The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 12-13-2010AGENDA REGULARMEETING–MONTICELLOCITYCOUNCIL Monday,December13,2010–7p.m. Mayor:ClintHerbst CouncilMembers:TomPerrault,GlenPosusta,BrianStumpf,SusieWojchouski 1.CalltoOrderandPledgeofAllegiance 2A.ApprovalofMinutes–November22,2010SpecialMeeting 2B.ApprovalofMinutes–November22,2010RegularMeeting 3.Considerationofaddingitemstotheagenda 4.Citizencomments,publicserviceannouncementsandstaffupdates a.CitizenComments: b.PublicServiceAnnouncements: 1)Holidayhours 2)PublicsurveysforParks&TrailsPlan 3)SkatewithSanta(12/19) c.StaffUpdates: 1) 5.ConsentAgenda: A.ConsiderationofapprovingnewhiresanddeparturesforCitydepartments B.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2010-77toacceptcontributionfromTom Perrault C.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2010-78appointingtheState CommissionerofTransportationasAgentoftheCityofMonticelloforaccepting federalaidfundsforeligibletransportationimprovements D.ConsiderationofauthorizingreductioninretainageforRedstoneConstructionfor 2010StreetReconstruction,CityProjectNo.10C001 E.ConsiderationofrenewingannualpawnshoplicenseforMichaelHelmdba MonticelloPawn,GunandBargainCenterat1219SouthHwy25 F.ConsiderationofrenewingtwoyearassessingcontractwiththeWrightCounty Assessor’sOffice SPECIALMEETING 5:15p.m.–CityAdministratorEvaluation 6:15p.m.–CLOSEDsession(LitigationStatus) G.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2010-80approvingaJointPowers AgreementbetweentheCityofMonticelloandtheStateofMinnesota DepartmentofPublicSafety,whichwouldallowtheWrightCountySheriffand AttorneytoutilizesystemsandtoolsintheState’scriminaljusticedata communicationsnetworkontheCity’sbehalf H.ConsiderationofapprovingFarmLeaseAgreementfor26.48acresoffarmlandat BertramChainofLakesRegionalPark I.ConsiderationofauthorizingCitystafftoapplyforaSourceWaterProtection Competitivematchinggrant 6.Considerationofitemsremovedfromtheconsentagendafordiscussion 7.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2010-81approvingfinaltaxlevy andbudgetfor2011 8.Considerationofadoptingthe5-yearCapitalImprovementPlanfor2011-2015 9.ConsiderationofadoptingOrdinance#521amendingtheCityFeeSchedulefor2011 9A.ConsiderationofadoptingOrdinance#521Aforsummarypublicationofthe2011Fee Schedule 10.ConsiderationofapprovingCityparticipationinCSAH75pedestrianpathwayand underpassconstructioninconjunctionwithWrightCounty’sCSAH75improvement project 11.ConsiderationofauthorizingCitystafftoapplyforFederalfundingtoreconstructthe intersectionofTH25andCSAH75 12.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2010-79orderingpreparationofFeasibility Reportfor2011StreetReconstructionImprovements,CityProjectNo.11C001 13.AddedItems 14.ApprovepaymentofbillsforDecember13th 15.Adjournment CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 5A.ConsiderationofapprovingnewhiresanddeparturesforCitydepartments (TE) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCouncilisaskedtoratifythehiringanddeparturesofemployeesthathaveoccurred recentlyinthedepartmentslisted.ItisrecommendedthattheCouncilofficiallyratifythe hiring/departureofalllistedemployeesincludingpart-timeandseasonalworkers. A1.BudgetImpact:(positionsaregenerallyincludedinbudget) A2.StaffWorkLoadImpact:Ifnewpositions,theremaybesometraining involved.Ifterminatedpositions,existingstaffwouldpickupthosehours,as needed,untilreplaced. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoratifythehire/departuresoftheemployeesasidentifiedontheattached list. 2.Motiontodenytherecommendedhiresanddepartures. C.RECOMMENDATION: BystatutetheCityCouncilhastheauthoritytoapproveallhires/departures.Citystaff recommendsAlternative#1,fortheCounciltoapprovethehiresand/ordeparturesas listed. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Listofnew/terminatedemployees NameTitleDepartmentHireDateClass NameReasonDepartmentLastDayClass HannahKnettelVoluntaryMCC10/28/2010PT ChristopherSaavedraVoluntaryMCC10/28PT KrystaMitchellVoluntaryMCC11/1PT AmyKlattVoluntaryMCC11/1PT LyndsieTheisenVoluntaryMCC11/15PT ChristopherMitchellVoluntaryWater11/16Seasonal MichaelBradshawVoluntaryMCC11/25PT AmandaMcAlpineVoluntaryMCC12/1PT BrentStaufferVoluntaryFNM12/3FT KarriThorstenVoluntaryFinance12/17FT NEWEMPLOYEES TERMINATINGEMPLOYEES 5ANewHires-Terms:12/10/2010 CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 5B.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2010-77toacceptcontributionfromTom Perrault (CS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TomPerraultiscontributing$250forDecembertogointotheGeneralFund.As requiredbystatestatute,iftheCityacceptsthedonationoffunds,theCityCouncilneeds toadoptaresolutionspecifyingtheamountofthedonationanditsuse. A1.BudgetImpact:None A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffaccountsforandreconcilesdonationscontributed throughtheCity. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Approvethecontributionsandauthorizeuseoffundsasspecified. 2.Donotapprovethecontributionsandreturnthefundstothedonors. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommendationistoadopttheresolutionacceptingthecontributions. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: ResolutionNo.2010-77 CityofMonticello RESOLUTIONNO.2010-77 APPROVINGCONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS,theCityofMonticelloisgenerallyauthorizedtoaccept contributionsofrealandpersonalpropertypursuanttoMinnesotaStatutesSections 465.03and465.04forthebenefitofitscitizensandisspecificallyauthorizedtomaintain suchpropertyforthebenefitofitscitizensinaccordancewiththetermsprescribedbythe donor.SaidgiftsmaybelimitedunderprovisionsofMNStatutesSection471.895. WHEREAS,thefollowingpersonsandorentitieshaveofferedtocontribute contributionsorgiftstotheCityaslisted: DONOR/ENTITYDESCRIPTIONVALUE TomPerraultCash$250 WHEREAS,allsaidcontributionsareintendedtoaidtheCityinestablishing facilities,operationsorprogramswithinthecity’sjurisdictioneitheraloneorin cooperationwithothers,asallowedbylaw;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilherebyfindsthatitisappropriatetoacceptthe contributionsoffered. NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVED bytheCityCouncilofMonticelloas follows: 1.ThecontributionsdescribedaboveareherebyacceptedbytheCityof Monticello. 2.Thecontributionsdescribedabovewillbeusedasdesignatedbythe donor.Thismayentailreimbursingorallocatingthemoneytoanother entitythatwillutilizethefundsforthefollowingstatedpurpose: DONOR/ENTITYRECIPIENTPURPOSE TomPerraultCityofMonticelloGeneralfund(Dec) AdoptedbytheCityCouncilofMonticellothis13thdayofDecember,2010. CITYOFMONTICELLO ______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 5C.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2010-78appointingtheStateCommissioner ofTransportationasAgentoftheCityofMonticelloforacceptingfederalaidfunds foreligibletransportationimprovements (BW) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: InorderfortheCityofMonticellotoreceiveFederalfundingforfuturetransportation projectsthosefundsmustbedistributedtousthroughtheMinnesotaDepartmentof Transportation(Mn/DOT).Forthistooccur,theCitymustappointtheMinnesota CommissionerofTransportationasourapprovedAgentviaacertifiedresolution.This willlegallyallowthemtoacceptanddisburseanyfederalfundingweareeligibleto receive.WemustalsoenterintotheattachedAgencyAgreementNo.84236betweenthe CityofMonticelloandtheMinnesotaDepartmentofTransportation. UponspeakingwithMn/DOT,Iwastoldthereisnosunsetdatefortheattachedagency agreement.Thisagreementwillthereforebevalidandineffectatsuchtimethatany futuretransportationprojectsareundertakeninwhichweareeligibletoreceiveFederal funding.ThiswouldincludesuchprojectsastheFallonAvenueOverpass,thefullbuild- outoftheTH25&CSAH75intersection,anyinterchangesconstructedorreconstructed alongInterstate94,and/oranyadditionalrivercrossings. A1.BudgetImpact:TherearenodirectcostsassociatedwiththeCityenteringinto AgencyAgreementNo.84236.ShouldtheCitywishtoreceiveFederalfunding foranyfuturetransportationprojectswemustenterinthisagreementandadopt theattachedresolution. