this is due to a one time expenditure for the Springbrook Software lease
purchase which was paid in the 1st quarter. The other reason is the City spent $36,289 for
the lobbying efforts on the nuclear storage issue, which was not budgeted. However,
over the course of the year I feel this department will end up close to budgeted amounts.
The public safety department has spent 18% of its budget, but only January and
February sheriff contract amounts have been paid to date and no capital equipment
expenditures have taken place for 2010. For now it would appear this department would
finish the year under budget.
The public works department has also spent 20% of their budget so far. So far none of
the expenditures are out of line for this time of the year. The Street Department is below
budget but that is because no equipment has been purchased for 2010 and the crake seal
and seal coat projects take place later in the summer. Again the expectation would be for
this department to finish the year at or below budget.
The budget for the miscellaneous department and the parks department appear to be
considerably below budget, but both of these activities have the majority of their
expenses in the spring, summer and early fall.
Finally, the economic development department has spent 23% of its budget due to the
payment of membership dues to various organizations that were due the first part of the
year.
In summary I believe the General Fund is on target to end the year at or below budgeted
expense amounts. I also believe revenues should also finish the year near budgeted
amounts with the exception of possibly building permits and interest earnings, which
staff will monitor closely the next few month to see if any adjustment need to be made to
City budgets due to revenue shortfalls.
Special Revenue Funds
Special Revenue Funds are funds which the uses of their revenues are restricted for
specific purposes by a governing body. The City currently operates 17 special revenue
funds, each with their own budget. Funds such as the Library, Shade Tree, Street
Reconstruction and Community Center all depend on a property tax levy to help support
their activities. The table on the following page compares each Special Revenue Fund’s
revenue budget to actual revenues for 2009 and 2010.
Special Revenue Funds 2009 2009 % 2010 2010 %
Budget 1st QTR YTD Received Budget 1st QTR YTD Received
Library Fund 38,225 437 1.14% 40,184 0 0.00%
Street Reconstruction Fund 541,104 294,972 54.51% 370,228 0 0.00%
Minn Investment Fund 32,884 0 0.00% 34,101 0 0.00%
EDA Fund 1,261,270 1,369,167 108.55% 1,253,752 5,774 0.46%
NSP Fund 0 0 0.00% 0 21,459 100.00%
Deputy Registrar Fund 282,460 72,190 25.56% 284,613 49,542 17.41%
Shade Tree Fund 50,134 0 0.00% 34,704 0 0.00%
Bertram Chain of Lakes Fund 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Community Center Fund 2,472,716 342,868 13.87% 2,325,490 366,003 15.74%
Park/Pathway Dedication Fund 286,634 0 0.00% 403,620 997 0.25%
OAA Fund 125 0 0.00% 291 0 0.00%
Capital Projects Revolving Fund 182,825 161,315 88.23% 283,089 25,570 9.03%
Grant Funding Fund 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Street Light Improvement Fund 251,275 67,242 26.76% 280,606 0 0.00%
Water Access Fund 149,007 0 0.00% 94,565 2,118 2.24%
Sanitary Sewer Access Fund 697,455 0 0.00% 494,883 5,073 1.03%
Storm Sewer Access Fund 386,030 0 0.00% 210,521 1,253 0.60%
Total 6,632,144 2,308,191 34.80% 6,110,647 477,789 7.82%
The Library, Street Reconstruction, and Shade Tree Funds major revenue source is
property taxes and transfers from other funds and the Community Center and EDA also
receives property taxes, which will not be received until July. In 2009 the transfers form
other funds were made during the first quarter which is why the Street Reconstruction
Fund, EDA, and Capital Project Funds all had significantly more revenue than 2010.
The main revenue source at the DMV is the fees from the sale licenses and permits,
which the City has only collected and recorded only January’s and February’s fees or
17% of its budgeted revenues. While the Community Center has collected 31% of its
membership fees and 29% of its activity related fees so far.
On the Expenditure side all funds have only spent 7% of their budget, but most of the
budget is for transfers to Debt Service Funds for their share of the 2010 debt payments.
These transfers were recorded at the beginning of April. How the actual expenditures
finish the year compared to budget will depend on various capital projects approved by
Council during the summer. The chart on the next page shows the Special Revenue
Funds budget to expenditures.
Budget to Actuals - Expenditures
-500,000
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
Lib
r
a
r
y
F
u
n
d
Str
e
e
t
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
ED
A
F
u
n
d
NS
P
F
u
n
d
De
p
u
t
y
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
r
F
u
n
d
Mi
n
n
I
n
v
e
s
m
e
n
t
F
u
n
d
Sh
a
d
e
T
r
e
e
F
u
n
d
Be
r
t
r
a
m
C
h
a
i
n
o
f
L
a
k
e
s
F
u
n
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
F
u
n
d
Pa
r
k
/
P
a
t
h
w
a
y
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
OA
A
F
u
n
d
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
R
e
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
Gr
a
n
t
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
Str
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
F
u
n
d
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
S
e
w
e
r
A
c
c
e
s
s
F
u
n
d
Sto
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
A
c
c
e
s
s
F
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
A
c
c
e
s
s
F
u
n
d
Budget 1st QTR YTD
Debt Service Funds
The City has made its debt payment for February, which generally included the principal
payment due for the year and only leaves an interest payment in August to be paid. On
the revenue side none of the transfers of City funds for the City share of debt payment
were made yet and the first half special assessments collection will take place in July.
Overall the City has outstanding debt of $63,328,000, which included the $26,445,000
the City has in escrow for the Telecommunications Revenue Bond. This number is high
for a City of our size, but it has a lot to due with the financing of the interchange project,
which still has bonds outstanding of $18,065,000 and the Telecommunication Revenue
Bonds listed above. I say this because the common tool for comparing debt from one
City to another is debt per capita and I often see these ranging from $700 to $1,500, but if
we used a population of 12,000 for Monticello, our debt per capita would be over $5,275.
But again you can point to the interchange, waste water treatment plant, fiber project, and
community center projects as good reasons to be high and does not mean the City is in
bad financial health. In fact last year the City had $68,610,293 in bonds outstanding and
a debt per capital of over $5,700.
The City’s next debt payment is due June 1st, 2010 for the fiber bonds in the amount of
$882,668, which is for interest only and then August 1st, 2010 in the amount of
$1,116,192, of which only $394,000 is for the retirement of bond principal and the
balance for interest.
Capital Project Funds
The 2010 budget did include revenue and expenditure budgets based on the 2010 budget
of the five-year capital improvement plan. However most of these activities take place in
the summer months due to Minnesota weather. The largest expenditure will be for the
2010 street reconstruction project if approved and the revenue source would be a bond
sale.
Enterprise Funds
The City has five Enterprise Funds that it operates. These are operations that the City
runs like a business activity. The City will bill first quarter water and sewer charges in
April. The Liquor and Cemetery Funds receive their revenues on a pretty consistent basis
throughout the year, with December for the Liquor Fund being its busiest period. Finally
the FiberNet Monticello Fund is still in the start up phases and has very little revenue
record to date. Below is the table of budget to actual for the Enterprise Fund revenues for
the past two years:
2009 2009 % 2010 2010 %
Budget 1st QTR YTD Received Budget 1st QTR YTD Received
Water Fund 973,375 0 0.00% 989,977 -9,118 -0.92%
Sewer Fund 1,485,950 7,403 0.50% 1,536,625 -16,309 -1.06%
Liquor Fund 3,742,000 920,041 24.59% 4,121,570 910,520 22.09%
Cemetery Fund 31,000 8,370 27.00% 24,221 1,450 5.99%
FiberNet Monticello Fund 25,000 1,806 0.00% 1,947,774 7,949 0.41%
Total 6,257,325 937,620 14.98% 8,620,167 894,492 10.38%
On the expenditure side there are no big surprises either. All the funds are below budget
and below actual spent last year at this time with the exception of FiberNet Monticello.
The FiberNet Monticello Fund has spent $588,754 to construct the fiber project and begin
operations.
Below are the expenses for the Enterprise Funds:
2009 2009 % 2010 2010 %
Budget 1st QTR YTD Spent Budget 1st QTR YTD Spent
Water Fund 1,165,368 95,720 8.21% 1,307,876 70,548 5.39%
Sewer Fund 2,402,754 421,779 17.55% 2,477,121 250,348 10.11%
Liquor Fund 3,714,926 913,226 24.58% 4,107,434 718,939 17.50%
Cemetery Fund 35,498 3,258 9.18% 39,169 2,353 6.01%
FiberNet Monticello Fund 642,000 192,504 0.00% 1,978,230 588,754 29.76%
Total 7,960,546 1,626,487 20.43% 9,909,830 1,630,942 16.46%
All of the City’s enterprise funds appear to be on pace to finish the year at or below
budgeted expenditures, with revenues covering all of the operations and some of the
depreciation of the system assets. The FiberNet Monticello Fund is the one exception,
where funds to complete construction and begin full operations will exceed revenues for
2010. However some of these costs will be offset from the revenue bond issued in 2008
and became available in 2009.
Investments
Finally, the City’s investment activity has been relatively minor. At the end of the March
the City had $24,794,704 invested at an average interest rate of 3.709% and an average
yield of 3.758%. This compares to $26,764,160 at an average interest rate of 4.21% and
average yield of 4.28% at the end of March 2009. The City is still having some of its
government securities with interest rates 4% or higher being called, which forces the City
to either reinvest at lower rates or extend out maturities. The breakdown of the City’s
investments is below:
Investments by Type
Money Markets
FHL
FHLMC
FFCB
FNMA
CD's
FHL = Federal Home Loan; Money Markets = Government Secur ity Money Market Funds; CD’s =
Certificate of Deposits; FNMA = Federal National Mortgage Association; FFCB = Federal Farm Credit
Bank; FHLMC = Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
All of these investments meet State and City investment requirements. Attached are the
investment holdings of the City as of March 31st.
Conclusion
Collection of revenues through March of 2010 is very similar to collection in 2009. The
major difference is the recording of operating transfers into funds from other City funds.
Another similarity to 2009 is the revenues received for building permits, which is below
anticipated levels again and will need to be monitored over the next couple of months.
However based on the first quarter of the year.
Expenditures are on target through the first quarter of the year to end the year and in most
cases below budgeted amounts. However for many departments, expenditure activity
picks up over the summer months.
Overall, I feel the City is in a good financial position through the first quarter of the year.
March Investment Schedule
Maturity 1st Call Purchase Days Interest Par Cost of Market Interest Interest
Date Date Date Held Bank Type of Invement Rate Yield Amount Investment Value Accrual Dates
30 4M Fund MMK 0.110%0.110%31,614.27 31,614.27 2.86 Monthly
30 4M Fund MMK+0.270%0.270%20,621.74 20,621.74 4.58 Monthly
30 FNC MMK (Dryfus)0.050%0.050%129,533.43 129,533.43 5.32 Monthly
30 RBC Dain Rauscher MMK 0.050%0.050%736,965.42 736,965.42 30.29 Monthly
30 CITI Smith Barney MMK 0.010%0.010%268,980.45 268,980.45 2.21 Monthly
4/26/10 4/25/07 1,081 CITI Smith Barney Western Bk Puerto Rico - PR 5.050%5.050%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,265.28 14,358.05 4/26 & 10/26
5/7/10 5/7/08 730 CITI Smith Barney CD Boston Private Bank & Trust 3.700%3.700%96,000.00 96,000.00 96,942.72 7,104.00 5/7 & 11/7
8/24/10 8/24/05 1,826 RBC Dain Rauscher Wachovia Bk - S&P 500 Index 95,000.00 95,000.00 94,886.00 0.00 8/24/10
10/22/10 4/23/08 912 CITI Smith Barney FirstBank of Puerto Rico 3.750%3.750%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,844.16 8,995.07 10/22/10
10/29/10 4/30/08 912 CITI Smith Barney Advanta Bank Corp UT 3.650%3.650%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,809.60 8,755.20 4/30 & 10/29
11/19/10 5/21/08 912 FNC Spirit Bank 3.950%3.950%99,000.00 99,000.00 101,429.00 9,770.89 Monthly
1/6/11 1/6/10 365 Wells Fargo CD Georgia Bank & Trust 0.600%0.600%245,000.00 245,000.00 1,470.00 1/6/11
2/15/11 2/15/06 1,827 CITI Smith Barney BMW Bk of North America 4.850%4.850%96,000.00 96,000.00 99,174.72 23,305.51 2/15 & 8/15
2/15/11 2/15/06 1,827 CITI Smith Barney Lehman Brothers Bk, FSB 4.900%4.900%96,000.00 96,000.00 99,228.48 23,545.78 2/15 & 8/15
2/17/11 2/17/06 1,827 CITI Smith Barney Fireside Bk 4.900%4.900%96,000.00 96,000.00 99,243.84 23,545.78 2/17 & 8/17
3/30/11 3/30/09 731 FNC Doral Bank 2.550%2.550%99,000.00 99,000.00 100,391.00 5,055.92 Monthly
5/19/11 11/19/04 2,373 FNC HSBC Bk NY - S&P 500 Index 92,000.00 92,000.00 98,679.00 0.00 5/19/11
9/12/11 3/11/09 915 CITI Smith Barney Keybank Nat'l Assoc - OH 2.600%2.600%96,000.00 96,000.00 96,960.00 6,257.10 Monthly
11/21/11 5/20/09 915 FNC R-G Premier Bank Puerto Rico 3.000%3.000%100,000.00 100,000.00 101,705.00 7,520.55 5/20 & 11/20
2/28/12 2/28/07 1,827 FNC Farmers Bk & Trust Great Bend S&P 500 Index 50,000.00 50,000.00 48,117.00 0.00 2/28/12
3/12/12 3/11/09 1,097 CITI Smith Barney American Express Centurion Bank 3.000%3.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,436.16 8,655.78 3/12 & 9/12
3/12/12 3/11/09 1,097 CITI Smith Barney American Express Bank FSB 3.000%3.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,436.16 8,655.78 3/12 & 9/12
3/19/12 3/18/09 1,097 FNC Branch Banking & Trust Comp 3.000%3.000%90,000.00 90,000.00 91,328.00 8,114.79 3/19 & 9/19
3/29/12 9/28/07 1,629 FNC Brentwood Bk Bethel PA - S&P 500 Index 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,000.00 0.00 3/29/12
4/2/12 4/2/09 1,096 CITI Smith Barney GE Capital Financial Inc 2.950%2.950%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,361.28 8,503.76 4/2 & 10/2
4/23/12 4/23/08 1,461 CITI Smith Barney National City Bank - OH 4.000%4.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 99,102.72 15,370.52 4/23 & 10/23
4/25/12 4/19/07 1,797 CITI Smith Barney Discover Bk - DE 5.100%5.100%96,000.00 96,000.00 101,470.08 24,104.42 4/25 & 10/25
4/30/12 4/30/08 1,461 CITI Smith Barney Banco Popular Bank of North America 4.150%4.150%96,000.00 96,000.00 99,451.20 15,946.92 4/30 & 10/30
5/14/12 5/13/09 1,097 Wells Fargo CD Midfirst Bank 3.050%3.050%95,000.00 95,000.00 96,333.80 8,708.38 5/14 & 11/14
5/14/12 5/13/09 1,097 Wells Fargo CD Acacia FSB 3.000%3.000%95,000.00 95,000.00 96,244.50 8,565.62 5/14 & 11/14
11/15/12 5/15/09 1,280 Wells Fargo CD Pinnacle Bank 2.700%2.700%95,000.00 95,000.00 95,131.10 8,995.07 Monthly
1/30/13 4/30/08 1,736 FNC Citizens First Savings Bank - DJIA Index 55,000.00 55,000.00 49,638.00 0.00 1/30/13
1/31/13 1/30/08 1,828 CITI Smith Barney Washington Mutual Bk NV 4.150%4.150%96,000.00 96,000.00 98,499.84 19,952.75 1/31 & 7/31
2/6/13 2/6/08 1,827 CITI Smith Barney Wachovia Bk FSB - TX 3.650%3.650%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,109.76 17,539.20 2/6 & 8/6
2/6/13 2/6/08 1,827 CITI Smith Barney Wachovia Mortgage FSB 3.650%3.650%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,109.76 17,539.20 2/6 & 8/6
2/15/13 5/15/08 2/15/08 1,827 FNC First Natn'l Bk Cent. Burlington 4.000%3.955%98,000.00 98,000.00 98,342.00 19,621.48 Quarterly
3/18/13 3/18/09 1,461 FNC Eurobank 3.350%3.350%90,000.00 90,000.00 91,497.00 12,068.26 Monthly
3/27/13 3/27/09 1,461 FNC Saehan Bank 3.250%3.250%90,000.00 90,000.00 91,193.00 11,708.01 Quarterly
4/30/13 4/30/08 1,826 CITI Smith Barney Capmark Bank UT 4.400%4.400%96,000.00 96,000.00 99,455.04 21,131.57 4/30 & 10/30
5/13/13 5/13/09 1,461 Wells Fargo CD Sallie Mae Bank 3.350%3.350%95,000.00 95,000.00 96,067.80 12,738.72 Monthly
5/15/13 5/15/09 1,461 Wells Fargo CD Citizens State Bank 3.100%3.100%95,000.00 95,000.00 95,423.70 11,788.07 Monthly
6/12/13 6/12/06 7/14/03 3,620 CITI Smith Barney FHLMC 4.000%4.186%385,000.00 385,000.00 406,055.65 152,734.25 6/12 & 12/12
12/30/13 12/30/08 1,826 CITI Smith Barney CD GE Money Bank 4.100%4.100%96,000.00 96,000.00 98,672.64 19,690.78 6/30 & 12/30
1/2/14 1/2/09 1,826 CITI Smith Barney CD Morgan Stanley Bank 4.250%4.250%96,000.00 96,000.00 98,290.56 20,411.18 Monthly
3/11/14 3/11/09 1,826 CITI Smith Barney CD CIT Bank - UT 3.450%3.450%96,000.00 96,000.00 96,377.28 16,569.07 3/11 & 9/11
11/28/14 11/28/07 2,557 CITI Smith Barney Capital One NA - VA 5.000%5.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 101,776.32 33,626.30 5/28 & 11/28
11/28/14 11/28/07 2,557 CITI Smith Barney Capital One Bk - VA 5.000%5.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 101,776.32 33,626.30 5/28 & 11/28
1/30/15 1/30/08 2,557 CITI Smith Barney Goldman Sachs Bk USA UT 4.000%4.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,084.80 26,901.04 1/30 & 7/30
2/9/15 2/8/08 2,558 CITI Smith Barney M & I Bank FSB NV 4.000%4.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,090.56 26,911.56 2/9 & 8/9