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffworkloadimpactsshouldbelimitedtomailing thethreecopiesofthesignedagreementstoMn/DOTandfilingtheexecuted copyreceivedinreturn. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2010-78andenterintoAgencyAgreementNo.84236 betweentheCityofMonticelloandtheMinnesotaDepartmentofTransportation. 2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolution#2010-78atthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsapprovingAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2010-78 AgencyAgreementNo.84236 CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2010-78 APPOINTINGSTATEAGENTTOACCEPTFEDERALAIDFUNDSFOR TRANSPORTATIONIMPROVEMENTSONBEHALFOFCITYOFMONTICELLO WHEREAS,theCityofMonticellointendstoapplyforfederalfundingfortransportation improvementswithintheCityboundaries;and WHEREAS,itisrequiredunderStateStatutesthattheCityappointanagenttoacceptfundson behalfoftheCityofMonticello; NOWTHEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFMONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:thatpursuanttoMinnesotaStatutes.Sec.161.36,theCommissionerof TransportationbeappointedasAgentoftheCityofMonticellotoacceptasitsagent,federalaid fundswhichmaybemadeavailableforeligibletransportationrelatedprojects;and BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,thattheMayor andtheCityAdministrator arehereby authorizedanddirectedforandonbehalfoftheCitytoexecuteandenterintoanagreementwith theCommissionerofTransportationprescribingthetermsandconditionsofsaidfederalaid participationassetforthandcontainedin"MinnesotaDepartmentofTransportationAgency AgreementNo.84236",acopyofwhichsaidagreementwasbeforetheCityCouncilandwhich ismadeaparthereofbyreference. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis13th dayofDecember,2010. CITYOFMONTICELLO _________________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CERTIFICATION STATEOFMINNESOTA COUNTYOFWRIGHT Iherebycertifythattheforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofaresolutiondulypassed, adoptedandapprovedbytheMonticelloCityCouncilattheirscheduledmeetingonDecember 13,2010,andrecordedinminutesofsaidmeeting. ____________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator ___________________________ Date NotaryPublic:_______________________________ (STAMP) CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 5D.ConsiderationofauthorizingreductioninretainageforRedstoneConstructionfor 2010StreetReconstruction,CityProjectNo.10C001 (BW) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: RedstoneConstructionrecentlyrequestedthattheCityreducetheirretainageforthe2010 StreetReconstructionprojectto1%oftheworkcompletedtodate.Thiswouldhave reducedtheirretainageto$21,872.55.However,sincethereisapproximately$26,000 worthofworkremainingtobecompletedonthisproject,staffinformedRedstonethatwe couldnotsupporttheirrequestandassuchwouldnotbewillingtopresentthisrequestto theCityCouncilforconsiderationofapproval.Theworktasksremainingtobe completedincludeplacingthepavementwearcourseonWestRiverStreetbetween MinnesotaandLinnStreets,televisingthesewerlines,andcompletingsomepavingwork onacoupleofdriveways. StafftheninformedRedstonethattheCityCouncilhasapprovedretainagereductionsin thepastwhentheretainagewasgreaterthanthevalueoftheremainingwork,thereby limitingtheCity’sexposuretorisk.RedstonewasinformedthatthelowesttheCity Councilhasgonepreviouslyonaretainagereductionwas2%fortheChelseaRoad project.Onthe2010StreetReconstructionprojecta2%retainagewouldtotal $43,745.10whichequals168%ofthevalueoftheworkthatremainstobecompleted. StaffthereforeinformedRedstonethatwecouldsupportarequesttoreducetheretainage to2%.RedstoneagreedtothisamountandaskedthatstaffpresentittoCouncilat tonight’smeeting. IftheCityCouncilapprovesthisrequeststaffwillreducetheretainageonRedstone Construction’snextpayrequest,whichwillbepayrequest#6.Thispayrequest,which currentlytotals$42,900.52,includespaymentfortheinstallationofsigns,mailboxes,and allremainingutilityservicesandaggregatebaseclass5.Payrequest#6iscurrently beingprocessedandshouldbereadyforpaymentinthenearfuture. A1.BudgetImpact:Therewouldbenoimpactstothebudgetifthisrequestis approvedbyCouncil. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffworkloadimpactswouldbeminimal. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoauthorizeareductioninretainageintheamountof2%forRedstone ConstructiononCityProject#10C001. 2.Motiontoauthorizeareductioninretainageintheamountof__%forRedstone ConstructiononCityProject#10C001. 3.MotiontodenyareductioninretainageforRedstoneConstructiononCityProject #10C001atthistime. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 2 C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsapprovingAlternativeActionNo.1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: none CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 5E.ConsiderationofapprovingrenewalofpawnshoplicenseforMichaelHelmdba MonticelloPawn,GunandBargainCenterat1219SouthHighway25 (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: InNovemberof2007,theCityapprovedtheapplicationforapawnshoplicensefor MichaelHelmdoingbusinessasMonticelloPawn,GunandBargainCenter.Atthattime theCityalsoapprovedanoff-sitestoragefacilityat12081165th StreetinBecker. TheCityhascheckedwiththeWrightCountySheriff’sDepartmentforanyissuesrelated totheoperationofthebusinessthatmightimpacttherenewalofthelicense.The Sheriff’sDepartmentreportednoissueswiththepawnshop.TheCommunity DevelopmentDepartmenthasinspectedthepropertyandfindsittobeincompliancewith theprovisionsofhisconditionalusepermit. Thereweretwoissuesthatstafffeltneededtobeaddressedbeforerecommending approvalofthelicenserenewal.Thefirstwasanoutstandinginvoiceforbillable transactionsandtheotherispermittingrelatedtosignsontheproperty.Mr.Helmwas deliveredtheattachedletterstatingthesetwoissuesonTuesday,December7th. OnTuesday,December7th,Mr.Helmpaidhisinvoicesintheamountof$1,560.95.The Councilmayhavesomeconcernaboutthetimelinessofthepaymentsforthebillable transactions.Thelicenseehasahistoryofbeingdelinquentwithhispayments.The licenseecouldallowthemonthlybillstoaccumulatetillsuchtimeaseitherhislicenseis upforrenewalortheCitycertifiesthedelinquentMARSbillingstotheCountyAuditor (November).Itshouldbenotedthatthe$25annuallicensefeewillbebilledattheend ofDecemberanddueinJanuary.TheCityAttorneyhasaddressedtheissueofnon- paymentoffeesandhasstatedthatthenon-paymentofthesefeesisavalidbasisfornot renewingthelicense. Oneissuethatisstilloutstandingisthat,in2009,theownerinstalledanelectronicreader boardinplaceofhisoldsign.Thiswasdonewithoutacquiringtheproperpermitsfrom theCity.Lastyearaspartofthelicensingprocess,theCitycontactedMr.Helm regardingthisissueandhehasstatedhewillapplyforthepermitandpaytherequired fees.Atthistimethepermitstillhasnotbeenappliedfororpaidfor.Inadditionthere havebeensomeperiodictemporarysignsontheproperty,forwhichnopermithasbeen issuedorfeespaid.StaffisworkingwithMr.Helmtoclearthisissueup. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.ApproveanannualpawnshoplicenseforMichaelHelmdbaasMonticelloPawn, GunandBargainCenterlocatedat1219TH25. 2.DonotapprovethepawnshoplicenseforMonticelloPawn,GunandBargain Center. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 2 C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: StaffrecommendsAlternative#1toapprovetherenewaloftheMonticelloPawn,Gun andBargainCenterat1219TH25licensefortheyear2011,contingentonallissues relatedtosignpermitsbeingresolvedbyDecember31,2010. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: CopyofLettertoMr.MikeHelm CouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 5F.ConsiderationofrenewingtwoyearassessingcontractwiththeWrightCounty Assessor’sOffice (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCitycurrentlycontractswiththeWrightCountyAssessor’sofficetoperform assessingworkfortheCity.Attachedisaproposedcontractcoveringservicesforthe periodJanuary2,2011toJune30,2013.Theagreementisthesameasinprevious contracts.Undertheproposedcontractagreement,theCitywouldpay$10.50/parcelfor assessmentservices,$25foreachnewpermitwithanestimatedconstructionvalueunder $499,999and$100forvaluesover$500,000.Thesechargesarethesameasthecurrent ratesbeingchargedtotheCityundertheexistingcontract.Thenewconstructionfeesare chargedonthebuildingpermitwhenitisissued. TheotheroptionsfortheCitywouldbe:A)tryandnegotiateamorefavorablecontract withWrightCounty;B)contractthisserviceoutwithaprivateassessororcompany, whichwouldrequiretheCitytodoarequestforproposalforservice;orC)tohireaCity Assessorasacityemployee,whichwouldrequirecreatingajobdescription,advertising theposition,interviewingandthenhiringtheindividual. A1.BudgetImpact:TheCitypaidWrightCounty$49,598in2010forthisservice andhas$50,000budgetedfor2011. A2.StaffImpact:ThereisnostaffimpactontheCityifthiscontractisrenewed.If oneoftheotheroptionsisselected,therewillbestafftimerequiredtowritethe RFPorjobdescriptionandadvertiseandpossibleawardorhireandassessor. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontorenewcontractingserviceswiththeWrightCountyAssessorforthe 2012and2013assessmentyears. 2.Motionauthorizingstafftodevelopandadvertisearequestforproposalfor assessingservicesforthe2012and2013assessmentyears. 3.MotionauthorizingstafftodevelopajobdescriptionandadvertiseforaCity Assessorposition. 4.MotionauthorizingstafftonegotiateamorefavorablecontractwithWright County. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CityStaffrecommendsAlternative#1thattheCouncilrenewcontractingserviceswith theWrightCountyAssessorforthe2012and2013assessmentyears.TheCityhas contractedwithWrightCountyforanumberofyears.TheCity’sworkingrelationship CouncilAgenda:12/13/10 2 withtheCountyAssessor’sOfficeoverthistimehasbeenverygoodandwiththerateper parcelproposedtoremainthesame,stafffeelscontinuingthecontractwithWright CountywouldseemtobeintheCity’sbestinterest. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: CopyoftheAssessmentServiceAgreement–1/2/2011to6/30/2013 CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 5G.Considerationof adoptingResolution#2010-80approvingaJointPowersAgreement betweentheCityofMonticelloandtheStateofMinnesotaDepartmentofPublic Safety,whichwouldallowtheWrightCountySheriffandAttorneytoutilize systemsandtoolsintheState’scriminaljusticedatacommunicationsnetworkon theCity’sbehalf (BW/JO) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CityCouncilisaskedtoapproveaJointPowersAgreementbetweentheStateof MinnesotaDepartmentofPublicSafetyandtheCityofMonticello.Thiswouldallowthe WrightCountySheriff’sDepartmentandWrightCountyAttorney’sOffice,asproviders oflawenforcementservicestotheCity,toutilizethestatecriminaljusticedata communicationsnetwork.Specifically,theSheriff’sDepartment,inconjunctionwiththe WrightCountyAttorney,wouldliketoembarkonaneCharginginitiativewhereby criminalcomplaintscanbefiledwiththeCourtsystemelectronically.TheCounty anticipatesasavingsinbothtimeandmoneybyusingthissystemimplementedbythe StateBureauofCriminalApprehension(BCA).IftheCountyisabletosavetimeand money,itshouldhelpkeeptheirpoliceservicerateslower;therebysavingtheCity moneyinthelongrun. A1.BudgetImpact:ThereshouldbenocosttotheCity.TheCountycurrently coversanycostsincurredwithfilingcriminalcomplaintsandtheyplanto continuetodoso. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:None. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2010-80approvingaJointPowersAgreement betweentheCityofMonticelloandtheStateofMinnesotaDepartmentofPublic Safety,allowingtheWrightCountySheriffandAttorneytoutilizetheState’s criminaljusticedatacommunicationsnetwork. 2.Motiontodenyadoptionoftheresolutionatthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1.TheCitycontractswiththeWrightCounty Sheriff’sDepartmenttoprovidepoliceprotection.Aspartofthiscontract,theWright CountyAttorneyprovidesprosecutionservices.Inorderforthemtoprovidethebest servicepossible,itmakessensetoprovidetoolssuchastheState’sBCAeCharging systemandotherelectronicaccesstotheState’scriminaljusticedatacommunications network. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 2 D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2010-80 CopyofLetterfromWrightCountyAttorney’sOffice CopiesofproposedJointPowersAgreements CopyofBCAProjectFactSheet–eChargingService CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2010-80 APPROVINGJOINTPOWERSAGREEMENTSBETWEENTHESTATEOF MINNESOTAANDTHECITYOFMONTICELLOONBEHALFOF AGENCIESPROVIDINGSERVICESFORPOLICEPROTECTIONAND PROSECUTIONSERVICES: WRIGHTCOUNTYSHERIFF’SDEPARTMENTAND WRIGHTCOUNTYATTORNEY’SOFFICE WHEREAS,theCityofMonticello,onbehalfoftheWrightCountyAttorneyandWright CountySheriff(its“Agents”),desirestoenterintoJointPowersAgreementswiththeStateof Minnesota,DepartmentofPublicSafety,BureauofCriminalApprehensiontousesystemsand toolsavailableovertheState'scriminaljusticedatacommunicationsnetworkforwhichtheCity iseligible.TheJointPowersAgreementsfurtherprovidetheCitywiththeabilitytoadd,modify anddeleteconnectivity,systemsandtoolsoverthefiveyearlifeoftheagreementandobligates theCityoritsAgentstopaythecostsforthenetworkconnection. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFMONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1.ThattheStateofMinnesotaJointPowersAgreementsbyandbetweentheStateof MinnesotaactingthroughitsDepartmentofPublicSafety,BureauofCriminal ApprehensionandtheCityofMonticelloonbehalfofitsProsecutingAttorneyandPolice Department,areherebyapproved.CopiesofthetwoJointPowersAgreementsare attachedtothisResolutionandmade a partofit. 2.ThattheMayorandCityAdministratoraredesignatedtheAuthorizedRepresentativesfor theWrightCountySheriff.TheAuthorizedRepresentativesarealsoauthorizedtosign anysubsequentamendmentoragreementthatmayberequiredbytheStateofMinnesota tomaintaintheCity'sconnectiontothesystemsandtoolsofferedbytheState. 3.ThattheMayorandCityAdministratoraredesignatedtheAuthorizedRepresentativesfor theWrightCountyAttorney.TheAuthorizedRepresentativesarealsoauthorizedtosign anysubsequentamendmentoragreementthatmayberequiredbytheStateofMinnesota tomaintaintheCity'sconnectiontothesystemsandtoolsofferedbytheState. 4.ThattheMayorandCityAdministratorareauthorizedtosigntheStateofMinnesota JointPowersAgreements. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis13th dayofDecember,2010. CITYOFMONTICELLO _____________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CERTIFICATION STATEOFMINNESOTA COUNTYOFWRIGHT Iherebycertifythattheforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofaresolutiondulypassed, adoptedandapprovedbytheMonticelloCityCouncilattheirscheduledmeetingonDecember 13,2010,andrecordedinminutesofsaidmeeting. ____________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator ___________________________ Date NotaryPublic:_______________________________ (STAMP) CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 5H.ConsiderationofapprovingFarmLeaseAgreementfor26.48acresoffarmlandat BertramChainofLakesRegionalPark (TP) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCityofMonticelloandWrightCountyownapproximately370acresofthelandat BertramChainoflakesRegionalPark.TheCityandCountywereapproachedbythe YMCA’sfarmer,MarkHolker,inquiringaboutrentingthenewly-purchasedparkland. TheYMCAhasabout35acresoffarmlandthatadjoinstheCity/Countyland.The farmlandisonlyaccessiblebygoingthroughCity/Countyparkland.TheCityof MonticelloParksDepartmentandtheWrightCountyParksDepartmentconstructeda parkinglotandanaccessgateforvehiclesandagriculturalequipment.Mr.Holkerhas beenrenting10acresofthisfarmlandsinceJanuary2010.Fortheyear2011,Mr.Holker isrequestingtorent26.48acres.TheFarmLeaseAgreementwassetuponayearly renewalwithaflatrateof$500/yearforrentalofthe10acreparcel.Thenewlease wouldbesetupat$50/acreor$1,324forthe26.48acres,withanannualrenewalwith theCity/CountyandMr.Holker. A1.BudgetImpact:Mr.Holkerwillpay$1,324/yeartorenttheland. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:None. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoapproverenewablefarmleasewithMarkHolkerforthe26.48acre parcellocatedattheBertramChainofLakesRegionalParkforanannualrental feeof$1,324. 