2/9/15 2/8/08 2,558 CITI Smith Barney Southwest Bk of St Louis MO 4.000%4.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,090.56 26,911.56 2/9 & 8/9
9/10/15 9/10/10 3/10/10 2,010 CITI Smith Barney FNMA 3.000%3.000%500,000.00 500,000.00 82,602.74 3/10 & 9/10
12/30/15 9/30/10 3/30/10 2,102 CITI Smith Barney FNMA 3.000%3.000%200,000.00 200,000.00 34,553.42 6/30 & 12/30
4/29/16 7/29/09 5/5/09 2,551 CITI Smith Barney FHLB 3.500%3.500%500,000.00 500,291.67 492,190.00 122,308.22 4/29 & 10/29
7/15/16 7/15/10 7/2/09 2,570 CITI Smith Barney FHLMC 4.000%4.000%400,000.00 400,000.00 399,448.00 112,657.53 1/15 & 7/15
12/29/17 6/29/10 12/29/09 2,922 CITI Smith Barney FHLB Step Up 3.000%3.000%800,000.00 800,000.00 778,856.00 192,131.51 6/29 & 12/29
9/24/18 9/24/10 3/24/10 3,106 CITI Smith Barney FHLMC Step up 3.000%3.000%700,000.00 700,000.00 178,701.37 3/24 & 9/24
9/24/18 9/24/10 3/24/10 3,106 CITI Smith Barney FHLMC Step up 3.000%3.000%300,000.00 300,000.00 76,586.30 3/24 & 9/24
2/1/19 1/20/10 3,299 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA Strip 5.241%5.241%407,988.21 407,988.21 193,264.12 2/1/19
2/25/19 2/25/10 3/9/09 3,640 CITI Smith Barney FHLB 4.500%4.500%350,000.00 350,612.50 348,687.50 157,068.49 2/25 & 8/25
4/23/19 7/23/09 4/23/09 3,650 CITI Smith Barney FHLMC Step up 3.000%3.000%250,000.00 250,000.00 243,020.00 75,000.00 4/23 & 10/23
4/23/19 7/23/09 4/23/09 3,650 CITI Smith Barney FHLMC Step up 3.000%3.000%500,000.00 500,000.00 486,040.00 150,000.00 4/23 & 10/23
7/15/19 1/15/10 7/15/09 3,652 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA Step Up 3.000%5.250%2,500,000.00 2,502,506.00 2,483,600.00 750,410.96 1/15 & 7/15
8/27/19 8/27/12 8/27/09 3,644 Wells Fargo FHL Step UP 3.000%3.000%200,000.00 200,000.00 197,938.00 59,901.37 2/27 & 8/27
3/18/20 10/8/07 4/20/04 5,812 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA - Invest Note 5.000%5.511%200,000.00 190,117.11 197,750.00 159,232.88 3/18 & 9/18
4/14/20 4/14/09 4/14/08 4,383 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA 5.000%5.014%2,000,000.00 1,997,500.00 1,982,500.00 1,200,821.92 4/14 & 10/14
4/15/21 4/15/10 4/15/08 4,749 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLMC 5.000%5.016%1,000,000.00 998,500.00 983,350.00 650,547.95 4/15 & 10/15
6/7/22 6/7/12 3/27/09 4,823 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA 5.780%5.000%585,000.00 639,119.15 618,668.51 446,794.79 6/7 & 12/7
6/15/24 6/15/10 6/25/09 5,469 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLMC 5.000%5.000%500,000.00 500,006.00 490,355.00 374,589.04 6/15 &12/15
8/13/24 8/13/10 8/13/09 5,479 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLB 5.125%5.144%1,000,000.00 998,006.00 995,000.00 769,311.64 2/13 & 8/13
2/15/25 2/15/11 2/25/10 5,469 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLMC Step up 4.000%5.082%1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 899,013.70 2/15 & 8/15
2/11/28 2/11/09 11/18/08 7,021 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA 5.500%6.019%525,000.00 501,942.46 501,537.75 555,428.42 2/11 & 8/11
11/13/28 11/13/14 2/25/09 7,201 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA 5.380%5.090%1,000,000.00 1,050,637.08 1,029,957.00 1,061,407.67 5/13 & 11/13
9/28/29 9/28/10 9/28/09 7,305 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA 5.400%5.294%500,000.00 506,477.13 489,065.00 540,369.86 3/28 & 9/28
3/15/30 3/15/06 3/21/05 9,133 FNC FNMA - Step Up 5.000%6.228%100,000.00 100,041.67 98,344.00 125,109.59 3/15 & 9/15
4/12/32 7/17/09 8,305 RBC Dain Rauscher FFCB 5.500%5.275%930,000.00 970,938.92 958,774.20 1,163,837.67 4/12 & 10/12
6/27/36 6/27/11 2/5/09 10,004 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLB 6.500%6.000%500,000.00 536,436.56 501,021.00 890,767.12 6/27 & 12/27
4/16/37 4/16/12 5/14/09 10,197 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLMC 6.000%5.625%1,000,000.00 1,057,172.67 997,998.00 1,676,219.18 4/16 & 10/16
2,691 Totals 3.709%3.758%24,794,703.52 25,005,008.44 19,782,621.35 13,455,456.90
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
1
5D. Consideration of a request for reapportionment of special assessments for River
City Extreme. (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Property owner Mark Parnell (L & P Ventures LLC) has requested that the City Council
consider a request to reapportion the special assessment on his properties at Jefferson
Commons 3rd. The special assessments are related to the infrastructure improvements.
There are two separate parcels affected by this requests. Each parcel has the same
amount assessed against the parcel with a current balance (after payable 2010) of
$201,428 each or a total of $402,856. The request is to rebate the payable 2010
assessments, add the 2010 principal and interest to the balance of the assessment, defer
the assessments for two years (2011 and 2012) and then re-spread the assessments over a
new 15 year term. For the rebate request, after the City receives the July and December
tax settlement, we would mail back their assessment amount because it is too late for the
County to abate them.
The current and new payment schedule, as prepared by the Finance Director is attached.
Using the data shown, this will reduce the annual payments for the property from
$66,108.47 to $0 in 2011. Over the term of the assessments, because of additional
interest (both from the deferral and the longer term), the City will collect $290,159.83
more than the original assessment and term.
The City did issue debt to finance this project so the impact to the City is having a cash
flow shortage in this bond fund in the short-term, but since the assessments are paid back
over a longer period than was originally planned and the City would collect more in
interest over the life of the assessments, it would more than make up for the short-term
cash shortage. The City does have the funds to loan to this bond fund until the cash
shortage is repaid.
A1. Budget Impact: By extending out the assessments, the City would be repaid
over a longer period for the cost of the improvements. However, by extending the
assessments over the life of the assessment, the property owner would pay more
in interest.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: There will be a small amount of staff time involved in
preparing the required assessment information for Wright County.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the reapportionment of remaining special assessment for
parcels 155-193-001020 and 155-193-001010 to a 15 year term at 5.5% interest,
with the 2010 special assessments rebated back to the property owners and added
to the balance of the assessments, which would then be deferred for two years
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
2
(2011 and 2012) and then levied over a new 15 year term beginning with taxes
payable 2013.
2. Motion to approve the reapportionment of remaining special assessment for
parcels 155-193-001020 and 155-193-001010 to something other than the terms
requested.
3. Motion to deny the reapportionment of remaining special assessment for parcels
155-193-001020 and 155-193-001010 to a 15 year term.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This request represents a significant policy decision for the City Council. There are a
number of special assessment projects which have been levied over the past ten years.
Each represents a substantial cost to the City in terms of bond repayment. The Council
will need to weight the precedent set by adjusting this assessment with the economic
conditions for the development community. The Council will need to consider the basis
of granting or not granting these requests as a whole and individually.
The inability of the property owner to pay the levied assessments also has a negative
impact on the City’s ability to make the bond payment. If by extending the assessment
out, it allows the property owner to continue to pay the property taxes and keep them
current, the City is better off receiving a partial payment compared to nothing.
Finally, the City has granted similar requests to reapportion special assessments over a
new longer term in the past. However, rebating current assessments or deferring
assessments that have already been certified has not been requested or done in the past.
It would appear that the request for the rebate and then reapportionment is a unique
situation relating to this property which is not likely to be requested by others.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Waiver of public hearing notice
Property Tax Statements – 2010
Assessment Reapportionment Illustration
L & P Ventures LLC (River City Extreme) Special Assessments
Current
Parcel: 155-193-001010
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
28111-2/3/4 10 yrs 2008 5.50%7 yrs 238,658.75 167,061.14 Principal 23,865.87 23,865.87 23,865.87 23,865.87 23,865.87 23,865.87 23,865.92 167,061.14
Interest 9,188.36 7,875.74 6,563.12 5,250.49 3,937.87 2,625.25 1,312.63 36,753.46
Total 33,054.23 31,741.61 30,428.99 29,116.36 27,803.74 26,491.12 25,178.55 203,814.60
Parcel: 155-193-001020
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
28111-2/3/4 10 yrs 2008 5.50%7 yrs 238,658.75 167,061.14 Principal 23,865.87 23,865.87 23,865.87 23,865.87 23,865.87 23,865.87 23,865.92 167,061.14
Interest 9,188.36 7,875.74 6,563.12 5,250.49 3,937.87 2,625.25 1,312.63 36,753.46
Total 33,054.23 31,741.61 30,428.99 29,116.36 27,803.74 26,491.12 25,178.55 203,814.60
Total All
Parcels 66,108.47 63,483.22 60,857.97 58,232.73 55,607.48 52,982.24 50,357.09 407,629.20
Rebate 2010 Special Assessments, Deferred for 2 years and New 15 Year Reassessment
Parcel: 155-193-001010
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
15 yrs 2011 5.50%15 yrs 167,061.14 167,061.14 Principal 0.00 0.00 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 224,194.40
2010 Special Assessments Rebated to Property Owners 34,366.86 Interest 11,078.54 11,687.86 12,330.69 11,508.65 10,686.60 9,864.55 10,686.60 9,864.55 7,398.42 6,576.37 5,754.32 4,932.28 4,110.23 3,288.18 2,466.14 1,644.09 822.05 124,700.12
201,428.00 Total 11,078.54 11,687.86 27,276.99 26,454.94 25,632.89 24,810.85 25,632.89 24,810.85 22,344.71 21,522.66 20,700.62 19,878.57 19,056.52 18,234.48 17,412.43 16,590.39 15,768.34 348,894.51
Parcel: 155-193-001020
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
15 yrs 2011 5.50%15 yrs 167,061.14 167,061.14 Principal 0.00 0.00 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 14,946.29 224,194.40
2010 Special Assessments Rebated to Property Owners 34,366.86 Interest 11,078.54 11,687.86 12,330.69 11,508.65 10,686.60 9,864.55 10,686.60 9,864.55 7,398.42 6,576.37 5,754.32 4,932.28 4,110.23 3,288.18 2,466.14 1,644.09 822.05 124,700.12
201,428.00 Total 11,078.54 11,687.86 27,276.99 26,454.94 25,632.89 24,810.85 25,632.89 24,810.85 22,344.71 21,522.66 20,700.62 19,878.57 19,056.52 18,234.48 17,412.43 16,590.39 15,768.34 348,894.51
Total All
Parcels 22,157.08 23,375.72 54,553.97 52,909.88 51,265.79 49,621.69 51,265.79 49,621.69 44,689.42 43,045.32 41,401.23 39,757.14 38,113.05 36,468.96 34,824.86 33,180.77 31,536.67 697,789.03
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
5F. Consideration of appointing a member to the Economic Development Authority
(EDA) to fill a vacancy (MB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Bob Viering resigned from the EDA at the beginning of the year. The term he was
serving is set to expire at the end of 2010. The EDA bylaws require five members and
two City Council representatives.
Staff published the EDA volunteer opportunity through several different venues
including: website, Chamber newsletter, City e-news, Chamber e-new, and word of
mouth. The City received two applications from interested citizens. The EDA
interviewed each candidate on Wednesday, April 14, 2010.
A1. Budget Impact: None
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the appointment of Tracy Hinz to the EDA to serve the
remaining term.
2. Motion to deny the appointment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff and the EDA recommend Alternative #1. Tracy Hinz works and lives in the
City of Monticello. She exhibited great intelligence, high motivation, and a strong desire
to get more involved in the community. Mrs. Hinz is excited to learn more about the
EDA and provide valuable input.
Since there are only eight months remaining on the open EDA term, Staff anticipates the
EDA will request Tracy be re-appointed to the EDA in 2011 to serve a full term (6 years).
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
EDA listing
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
5G. Consideration of adopting Resolution # 2010-30 approving Carcone Addition Final
Plat, approving the Carcone Addition development agreement, and reestablishing
drainage and utility easements. (AS, NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Chrysler Financial is requesting City approval of a final plat for the Carcone Addition, a
4 lot commercial subdivision located along TH 25 and Chelsea Road.
The final plat is a replat of existing property and is comprised of West Metro Buick
Pontiac GMC, the former Monticello Ford, the former Dunlo Motors (currently West
Metro expansion site), and the former Monticello Ford sales/storage lot. The submitted
preliminary plat indicates that the current 19 properties are proposed to be consolidated
into four (4) properties. The properties are located in the B-3, Highway Business District
and total approximately 14.17 acres.
The City Council approved the preliminary plat for the Carcone Addition on April 12th,
2010. At that time, the Council also approved an amendment to PUD.
In a public hearing on this agenda, the Council will be asked to vacate existing easements
related to the previously platted lots. Approval of this final plat, contingent on that
vacation, re-establishes new easements as shown on the submitted final plat. The City
Engineer has reviewed the final plat and has found that all required easements are shown.
The applicant will be asked to execute a development agreement for this addition. A
draft of the development agreement has been included for reference. The development
agreement includes the conditions as noted in the PUD approval. The development
agreement also provides detailed plan information for reference on approvals.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff review of the final plat has been completed and
costs for such review will be covered under the original application plan review
deposit. Staff will provide necessary support for final plat execution and
execution and recording of development agreement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the Final Plat of the Carcone Addition, a 4 lot subdivision,
with the condition that the applicant enter into a development agreement with the
City, that the applicant meet the conditions of approval of the Preliminar y Plat,
and provided that the Final Plat meets the requirements of the City’s Engineer.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
2
2. Motion to deny the Final Plat of the Carcone Addition, based on a finding that the
Final Plat is inconsistent with the approved Preliminary Plat, and other findings to
be identified by the City Council.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the Final Plat with the conditions noted in Alternative
#1. The plat provides for the transfer of the occupied property to the current user(s), and
further provides for a clean slate for the vacant property to be marketed to a new
occupant. As noted in the Preliminary Plat discussion, future use and of the two vacant
parcels (those formerly occupied by Monticello Ford and its off-site storage area) will
require new planning approvals prior to occupancy and development/redevelopment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A: Resolution 2010-20
Exhibit B: Proposed Final Plat, Carcone Addition
Exhibit C: Approved Preliminary Plat, Carcone Addition
Exhibit D: Draft Development Agreement
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-20
APPROVING FINAL PLAT - CARCONE ADDITION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 6, 2010, for the
consideration of the preliminary plat of the Carcone Addition; and
WHEREAS, after taking public comment, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the preliminary plat of the Carcone Addition to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and
approved the preliminary plat of the Carcone Addition on April 12, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the final plat of the Carcone Addition is consistent with the approved preliminary
plat.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA, that the final plat of the Carcone Addition, with drainage and utility easements as
required, is hereby approved contingent upon meeting all conditions of the subdivision
ordinance.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 26th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_______________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
5H. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-23 authorizing Final Payment to
Motzko Companies and accepting work for the Grading and Drainage
Improvements at the Monticello Middle School and A Glorious Church Ponds, City
Project No. 06C009 (2006-09C) (WSB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Grading and Drainage Improvement Project at the Monticello Middle School and A
Glorious Church ponds included providing improvements to these ponds to manage the
runoff rates from the I-94/CSAH 18 Interchange Project and to address existing drainage
issues. These improvements were identified in the City’s Surface Water Management
Plan.
The project was substantially completed in 2008 with establishment of most of the
restoration. At the time, the contractor disagreed with the proposed payment of certain
construction items that has led to the delay of final acceptance of the project. The
contractor had made claims for requesting additional payment for loading excess material
from the site. The project specifications indicated that loading the material was included
with payment for hauling the material off site. City staff and the City Engineer denied
the contractor’s claims for additional compensation, and the City Attorney has reviewed
the contract and believes the City’s position is justified. We have not heard from the
contractor since the fall of 2008, and he has not legally filed any claims. He has not
responded to subsequent letters we have sent him requesting to final the project.
The Council is being requested to accept the project as complete and approve final
payment to Motzko Companies, LLC in the amount of $7,255.11. The following
paperwork was requested from the contractor; however, these items have not been
received.
1. Satisfactory showing that the contractor has complied with the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding state income tax (IC134 forms).
2. Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the contractor by
reasons of the contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured (lien
waivers).
3. Consent of Surety to Final Payment certification from the contractor’s surety.
4. Two-year maintenance bond. It should be noted that the maintenance bond will
start and extend two years from the date of final acceptance of the project by the
City Council.
Attorney Jamnik recommends that the City move forward even if the above items are not
submitted by the contractor, to avoid the City having to pay into the state for the
abandoned property program.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
2
The final payment request represents the final quantities completed on the contract and
the release of the retainage on the contract. The final payment includes a deduction for
items that were not completed by the contractor, which include:
1. Repair of the bituminous pathway near the Middle School pond.
2. Ditch cleaning near the A Glorious Church pond.
3. Erosion repair and pipe replacement at the east end of the Middle School pond.
All punch list items assembled for this project have been completed except for the items
noted above, and WSB & Associates, Inc. is indicating the project is complete and ready
for final payment in accordance with the contract and City of Monticello Engineering and
Construction Standards.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to accept the improvements and authorize the final payment of $7,255.11
to Motzko Companies, LLC.
2. Do not accept the improvements and authorize final payment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the City Attorney recommend selecting Alternative No. 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution #2010-23
Letter from WSB & Associates, Inc
Copy of Construction Pay Voucher No. 5 (Final)
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-23
APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT AND ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR
GRADING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
MONTICELLO MIDDLE SCHOOL AND A GLORIOUS CHURCH PONDS
CITY PROJECT NO. 06C009 (2006-09C)
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract with the City of Monticello awarded to Motzko
Companies, LLC of Delano, Minnesota, the contractor has substantially completed the work for
the grading and drainage improvements at the Monticello Middle School and A Glorious Church
ponds, including other appurtenant work in accordance with the contract;
WHEREAS, the final payment includes a deduction for items that were not completed by the
contractor, which include:
1) Repair of the bituminous pathway near the Monticello Middle School pond.
2) Ditch cleaning near A Glorious Church pond.
3) Erosion repair and pipe replacement at the east end of the Middle School pond.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINESOTA
that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved and that the Mayor
and City Clerk are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract
subject to receipt of the following:
1) Satisfactory showing that the contractor has complied with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding state income tax (IC134);
2) Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the contractor by reasons of the
contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured (lien waivers);
3) Consent of Surety to Final Payment certification from the contractor’s surety; and
4) Two year maintenance bond to start and extend two years from the date of acceptance of the
project by the City Council.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 26th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
___________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
Council Agenda: 4/26/10
1
5I. Consideration of approving temporary on-sale liquor license for St Henry’s Church
for an event on June 25, 2010 (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Church of St Henry’s is requesting approval of application for a temporary on-sale
liquor license in conjunction with an event in their Church Gardens on June 25, 2010.
A1. Budget Impact: NA
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Minimal staff time to process application with State
Alcohol and Gambling Division for approval.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the application for a temporary liquor license for the Church of St
Henry’s for an event on June 25, 2010.
2. Do not approve the application for temporary liquor license.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 for approval of the application.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Application for temporary liquor license
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
7. Public Hearing – Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-18 to grant vacation of
drainage and utility easements for lots in Sandberg South and Plaza Partners Additions,
Petitioner: Chrysler Financial (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Council is asked to adopt a resolution vacating drainage and utility easements internal to the
lots of the proposed Carcone Addition.
The easements to be vacated are standard internal lot easements, which will be unnecessary at
the time of replatting.
The easements to be vacated are illustrated in the supporting data in green. All easements
shown in yellow will be maintained and are shown on the final plat, which is to be considered
for approval in a separate agenda item. Again, the vacation of easements is being requested
as part of the replatting of the site, which reconfigures portions of Sandberg South and the
Plaza Partners Addition from 19 lots to 4 lots.
The City Engineer has verified that the easements to be vacated are unnecessary based on the
final lot configuration for the Carcone Addition. As part of the final plat review and approval,
the City Engineer will verify that required public easements are in place.
It should be noted that a separate document providing cross access easements for Lot 1 and 2,
Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, is required under the approved conditions for the
Amended Planned Unit Development for the Carcone Addition.
Approval of the final plat and the vacation of easements are reciprocally contingent. Both
must be approved to proceed.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Requires only minor staff time for recording of vacation
documents.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution #2010-18 to grant vacation of drainage and utility
easements for lots in Sandberg South and Plaza Partners Additions, contingent on the
reestablishment of required easements with approval of the final plat of the Carcone
Addition.
2. Motion to deny adopting Resolution #2010-18 to grant vacation of drainage and utility
easements for lots in Sandberg South and Plaza Partners Additions, based on a finding
to be made by the City Council.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends vacation of the easements as proposed, contingent on the
reestablishment of required easements on the final plat of the Carcone Addition.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A: Resolution 2010-18
Exhibit B: Sandberg South, Proposed Easement Vacations
Exhibit C: Plaza Partners, Proposed Easement Vacations
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-18
VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY ACCESS EASEMENTS FOR
PROPOSED CARCONE ADDITION
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2010, the Monticello City Council called for a public hearing to
consider vacation of drainage and utility easements as described below, and;
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the vacation of drainage and utility easements over and across
the following described property was held on April 26, 2010 at 7 p.m. at the Monticello City
Council Chambers:
Parcel #1:
All drainage and utility easements over, under, and through Lots 1 and 2 of SANDBERG
SOUTH ADDITION, Wright County, Minnesota.
Parcel #2:
All drainage and utility easements over, under, and through Lot 1, Block 1; Lot 1, Block
2; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Block 3; Outlot A; Outlot B; and Outlot C of PLAZA
PARTNERS ADDITION, Wright County, Minnesota.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the above described drainage and utility
easements are vacated.
ADOPTED BY the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota this 26th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
__________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-21 granting a Cable
Franchise to the City of Monticello/FiberNet Monticello (JO, JJ, DP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the April 12th Council meeting, the City of Monticello called for a public hearing as
part of the process of granting a Cable Franchise for FiberNet Monticello to provide cable
television service. Council is asked to review the contents of the franchising proposal
submitted by FiberNet Monticello as required under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238.
The qualifications to be reviewed are as follows:
That the City has the legal, technical and financial qualifications necessary to
provide cable communications services to the citizens of the City at competitive
rates
That the proposed system will provide a mix, level and quality of programs and
services, including public, educational, governmental and institutional services,
that meets or exceeds those required of the incumbent provider
That the proposed system has customer service and system maintenance plans to
ensure the provision of high quality services to the subscriber
That the system design and proposed operation of a cable communication system
by FiberNet Monticello as proposed is in the best interests of the citizens of
Monticello
At this meeting, Council will be asked to adopt a resolution granting a Cable Franchise to
FiberNet Monticello and to schedule consideration of adopting a franchise ordinance and
agreement at the May 10th Council meeting. This is in compliance with MN Statutes
Chapter 238.
After adopting the resolution to grant a Cable Franchise to FiberNet, the City plans to
take the proposed ordinance and agreement to Sherburne Wright Cable Commission at
their May meeting. The agreement with the Cable Commission calls for review and
approval by the Commission prior to final adoption of the ordinance.
It should also be called to attention that MN Statutes state that: “No municipality shall
grant an additional franchise for cable service for an area include d in an existing
franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or less burdensome than those in
the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area served; (2) public, educational, or
governmental access requirements; or (3) franchise fees.”
A1. Budget Impact: The current ordinance (#420) is being used as a template, so
there should be only minimal costs associated with development and publication
of the new cable ordinance.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Minimal time with preparation and publication of
franchise ordinance.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
2
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution #2010-21 granting a Cable Franchise to FiberNet
Monticello and call for consideration of adoption of a Cable Franchise Ordinance
on May 10, 2010.
2. Motion to deny adopting the resolution.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 to grant the cable franchise. In order for FiberNet
Monticello to provide cable television service, they must meet the requirements for a
Cable Franchise under MN Statutes Chapter 238. Granting the cable franchise will allow
the City to have this reviewed and approved by the Sherburne Wright Cable Commission
and adopt a cable ordinance at the next Council meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-21
Council:
Copy of Letter of submission from FiberNet Monticello
Attachments to Letter of submission
1st & 2nd Notice of Intent for Cable Franchise
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-21
APPROVING THE AWARD OF A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO/FIBERNET MONTICELLO
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238 provides that the City may construct, purchase and
operate cable communications systems; and,
WHEREAS, the law further provides that any municipal system is subject to the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238 to the same extent as any nonpublic cable communication
system; and,
WHEREAS, the City has established a local telephone exchange and telecommunications
provider, FiberNet Monticello; and,
WHEREAS, FiberNet Monticello wishes to provide cable communications services as part of its
other telecommunications services; and,
WHEREAS, a resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello on April 12,
2010, calling for a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public hearing on April 26, 2010, affording reasonable
notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard with respect to all applications for a cable
franchise; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the contents of the franchising proposal submitted by
FiberNet Monticello as required by Chapter 238.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. by the City Council for the City of Monticello, that
the City Council finds:
1. That the City of Monticello, operating as FiberNet Monticello, has the legal,
technical and financial qualifications necessary to provide cable
communications services to the citizens of the City at competitive rates.
2. That the proposed system will provide a mix, level and quality of programs and
services, including public, educational, governmental and institutional services,
that meets or exceeds those required of the incumbent provider.
3. That the proposed system has customer service and system maintenance plans
to ensure the provision of high quality services to the subscriber.
4. That the system design and proposed operation of a cable communication
system by FiberNet Monticello as proposed is in the best interests of the
citizens of the City of Monticello,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Monticello hereby states it intent to grant a
cable franchise to FiberNet Monticello and will consider adoption of a franchise ordinance and
agreement with FiberNet Monticello on May 10, 2010.
ADOPTED BY the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota this 26th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
1
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-26 approving
proposed assessment roll for delinquent utility bills and certification to County
Auditor for 2011 payable tax year (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is again asked to adopt an assessment roll for utility billing accounts
which are delinquent more than 60 days and to certify the assessment roll to the County
Auditor for collection on next year's real estate taxes.
The delinquent utility accounts that are included with the agenda are accounts which
include Quarter 3 and 4 of 2009, that are at least 60 days past due and include all new
delinquents from the last time we certified them. In addition to the delinquent amount,
the Council also previously approved the establishment of an administrative fee of $50
per account that is added to each delinquent assessment. The amounts shown on the
enclosed delinquent utilities list do not include the additional $50 administration fee for
the preparation of the assessment roll.
The delinquent utility amounts being certified now are slightly below previous
certifications at this time period, and the number of properties being certified are very
similar to past delinquent utility certifications.
It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment roll for
certification at an interest rate of 6% as allowed by state statute. As in the past, if any
accounts are paid within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll, they can be
paid without the additional interest. After 30 days, payments will be charged interest.
A1. Budget Impact: Certification of delinquent utility accounts is collection of
revenue the City should have received in 2009 and 2010 but because of the non-
payment these monies will not be collected until 2011 when it will appear on the
tax rolls.
A2. Staff Workload: The process for collecting delinquent utility amounts is time
consuming with preparing and mailing delinquent notices; preparing and mailing
notices of the public hearing on the assessment of delinquent notices as well as
other clerical work in preparing the amounts for certification. The most time
consuming step of the process is verifying the delinquent account data against
Wright County property tax records. The $50 fee that is added to the delinquent
accounts helps defray the cost of staff time and publication expenses.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution #2010-26 approving the assessment roll for the
delinquent charges as presented.
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
2
2. Motion to adopt Resolution #2010-26 with adjustments to the assessment roll,
based on input at the public hearing.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1, that the Council adopt the assessment roll as presented.
All of the accounts are at least 60 days past due and have been given proper notice of this
assessment hearing and ample opportunity to pay the accounts in full. All utility
accounts were notified that there would be an additional $50 administrative fee attached
to each outstanding balance if the account was not paid by the end of business on April
23, 2010.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution #2010-26
Complete listing of delinquent accounts to be certified
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-26
ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR DELINQUENT UTILITIES
THROUGH QUARTER 3 AND 4, 2009
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and
heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for delinquent utility account
Charges;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessments, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is
hereby accepted, for the amount shown plus an additional $50 certification fee, and shall
constitute the special assessments against the parcels named herein, and each tract of land
therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable in the tax year of
the first Monday in January 2011, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first
installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this
resolution until December 31, 2011.
3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time up to November 30, 2010, pay
the whole of the assessment on such property to the City Treasurer, with interest accrued
to the date of payment, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution.
4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certification of this assessment to the county auditor
to be extended on the property tax list of the county. Such assessment shall be collected
and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 26th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
___________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
10. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-19 calling for a Public Hearing on
vacating a portion of Minnesota Street, Petitioner: Renae Hauge (BW, AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello has received a petition requesting the vacation of a portion of
Minnesota Street at West River Street. The right of way lies directly adjacent to the west
to property at 525 West River Street and runs north from West River Street to the
Mississippi River.
Per State Statute, the City Council is required to call for a hearing on vacations of City
right of way.
This vacation request also requires additional notification procedures and time due its
location along the Mississippi River. Statute specifies that a 60-day notice must be given
to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources if the street or any part
thereof terminates at, abuts upon, or is adjacent to any public water. This notification
will require that a hearing date be set no earlier than June 26th, 2010.
In considering whether to call for the hearing, Council should be aware that the property
owner and the City Engineer previously discussed the easement vacation request and that
the City Engineer said in his opinion the City should not grant any right-of-way or
easement vacation requests for properties fronting the Mississippi River. This is because
we were recently informed that the MPCA may soon require municipalities to treat
previously untreated stormwater runoff before discharging it into waters of the state, such
as the Mississippi River. And since most of our stormwater runoff in the core area of
Monticello is currently untreated, we will then be required to find properties along the
river that are capable of holding the required stormwater improvements, and that have
sufficient access to allow us to maintain them. Given this fact, coupled with the current
lack of direction from the MPCA on what they will consider to be allowable methods of
stormwater treatment, it is the City Engineer’s opinion that we should retain all of our
currently owned properties along the Mississippi River until we know more about what
the MPCA’s direction will be. Once we know what our options are, we can then make an
informed decision on which properties we should hold onto, and which could be vacated.
Should the City Council choose to call for a hearing, the following actions will then be
taken:
1. A notice of hearing will be sent to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural
Resources. This 60-day notification is required by Statute. Unfortunately, upon
review of statute, the City cannot send this notice via certified mail until Council has
called for the hearing.
2. The applicant will be required to provide a certificate of survey, delineating the area
to be vacated. The survey will provide the exact legal description of the portion of
Minnesota Street right of way to be vacated.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
2
The survey will also identify ordinary high water elevations in relationship to the
Mississippi River. This information is needed for verification that any building
permits will comply with State Shoreland, Floodplain and Mississippi Wild & Scenic
regulations.