2.MotiontodenyfarmleasewithMarkHolker. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffandtheBertramChainofLakesAdvisoryCouncilrecommendAlternative#1 torentthe26.48acreparceltoMarkHolkerforfarmingattherentalfeeof$1,324per yearwiththerenewablelease. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Copyofaerialmapoftheparcel CopyofFarmLease 26.48 Acres Tillable HOLKER PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT FARMLAND LOCATED AT: BERTRAM CHAIN OF LAKES REGIONAL PARK G:\ADMIN\WORDPROC\PARKS DEPT\AGREEMENTS\HOLKER LEASE - BERTRAM REGIONAL PARK - 26.48 ACRES - FARM LAND LEASE - 2010.DOC FARM LEASE The City of Monticello, 505 Walnut Street, Suite #1, Monticello, Minnesota 55362 and Wright County 1901 Highway 25 N Buffalo, MN 55313 as Lessor, hereby leases to Mark Holker, 5420 County Road 37 NE, Monticello, Minnesota 55362, as Lessee, the land lying in Wright County, Minnesota, to-wit: 26.48 acres of cultivated land in the Southeast corner of Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park adjoining the YMCA Parcel To have and to hold said premises, unto Lessee, his heirs and assigns, subject to the conditions and limitations hereinafter mentioned, for the term of year to year from the 1st day of January, 2011 to December 31, 2011, for the sum of $1,324.00 (One- Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Four and No/100 Dollars) per year, payable as follows, to wit: The payment of $1,324.00 is due no later than December 1st of crop year Payable To: Wright County, 1901 Highway 25 North, Buffalo, MN 55313 And, in consideration thereof, said Lessee covenants with the said Lessor, his heirs and assigns, as follows: RENT: That he will pay rent for said land as above specified; PLANTING: That he will farm said land according to the best farming practices in its locality and provide all tolls, implements, machinery and hired help necessary to that end; SEED HARVESTING: That he will use on said land only the best seed available and will promptly pay all harvesting bills during said term; WEEDS: That he will keep all land and adjoining fence lines and highways free from weeds, and destroy same before seeds ripen by spraying or otherwise, and will use herbicides to eradicate weeds on tillable land; PLOWING: That as soon as possible after removal of crops each year he will plow all parts of said land for crops of the ensuing year; ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING : That he will neither assign this lease nor sublet any part of said land without consent of said Lessor; SECURITY AGREEMENT: That, to secure performance of the terms and conditions herein, Lessee hereby grants to Lessor, his heirs and assigns, a security interest in all crops of every kind which have been planted or are growing, or which may hereafter be planted or growing on the above-described land. THIS SECURITY AGREEMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS PRINTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE HEREOF, WHICH ARE MADE A PART HEREOF. LESSEE=S RECEIPT FOR COPY The undersigned Lessee hereby acknowledges the receipt from the Lessor of a true, correct and complete copy of the forgoing Security Agreement and Lease. WITNESS our hands this ________ day of __________, 2011 _________________________________ _________________________________ Mark Holker Jeff O’Neill, City of Monticello _________________________________ _________________________________ Clint Herbst, Mayor Pat Sawatzke, Wright County Board _________________________________ Richard Norman, County Coordinator The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _________ day of ____________, 2011, by Mark Holker, Jeff O’Neill, Clint Herbst, Pat Sawatzke, Richard Norman (Names of Persons Acknowledged) Acknowledged By: _________________________________________ My Commission Expires: ____________________, ___________ G:\ADMIN\WORDPROC\PARKS DEPT\AGREEMENTS\HOLKER LEASE - BERTRAM REGIONAL PARK - 26.48 ACRES - FARM LAND LEASE - 2010.DOC LESSEE HEREBY AGREES THAT: A. UNTIL DEFAULT, Lessee may retain possession of the Collateral and harvest, process, store and use it in any lawful manner not inconsistent with the agreements herein. B. DEFAULT, Lessee shall be in default under this Agreement upon the happening of any of the following events: (a) non payment, when due, of any amount payable on any of the liabilities or failure to observe or perform any term hereof; (b) any Lessee becomes insolvent or unable to pay debts as they mature or makes an assignment for the benefit of the creditors, or any proceeding is instituted by or against any lessee alleging that such lessee is insolvent or unable to pay debts as they mature; (c) the entry of any judgment against any lessee; (d) death of any lessee who is a natural person or of any partner of any lessee which is a partnership; (e) dissolution, merger or consolidation, or transfer of a substantial part of the property of any lessee which is a corporation or a partnership; (f) loss, theft, substantial damage, destruction or encumbrance of any of the collateral; or (g) if the lessor deems himself insecure for any reason. C. REMEDIES. In the event of a default, Lessor shall have the right, at his option and without demand or notice, to declare all or any part of the obligations immediately due and payable; and in addition, Lessor may exercise, in addition to the rights and remedies granted hereby, all of the rights and remedies of a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code or any other applicable law. Lessee agrees in the event of a default to make the collateral available to Lessor at a place to be designated by Lessor which is reasonably convenient. Lessee further agrees to pay all costs and expenses of Lessor, including reasonable attorney’s fees, in the collection of any of the obligations or the enforcement of any of Lessor’s rights. If any notice of sale, disposition or other intended action by Lessor is required by law to be given to Lessee, such notice shall be deemed reasonably and properly given if mailed to Lessee at the home address of Lessee, or at such other address of Lessee as may be shown on Lessor’s records, at least ten (10) days before such sale, disposition or other intended action. Waiver of any default hereunder by Lessor shall not be waiver of any other default or of a same default on a later occasion. No delay or failure by Lessor to exercise any right or remedy shall be a waiver of such right or remedy and no single or partial exercise by Lessor of any right or remedy shall preclude other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right or remedy at any other time. D. TERMINATION. This Agreement and the security interest in the collateral created hereby shall terminate when the obligations have been paid in full. No waiver by Lessor of any default shall be effective unless in writing nor operate as a waiver of any other default or of the same default on a future occasion. E. ATTORNEY-IN-FACT. Lessor is hereby appointed Lessee’s attorney-in-fact to do all things and acts necessary to perfect and to continue to perfect the security interest and the collateral. F. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. (if none, insert “none”.) NONE G. The Security Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties, and no oral agreement shall be binding. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 5I.ConsiderationofauthorizingCitystafftoapplyforaSourceWaterProtection CompetitiveGrant (BP) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CouncilisrequestedtoconsiderapprovinganapplicationforaSourceWaterProtection CompetitiveGrant.Recently$200,000wasapprovedbytheStateforfundinggrantsto PublicWaterSupplySystems.Upto$10,000ofmatchingfundswillbeawardedtothe recipientsforatotalpossibleprojectof$20,000.Thisgrantwillcontinuethework associatedwithlocatinganewwellthatcouldserveasareplacementforWell#1.It makessensetoworktowardtheconstructionofanewwellthatcouldeithersupplement ourexistingsystemorserveasareplacementforWell#1shouldthecouncilconsiderthe redevelopmentoftheSEquadrantofdowntown. OnMarch22,2010,CouncilauthorizedWSBtoprovideastudythatwoulddetermine suitablelocationsforawell.Theresearchprovidedageologicstudyoftheaquifersthat existundergroundinMonticelloandsurroundingborders.Thisinformationisdetailedin thememorandumfromBJBoninofWSBintheattachedsupportingdocumentation. However,itisonlyaportionofresearchnecessarytosecureasound,highproducing well,withhighwaterquality,inaproximitycommontothedevelopmentoftheCity. ConversationwiththeMinnesotaDepartmentofHealth,alongwithaletterofsupport whichisrarelygivenfromtheMDH,supportsourapplication.Thisknowledgegives Monticelloanexcellentchanceofreceivingagrant. ItisinthebestinterestoftheCitytopursuethisgrantinconsiderationoftheneedfor constructingwellsatthistimeandinthefuture.Thedowntownareahasgoodwater productionandthecontinuedinterestofredevelopingtheSEQuadrantblockwillrequire theremovalofWell#1.Ifwewanttogetaheadofthenextredevelopmentrequest, additionalworkisstillrequiredforapermanentwellsitebeyondthescopeofwhatWSB hasalreadycompleted.Attachedisthegrantapplicationwhichalsooutlinesthe additionalresearchthatissuggestedtodevelopafuturewell.Anobservationortestwell, whichcomesstronglyrecommended,isconsideredgoodinsurancepriortoconstructinga productionwellatafractionofthecost. A1.BudgetImpact:Grantapplicationcosts$0.Ifaccepted,$10,000isavailablein theWaterFundtomatchMDHfunds.Councilwillbeapproachedtoacceptor denywhengrantwinnersarechosen. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Minimaltimetosubmittheapplication. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoauthorizeCitystafftoapplyforaSourceWaterProtectionGrant. 2.Motiontodenyauthorization. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 2 C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffsupportsAlternative#1.Itistheopinionofstaffthatpreparationshouldbe madeinadvanceofdevelopmentfortheSEdowntownquadrantduetothetimeinvolved togetapprovalfromtheDNRandStateHealthDepartmentincludingthestudiesrequired toappropriateanewwell.Thisinformationwillperpetuallybeinhandforwatersupply needsfarintothefuture.ThefundingfromtheSourceWaterProtectionGrantwillbea smartmovetosavesubstantialfundsthattheCitywouldhavetopayanywayinfull. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: MemorandumfromBJBoninofWSBwithresultsofwellsitestudytodate LetterfromStephenRobertsonMDHsupportingthewellstudy DraftofSourceWaterProtectionGrantApplication CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 7.PublicHearing-ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2010-81approvingfinal TaxLevyandBudgetfor2011 (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CityCouncilandstaffmetseveraltimestodiscusstheCity’sproposed2011budgetand taxlevy.Asaresult,theCouncilapproveda2011preliminarylevyof$7,677,309,which wascertifiedtoWrightCountyforthetaxnoticesthatweremailedinNovember. Theproposedtaxlevyof$7,677,309is$29,037higherthanthe2010finallevy.Thelevy helpsfundthefollowingfunds: GeneralFund$5,337,622 LibraryFund36,750 ShadeTreeFund33,500 CommunityCenterFund1,100,000 StreetReconstructionFund25,000 DebtServiceFunds 2008SewerRefunding$430,000 2010Improv.Bond52,000 2005Improv.Bond244,131 2007Improv.Bond418,306 DebtServiceFundLevy1,144,437 TotalProposedLevy$7,677,309 SincetheproposedlevywasadoptedonSeptember13th,staffadjustedthebudget slightly,whichwaspresentedatabudgetworkshoponNovember22nd,andresultedin thelevybeingreducedto$7,609,687.However,theCouncildirectedstafftokeepthe levyatthepreliminarylevyamountof$7,677,309.Alsosincethatworkshopitwas discoveredtherewasanerrorincalculatingtherefusebudget.Thebudgetwasnetting therefusecostandtherevenuesbudgetedforgarbagecartstogether,whichresultedin therefuselineitembudgettobeshort$45,000.Thishasbeencorrectedandonceagain increasedthelevyfrom$7,609,687to$7,654,687.Inadditionstaffisnowproposingto budget$17,595forequipmentrentaltostartfundingfutureequipmentneeds.Therearea coupleofotherminorexpenditureadjustmentswhichwouldbringtheCity’sfinallevy backuptothe$7,677,309asCouncildirected. ThelevyhelpssupporttheCity’sproposedexpenditurebudget,whichincludesboth operationalandcapitalcosts.TheCity’sGeneralFundexpenditurebudgetisbeing increased1.03%fromthe2010budget,theLibraryFundexpenditurebudgetisbeing increased8.89%($3,000),ShadeTreeexpendituresdecreased12.00%andtheMCC expendituresareincreased5.43%. Revenueandexpenditureschangesthataffectthelevyinclude: CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 2 1.Increasedthesheriffdepartmentbudgetto$1,120,000reflectingtherateincreaseto $59.00perhourfor18,980hours(samenumberofhoursas2010).Thisincreasedthe budgetbyabout$26,000. 2.Decreasedthehealthinsurancebenefittoreflectthethreeplanoptionatthelower premiumforthebaseplan.ThissavestheCityaround$23,000. 3.Eliminatedthechargeforrecycling/garbagebinsonutilitybillssinceVeoliahas takenthisserviceoverfromtheCity.Reducesrevenuesby$45,000. 4.Added$75,000oftheelectricfranchisefeetotheGeneralFundtohelpoffsetsomeof thestreetlightelectriccosts.Electricfranchisefeesof$225,000arestillbudgetedas revenuefortheadditionorimprovementsofstreetlightsfor2011. 5.NoCOLAincreaseof1%. 6.Nostepincreasesforthoseeligible. 7.Removedthe$75,000foralobbyistrelatedtoYuccaMountainclosure. 8.RemovedPlanningandZoningintern($2,000). 9.Fundingofcityequipmentrentalfeetofundequipmentreplacementpurchasesinthe futureat$17,595.Shouldbe$256,190tobefullyfunded. a.AllequipmentpurchasefundedfromCapitalRevolvingFundin2011. 10.Removedthe$5,000toaddontopublicworksparkinglot. 11.Removedfromparksimprovementbudgetthe$10,000fordiscgolfcourse. b.Alsoremovedfromthebudgetthecontributionof$10,000tooffsetthis expenditure. 12.Removed$7,500atXcelBallfieldsfordugoutroofs. 13.Streetimprovementbudgetreducedto$70,000forsealcoatproject. 14.Moved$5,000ofauditcosttoFiberNetfund. 15.ReducedtheSeniorCenterContributionfrom$50,000downto$49,750(sameas 2010). 16.CommunityCenteruses$243,326ofreservestofundcapitalimprovementsanddebt requirements. 17.StreetReconstructionfundlevysetat$25,000insteadofthe$250,000itshouldbeat. 18.Alotofitemsloweredbasedonpastandcurrentexpenditurelevels. TheCountycurrentlyhastheCity’staxcapacityat$16,434,254.Whenthetaxlevyof $7,677,309isdividedbytheCity’staxcapacity,youendupwiththeCity’s2011taxrate of46.715%comparedtoa2010taxrateof45.822%.Thismeans,ifahomehadamarket valueof$175,000forbothtaxespayablein2010and2011,thatpropertyownerwould seetheirCitypropertytaxesincrease$16andahomevaluedat$275,000wouldseea decreaseof$25.Abusinessvaluedat$300,000wouldseeanincreaseof$47. In2009,ofthe17citiesinWrightCounty,11ofthosecitieshadlowertaxratesthan Monticello’sandin2010wedroptowhereonly7citieswerelower.Basedonthe preliminaryleviesofthe17citiesfor2011,only5citieswouldhavealowertaxratethan Monticello. A1.BudgetImpact:Thiswouldsettheexpenditurebudgetsfor2011at $42,960,738forallfundsandtheCity’spropertylevyat$7,677,309. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 3 A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Thebudgetshouldservestaffasaguidetoexpenditure limitsfor2011,buthasnoworkloadimpact. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution2010-81approvingthe2011expenditurebudgetat $42,960,738andtheCitypropertytaxlevyat$7,677,309. 2.MotiontoadoptaResolutiontoapprovethe2011expenditurebudgetand/ortax levyatsomeotheramountswiththetaxlevynottoexceed$7,677,309. 3.Motionnottoapprovethe2011expenditurebudgetand/ortaxlevyandtocallfor aspecialmeetingtoapprovethebudgetandtaxlevypriortoDecember31st. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1,toadopttheresolutionapprovingthe2011 expenditurebudgetforallfundsat$42,960,738andtheCitypropertytaxlevyat $7,677,309. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2010-81 PowerPointpresentationpages CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2010-81 ADOPTINGTHE2011BUDGETANDSETTINGTHETAXLEVY WHEREAS,theFinanceDirectorhaspreparedandsubmittedtotheCityCouncilabudgetsetting forththereinhisestimatedneedsoftheCityofMonticelloforalloperationandthedebtservicefor thefiscalyearcommencingJanuary1,2011;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilhasreviewedthesameandhasmadesuchchangesthereinasappear tobeinthebestinterestoftheCityofMonticello; NOWTHEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECOUNCILOFTHECITYOF MONTICELLO:thatthebudgetsosubmittedbytheFinanceDirector,togetherwiththechanges madethereinbytheCityCouncil,beandsameherebyisadoptedasabudgetforthefiscalyear commencingJanuary1,2011;and BEITFURTHERRESOLVED bytheCounciloftheCityofMonticellothattherebeand herebyisleviedforthefiscalyearcommencingJanuary1,2011,thefollowingsumsforthe respectivepurposesindicatedthereinuponthetaxablepropertyoftheCityofMonticello,towit: REVENUE NETCERTIFIEDLEVY General $5,337,622 CommunityCenter $1,100,000 Library $36,750 ShadeTree $33,500 DEBTRETIREMENT DebtServiceFund $1,144,437 CAPITALIMPROVEMENTS StreetReconstructionFund $25,000 TOTALTAXLEVY $7,677,309 ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis13th dayofDecember,2010. CITYOFMONTICELLO ___________________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator TheaboveresolutionwasintroducedbyCouncilmember__________andwasdulysecondedby Councilmember___________. Thefollowingvotinginfavor: . Thefollowingvotedinopposition: CERTIFICATION STATEOFMINNESOTA COUNTYOFWRIGHT Iherebycertifythattheforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofaresolutiondulypassed, adoptedandapprovedbytheMonticelloCityCouncilattheirscheduledmeetingonDecember13, 2010,andrecordedinminutesofsaidmeeting. ____________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator ___________________________ Date NotaryPublic:_______________________________ (STAMP) 2011 PROPOSED BUDGET and PROPERTY TAX LEVY Budget Calendar June-August Staff Develops Draft Budget August 9 & 23 September 13 Council Workshops September 13 Council Adopts Preliminary Tax Levy November 22 Council Workshop December 13 Council Approves Final Budget and Property Tax Levy January 1, 2011 Fiscal Year Begins 2011 Budget Highlights Total Expenditure Budget of $42,960,738. Includes debt service ($6,904,275) and capital expenditures ($4,739,500). Expenditures budget is an 25.2% increase from 2010 budget. Total Revenue budget of $36,028,167. Budgeted the $257,815 cut in MVHC. 2011 General Fund Budget General Fund (operating) budget of $6,393,620. General Fund Budget is an 1.03% increase from 2010 budget. The General Fund is a balance budget. No COLA or step increases for employees. No new positions. Change in benefit plan to reduce costs. 2011 General Fund Budget Increased cost for sheriffs department. Maintain current service levels for most services. Adds $39,129 for storm water maitnenace. Uses $75,000 of electric franchise fees for street lighting operating costs. Removes garbage cart utility fee. Tax levy of $5,337,622. 2011 Library Fund Budget Expenditure budget of $36,743. Maintains service at current levels. Includes a property tax levy of $36,750. 2011 Community Center Fund Budget Expenditure budget of $2,534,775. Increase of 5.43% from 2010. Requires the use of $256,445 of reserves to fund equipment/building needs and debt payments. Tax levy of $1,100,000. 2011 Other Budgets Shade Tree Fund budget decreased 12.00%. Tax levy of $33,500. Capital Project Fund budget of $4,739,500. Funding sources include special assessments, other City Funds. 2011 projects include street reconstruction and first year cost of the Fallon Avenue overpass. 2011 Other Budgets Debt Service expenditures of $6,904,275. Tax levy of $1,144,437. Outstanding debt of $64,964,000 as of 12/31/10. Includes Revenue Bonds of $26,445,000 to fund FiberNet Monticello project. No longer using City reserves. 2011 Other Budgets Enterprise fund budgets of $15,880,783. Revenues include rate increases for water and sewer operations. Rates fund operations and less than 50% of infrastructure replacement. Liquor Fund contributes $250,000 to the Street Reconstruction Fund to reduce the tax levy for projects. Budget includes FiberNet Monticello operations. Tax Levy Information Total levy including debt $7,677,309. Levy increase of 0.38%. Current City levy limit $9,583,527. City is $1,906,218 under the limit. Current City tax capacity is $16,434254. Tax capacity decreased $257,012 from 2010. County estimates the average home value in Monticello decreased around 11%. Tax Levy Information 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Property Tax Levy Summary Tax Levy Information Results in a tax rate of 46.715%. Tax Levy Information If a property value remained unchanged it would result in a tax increase between $12 to $26. Tax Levy Information If a property value decreased 2% it would result in a tax decrease between $1 to $2. Average property value decreased 11%. $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $135,000 $175,000 $200,000 $250,000 $275,000 $300,000 Market Values City Property Taxes on Residential Property 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Tax Levy Information City tax rate is 6th lowest in Wright County. Tax Levy Information Monthly Cost of things Satellite TV Package $99.99 Unlimited Cell Phone Plan $89.99 35 Gallons of Gas ($2.90/gallon)$101.50 Dinner & Movie for 2 (estimated)$65.00 City Services $77.83 (based on a home valued @ $200,000) Services include; police, fire, animal control, garbage/recycling pickup, street and park maintenance, snow plowing, infrastructure improvements, code enforcement, library maintenance, diseased tree control, planning and zoning administration, and more. Tax Levy Information Monthly cost of City services is $77.83: General Fund Administration $12.35 Public Safety 11.57 Public Works 20.45 Parks 7.27 Other 2.47 Library Fund 0.38 Shade Tree Fund 0.33 MCC 11.16 Street Reconstruction 0.25 Debt Service 11.60 Conclusion Total Budget for all funds of $42,960,738. Total Levy of $7,677,309 Tax Rate of 46.715% Questions???????? Comments CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 8.ConsiderationofadoptingtheCapitalImprovementPlan(CIP)for2011-2015 (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: StaffandCityCouncilreviewedaproposedFive-YearCIPataworkshoponAugust9th. TheenclosedCIPistheresultofthatworkshop. The2011improvementsareincludedintheCity’s2011budget;howeveritemswould stillneedCouncilapprovalbeforepurchasingorgoingforwardwithprojects.Thecapital improvementslistedfor2012through2015onlyserveasaguideforfutureplanningand arenotauthorizeduntiltheyareincludedinthebudgetandapprovedbyCouncil. Onceapproved,theCIPwillbeusedbystafftocompletetheCity’slong-rangefinancial planand,byhavinganadoptedCIP,thisshouldhelptheCity’seffortstoobtainahigher bondratinginthefuture.TheCIPshouldalsohelpeliminatelargebudgetfluctuations fromoneyeartoanotherandlargepurchasescanbeplannedandspreadoutoverthefive- yearperiod.TheCIPprovidesbetterfinancialstabilityfortheCitybyplanningfuture capitalimprovementsandpurchases. A1.BudgetImpact:Thefundsforthecapitalequipmenttobepurchasedand projectstobeginin2011areincludedinthe2011operatingbudgetsofthevarious fundsasidentifiedintheCIP. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:TheonlystaffimpacttheCIPhasisthetimeittook stafftocreatetheCIP.Atthetimeprojectorequipmentpurchasesmoveforward, theremaybestafftimeandpossiblyworkcompletedbystaffatthattime. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoapprovethe2011-2015CIP. 2.Motiontoapprovethe2011-2015CIPwithadditionalchangesfromCouncil. 3.Motiontodenyapprovalofthe2011-2015CIP. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1,toapprovethe2011-2015CIP. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: 2011-2015CIPdocument CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 9.ConsiderationofadoptingOrdinance#521amendingtheCityFeeSchedulefor2011 (TK/JO) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: ThefeesforservicesperformedbytheCityaresetbyCityordinance.Everyyear,staff reviewsthesefeestomakesurethefeeschargedareinlinewithwhattheservicecostsso thattheywillgeneratetherevenuesnecessarytoprovidetheservice.Attachedisthe proposed2011feeschedulebasedonstaffreviewofthesefees.Wherechangestothe feesschedulearebeingrecommended,theoldfeeisinblack(withstrike-outs)andthe proposedfeeinsertedinred.For2011,therearefewchangestothefeeschedule.WSB isreviewingthefeesforwaterandseweraccesschargesandSACfeesandthosefee recommendationswillbeproposedinthenearfuture.Asummaryofsomeofthe changesaredescribedbelow. UndertheCemeteryFeesection(page1),staffproposestoincreasethefeesfor purchasingagravesite.ThisincreaseisneededsothattheCity’scemeteryfund continuestobreakevenforthefiscalyear. IntheCommunityCenter,ParkRentalsection(page2),increasesby$25anhourfor thevariousparkfacilitiesandincreasestherentaltimeperiodfrom4hoursto6hours. AlsoundertheCommunityCentersection,theattachede-mailpagewiththe communitycenterroomrentalandmembershipchangeswouldbeincorporatedinto thefeeschedule. IntheCommunityDevelopment–Buildingsection(page2),clarifyingthewording forgradingpermitsonnewsingle-familyresidentialdevelopment.Feesandthe methodforchargingthefeesremainsthesame. Underlicensesandpermits(page5),changedthefeeforpawnshoptransactions.The Cityiscurrentlycharged$1.00foreachtransactionbytheCityofMinneapolis.In 2011thefeewilldecreaseto$0.60pertransaction.Monticellocurrentlycharges pawnshops$1.50pertransactionandstaffisrecommendingreducingthefeeto$1.00 pertransaction. Undermiscellaneousfees(page6),changethechargeforCityordinances,maps, minutes,andagendasfromabaseamounttousingthechargeperpageforcopies. TheseitemsareallavailablefreeontheCity’swebsiteandtheCitydoesnotreceive manyrequestsfortheseitems. InthePublicWorkssection(page6),underBoulevardDiseasedTreeRemoval,the feesandmethodforcalculatingthefeeremainsthesame,butchangingthewording toclarifyingwhatandhowthefeeiscalculated. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 2 UndertheSanitarySewersection(page6and7),thesewerratesforresidentialand commercialareincreasingfrom$2.75to$3.00per748gallons,BOD5rateis increasingfrom0.265to0.300perlb,TSSisincreasingfrom0.365/lbto0.400/lband thesewerdischargeenvironmentalfeeisincreasedfrom1%ofsewerbillto2%. InWasteItemssection(page7),eliminatethefeeschargedforgarbagecartrentals sinceVeoliahandlesallthegarbagecartsnow. UndertheWatersection(page8),staffisrecommendingawaterrateincreaseforall waterusers.Seediscussionbelow. Alsointhewatersection(page8),thecostforwatermetershasincreasedandstaffis recommendingthattheCitychargeforwatermetersreflectthepriceincrease. Inthefinalchangeinthewatersection(page8),staffrecommendsincreasingthefee forsprinklingviolations. ThewaterratesarebeingproposedbystaffinresponsetoCouncildirectiontoincrease andtheratestructurereflectingmoreofthestructuresusedbyothercities.Mostcities useatieredratesystemandatieredsystemismandatedbytheStateintheseven-county metroareaasamethodtoencouragewaterconservation.IbelievetheStatewillsomeday mandatethisstatewide.Forthisreason,staffisrecommendingtheCityadoptatiered ratesystem.Howeverwhenstafffirstproposedthisratestructureandthechargesateach tier,staffdidnotrealizethefullimpactthenewstructurewouldhaveonthefourorfive businessesthatuselargequantitiesofwaterintheirprocesses.Aftermeetingwith CargillKitchenSolutionsandseeingtheimpactithasontheirbill,staffhasadjustedthe rateandtiersystemtolessentheimpactonthesebusinesses.Belowisatableshowing thecurrentsystemandratescomparedtowhatwasoriginallyproposedandthenew proposal. WaterUsage CurrentRates OriginalProposal FinalProposal 0-3740gallons$13.00minimum$14.30minimum$14.30minimum 3741–29,920gallons$0.85/748gallons$0.95/748gallons$0.95/748gallons 29,921–75,000gallons$0.85/748gallons$1.10/748gallons 29,921–100,000gallons$0.85/748gallonsNotproposed$1.10/748gallons Over75,000gallons$0.85/748gallons$1.50/748gallons Over100,000gallons$0.85/748gallonsNotproposed$1.20/748gallons Underthenewproposalthefinaltierwouldstartatover100,000gallonscomparedto 75,000gallons,andtheratedropstheoriginalproposalforthistierfrom$1.50to$1.20 per748gallons.Withthisdrop,theamountstillgoesupfrom$.085to$1.20.Basedon thelastquarter’sreading,CargillKitchenSolutionswouldhaveawaterbillofaround $14,646.98undertheCity’scurrentbillingsystem.Thatbillwouldhavejumpedupto around$26,366.87attheoriginalproposedrateincrease.Understaff’scurrent recommendation,thewaterbillwouldbearound$18,478.97whichendsupbeingabouta 28%increase. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 3 Argumentsforthisratestructurewouldbethatthehigherratesforhighwateruse encouragesconservationandthathighwaterusersplacemorestressonthesystem causingmoremaintenanceandquickerreplacementofexistingfacilities.Highuseby currentusersalsousesupthesystemcapacitywhichlimitsgrowth(new development/business)withoutaddingnewfacilities. Anotheroptioncouldbetoeliminatethetoptierandbillallwaterusageover29,921at $1.10orsomeotherrate.Asecondoptioncouldbetolowerthecostofthelasttierto $1.15/748gallons.Athirdoptioncouldbetoincreasetheamountofgallonsusedineach tierandstartthefinaltieratahighergallonusage.Finally,theCitycouldhavedifferent billingsystemsforcommercial/industrialusersversusresidentialusers. Finally,itisestimatedthatthenewrateswouldgenerate$40,000inwaterrevenuesfor 2011. A1.BudgetImpact:Increasedfeeswouldprovidethepossibilityofincreased revenuesandmatchbudgetedrevenuesfor2011.Howeversincemostofthe increasesarerelativelysmalltheimpactwillbeminorwiththeexceptionofthe proposedwaterrates. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Thisitemwouldhavenoadditionalstaffworkload impact. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptOrdinance521settingthe2011feescheduleassubmitted, includingproposedwaterfeeschedule.However,Councilcoulddirectstaffto reviewthewaterfeestructurefurtherintermsofimpactonhighusersandcity fundingneedswithanypotentialmodificationsoftherateandtiersystemtobe consideredpriortoissuanceof1st quarterutilitybillsinApril. 2.MotiontoadoptOrdinance521settingthe2011feescheduleasproposedwithout furtherconsiderationofchangestothewaterfeestructure. 3.MotiontoadoptOrdinance521settingthe2011feeschedulewithfurtherchanges directedbyCouncil. 4.Donotadoptanordinancesettingthe2011feeschedule. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffsupportsAlternative#1.Therearegoodreasonsasoutlinedabovetoincrease thefeesandestablishanewtierinthewaterratestructureforhighwaterusers.Staff understandsthattheoriginalproposedincreasetothewaterrateshadasomewhatabrupt effectonhighwaterusersthatmaynothavebeenintendedbyCouncilwiththenewtier CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 4 thatwascontemplatedafewweeksago.Accordingly,staffhasreviewedtheimpactwith CargillKitchens,andthenewadjustedrateunderAlternative#1callsforasmaller increase.However,Cargilldoesnotnecessarilysupporteventhissmallerincreaseasitis afairlysignificantincreaseforthem.Therefore,itcouldmakesensetocontinueto reviewthematterwithhighendwateruserspriortoactualimplementationofthenew ratesforfirstquarterof2011. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Ordinance521–proposed2011FeeSchedule (#521proposed12/13/10) ANIMALCONTROL BoardingFee:$14/perday+tax DogLicense:AlteredPet$10-2years UnalteredPet$15-2years AlteredPet$5.00-1year UnalteredPet$7.50-1year LateFee$5 ReplacementTag$1 Euthanization/DisposalFee$37peranimal+tax Licensed Unlicensed Fine:RunningatLarge:Firstoffense$25$35 Secondoffense$35$45 Thirdoffense$50$60 IfimpoundedAddboardingfee(plustax) CEMETERYFEES GravePurchasingFee:Resident Non-Resident FullGrave(4'x12')FlushMarkerArea$750 $800 $950 $1,000 FullGrave(4'x12')RaisedMarkerArea$800 $900 $1,000 $1,100 InfantGrave(2'x6')$200$200 CremationGrave(4'x4')$400$500 GraveTransferFee $25 GraveExcavationFee: Weekday$400 Weekend$430 InfantGraveExcavation-Weekday$100 -Weekend$125 CremationGraveExcavation-Weekday$80 -Weekend$105 GraveStakingFee:$50 PerpetualCareFee: NewGraveSalesIncludedingraveprice(Maint.Nottaxable-PlantCareTaxable) GraveSoldPre-1960$100 AdministrativeFee:$50 MemorialPlaque(Bronze)Stone$60plustax COMMUNITYCENTER DailyPassRegularRateResidentRate Junior/Senior$5$4 Adult$6$5 Family$23$18 *ClimbingwallisnotincludedwithDailyPass. GroupRates Adult$4.50 Junior/Senior$3.50 3MonthMembership Junior/Senior$80$65 