It is staff’s recommendation that if Council decides to vacate any of the roadway
right-of-way as requested, that the area to be vacated follow a straight line from River
Street to the Mississippi River. The area should also be wide enough to
accommodate the proposed accessory structure and the required side yard setbacks.
The survey should be received by the City for review no later than May 21st, 2010.
3. Once a survey and legal description has been provided, the City will mail the required
notices to affected property owners. This is also required per statute.
A1. Budget Impact: If Council calls for the public hearing, Council will consider
two items. The first will be whether to vacate that portion of right-of-way as
requested. The second item will be consideration of sale of City property. The
City is the fee title property owner of the Minnesota Street right of way. This can
be verified with the certificate of survey process.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Should Council call for a hearing, staff will issue
public notice in accordance with State statutes and complete a review and analysis
of the petition for vacation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to call for a public hearing for the vacation of a portion of Minnesota
Street on Monday, June 26th, 2010.
2. Motion to deny calling for a public hearing for the vacation of a portion of
Minnesota Street on Monday, June 26th, 2010.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff does not recommend calling for a public hearing on this matter.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-19
Exhibit A – Petition for Vacation
Exhibit B – Aerial Site Image
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-19
CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATING A PORTION OF
MINNESOTA STREET
WHEREAS, a petition signed by the landowner abutting a portion of Minnesota Street in the
City of Monticello was received by the City Clerk on the 2nd day of April, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the petition requested that the Monticello City Council pursuant to Minnesota
Statute 412.851, consider the vacation of a portion of Minnesota Street lying between West River
Street and the Mississippi River, and adjacent to the abutting property legally described as: Lot1,
Block 57 and that part of Lot 2, lying and being northwesterly of a line parallel to and 15 feet
northwesterly of southeasterly line of Lot 2; also that part of Lots 9 and 10, Block 57, lying and
being northwesterly of a line parallel to and 48 feet northwesterly of southeasterly line of Lots 9
and 10; in the Original Plat of Monticello; and
WHEREAS, a copy of said petition is attached hereto.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. The Council will consider the vacation of said portion of Minnesota Street and a
public hearing shall be held on such proposed vacation on the 28th day of June, 2010,
before the City Council in the Council Chambers located at the Monticello
Community Center at 7 p.m.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give published, posted and mailed notice of such
hearing as required by law.
ADOPTED BY the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota this 26th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
11. Consideration of adopting a Business Expansion Incentive Pilot Program. (AS/JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In September of 2009, the City Council appointed a task force to review current building
and development charges for the purpose of providing recommendations for possible
adjustments relative to the 2010 fee schedule adoption.
On January 11th, 2010, the City Council reviewed and approved a general set of policies
resulting from task force direction. A copy of that report and Council minutes are
attached for reference.
One of the policies adopted was to research development of a Business Expansion Pilot
Program featuring financial incentives supporting business expansion by existing
businesses within the City.
The task force and staff held a follow-up meeting on this item in mid-March, resulting in
the development of a general outline for a pilot Business Expansion Incentive Program.
Ideas expressed at that meeting are incorporated in the proposal currently being
presented. The next step is to discuss the draft proposal, and provide staff with direction.
In recommending this program, the task force cited goals of encouraging the growth and
vitality of local businesses, building tax base, and developing employment opportunities.
In examining the need for a program of this type, the task force noted that for various
reasons, some expansion projects may not qualify for subsidy under current City or EDA
programs, such as TIF or GMEF.
The task force and staff have outlined the following considerations as a starting point for
Council. It is staff’s intention to receive firm Council direction on each of these items, if
Council wishes to continue moving forward.
PROPOSED PILOT PROGRAM OUTLINE
1) Review and Approval by the City Council
It is recommended that as this would be a subsidy given by the City, the Council
should individually review and approve each application for the program. In any
approval, the Council will also make a finding of fact related to the public
purpose achieved through application of the subsidy.
Council will note that if adopted, all applicants approved for subsidy under this
program will be required to enter into a Business Subsidy Agreement.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
2
2) Duration and Funding
It is proposed that the pilot project run for one year and then be brought back for
review and measurement.
It is proposed that the pilot project through 2010 be funded by the Liquor Fund
(see Budget Item below) and be informally capped at $30,000. Future funding
for this economic development tool should be made on an annual basis and
incorporated into the budget process.
3) Other City Assistance
The development of this pilot program would be in addition to the financial tools
already available through the EDA, which include the Small Cities loan program,
the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund and the potential use of TIF. Any and all
of these programs could be combined with the pilot program, depending on the
type of project.
In the alternative, Council could elect to exclude any project already receiving
these other forms of City assistance.
4) Proposed Application Criteria
The following preliminary criteria are proposed by the task force and staff. Any
reduction or waiver of fees or charges would be based on a project’s ability to
meet one or more of the following criteria.
1. Must be an existing business operating within the current municipal boundary
of the City of Monticello at the time of application, seeking to expand at their
current location or relocate within Monticello with expansion. May include
home-based businesses expanding to commercial/industrial properties.
Program may not be extended to institutional or semi-public uses.
2. The project involves a square footage expansion to an existing building.
3. The project involves utilization of commercial or industrial space previously
unoccupied for three months or more.
4. The project involves modifications resulting in a building valuation increase.
5. The project creates new jobs or supports job retention.
6. The project supports redevelopment/revitalization efforts within the CCD
District. (Please note that if Council directs that projects must meet all
criteria, it would be limiting the program to the CCD zoning district by
adopting this criteria.)
In determining the amount of waiver or subsidy, the Council may choose to
require that the applicant meet all, select, or a majority of the requirements. For
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
3
example, all applicants must be required to meet criteria 1, but could be asked to
meet either criteria 2 or 4. The Council may direct that they need not meet both.
It should be noted that many of these criteria are consistent with the Goals and
Objectives specified under the Business Subsidy Criteria adopted previously by
the EDA and City Council.
5) Suggested Subsidy
Staff offers the following potential fees/charges for reduction or waiver.
All Building Permit plan review/check fees and;
All Planning application plan review fees (including planning, engineering
and legal costs), as applicable up to $5,000.
If Council wishes to put a cap on the total dollars in the program, it might also
make sense to place a cap or a max amount offered on a project basis. That way
one or two projects would not take all available funds, leaving some left over for
smaller projects.
Trunk and access fees are not suggested as eligible for funding via this program
for the following reasons:
It is important to maintain a healthy fund balance in trunk and access fund
accounts. It could become difficult to replacing trunk or access funds
spent via this subsidy with use of general funds.
Many projects / properties intended to benefit from this program, such as
projects affecting existing developed parcels, would not be required to pay
a trunk fee in the first place.
Under policies adopted on January 11th, 2010, the City currently allows
payment of trunk and access fees over time via assessment.
TIF can be used to fund payment of trunk fees.
Building inspection fees and base planning application fees are not suggested for
funding via this program as these costs directly cover other expenses incurred by
the City (fuel, vehicle maintenance, postage, notice publication, etc.) .
It is instead recommended that Council consider reduction/waiver of review fees
only, as these relate directly to staff costs. In most cases, the fees for these two
items will amount to less than 1% of total project costs.
Council can also consider reductions based on a tiered scale. For example, the
fees would be reduced in proportion to the number of criteria met, the valuation
increase, or the number of jobs created.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
4
Following are examples of projects completed in recent years that would have
been eligible for the program, and the associated subsidy that would have been
granted under the program above:
2006
Dahlheimer’s relocation and expansion
Planning Application plan review fees: $0
Building Permit plan review fees: $8,135.86
2007
Moon Motors relocation and expansion
Planning Application plan review fees: $656.73 (variance)
Building Permit plan review fees: $4,678.56
Cargill Kitchen Solutions
Planning Application plan review fees: $638.11 (CUP)
Building Permit plan review fees: $540.01
Sixth Street Station/Seluemed remodel
Planning Application plan review fees: $596.18 (CUP)
Building Permit plan review fees: $4,265.13 (6 separate permits)
2008
Pizza Man expansion
Planning Application plan review fees: $857.28 (variance)
Building Permit plan review fees: $76.65
2009
DJ’s Heating & Air remodel
Planning application plan review fees: $0
Building Permit plan review fees: $211.70
A1. Budget Impact: It will be critical that the City Council assign a funding source
to cover the review costs if the program is adopted.
Generally based on previous activity, the proposed cap of $30,000 would be
sufficient for a substantial pilot program. An actual total annual estimate is
difficult to obtain based on past applications without understanding the criteria the
Council will assign.
These recommendations obviously represent potential cost to the City. There will
be staff costs involved in the review of pending planning application and building
permit applications, even if waived. As these costs will still be incurred, they
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
5
would instead come from an alternate funding source, rather than being paid by
the applicant.
Some possible funding sources include the Liquor Fund (current cash balance
$2,387,812), Consolidated Bond Fund (cash balance $1,614,141, which could be
needed to fund Bertram Chain of Lakes purchase), Capital Project Revolving
Fund (cash balance $372,852, which were funds set aside for future equipment
purchases), or General Fund (cash balance $5,597,382). It would be staff’s
recommendation to use Liquor Funds as the money used could be replenished
over time through liquor store profits. The other funding sources listed are one
time, finite sources which once used, they are gone for good.
As noted above, Council may elect to set aside funds as a pilot allocation and
reevaluated for continuation once the fund is depleted and/or at the end of 2010.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff workload requirements would involve the intake
of program applications, development of staff reports on each for Council review,
and final drafting and administration of Subsidy Agreements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision1: Adoption of Program
1. Motion to adopt a Business Expansion Pilot Program for 2010 as defined by the
City Council relative to items 1-5 above, and to direct staff to prepare required
application and agreement materials. The program will be reviewed for
continuation in January of 2011.
The motion is based on the finding that provision of financial resources for review
of expansion projects by existing businesses serves a public purpose by
supporting the growth and vitality of local businesses, building of tax base, and
development of employment opportunities.
2. Motion to deny adoption of a Business Expansion Pilot Program.
3. Motion to table for further review and discussion by the City Council.
Decision 2: Funding
1. Motion to draw from the Liquor Fund for 2010 and to cap the subsidy level at
$30,000 for 2010.
2. Motion of other.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
6
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The information and considerations presented are only those of the development fee task
force and staff resulting from preliminary discussion.
It is recognized that these are policy decisions for the City Council. Staff will provide
additional research and information as needed by the full City Council to make their final
decision.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A: Staff Report, January 11th, 2010
Exhibit B: City Council Minutes, January 11th, 2010
Exhibit C: Business Subsidy Criteria
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
12. Consideration of approving a request for subsidy under the proposed Business
Expansion Incentive Pilot Program (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Should the City Council adopt a Business Expansion Incentive Pilot Program, this item
would be considered as the first program request. Should Council elect not to adopt the
overall program, Council may choose to consider this request independently.
Property owner Marn Flicker has submitted a request to the City Council for
consideration of a reduction in costs associated with a proposed remodeling and
revitalization project at his property located at 211 Pine Street.
As described in his letter of request, Mr. Flicker is proposing to remove the outdated
warehouse north of the primary building, creating another building access and parking
area. The project also includes interior remodeling that will create a clinic/professional
space, intended to serve the relocation of an existing Monticello business. The new
tenant will relocate from a 2200 sq. ft. office to this 4000 sq. ft. area and add three full-
time positions to his existing staff.
The applicant’s letter also addressed the 3rd Street parking area, which will be considered
by Council as part of approval of the Plans & Specifications for the West River Street
Reconstruction in a separate and future item.
Mr. Flicker’s letter requests “reducing all City Fees”. With the previous item, staff will
have more information on which fees the Council is interested in reducing as part of the
program and whether reductions are handled on a sliding scale or straight waiver.
Based on the project concept and estimates provided by the applicant, the following
permits and costs would be applicable to the project.
Demolition Permit: $200
Grading Permit: No permit required if grading completed with building permit
Building Permit: $1,000 (includes both inspection and plan review)
Sign Permit: $80
There may also be an excavation permit required if work is completed in the right of
way. That permit can range from $50 to $150 based on the number of utility drops and
excavation required.
The following is information on how the request performs in relationship to the criteria
described in the pilot program item.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
2
1. Must be an existing business operating within the current municipal boundary
of the City of Monticello.
The business to be relocated into the remodeled 211 Pine Street site is an
existing Monticello business.
2. The project involves a square footage expansion.
The proposed project does not include a square footage expansion.
3. The project involves modifications resulting in a building valuation increase.
The project includes interior and exterior remodeling that will likely result
in a valuation increase. The increase will be determined based on final
building submittals.
4. The project creates new jobs.
The request letter indicates that three new jobs will be created with the
relocation and expansion project.
5. The project supports redevelopment/revitalization efforts within the CCD.
Meets criteria.
6. The project represents the adaptive reuse of blighted or vacant property.
Meets criteria; remodeling will create occupancy in a currently vacant space
(may/will result in vacancy of the current 2,200 space) and will include
demolition of a cold storage facility on the north side of the property.
7. The project is receiving other City and/or EDA assistance.
Mr. Flicker has met with Economic Development Director Megan Barnett.
A preliminary TIF analysis was completed and although TIF is an option,
over the life of the district, this assistance would likely not generate enough
increment to justify the initial investments costs for creation of a new
district. Ms. Barnett has also provided Mr. Flicker with other alternatives,
including GMEF, which Mr. Flicker is considering at this time.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
3
A1. Budget Impact:
The previous item outlines identifies possible fees for consideration of waiver and
potential sources of funds for a potential waiver or reduction. Any approval will
be based on that Council discussion.
A2. Staff Workload Impact:
Staff workload requirements related to the request would require the drafting and
execution of a Business Subsidy Agreement between the City and applicant.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve a Business Expansion Incentive Subsidy for 211 Pine Street, to
include a reduction in applicable fees of ________ (to be specified by Council)
and to direct preparation of a Business Subsidy Agreement.
2. Motion to deny a Business Expansion Incentive Subsidy for 211 Pine Street.
2. Motion to table for further review and discussion by the City Council.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of this request likely depends on the outcome of Council’s decision on the
overall policy for subsidy as related to City fees. If Council adopts the Business
Expansion Incentive Program, this application does meet a majority of the proposed
criteria. The amount of subsidy would also depend on the pilot program’s review and
discussion.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A: Property Owner Request
Exhibit B: Aerial Site Image
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
1
13. Consideration of adopting Resolution No. 2010-24 approving final Plans and
Specifications and authorizing advertisement for Bids for 2010 Street
Reconstruction, City Project No. 10C001 (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On February 22nd Council authorized the preparation of final Plans and Specifications for
the 2010 Street Reconstruction project, including both Area 4A and Prairie Road as
defined in the City’s Overall Street Reconstruction Program as approved by Council on
February 9, 2004. The streets identified for reconstruction with this project include:
Area 4A
West River Street – Chestnut Street to Pine Street (TH 25)
Front Street – Linn Street to Locust Street
Chestnut Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Elm Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Vine Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Minnesota Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Maple Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Linn Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to Front Street
Locust Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to Front Street
Walnut Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to Front Street
Prairie Road
Prairie Road – Nicholas Circle to Broadway (CSAH 75)
Council will note that the reconstruction of Walnut Street between West River and Front
Street was added to the project following Council approval of the Feasibility Report. It
was just recently determined that this segment of Walnut Street was last constructed at
the same time the other streets that are proposed for reconstructed were, and as such is in
the same condition and needs to be reconstructed. This segment of Walnut Street was not
previously identified for reconstruction, and knowing that the angled parking stalls for
West Bridge Park were fairly recently installed it was assumed that the reconstruction of
Walnut Street itself would have been addressed at the time the parking stalls were added
and that no further work should be needed at this time. This is obviously not the case
however, and staff feels it is important to reconstruct this segment of Walnut Street
during the project.
The final plans and specifications address improvements related to pavement, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, watermain, and other appurtenant work.
The various optional improvements that were previously reviewed and approved by
Council are also included in the plans. A summary of the proposed improvements for
each of the two project areas follows.
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
2
Area 4A Improvements
Streets
All streets are proposed to be reconditioned at their current width, allowing for the reuse
of existing curb and gutter wherever conditions allow, and where utility construction will
not require the curb and gutter to be removed and replaced. This will also reduce the
need to restore boulevard turf behind all sections of curb and gutter remaining in place.
On-street parking availability will remain as is, except on the two Municipal State-Aid
System (MSAS) streets where parking will be prohibited on one side of the street which
will allow us to remain eligible to receive state-aid funding for this project. This will
result in parking being prohibited on the north side of West River Street from Pine Street
to Elm Street, and on the west side of Elm Street from Broadway to West River Street.
Sidewalks
No sidewalk improvements are proposed for area 4A.
Utilities
Existing sanitary sewer will be replaced where there are significant dips and deficiencies
in the pipe warranting replacement. Existing trunk sanitary sewer that is left in place will
be slip-lined, which will increase the strength of the existing vitrified clay pipe. Slip
lining will also seal the pipe and aid in preventing the infiltration of groundwater into our
sewer system. Infiltration of groundwater into the sewer system eventually gets treated at
the wastewater treatment facility, which increases the operational costs at the facility. All
the sanitary sewer was televised to allow us to determine which pipe needed replacing,
and which pipe could remain in place. Multiple sanitary sewer services will also be
repaired or replaced to reduce groundwater intrusion.
The plans also include replacing the pumps, piping and control panel, as well as
waterproofing the existing valve vault at the Chestnut Lift Station.
Existing trunk watermain will be left in place wherever practical to reduce costs. The
existing watermain is primarily cast iron pipe, which is much more brittle than ductile
iron pipe. Ductile iron pipe is our current standard for all new construction. The existing
watermain and services will be replaced wherever we are replacing the adjacent trunk
sanitary sewer. In addition, all hydrants and valves are being replaced due to their age.
The existing storm sewer was also televised, and except for some isolated areas needing
repair work, most of the existing sewer and structures will remain in place. There are
multiple areas where the storm sewer will need replacement where it crosses the sanitary
sewer that is being replaced. A new trunk line will be added under Front Street from
Locust to Linn Street to allow us to drain a low point in a yard south of Front Street that
often holds water for extended periods of time in the spring and after rain events. The
new trunk line will also allow us to remove the storm sewer outlet to the river at Locust
Street by combining it with the Linn Street outlet, which needed to be improved anyway.
Improvements to the storm sewer outlets at Walnut and Minnesota Streets are also
needed.
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
3
Optional Improvements
Optional improvements addressed in the plans include:
Chestnut Street sanitary sewer lift station wet well replacement
Walnut Street connection to West River Street
Walnut Street parking lot reconstruction
Third Street parking lot reconstruction, including the addition of two enclosed,
common-use dumpsters
It should be noted that the West Bridge Park pathway lighting improvements and the TH
25 pedestrian underpass improvements are no longer included as optional improvements
with this project. It was determined that it would be more cost-effective to bid these
improvements outside of the larger project since there was no other related work being
proposed with the 2010 Street Reconstruction project. Staff will therefore be requesting
Council authorization to complete these improvements at a future Council meeting.
Regarding the Third Street parking lot reconstruction, the plans include a provision for
constructing two enclosed, common-use dumpsters in the outer two islands between the
parking lot and the concrete alley per the requests of the local businesses.
Prairie Road Improvements
Streets
The plans show Prairie Road being converted from a 24-foot wide rural section with
drainage ditches to a 32-foot wide urban section with curb and gutter and storm sewer,
which will outlet to the large stormwater holding pond north of Prairie Road and west of
the railroad tracks.
Sidewalks
The plans include a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Prairie Road,
which will be an extension of the existing sidewalk that terminates west of Hedman Lane.
This sidewalk will provide residents living in the local developments a direct, off-street
connection to the pathway along the south side of CSAH 75.
Utilities
The existing sanitary sewer and watermain will be left in place as no repair work is
recommended at this time, except for the replacement or relocation of two hydrants and
valves, and miscellaneous structure and casting adjustments.
Since the street is being converted from a rural to an urban section, new storm sewer
trunk and lateral lines will be required throughout the length of the project as is shown in
the plans. This will impact a small wetland area south of Prairie Road and west of Kevin
Longley Drive, but it is anticipated that this impact will be small and will not require
wetland mitigation efforts.
An additional improvement shown in the plans includes required improvements to the
BNSF railroad crossing on Prairie Road west of CSAH 75. BNSF recently informed the
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
4
City that they will require surface improvements to be completed with the sidewalk
crossing, and that they will have their contractor do the work in the amount of $10,352,
which the City will then be required to compensate them for.
Optional Improvements
The Par West Park parking lot is shown in the plans as an optional improvement with the
addition of curb and gutter to help prevent unwanted vehicular access to the park.
A1. Budget Impact: At the time this agenda item was prepared, staff was still
working on completing the plans and cost estimate. The final cost estimates will
therefore be presented to the Council during the meeting. The cost estimates for
the two proposed project areas as defined in the Feasibility Reports were as
follows:
Area 4A
Base project (streets and utilities) = $2,898,450*
Optional improvements;
o Chestnut St. lift station wet well replacement = $137,600
o Walnut Street connection to West River Street Not addressed in
Feasibility Report.
o Walnut St parking lot reconstruction = $135,600
o Third St. parking lot improvements = $160,000 (not included in
the Feasibility Report)
* Base cost does not include reconstructing Walnut between West River and
Front St.
Prairie Road
Base project (street, sidewalk and utilities) = $652,400
Optional and/or additional improvements;
o Par West Park parking lot reconstruction = $16,000
o BNSF RR crossing improvements = $10,352
Due to the existing low bond rates staff recommends using bonds to fund the
entire project. Bond payments would then be made using the appropriate funds.
It should be noted that the Finance Director was just notified last week that the
City’s bond rating was lowered 2 grades, which will reduce our bond rates even
lower than previously assumed.
Again, the bidding environment for street improvement projects has been
favorable over the last couple of years due to the economy and bid prices have
been coming in around 20% less than similar projects constructed several years
ago. All indications are that this favorable bidding environment will continue in
2010 which will likely result in significant savings for the City if we move ahead
with this project in 2010.
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
5
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Engineering and Public Works staff spent a
considerable amount of time working with WSB and Associates to prepare plans
and specifications for this project, and staff will continue to spend a fair amount
of time working on the project during its construction. WSB and Associates
prepared the plans and specifications and will provide overall project management
services, while City staff will provide primary construction inspection and some
project administration duties.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2010-24 approving final Plans and Specifications and
authorizing Advertisement for Bids for 2010 Street Reconstruction, City Project No.
10C001.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. 2010-24 at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approving Alternative Action No. 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-24
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-24
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR 2010 STREET RECONSTRUCTION
CITY PROJECT NO. 10C001
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution approved by the City Council on February 22, 2010, the
City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the 2010 Street Reconstruction Project
described as follows:
Area 4A including West River Street between Chestnut Street and Pine Street/State
Highway 25 and adjoining streets between West Broadway and West River Street or
Front Street; and Prairie Road between Nicholas Circle and Wright County Highway 75.
Improvements include reconstruction of urban and rural section roadways, curb and gutter
replacement, sidewalk and storm sewer construction, utility improvements and other
appurtenant work. Optional improvements include Chestnut Street Lift Station wet well
improvements, Walnut Street connection to West River Street, Walnut Street parking lot
reconstruction, Third Street parking lot reconstruction, and Par West Park parking lot
reconstruction.
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for
approval;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk,
are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Star
Tribune and/or Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bid upon the making of such
improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be
published no less than three weeks before the last day for submission of bids, once in the
City’s legal publication and at least once in either a newspaper published in a city of the
first class or a trade paper. To be eligible as a trade paper, a publication shall have all the
qualifications of a legal newspaper except that, instead of the requirement that it shall
contain general and local news, such trade paper shall contain building and construction
news of interest to contractors in this state, among whom it shall have a general
circulation.
The advertisement shall specify the work to be done, and shall state that bids will be
opened at 10 a.m. on May 20, 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 24, 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 5% of the amount of such bid.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 26th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
1
14. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-25 accepting the Feasibility Report and
authorizing preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Fenning Avenue
Pathway Improvement, City Project No. 07C010 (2007-01C) (WSB, BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council had requested the preparation of a feasibility report to explore adding a
pathway along Fenning Avenue from the Hillside Farms development (86th St NE) to
School Boulevard. The pathway would provide access to the local schools and connect
to the existing pathway along School Boulevard, as well as serve as access to the Monte
Club site. There is not a direct pathway for students to use to walk to school for the
developments located along Fenning Avenue. This pathway would provide a connection
to a stranded neighborhood and serve a function similar to the pathway that extends along
CSAH 18 from Eastview School to Wildwood Ridge/Carlisle Village neighborhood.
The developer of Hillside Farms requested the City to provide a pathway connection
from Hillside Farms to School Boulevard. The Hillside Farms and Spirit Hills
Townhome development have graded portions of the pathway along the east side of
Fenning Avenue to accommodate future construction of the pathway.
The pathway is proposed to be 9-feet wide and would extend along the east side of
Fenning Avenue from 86th Street NE to School Boulevard for approximately 3,400 feet.
The pathway is proposed to be placed in a location where it would not be removed with
the future reconstruction of Fenning Avenue, except potentially through the Monte Club
hill. The pathway would be constructed 1 foot inside the right of way, approximately 20
to 25 from the edge of the road, except for at the top of the hill along the Monte Club site.
Multiple options were developed for constructing the pathway along and through the
Monte Club site. Below is a summary of the multiple options that were developed in the
feasibility report along the Monte Club site:
Option 1
Construct the pathway 1 foot inside the right of way, approximately 20 to 25 from the
edge of the road. An approximate 19-foot high retaining wall would be needed along the
hill. As such, this option would not be economically feasible.
Option 2
Construct the pathway right along the edge of the roadway to eliminate the need for the
retaining wall. Concrete barriers would need to be installed along the edge of the path to
separate pedestrian and vehicles. This option raised concerns about safety and would be
cost prohibitive.
Option 3
Construct the pathway with an 8-foot boulevard and grade back at a 3:1 slope to tie into
the hill. This will require grading of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of material. It is
assumed that we could dispose of the material on the Monte Club site.
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
2
Option 4
Construct the pathway up through and winding along the Monte Club site, instead of
paralleling Fenning Avenue. This alignment would limit the amount grading into the hill
and would provide for a scenic route though the site, offering residents a view of the City
at its highest peak. It would also provide access to the future park area. The existing
trees would need to be removed along the pathway; however, other landscaping or
aesthetic features could be incorporated to highlight the pathway.
On the other hand, this option could be construed as jumping the gun because the final
disposition of the property has not been established and there is a chance too that all or
part of the site could be sold to a private developer. Council may wish to pause before
investing in pathways on the property until its final use is determined.
Option 5
This option has the same alignment as Option 4, which assumed a bituminous pathway,
but would utilize an aggregate surface consisting of bituminous millings from the existing
parking lot to save on bituminous costs and reuse the materials on site.
Option 6
This option is a combination of Option 3 and Option 5 which includes aligning the
pathway along Fenning Avenue and through the Monte Club site. This would provide
flexibility with providing a direct route along Fenning Avenue for students to access the
school and would also provide the option of directing pedestrians through the Monte
Club site for those seeking a more scenic route. The project could be bid with this as an
alternate.
Again, developing pathway along the west edge of the Monte Club property could be
viewed as premature since the final use of the land has not been determined. However,
according to the engineers, a pathway that hugs the west edge of the property is not likely
to be physically impacted by future development of the Monte Club site.
The estimated project cost of the pathway construction is between $133,000 and
$178,000 for the different options. Approximately $60,913 has been or will be collected
from the developments on the east side of Fenning Avenue, including the City parcels.
The existing developments on the east side of Fenning Avenue contributed funds for the
reconstruction of Fenning Avenue, a portion of which would be used for the pathway
construction. Additional funds would be collected from the west side of the road for the
future street reconstruction project for the undeveloped properties.
The project could be constructed this year yet if final plans and specifications are
authorized in the spring. The City could opt to wait to start construction next year, as
there is a DNR grant opportunity for local trail connections that this project could
potentially receive. The grant is a 50% match of the project costs and would be awarded
in July 2011.
City Council Agenda: 4/26/10
3
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution #2010-225 accepting feasibility report and ordering
the preparation of plans and specifications for the Fenning Avenue Pathway
Improvements utilizing Option ___.
2. Motion to adopt resolution accepting the feasibility report and delaying further
action on the project.
3. Motion to not adopt the resolution at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It was expected that this project would have been constructed by now to accommodate
the existing developments. Because development has slowed down, this project has not
been completed. This project would be helpful to improve pedestrian access and safety
along the corridor. At a minimum, we believe it is important to build the pathway
necessary to link the Hillside neighborhood to rest of the City providing safe access to
and from important points of destination. Although the final land use has not been
determined and a park plan not yet prepared, it would make some sense to provide access
to the top of the hill via a “point A to B” pathway along Fenning Avenue.
The Monte Club Hill is the signature landmark of the City and an asset that would
enhance the City further if better access was provided. Thus City staff believes that even
in tight budget times, the extra cost may be worth it.
The construction environment is very competitive and the city would realize significant
savings with this project.
Providing safe pedestrian access along Fenning Avenue will also enhance access to the
Monte Club hill, portions of which could become parkland someday.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-25
Fenning Avenue Pathway Improvement Feasibility Report
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-25
ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR FENNING AVENUE PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 07C010 (2007-10C)
WHEREAS, a resolution was adopted by the City Council on May 29, 2007, authorizing the
preparation of a feasibility report for the construction of an off-road pathway, along the west side
of Fenning Avenue from 86th Street NE to School Boulevard (Jason Avenue), and other
appurtenant work;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective and feasible as detailed in the feasibility
report.
2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted April
26, 2010.
3. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The
engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 26th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
______________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
15. Consideration of a request for revising City policy and practice as related to
sidewalk snow removal along Minnesota Trunk Highway 25 (BP, TM, BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council has received a request to consider City policy as related to the removal
of snow from sidewalks adjacent to Minnesota TH 25. Specifically, Marn Flicker is
requesting regular City assistance with snow removal along the Pine Street right of way
on the Highway 25 side of the property. This request comes in conjunction with the
potential sale of his property.
As you may know, private property owners are required to remove snow from sidewalks
along the Highway 25 Boulevard. The snow removal challenges for the Flicker property
are greater than others along Highway 25 due to the close proximity of the building to the
roadway. The acquisition of additional right of way along TH 25 when the road was
widened has left little space between his building and the curb line of the highway. As
such, MN/DOT’s snow removal techniques and timing results in challenges for property
owners in completing boulevard snow removal consistent with City ordinances. Flicker
is requesting that the City consider developing an agreement related to the snow removal
and addressing the issue with MN/DOT, but in the short order staff received this request
we have not had enough time to contact and discuss issues with MN/DOT.
With the issues raised by Mr. Flicker, staff is requesting that the City Council discuss the
potential of providing some level of sidewalk snow removal assistance.
CONSIDERATIONS – PUBLIC WORKS INPUT AND COMMENTS:
Record of an agreement with the State of Minnesota Maintenance Agreement No.
66250 from 1989 when TH 25 was widened states:
“It is hereby understood that upon the satisfactory completion of State Project
No. 8680-110 construction, the city shall provide for the proper maintenance
without cost or expense to the State of all concrete walk constructed within the
corporate city limits under said State Project except that such is an integral
part of Bridge No. 86803. Said maintenance shall be understood to include but
not limited to , snow and ice removal and any other maintenance activities
necessary to keep the said concrete walk in safe and useable condition for the
useful life of the walk”.
It is stated in Article 2 of the Maintenance Agreement on TH 25:
“All contracts and agreements made by the City with third parties for the
performance of any work to be done under this agreement shall be subject to
the terms of this agreement.”
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
2
City Ordinance 8-1-11
“The owner or occupant of every building or tract of land within the City
fronting upon any street having a sidewalk abutting upon such premises shall
clear such sidewalk of snow within forty-eight (48) hours following the
termination of any snowfall of two (2) inches or more or control the formation
of ice from any cause”.
The City has chosen through its Ordinance 8-1-11 to assign the responsibility of
snow removal and sidewalk maintenance to property owners, with the exception
of areas that City Council has instated as part of our sidewalk maintenance and
snow plow policies for city staff to maintain.
The available width of clearance between Mr. Flicker’s building at the light pole
for people/equipment to pass is 5’ 3” (63 inches). The sidewalk from back of
curb to building is 7’.
City Equipment not well suited for snow removal at the Flicker location. The
trackless is our narrowest unit; it is normally 65” wide; 53” wide with the mirrors
folded in, (thus allowing 5” of clearance on each side). It is possible to have our
equipment pass, however, the articulation point of the trackless is in the center
and it may prove difficult to snake the equipment thru without contacting the
building or the pole. Should Council adopt an addition to the sidewalk loop, an
additional piece of equipment would be requested to accommodate narrower
passages safely.
Other obstacles along the corridor apart from the Flicker tight spot. Our
equipment would be difficult to maneuver around light poles and buildings safely
with a minimum clearance width of 6’.
Staff time/cost estimate. It is estimated that the bare minimum annual cost on
average to remove snow from the sidewalks between I-94 and the Mississippi
River Bridge will amount to $2,500/year for staff time alone. Based on the
following factors:
o Minimum of 2 hours required to remove snow from the river bridge to I-
94 right of way on a 2” snowfall. Additional snow would take additional
time.
o 12 snowfalls per year on average, however, sidewalks along this corridor
would need to be cleared more frequently due to deposits by passing
plows.
o Cleaning up after irregular and frequent passings by state truck would
result in a significant increase in workload.
o Expense calculations: 12 (snowfalls) x 2 (personnel hours) = 24
(hours/year) x $24/hour labor (not including benefits) = $576 x 3 (worst
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
3
case scenario) = $1728 x ? unknown exponential factor of additional
snowfall amount to add TH 25 to our plowing budget.
It is unknown if past lease agreement with Mr. Flicker and his Lessee have had
the responsibility fall on the Lessee to maintain the sidewalk of the rental
property. The City ordinance holds the property owner responsible for the
maintenance not a Lessee.
Mr. Flicker states “Over the past several years, the State Highway Department has
not been removing their snow off my Property”. The State does occasionally per
the maintenance agreement remove snow burden from the “storage area” along
TH25 according to our staff.
Mr. Flicker inaccurately states “The city plows the Broadway snow to the center
in the business district then removes it when certain safety conditions are
evident”. In reality, we make a single pass with the blade down on the section of
Broadway between Linn and Palm Streets, not necessarily to totally clear the
walk, but because it is “on the route”. It is still the responsibility of the property
owner to clear all the rest of the walk to the parking lane which City staff then
removes.
Similar to properties along Broadway, the Primerica gets the benefit of a single
pass because it is “on the route” between the Chamber building and Walnut
Street/City Hall.
A1. Budget Impact: The City is continuing to look for areas in which costs can be
reduced. Adding snow clearing along TH 25 will instead increase costs in both
staff and equipment areas. There are an estimated additional 72 hours labor/
$2,500 + fuel and equipment expense. These costs may be balanced against the
public benefit of providing better pedestrian access along the TH 25 corridor and
supporting additional access options to the downtown business area.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: It is estimated that clearing a route from the river
bridge to the I-94 right of way would require a minimum additional 72 staff
hours.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the removal of snow and accept liability of the sidewalks
adjacent to Minnesota TH 25, from the TH 25 Mississippi River Bridge to I-94
right of way as part of the sidewalks that City staff maintain and increase the
snow plow budget by an additional $2,500 annually.
Under this alternative snow removal services would be provided along the entire
corridor for all property owners.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
4
2. Motion to approve the removal of snow and accept liability of the sidewalk along
Minnesota TH 25, only in the area adjacent to the “Flicker” property (213
Pine St). Add this section to the City Snow Plow Policy to areas to clear within
48 hours of a snowfall.
Removal of snow at this location due to the unique circumstances created due to
the widening of the right of way and resulting tight space between building and
curb resulting in need for special equipment to push snow to the south side of the
property. Unfortunately, the use of special equipment to push snow out of the
area is hampered by the tight distance between light poles and the building.
Purchase of additional equipment or other work-around effort would be needed.
3. Motion to deny the request as related to the removal of snow from sidewalks
adjacent to Minnesota TH 25, from TH 25 Mississippi River Bridge to I-94 right
of way.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In many Cities and in Monticello, efforts are being made to cut back on City services due
to shrinking revenue sources. The trend is to put more responsibility onto the citizens
and property owners. However, the difficulty in maintaining sidewalks clear of snow on
TH 25 (and on Broadway) warrants an examination of our policy. Council needs to
determine whether or not the unique circumstances and difficulties relating to snow
removal at this location warrant bucking the general trend toward service reduction. If
Council believes that it serves a public purpose to remove snow on TH 25, then funds to
do so should be budgeted accordingly. Additionally, tight distance between the light pole
and the Flicker building creates a dilemma for the City because the equipment now
available may not be effective at this location.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A: Letter of Request from Marn Flicker
Exhibit B: Aerial Image of Flicker Property
Exhibit C: Aerial Image of TH 25 Corridor
Exhibit D: Minnesota DOT Maintenance Agreement No. 66250
Exhibit E: Copy of the snow removal plan/program
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN. 55362
April 13, 2010
City Mayor and Council,
On a separate issue; I would request the City Street Dept. and the State Highway Department create a
written document in regards to the existing snow removal procedure agreement or policy.
This snow removal issue dates back to 1979 when the City granted me a building permit on this sight. At
that time State Highway #25 was 16 ft. from the front of my building. Some years later, the State
removed the parking lane and boulevard to widen Highway 25 to the maximum width for better traffic
flow. This is when they agreed to remove their snow off my property [walkway] within 48 hours after
highway plowing was completed.
Over the past several years, the State Highway Department has not been removing their snow off my
property and the City has an ordinance for the safety of all pedestrians that requires all walkways be
cleared within 24 hours of a snowfall. This is a very safe and reasonable policy except when someone
you have no control over, clears their 35 foot area and dumps it on your 5 foot area.
I feel stuck in the middle of an issue that I have no control over unless I pay more from my pocket to
remove the State’s snow on a daily basis after each snowfall. The city plows the Broadway snow to the
center in the business district then removes it when certain safety conditions are evident. The city taxes
generated by my building complex are equal or greater per square foot than any Broadway building and
I receive no assistance on snow removal. I understand that you have little or no control over the State
Highway Dept snow removal policy in the City of Monticello but would hope that this will not prohibit
conversation and written agreements between the two agencies
Thank you.
Marn Flicker
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 1 OF 13 -
CITY OF MONTICELLO
SNOW PLOWING/REMOVAL POLICY
Effective November 10, 1997
Amended by the City Council January 10, 2005
Amended by the City Council December 12, 2005
Amended by the City Council November 27, 2006
Amended by the City Council November 13, 2007
Amended by the City Council December 8, 2008
Amended by the City Council October 26, 2009
1.INTRODUCTION
The City of Monticello assumes basic responsibility for the control of snow and ice on city streets and city
owned public parking lots. Reasonable snow and ice control is necessary for routine travel and emergency
services. The ci ty wi ll p rov ide suc h co ntr ol i n a s afe a nd c ost effe cti ve m ann er, k eepi ng in min d sa fet y,
budget, personnel and environmental concerns. The city will utilize city employees, city equipment and/or
private contractors when necessary to provide this service.
2.AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Through its adoption, the City Council of Monticello is responsible for the policy established herein.
Implementation of this policy is the responsibility of the Street Superintendent or his designee under the
direction of the Public Works Director and City Administrator. The chain of command is the City
Administrator, Public Works Director and Street Superintendent, in that order. Decisions as to time, method
and materials used on snow plowing/removal operations will be made by the Street Superintendent under
the direction of the Public Works Director and City Administrator, and any amendments are to be in
accordance with amendment section of this policy. The Parks Department will supplement the efforts of
the Street Department with primary responsibilities in parking lots, sidewalks, pathways and skating rinks.
This work will be carried out by the Park Superintendent or his designee under the direction of the Public
Works Director and City Administrator.(Amended by City Council 01/10/2005)
(Amended by City Council 10/26/2009)
3.AMENDMENTS TO POLICY
Any amendments to this policy require council approval. Whenever possible and practical, amendments
should be brought up at council meetings and should be a matter of public record. However, to allow for
emergencies or other extenuating circumstances, when time does not permit council approval or action, the
Public Works Director or Street Superintendent is hereby authorized to amend any portion of this policy
he sees fit. If practical, the City Administrator shall be notified and shall approve of any such amendment.
Any such amendment made due to a particular emergency shall be brought to the attention of the council
if the amendment is to be a permanent one.
(Amended by City Council 10/26/2009)
4.EQUIPMENT
The city shall acquire, maintain, repair and replace equipment on a timely basis as the city’s established
budget shall allow. To provide for utilization of equipment in a cost effective manner, the city may use
regular city trucks, motor graders, front-end loaders, snow blowers and any other regular equipment as may
be useful for control of snow and ice. Equipment that can be used only for snow and ice control shall be
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 2 OF 13 -
acquired and utilized only if deemed absolutely essential. Whenever existing snow removal heavy
equipment is believed to be broken down for an excess of eight hours during a declared snow event and that
piece of equipment is essential to snow plowing/ removal operations, the Street Superintendent or his
designee may rent equ ipm ent . Th e Pu bli c Wo rks Dir ect or s hal l be not ifi ed o f th is d eci sio n im med iat ely.
A wri tte n rep ort to i ncl ude equ ipm ent dow n, r easo n fo r ren tin g, es tim ate d ren tal peri od, rent al c omp any,
rental machine identification, rental rate, and estimate of total cost shall be submitted within 48 hours.(Amended by City Council 10/26/2009)
When the Street Superintendent determines that the policy levels of service cannot be provided by city
forces, he shall report to the Public Works Director the following information :
A.Additional time required to provide desired levels of service using just city forces.
B.Additional equipment and/or personnel support required to achieve desired levels of service.
C.Estimated number of hours equipment and/or personnel will be required.
The Public Works Director will then take the following action:
A.Determine availability of contractor equipment.
B.Estimate cost of contracted service required.
C.Determine availability of funds to meet estimated costs.
D.Based on information supplied, the Public Works Director shall determine whether to contract for
additional service or equipment, or accept reduced levels of service.
If contracted service or equipment is secured, the Public Works Director shall provide the City
Administrator with a report containing the following informat ion:
A.Purpose of contracting snow plowing/removal.
B.Estimated time and cost of contracted services.
C.Time and date contract began.
In the absence of the Public Works Director, the Street Superintendent shall have full authority under this
section and shall communicate any decisions or actions resulting in extraordinary expenditures to the City
Administrator.
5.WORK SCHEDULE
Scheduling of employees is the responsibility of the Street Superintendent or his designee under the direction
of the Public Works Director. When conditions allow, work schedules shall be arranged to keep overtime
at a minimum, with overtime scheduling being approved by the Public Works Director. The Public Works
Director shall notify the City Administrator of any unusual amount of overtime to be performed and the
reasons.
(Amended by City Council 10/26/2009)
6.MINIMUM LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following are minimum levels of service that can be expected. The city will strive to achieve better
results if possible.
Snow and/or ice control may be terminated at any time the Street Supt. or his designee determine that rising
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 3 OF 13 -
or falling temperatures, visibility and/or the rate of accumulation make the control unsafe, ineffective or
unn eces sar y.
Should a subsequent storm occur within the minimum times for service, then such subsequent storm shall
beco me t he s tor m re ferr ed t o in thi s po lic y.
A.Snow removal and/or sanding operations shall begin when snow accumulation reaches 2" or when
ice or snow pack occur on designated primary snow emergency streets, and shall continue
periodically throughout the duration of the storm. It is the intention of the City to keep these routes
open to traffic, if possible, during a storm; however, it is not the intent to keep them snow or ice free.
B.All designated secondary snow emergency streets shall be open to traffic (two lanes) within eight
(8) hours after the snow storm subsides.
C.All remaining non emergency through streets shall be open to 2-lane traffic within 12 hours after
the snowstorm subsides. Parking lot snow may b e piled for removal and removed after snow is
hauled from the Broadway median and all streets are widened curb to curb where possible. The
snow plowing operations in the commuter parking lots shall be started by 4 a.m. whenever weather
conditions allow.
D.All public streets such as dead ends and cul-de-sacs shall be open to traffic within sixteen (16)
hours after a snowstorm subsides.
E.Downtown Broadway, from 150 feet east of Linn Street to 150 feet east of Cedar Street shall be
plowed to the center median. The Street Superintendent or his designee may elect to plow
downtown streets during evening or early morning hours to avoid traffic and parked vehicles. Other
downtown streets will be plowed outward. City owned parking lots and alleys in blocks 34, 35 and
52 are plowed by 8 a.m. after a 2" accumulation of snow (see Section 12).(Amended by City Council 01/10/2005)
F.Downtown snow hauling including the half block of Walnut south of Broadway, if necessary, shall
begin by the next morn ing after all streets have been plowed and the crews are rested. Hauling shall
not be conducted Friday evening or Saturday evening unless abnormal conditions warrant same.
(Amended by City Council 01/10/2005)
G.Salt and sand operations shall provide bare pavement on driving lanes when conditions allow for all
primary snow emergency routes, skid resistance at school crossings, stop signs and isolated icy areas.
General snowpack on residential streets shall not be sanded.
H.Snow depth at the corners of intersections shall be reduced to 36" or less following other necessary
snow plowing and removal operations. The Street Superintendent or his designee shall have the
authority to determine the scheduling and priority of this function.
I.Certain county highways within the city are maintained by the city and fall under county maintenance
agreements.
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 4 OF 13 -
7.SNOW EMERGENCY ROUTES
PRIMARY SNOW EM ERGENCY ROUT ES
CSAH 39 WEST
FROM THE PUBLIC W ORKS BUILDING TO CSAH 75 W EST
BROADWAY
FROM WILLOW STREET TO MEADOW OAK DRIVE
WALNUT STREET
FROM WEST BROADWAY TO 7TH STREET
HART BOULEVARD
FROM MISSISSIPPI SHORES TO W WT P TO CSAH 75 EAST
WASHINGTON STREET
FROM EAST BROADW AY TO 7TH STREET
7TH STREET
FROM WALNUT STREET TO CSAH 18
6TH STREET
FROM T HE FIRE HALL T O TH 25 : INCLUD ING FIRE HALL PA RKING LOT AND DRIVEW AYS
SCHOOL BOULEVARD
FROM TH 25 TO CSAH 18
FENNING AVENUE
FROM SCH OOL BOULEV ARD TO 85 TH STREET (DUE TO T OPOG RAPHY)
ROUNDABOUT
AT CSAH 18 & MEADOW OAK AVENUE
GILLARD AVENUE
FROM CSAH 39 EAST TO 95 TH STREET (DUE TO T OPOG RAPHY)
(Amended by City Council 11/27/2006)
(Amended by City Council 11/13/2007)
(Amended by City Council 10/26/2009)
SECONDARY SNOW EMERGENCY R OUTES
ELM STREET
FROM CSAH 39 WEST TO 6TH STREET W EST
6TH STREET WEST
FROM ELM STREET TO THE FIRE HALL
CEDAR STREET
FROM RIVER STREET TO 7TH STREET
3RD STREET
FROM CHESTNUT ST TO W ASHINGTON ST
SCHOOL BOULEVARD
FROM TH 25 TO REDFORD LANE
DEEGAN AVENUE
FROM SCHOOL BLVD TO COMMUTER PARKING LOT
SECONDARY SNOW EMERGENCY R OUTES
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 5 OF 13 -
CHELSEA ROAD
FROM CSAH 18 TO CR 39 W EST
RIVER STREET
FROM THE XCEL/CITY BALLFIELDS TO THE NURSING HOME ENTRANCE
OTTER CREEK ROAD
FROM CSAH 75 TO RIVER STREET W EST
OAKW OOD DRIVE EAST
FROM T.H. 25 TO INCLUDE THE CUL-DE-SAC
(Amended by City Council 12/12/2005)
(Amended by City Council 11/13/2007)
(Amended by City Council 12/08/2008)
(Amended by City Council 10/26/2009)
8.METHOD OF PLOWING SNOW
Snow will be plowed in a manner so as to minimize traffic obstructions. With the exception of that section
of Broadway previously mentioned, the snow will be plowed from the center of the street outward. The City
will plow the roundabout at CSAH 18 and Meadow Oak Avenue from the outside to the center. The County
will plow to the outside. The plowing activities are shared. For narrow streets or other streets when
conditions require, the Street Superintendent or his designee may choose to plow from one side to the other.
Snow shall be plowed and pushed from left to right and discharged on the edge of the street or on adjacent
right-of-way without regard for sidewalks and/or driveways. The City shall not be responsible for plowing
snow from any private driveways or sidewalks.(Amended by City Council 11/27/2006)
9.HAULING OF SNOW
Where space does not allow for snow to be pushed or piled outside the driving lanes, the city will remove
the snow by hauling. Timing of such hauling shall be at the discretion of the Street Superintendent or his
designee. Snow will be windrowed along the south curb on Chelsea Road between Highway 25 and
Sandberg Road and hauled when the windrow reaches 2 feet in height to reduce snow pushed on to the
sidewalk.
(Amended by City Council 12/12/2005)
10.WEATHER CONDITIONS
Snow and ice control operations will be conducted only when weather conditions do not endanger the safety
of employees or equipment, and operations are effective. Factors that may delay snow and ice control
operations include: severe cold, significant winds, limited visibility and rapid accumulation of snow and/or
ice.
11.DISPATCHING OF EQUIPMENT
Dispatching of equipment shall be determined by the Street Superintendent or his designee. The Street
Superintendent or his designee shall monitor weather conditions and forecasts to aid in dispatch decisions.
Plowing and/or sanding operations may occur during the assigned work shift or on a specific situation call
out. If the specific situation is on a primary snow emergency route, the response shall be as soon as possible
if workers and equipment are available and it is more than four hours until a work shift is to begin. Once a
work shift has ended, the Street Superintendent or his designee has the discretion of responding immediately
to other specific situations or waiting, in the case of non-emergencies, until a new work shift begins.
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 6 OF 13 -
For emergency vehicles responding to emergency situations (fire, medical, police) within the city, necessary
workers and equipment will be dispatched as soon as possible. The Street Superintendent or his designee
shall keep the Public Works Director informed of start, progress and end of full scale plowing operations.
12.PUBLIC PARKING LOTS
PLO WIN G TO BEG IN BY 4 A.M.
COMMUTER PARKING LOT
INCLUDING SCHOOL BLVD FROM TH 25 WEST TO DEEGAN AVE
AND DEEGAN AVENUE FROM SCHOOL BLVD TO COMMUTER PARKING LOT
COMMUNITY CENTER PARKING LOTS
WEST AND SOUTH LOTS
(Amended by City Council 11/27/2006)
PLOWED BY 8 A.M. (ON NORMAL BUSINESS DAYS)
CITY HALL PARKING LOT
HI-WAY LIQUOR PARKING LOT
DEPUTY REGISTRAR/MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING LOT
BLOCK 34
BY ZOO AND 216 PINE STREET
BLOCK 35
WALNUT & 3RD STREET PARKING LOT
(Lot is signed for 24-hour parking to aid in timely snow removal and other seasonal maintenance)
BLOCK 52
BY JADE PATRICK SALON AND OLD SCHOOL
PRAIRIE WEST BUILDING
MON TICELLO FIBERNE T RET AIL SITE - 6 TH STREET
(Amended by City Council 11/27/2006)
(Amended by City Council 11/13/2007)
(Amended by City Council 10/26/2009)
PLOWED WITH PRIMARY SNOW EMERGENCY ROUTE
FIRE HALL PARKING LOT
PLOWED WITHIN 12 HOURS FOLLOWING SNOW FALL EVENT
PUBLIC LIBRARY PARKING LOT
PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND OFFICE PARKING LOTS INCLUDING THE AREA
ARO UND THE F UEL P UMP S (plow ed by the Sewe r/Wa ter Dep artmen t)
ANIM AL SH ELTE R PAR KING LOT (plowed by Sew er/W ater De partme nt)
4TH STRE ET PA RK PA RKIN G LO T (plow ed by S ewer/W ater De partme nt)
EAST BRIDGE AND WEST BRIDGE PARK PARKING LOTS
PLOWED WITHIN 12 HOURS FOLLOWING SNOW FALL EVENT
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 7 OF 13 -
MONTICELLO FIBERNET HEAD END BUILDING PARKING LOT
(Amended by City Council 11/27/2006)
(Amended by City Council 10/26/2009)
13.CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALKS
CLEARED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE END OF A STORM EVENT AS PER CITY ORDINANCE
*EAST BROADWAY
SOUTH SIDE BETWEEN THE ZOO AND BOB’S BARBER SHOP
*WEST BROADWAY
SOUTH SIDE FROM 906 BROADWAY TO BROADWAY KWIK STOP
3RD STREET WEST
NORTH SIDE FROM 211 PINE ST TO WALNUT STR EET
*EAST BROADWAY
SOUTH SIDE FROM PALM STREET TO W ASHINGTON STREET
*WEST BROADWAY
ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM CHESTNUT STREET TO LINN STREET WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH AT 494 W EST BROADW AY
*EAST BROADWAY
ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM 731 E. BROADWAY TO PALM ST. TO W ASHIN GTO N ST .
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DEN NY’S SERVICE AT 743 E. BROADWAY
LIBRARY
SOUTH SIDE 6TH STREET FROM WALNUT TO LOCUST
WEST SIDE WALNUT FROM 6TH TO LIBRARY DRIVEWAY
EAST BRIDGE PARK
BITUMINOU S PATHW AY FROM THE SLIDING HILL TO WALNUT STREET
HI-WAY LIQUOR
WEST SIDE T.H. 25 FROM 5TH TO 6TH AND NORTH SIDE 6 TH FROM T.H. 25 TO INCLUDE SECOND
DRIV EW AY INT O LIQ UOR PARK ING L OT, ALSO INCLUDING THE SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF THE LIQUOR STORE BUILDING
INFORMATION CENTER
SW CORNER ON TH 25 & CSAH 75 TO ALLEY INCLUDING PRIME AMERICA
3RD STREET EAST
DEPUTY REGISTRAR/PARKING LOT NORTH SIDE FROM 216 PINE STREET TO CEDAR STREET
*3rd STREET WEST
SOUTH SIDE OF 3RD STREET W EST FROM ELM STREET T O MAPLE STREET
RIVER STREET WEST
STEPS AT SOUTH SIDE OF RIVER STREET ON WALNUT STREET
ELM STREET
WEST SIDE FROM GOLF COURSE RO AD TO BROADW AY
*CARDINAL HILLS PARK
SIDEWALK RUNNING TH ROUGH PARK FRO M MARTIN DRIVE TO SCHOOL BLVD
CLEARED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE END OF A STORM EVENT AS PER CITY ORDINANCE
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 8 OF 13 -
CEDAR STREET
EAST SIDE AT RR CROSSING
WALNUT STREET
EAST SIDE PARKING LOT, ALLEY TO 3RD STR EET ,
FROM W ELLS FARGO DRIVEWAY TO RR TRACKS
*WASHINGTON STREET
EAST SIDE FROM RR CROSSING TO 7TH STREET
MINNESOTA STREET
EAST SIDE FROM 7TH STREET TO A POINT 125' NORTH
WEST BROADWAY
NORTH SIDE AT 111 WEST BROAD WAY
COMMUTER PARKING LOT
BUS SHELTER AN D SIDEW ALK
MEADOW OAK AVENUE
ADJOINING FREEWAY FIELDS
MEADOW OAK AVENUE
SIDEW ALK ALONG MEADO W O AK AVENUE (SHAW N W EINAND PRO PERTY)
COMMUNITY CENTER
WEST SIDE OF WALNUT STREET FROM RR CROSSING TO 6TH STREET
AND NORTH SIDE OF 6TH STREET FRO M W ALNUT STREE T TO FIRE HALL
GROVELAND PARK
SAVANNAH & INNSBROOK ALONG PARK
GROVELAND (CITY OWNED PR OPERTY)
A PORTION OF HAYWARD CT 150' WEST OF PARK PLACE DR
A PORTION 220' NORTH OF SUMMIT CT BETWEEN WINDEMERE CT & SUMMIT CT
A PORTION EAST OF 90TH ST ON S SIDE OF PARK PLACE DR
*OTTER CREEK ROAD AND WEST RIVER STREET
FROM CSAH 75 TO COMPOST SITE
T.H. 25
WEST SIDE FROM W. RIVER ST. TO MISSISSIPPI BRIDGE
BROADWAY EAST
201 EAST BROADW AY (OLD CEDAR STREET GARDEN CEN TER SITE)
(Amended by City Council 11/27/2006)
(Amended by City Council 11/13/2007)
(Amended by City Council 12/08/2008)
(Amended by City Council 10/26/2009)
*THESE ARE P RIORITY SID EWALKS TO BE COO RDINATED WITH TH E SCHOOL DIS TRICT EACH YEAR
AND THE CITY WILL MAKE EVERY ATTEMPT TO CLEAR THE SIDEWALKS BY THE START OF THE
SCHOOL DAY. IN TURN, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL NOTIFY THE STREET SUPERINTENDENT
IMMEDIATELY OF SCHOOL CLOSINGS.
Sidewalks Cleared With City Assistance:
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 9 OF 13 -
1.)South sid e of B road way f rom the Broadway Kwik Stop to and including the Peterson
Grimsmo Chapel at 250 East Broadway, and the North side of West and East Broadway from
Linn Street to Palm Street including Trinity Lutheran Church at 449 West Broadway. Also
the north side of East Broadway in front of 731 and 743 East Broadway near Washington
Street. The City will make one (1) pass with a snow blower each time its snow blower is
used on the adjacent West and East Broadway sidewalks. The City will not broom or apply
sand/salt to this sidewalk in the commercial area.
2.)Sidewalks on the east and west sides of Highway 25 from River Street to Oakwood Drive:
The city will assist Mn/DOT when they request, by providing one (1) operator or one (1)
driver and a 12-cubic yard dump truck to help remove snow from sidewalks put there by
Mn/DOT plows.
14.CITY MAINTAINED PATHWAYS
CLEARED WITHIN 36 HOURS TO A WIDTH OF 6'
CHELSEA ROAD
SOUTH SIDE FROM SANDBERG TO INNSBROOK
CSAH 75
FROM WEST RIVER STREET TO PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY
CSAH 75
FROM MONT I MIDDLE SCHOOL AT THE HOSPITAL SIGNAL LIGHTS TO MEADOW OAK AVE
*SCHOOL BOULEVARD
FROM EDMONSO N AVE TO CR 18 INCLUDING THE PATHWAY THROUGH THE NORTH END OF
PIONEER PK EXCEPT THE S. SIDE OF SCHOOL BLVD FROM FALLON TO CARDINAL HILLS PK
* FALLON AVENUE
FROM SCHOOL BOULEVARD TO FARMSTEAD AVENUE
TH 25
EAST SIDE FROM KJELLBERG’S TO OAKW OOD DRIVE
SCHOOL BOULEVARD
NORTH SIDE FR OM EDMO NSON AVE TO T.H. 25
SCHOOL BOULEVARD
NORTH SIDE FROM TH 25 TO RIVER CITY EXTREME
2001 ISETEA PATHWAY SYSTEM INCLUDING I-94 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
FROM CSAH 75, SOUTH TO SCHOOL BLVD TO THE EAST THRU MEADOW OAK TO MEADOW
OAK DRIVE
MEADOW O AK
FROM MEADOW OAK AVENUE TO MEADO W O AK DRIVE (SOUTH OF RAILROAD TRACKS)
CSAH 18
FROM OAK RIDGE CIRCLE TO OAKVIEW COURT
SLIDING HILL PATHWAY
FROM MILL RUN ROAD TO RIVER FOREST DRIVE
CLEARED WITHIN 36 HOURS TO A WIDTH OF 6'
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 10 OF 13 -
FENNING AVENUE
EAST SIDE FROM MEADOW OAK AVENUE G OING SOUT H TO CSAH 18
* 7TH STREET EAST
NORTH SIDE FROM CEDAR STREET TO W ASHINGTON STREET
MEADOW O AK
FROM ME ADOW OAK AVENUE G OING SOUT H TO EASTW OOD CIRCLE
GILLARD AVENUE
WES T SIDE FROM RIVER F OREST DR IVE TO 95TH STREET
GILLARD AVENUE
WEST T O RIVER FOREST DRIVE
7TH STREET EAST
WASHINGTON STREET TO WEST SIDE OF ENTRANCE TO ST. HENRY’S CHURCH
EDMONSON AVENUE
WEST SIDE FROM SCHOOL BOULEVARD TO ORCHARD CIRCLE, SOUTH TO FEATHERSTONE
EDMONSON AVENUE
WES T SIDE FROM O RCHARD CIRC LE TO 89 TH STREET
CSAH 18
SOUTH SIDE FROM SPIRIT HILLS ROAD TO TROY MARQ UETTE DRIVE
CSAH 18
SOUTH SIDE FROM W ILDWOOD BOULEVARD TO GATEW ATER DRIVE
(Amended by City Council 11/27/2006)
(Amended by City Council 11/13/2007)
(Amended by City Council 10/26/2009)
*THIS IS A PRIORITY PATHWAY TO BE COORDINATED WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT EACH YEAR AND THE CITY
WILL MAKE EVERY ATTEMPT TO CLEAR THE PATHWAY BY THE START OF THE SCHOOL DAY. IN TURN, THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL NOTIFY THE STREET SUPERINTENDENT IMMEDIATELY OF SCHOOL CLOSINGS.
The Pathways shall be cleared to a min. width of 6' within 36 hours of the end of any snow event with snow
accumulation of ½" or more on the pathway. Work on the pathways immediately adjacent to major
high ways or thorough fairs will not begin until the adjacent roadway is plowed and widened. Pathways shall
be blown clear and/or broomed as necessary to provide a surface deemed safe for pedestrian traffic. It is
expected that the bituminous surface shall be visible in many areas along the pathway. Pathways designated
for snow removal which are used for student pedestrian travel to and from the schools shall be cleared within
24 hours of the end of a snow event provided any immediate adjacent major roadway is cleared and widened
first.
(Amended by City Council 01/10/2005)
15.CITY MAINTAINED SKATING RINKS
4 TH STREET PARK
(2) HOCKEY RINKS
(1) GENERAL SKATING RINK
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 11 OF 13 -
WEST BRIDGE PARK
(1) GENERAL SKATING RINK
(Amended by City Council 11/27/2006)
(Amended by City Council 11/13/2007)
Within 36 hours of the end of any snow event with an accumulation of more than 1" of snow, all three rinks
shall be plowed or blown clear and then broomed. All snow shall be removed from within the hockey rink
area and no accumulations of snow should be left around the inside of the boards. Care should be used not
to throw or pile snow on walkways. For any event between one-tenth of an inch to an inch of snow, all
three rinks shall be broomed within 36 hours after the end of the snow event. Again, accumulation or ridges
of snow around the inside of the hockey boards must be removed. (Amend ed by C ity Counc il 12/12/200 5)
16.DAMAGE TO PERSONAL PROPERTIES
Only those mailboxes or other personal properties which are installed properly and allowed by city ordinance
to be on the boulevard and are damaged by actual contact with city equipment, will be considered for
compensation at city expense. Compensation for mailboxes and posts shall be for materials only with a
maximum allowable reimbursement of $150 per single family residential mailbox and a maximum allowable
reimbursement of $200 per cluster mailboxes. Damage to trees, shrubbery and other landscaping will not
be considered for compensation unless located beyond the boulevard or private property. The city will re-
seed plow disturbed areas of the boulevard in the summer months when staffing and workload permits.(Amended by City Council 10/26/2009)
Damage to personal vehicles will be considered only if they are legally parked and only if physically
contacted by equipment.
17.PLOWING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
Unless there is direct benefit to city operations or unless emergency vehicles need access, there shall be
no plowing of private property with city equipment.
18.REVIEW OF POLICY
The city will keep on file comments and complaints received regarding this policy. This policy will be
reviewed periodically. Any review will consider comments or complaints received since the last review.
19.WINTER PARKING REGULATIONS
The Wright County Sheriff’s Department will rigorously enforce portions of the parking ordinances
beginning November 15 through April 15, as follows:
TITLE 9, CHAPTER 1 SECTION 2:
Parking and stopping: Except for the City of Monticello or Wright County on its own right of ways, no
person sha ll u til ize any p ort ion of an y loc al p ubl ic r ight of w ay, including the traveled street, boulevard or
public parking lot for the storage or parking of any object or material which is not a licensed, operable
motor vehicle, passenger vehicle or motorcycle as defined by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 169.01, Subd. 3,
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 12 OF 13 -
3a and 4, except as may be explicitly permitted on a temporary period of time by the City Council or its
designated representative. Properly licensed, operator motor vehicles, passenger vehicles and motorcycles
may be parked in the public street where permitted but not on the boulevard portion of the public right of
way subject to the further requirements of local parking regulations and applicable Minnesota Statutes. A
trailer of any type properly licensed or not is not considered a motor vehicle or part thereof when
disconnected from its tow vehicle.
It shall be unlawful for the owner and/or driver of a motor vehicle to stop, stand, or park the said vehicle in
any of the following places, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with
the directions of a peace officer or traffic control devices:
On any street or roadway between the hours of two o’clock (2:00) a.m. and six o’clock (6:00)
a.m. from November 15 through April 15, except physicians on emergency calls.
TITLE 9, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 8:
Parking in regard to snow plowing and/or removal : After a snowfall, all streets in the city of Monticello
shall be cleared of all motor vehicles and parts thereof for the purposes of snow plowing and/or removal
until all streets are plowed.
Any motor vehicle or parts thereof left on any street or boulevard in the city of Monticello in such a way as
o impede the performance of the city and/or state snowplow shall be dealt with under the Penalty Code No.
1-4-1 (a fine of up to $300 and/or imprisonment in a city or county jail for a period not to exceed 90 days).
20.WINTER SIDEWALK PATHWAY/SNOWMOBILE REGULATIONS
The Wright County Sheriff’s Department will rigorously enforce portions of the city ordinance in regard
to use of the sidewalks/pathways by snowmobiles, ATV’S and other motorized vehicles.
G:\ADMIN\WordProc\PO LICIES\SNOW PLOW ING POLICY 2009-2010 - FINAL.wpd: 11/12/09 - PAGE 13 OF 13 -
TITLE 6, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 2:
Restrictions: It is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile:
On any sidewalks or pathways in the city of Monticello provided for pedestrian and/or
bicycle travel.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
16. Consideration of accepting proposals and authorizing negotiation of a contract with
selected electrician (JO, CS,RH, MT, TM, TP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to select an electrician to provide small electrical job services to the
City and authorize establishment of a one year contract. On Tuesday, April 13th, a pre-bid
session was held to answer questions related to the RFP and on Friday, April 16th, seven
proposals were received. Based on price and location, three candidates rose to the top; those
being: Wes Olson Electric, Olson and Sons Electric and Double D Electric. A table
outlining each company’s response to the RFP is provided for your review. As you will note,
they are all very close on price and capabilities. Wes Olson Electric and Olson & Sons
Electric both operate out of the City of Monticello, while Double D Electric operates out of
Monticello Township.
All three would be available to provide emergency service as well as routine repairs and
services. The City has a lot of low voltage equipment that requires specific knowledge and
experience; we verified that the 3 electricians are qualified to provide most of the repairs that
might be required for this equipment. The contractor would be expected to satisfy
requirements for insurance and comply with local and state laws and regulations.
Scope of work reiterated
For your assistance in making your selection I am providing a quick reiteration of the scope of
the contract and the nature of the work. Under the RFP, the contractor would provide
electrical repair and services for municipal facilities including: City Hall, Community Center,
Public Works complex, Parks shelters/grounds, Deputy Registrar/Help Center building,
Library, Fire Hall and Prairie Center offices. Examples of electrical work could include:
outlets and conduits, mechanical equipment, and light fixtures. The contractor would perform
low voltage work (under 30 volts) provided they are qualified for the specific job. The
contract is intended to apply to smaller jobs, and the City would continue to solicit quotes for
jobs that are likely to exceed $4,000 for labor and materials.
The contract would not apply to specialized areas such as: Wastewater Treatment Facility,
FiberNet Head-end, water towers, water & sewer lines and equipment, wells, pumps, lift
stations, street and ballfield lights, and parking lots. The City would continue to utilize
current service providers on these jobs, most being local providers.
A1. Budget Impact: It is anticipated that the City would see some cost savings by
utilizing a single electrician for small repair and service jobs. Repairs to be made
could be consolidated into one trip. The electrician’s charges would be controlled by
the contract at hourly rates less than what they would normally charge. It should be
noted that we found that City employees were performing electrical-related work that
should have been done by or with a licensed electrician. In the future, this practice
will be changed to abide by state licensing requirements. The impact of this change is
not known.
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
2
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff would not need to solicit quotes on small electrical
jobs. It may be possible to streamline arrangements for repairs and other service and
to review invoices and follow up after a job.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to accept proposals, select one of the three recommended electricians, and
authorize City staff to negotiate a one-year contract for small job electrical repairs and
services, with an option for extensions.
2. Motion to not select an electrician and continue current practice of soliciting quotes
for all jobs regardless of size or cost.
3. Motion to table the matter and direct staff to collect additional information or table for
direct interviews with the City Council
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff is not trying to take the easy way out in saying that it appears to be a close call
between Olson & Sons Electric, Wes Olson Electric and Double D Electric. However,
Double D is not located in the City of Monticello so this could be a differentiator. The three
candidates with the best pricing all appear to be well qualified and the cost differentials are
fairly small and may not great enough to be a deciding factor. Wes Olson hourly price is
slightly better than Olson Electric, but the reverse is true on the mark-up on materials. Staff
has worked with these 3 businesses for many years and found them to be very competent.
The candidates that are not selected will continue to be utilized for their services on various
projects that fall outside the scope of the RFP. It is felt that any of these three businesses
would be the ideal candidate to provide service and repair work on small electrical jobs.
If Council has difficulty in making a decision based on the information provided, there is
always the option of conducting an interview with the candidates,
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of RFP for Small Job Electrical Repairs and Services
Table showing summary of top three proposals
Copy of submittals provided by top 3 candidates
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
SMALL JOB ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
1
The City of Monticello is soliciting proposals from Licensed Electricians that are qualified to
conduct small job repair of electrical and low voltage systems supporting operation of
municipal facilities primarily involving municipal buildings
If you have any questions, you may call the City of Monticello at 763-295-2711 or stop at
the Monticello City Hall. The full Request for Proposal can be downloaded from the City’s
website at www.ci.monticello.mn.us. (Contact Cathy Shuman at City Hall if you would like
an electronic copy in MS Word.)
A pre-bid conference is planned for Tuesday, April 13 at 2 p.m. in the Academy Room,
Monticello Community Center. Potential bidders can choose to participate by phone or in
person. Please call Kerry at 763.271.3206 to register and to receive conference call
information.
To submit a Request for Proposal, the submission must be sealed and plainly marked
“RFP for Small Job, Electrical Repair/Services Contract” on the outside of the mailing
envelope as well as the inside sealed envelope, addressed to: City of Monticello, 505
Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362. Proposals must be received at City Hall by
4:00 p.m. on Friday, April 16, 2010.
Recommendation from proposals will be presented to City Council on Monday, April 26,
2010.
All sections of the RFP are to be answered; an incomplete submission may be subject to
disqualification. The City of Monticello reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals, to
waive technical specifications or deficiencies, and to accept any Proposal that it may deem
to be in the best interest of the City.
Continue on succeeding pages for the complete bid.
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
SMALL JOB ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
2
The Licensed Electrician, hereinafter referred to as “Contractor,” will be required to
perform services specified herein. The Contractor will be expected to enter into a service
contract with the City of Monticello, hereinafter referred to as “Owner,” consistent with the
terms of this RFP and Contractor’s submitted proposal.
From time to time the City of Monticello needs an electrician to provide electrical repair of
services supporting the operation of municipal facilities including: City Hall, Community
Center, Public Works complex, Parks shelters/grounds, Deputy Registrar/Help Center
building, Library, Fire Hall, and Prairie Center offices. Some work may be scheduled and
other work could require immediate attending depending on the nature of the problem.
Service shall be provided by the Contractor on an as needed basis. By seeking proposals
from contractors, the City does not represent that it will utilize the successful bidder’s
services any guaranteed number of times over the course of the year.
As part of the service contract, Contractor will be required to meet the Insurance
Requirements included with this RFP.
The Contractor agrees to be the City’s Electrical Contractor for maintenance work of over
30 volts, including repairs and minor service work. Examples of related work could
include: electrical outlets and conduits, mechanical equipment, and light fixtures.
The Contractor may perform low voltage work (30 volts or lower) provided they have
experience with the service required and/or they are licensed as a Power Limited
Technician (PLT).
The RFP does not include specialized areas such as: Wastewater Treatment Facility,
FiberNet Head-end, water towers, water and sewer lines and equipment, wells, pumps, lift
stations, street lights, and parking lots.
The Contractor understands that the electrical services contract is intended to apply to
relatively small jobs and that the City will solicit quotes for work that, by the City’s
estimate, is likely to exceed $4,000 including materials and labor.
The Contractor must comply with all local and State laws, rules, and regulations; possess a
valid State of Minnesota Master Electrician’s License; and provide their state contractor
licensing information.
The City of Monticello prefers that the Contractor be “on call” on a 24-hour basis for any
emergency that many occur, including holidays. Response time to emergencies and routine
requests is expected to be timely, and proposals will be reviewed based in part on the
Contractor’s ability to provide such “on call” service and by written commitment to
respond timely to both scheduled and emergency situations.
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
SMALL JOB ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
3
It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to supply all necessary tools and equipment
to perform the work as requested to the extent that supplies, materials and parts are
required to perform the work. The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining such
supplies, materials and parts if not provided by the City of Monticello. Such supplies,
materials and parts shall be of good quality and the cost of such shall be billed as reflected
in the bid document.
The Contractor shall invoice the City within 30 days of a completed service call at the rates
agreed to in the contract. The City shall make payment within 35 days of receipt of invoice.
The City of Monticello shall retain the right to terminate the contract with seven (7) days
notice should the Contractor fail to perform work in a professional manner or perform the
work within the demands and time constraints established by the City of Monticello.
Failure to maintain an Electrician’s License, state contractor’s license, and/or insurance
coverage is grounds for immediate termination of the Contract. The City reserves the right
to utilize another electrician if Contractor fails to respond timely to an emergency.
The contract could be terminated upon mutual agreement between the Owner and the
Contractor, provided that at least 30 days notice is given by either party prior to
termination.
Contractor will be required to indemnify the City against all suits, claims, judgments,
awards, loss, cost or expense (including attorney’s fees without limitation) arising in any
way out of the Contractor’s performance or non-performance of its obligations under the
Service Contract. Contractor will defend all such actions with counsel satisfactory to
Owner at its own expense, including attorney’s fees, and will satisfy any judgment rendered
against Owner in such action.
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
SMALL JOB ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
4
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Proposals shall include the following and all sections must be answered.
1. Completed Statement of Qualifications, included in this document.
2. Completed References form, containing at least two (2) professional references,
including current contact name and phone number for similar contracts.
3. Completed Proposal Form, included in this document.
4. Copy of State Contractor’s license.
5. Copy of electrician’s license for all electricians who may be assigned work under the
contract.
6. Copy of Power Limited Technician license for each employee who is licensed and
could be assigned work under the contract.
Contractor may submit such additional information as it deems necessary or helpful to
the City’s evaluation process.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria:
1. Qualifications of bidding Contractor’s electricians.
2. Contractor’s reputation for timely, quality performance.
3. Rates.
4. Contractor’s willingness to commit to timely service.
5. Ability to provide 24-hour “on call” emergency service.
By submitting a proposal, the Contractor authorizes the City to undertake such
investigation as may be necessary to verify the Contractor’s qualifications and
reputation, including compliance with current city ordinances. The Contractor may be
requested to execute a release(s) in favor of third parties who have information relative
to the Contractor’s qualifications and reputation. Refusal to execute a release may
result in disqualification.
The City may, at its discretion, select a Contractor outright or select a finalist(s) for
interviews.
LENGTH OF SERVICE CONTRACT
The Service Contract will remain in effect until one (1) year from the date of award. Upon
the mutual agreement of both parties, the Service Contract may be renewed in one year
increments at the rates submitted in the proposal for a total period not to exceed three (3)
years.
SELECTION
Upon selection, the Contractor will receive a service contract and will be expected to
execute the contract within ten (10) business days of receipt. A completed W-9 shall
accompany the executed contract.
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
SMALL JOB ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
5
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
All questions must be answered and the data given must be clear and comprehensive. This
statement must be notarized. Add separate sheets or attachments, as necessary. This
section must be submitted with Proposal and all items must be answered.
1. Name of Contractor
2. Name of Business (if different than #1)
3. Form of Entity
4. Permanent Main Office and Mailing addresses and pertinent contact information
(phone, email, etc)
5. When Organized
6. Where Organized
7. How many years have you been engaged in the Electrical Repair/Service business
under your present name; also state names and dates of previous business names, if
any.
8. In the last five years, has Contractor ever been terminated from a contract or
project? If so, explain situation.
9. In the last five years, has Contractor ever been party to litigation related to the
Contractor’s work? If so, explain situation.
10. Please identify the number of licensed electricians and helpers available to work
under this contract:
______ Number of electricians _____ Number of apprentices/helpers
11. List the most important contracts entered into by the Contractor in the last year;
identify contracting party and term of contract.
12. List your key personnel available for this contract.
13. Please identify your experience with low voltage work (30 volts or less), and list
several contracts involving this type of work. Please note which of your employees
are experienced or licensed as a Power Limited Technician (PLT).
The City of Monticello reserves the right to request from finalist(s) the latest financial
statements as well as to request such additional information as may be reasonably
necessary to determine whether the Contractor should be awarded the service contract.
NOTARY
Contractor____________________________________ of Business_________________________________________
hereby acknowledges that questions and statements contained in this document are true
and correct.
Sworn before me this _________________ day of ___________________________, 20_____.
BY ____________________________________________
(Notary stamp)
TITLE_________________________________________
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
SMALL JOB ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
6
REFERENCES
Reference #1
Contact Name___________________________________________________________________________
Business Name__________________________________________________________________________
Business Address_______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Contact Phone________________________________ Contact Fax____________________________
Contact Email___________________________________________________________________________
Other Information (describe):
Reference #2
Contact Name___________________________________________________________________________
Business Name__________________________________________________________________________
Business Address_______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Contact Phone________________________________ Contact Fax____________________________
Contact Email___________________________________________________________________________
Other Information (describe):
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
SMALL JOB ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
7
PROPOSAL FORM
This section must be submitted with Proposal and all items must be answered.
Electrical Repair/Service Contract Rates
A) LICENSED ELECTRICIAN – Hourly Cost $_________________ per hour
Hourly Cost - for after hours/emergency $_________________ per hour
B) APPRENTICE/HELPER – Hourly Cost $_________________ per hour
Hourly Cost - for emergency call $_________________ per hour
C) CONSULTANT (if applicable) $_________________ per hour
D) TRAVEL EXPENSE: _____ no charge
OR Hourly Rate: $_________________ per hour
OR Flat Rate: $_________________ per trip
E) MATERIALS COST:
Mark-up ____________% (expressed as percentage over cost)
Discount ____________% (explain circumstances when this would apply)
F) OTHER (describe, if any)
Availability
1) Will the Contractor provide 24-hour “on call” emergency coverage? (Y/N)________
2) Response time to an emergency call? __________________________________________________
3) Response time for non-emergency request for service? _____________________________
Submission Acknowledgement
Contractor Signature _______________________________________________________________________
Print Name __________________________________________________________________________________
Title ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Business Name ______________________________________________________________________________
Date ______________________________________________
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
SMALL JOB ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
8
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Insurance shall be in such form as will protect the Contractor from all claims and liabilities
for damages for bodily injury, including accidental death, and for property damage, which
may arise from operations under this contract, whether such operations by himself or
anyone directly or indirectly employed by Contractor.
Amount of Insurance
A) Comprehensive General Liability: Bodily Injury or Property Damage - $1,000,000
each occurrence and general aggregate
B) Automobile and Truck Liability: Bodily Injury or Property Damage - $1,000,000 each
occurrence and general aggregate
*Comprehensive General Liability coverage and Automobile and Truck Liability coverage
may be met with a combination of coverage including excess and umbrella liability
coverage.
Type of Insurance for Contractor
A) Full Workers Comprehensive Insurance: Coverage for all people employed by the
Contractor to perform work under this contract. This insurance shall be in the
amount of $500,000 for each accident, illness or disease or such other amount that
may be required by the most current laws of the State of Minnesota, whichever is
greater.
B) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance: Covering bodily injuries and property
damage and also including coverage for:
1) Injury to or destruction of wires, pipes, conduits, and similar property located
below the surface of the ground, whether public or private.
2) Collapse of or structural injury to any building or structure except those on
which work under this Contract is being performed.
3) Contractual liabilities related to bodily injury and property damage.
C) Automobile and Truck Liability Insurance: Covering bodily injury and property
damage relating to operation of all motor vehicles and equipment, whether or not
owned by the Contractor, being operated in conjunction with work under this
contract.
D) Product and Completed Operations Insurance: Coverage to be included in the
amounts specified above for Comprehensive General Liability.
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
SMALL JOB ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
9
Evidence of Insurance
The City of Monticello shall be listed as an Additional Insured on the certificates of
insurance. The Contractor shall submit Certificates of Insurance to the Owner at the time of
execution of the Service Contract.
Written notice shall be given to the City of Monticello at least thirty (30) days prior to
cancellation or non-renewal of such insurance coverage.
As evidence of insurance coverage, the Owner may, in lieu of actual policies, accept official
written statements from the insurance company certifying that all the insurance policies
specified are in force for the specified period of the contract.
RFP for Small Job Electrical Repair/Services Contract
Contractor Name Contact Name Locaitin Cons Travel LoVolt Comments
Hourly Emerg Hourly Emerg Fees Cost Mk-up Disc Emerg Non-emerg Elec Appr PLT Work
Wes Olson Electric Wes Olson City of
Monticello
$55.00 $82.50 $35.00 $52.50 $55.00 $55/hr 25-
30%
10%(as currently
provided)
(as currently
provided)
2 pooled 2 Certified Low
Voltage installers;
telephone, data,
networking
willing to use City
employees to help
defray costs; Moon
Motors
Olson & Sons Electric Warren
Olson
City of
Monticello
$58.00 $58.00 $38.00 $38.00 $58.00 (blank)10%0 1/4-1 hr 1-3 days 8+12+8+Electricians are
licenses; many
apprentices are
trained; many
complete systems
installed
Double D Electric Dan
Damiani
Monticello
Township
$55.00 $90.00 na na $90.00 $55/hr 10%0 10-60 min
not
guaranteed
24-48 hrs 2 0 2 install/repair circuits
12V DC to 24V AC;
install data cables
ISD #882 maint
Nr Employees
Rates
Electrician Apprentice Materials
City Council Agenda: 04/26/10
1
17. Informational Update – Building Department (RH)
(Refer to attached materials.)