Adult$110$90 DualSenior$130$105 Family$160$140 AnnualMembership(PaidinfullOptions) Junior/Senior$240$180 Adult$310$240 DualSenior$385$290 Family$425$350 TITLE20-CHAPTER1 FEESCHEDULE MonticelloFeeSchedule1 ContinuousMembership(Monthly**PaymentOption) Junior/Senior$22$17 Adult$30$25 DualSenior$36$27.50 Family$40$35 **AutomaticWithdrawal. Cancellationfeeapplieswithin12months. HourlyRoomRentalRates(2Hourminimumrequired)ResidentRegularNon-Profit BoomIslandRoom$12$14$11 BridgeRoom$20$23$17 N.orS.BridgeRoom$11$13$10 RiverRoom$10$12$8 WarehouseRoom$22$27$17 WarehouseRoom-Weekend$27$32$22 MississippiRoomPrivateResidentPrivateRegularBusinessResidentBusinessRegular HalfRoomRental$42$51$32$47 FullRoomRental$60$72$50$66 PARKRENTALS ResidentNon-Resident EllisonGazebo$75 $100 $100 $125 EllisonLogShelter$75for4hours $100for6hrs $100for4hours $125for6hrs WestBridgeParkShelter/WarmingHouse$75for4hours $100for6hrs $100for4hours $125for6hrs WestBridgePicnicShelter$75for4hours $100for6hrs $100for4hours $125for6hrs PioneerPark$75for4hours $100for6hrs $100for4hours $125for6hrs GrovelandParkPicnicShelter$75for4hours $100for6hrs $100for4hours $125for6hrs OtterCreek$50for4hours $50for6hrs $75for4hours $75for6hrs EastBridgeWeddingGazebo$100for4hours $100for6hrs $150for4hours $125for6hrs COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT-BUILDING CountyAssessorFees:BuildingValuation$499,999orless$25 BuildingValuation$500,000ormore$100 BuildingInspection(non-permitrelated):$50/hour BuildingPermitFees:106%of1997Staterecommended schedule BuildingPermitSurcharge:usestate-mandatedfee ContractorLicenseCheckFee:$25 BuildingPermit/Records-Duplicate$50/hour BlightProcessingFee$50(perparcel) DemolitionPermit:106%of1997Staterecommendedschedule Permitisissuedunderabuildingpermit(followsameproceduresasissuingabuildingpermit).Priorto demolitionpermitissuanceverifywithPublicWorks.Contractormustarrangedisconnection: 1)Sanitarysewer;2)Citywater&retrievewatermaterand3)approveroutingfortrucksandheavy equipment,(ifapplicable).Excavationpermitmayalsoberequired. FireAlarm/FireSprinklerSystem106%of1997StateRecommendedSchedule GradingPermit: ExistingSingle-FamilyResidential$75perpermit+$1,500/acrerestorationsuretybond. NewSingle-FamilyResidentialDevelopment,$150perpermitwithnodrainagecalculationreview+restoration Multi-Dwelling,CommercialandIndustrialsuretybondof$3,000/firstacre;$1,500eachadditionaacreor Properties$350perpermitwithdrainagecalculationreview+restoration suretybondof$3,000/firstacre;$1,500eachadditionaacre Nodrainagecalculationreviewrequired: $150perpermitplusresotrationsuretybondof$3000/firstacre;$1500eachadditionalacre. Drainagecalculationreviewrequired: $350perpermitplusrestorationsuretybondof$3000/firstacre;$1500eachadditionalacre. LandReclamation/MiningPermit(requiresFeedeterminedbyCityCouncilresolution+100% subdivisiondevelopmentagreementorCUP)oflandrestorationcostsasdeterminedbyCityEngineer MonticelloFeeSchedule2 MechanicalPermits:Residential$45base+$9/fixture Commercial1.25%ofvaluation+statesurcharge,minimum$100+statesurcharge MechanicalSurcharge$.50(Statemandated) MobileHomePermit$95 MovingBuildings:$150+expense+demolitionpermit PlanReview:65%ofbuildingpermitfee PlumbingPermits:Residential$45base+$9/fixture."Fixtureincludessuchthingsastraps,toilets, floordrains,sinksandshowers Commercial1.25%ofvaluation+statesurcharge,minimum$100+statesurcharge PlumbingSurcharge:$.50(Statemandated) RentalHousingLicenseFee:$45/perbuilding+$15foreachdwellingunitwithinthebuilding RentalHousingLicenseApplication (LateFee)Doublethestandardlicensefee RentalHousingLicenseTransferFee$35 SignPermits:Permanent$50forfirst$1,000ofvalue;$10each (minimumfee$50)$1,000ofvalue SignPermits:Temporary$35 StateSurchargeonBuildingPermits: ValuationofStructure AdditionorAlterationSurchargeComputation $1,000,000orless.0005xvaluation $1,000,000to$2,000,000$500+.0004x(Value-$1,000,000) $2,000,000to$3,000,000$900+.0003x(Value-$2,000,000) $3,000,000to$4,000,000$1200+.0002x(Value-$3,000,000) $4,000,000to$5,000,000$1400+.0001x(Value-$4,000,000) Greaterthan$5,000,000$1500+.00005x(Value-$5,000,000) UtilityLocateFee:Residential$40 Commercial/Industrial$55 COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT-PLANNING/ZONING AdministrativeZoningPermits$50 ConditionalUsePermit $200+Deposit (Seeplat/PUDDepositChart) DrivewayPermit$25 SpecialHomeOccupationPermits:$200+Deposit(Seeplat/PUDDepositChart) InterimUsePermit:$200+Deposit(Seeplat/PUDDepositChart) Labor: Planner$142/hour Engineer$126/hour ConstructionInspector$86/hour ParkDedication(residential)Anamountoflandequaltoelevenpercent(11%) ofthetotalgrosslandareaoftheplatshallbe presumptivelydefinedas"reasonablycommensurate." Intheeventthatthesubdividerobjectstotheeleven percent(11%)standard,theCityshall,atthe developer'srequestandexpense,conducta specificdedicationstudyoftheparksystemand thedemandplacedonthesystembytheproposed plat. Cash-in-Lieu;$1,704ofcashpaymentpergrossacre ofdevelopmentarea $757ofcashpaymentperunit MonticelloFeeSchedule3 ParkingFund(CCDDistrict)$4,500perstall MonticelloFeeSchedule4 PlatSubdivisions:$300+depositasfollows: CommercialResidential 0-3acres$2,0001-5units$1,000 4-10acres$6,0006+units$150perunit 11+acres$10,000 PUD's:PlannedUnitDev.$200+depositasfollows: CommercialResidential 0-3acres$2,0001-5units$1,000 4-10acres$6,0006+units$150perunit 11+acres$10,000 RezoningRequest:$200+Deposit(Seeplat/PUDDepositChart) SeasonalOutdoorSalesLicense:$150per60daylicense SimpleSubdivision$200+Deposit(Seeplat/PUDDepositChart) SpecialPlanningCommissionMeeting$350 StreetVacation:$200+Deposit(Seeplat/PUDDepositChart) Variance: SingleFamily-AplicationFee$200 -Deposit$500 AllOtherApplications-ApplicationFee$200 -Deposit$1,000 FIREDEPARTMENT BuildingBurn$2,500 EmergencyResponse-CarAccident$500 FalseAlarmPolicy-FirstTimeNocharge SecondTime$250 ThirdTimeorMore$350 *Percalendaryear. FireDept.LockBox:$164+tax LICENSES/PERMITS BurningPermit:$250deposit (tocoverexpenses,ifPW/FireDeptarecalledtoburnsite) CigaretteLicense:TobaccolicensesareissuedbyWrightCounty ExcavationPermit/ObstructionPermit(RW&Easements) Obstruction/TrunkUtilityExcavations$50 UtilityServiceDrops 1Drop$50 2-13Drops$75 14-25Drops$100 GamblingLicense:LicensedthroughStateofMinnesota Liquor:1DayConsumption&Display$25 TemporaryOn-Sale(Beer)$10/day Wine,On-Sale$275/peryear Wine/StrongBeerComb.On-Sale$1,200/peryear Wine/3.2BeerCom.On-Sale$500/peryear 3.2Beer,On-Sale$275/year 3.2Beer,Off-Sale$100/peryear Liquor,On-Sale$3,750/peryear Liquor,SundaySales$200(Statutorylimit) Liquor,Setups$250/year MonticelloFeeSchedule5 Liquor,Club(Veteran'sOrg). Membership 200orless$300(Statutorylimit) 201-500$500(Statutorylimit) 501-1000$650(Statutorylimit) 1001-2000$800(Statutorylimit) 2001-4000$1,000(Statutorylimit) Over4000$2,000(Statutorylimit) PawnShop:Annuallicense $25annuallicense Transactionfee $1.50perbillabletransaction(invoicedmonthly)$1.00/pertransaction Peddler/Solicitor:Nocharge(mustregister) TransientMerchant: Dailyfees,independentmerchant$50/day+$3.50applicationfee Dailyfees,farm/gardenfruits&vegetablesNofee (from6/15to9/15) Annualpermit,privatepremise$75/year+$3.50applicationfee DailyFees,operatingunderannualpermit$10/day FireworksSale$350/year TravelingShows$100/firstday;$50/dayforeachdaythereafter MISCELLANEOUSITEMS Assessment/PropertySearch-full$25 PropertyBillSearch-limitedFree BusinessListFree Brochures:Free Cityresidentlist:(UtilityBillingList)0-10pages$0.25/page(taxincluded) CityLabels$.50/sheet ComprehensiveGuidePlan-Entire$32plustax DowntownRevitalizationPlan$15plustax TransportationPlan$50plustax Copies:copymachine$.25percopy(taxincluded) engineeringcopier$2.00/smallsheet;$5.00/largesheet(taxincluded) electronic emailed $35.00/hour(minimum1/4hour;taxincluded) electronicmedia $10.00+costofmediaplustax DelinquentCertificationProcessingFee$50(perparcel) MinimumAccountBalanceof$50 Processedtwiceayear DelinquentList$10+tax(each) DepositsonCityRepairProjects$100-$300(dependingonest.valueofwork) Maps:Citymap(large)$3(includestax) Citymap(small)$1(includestax) Zoningmap$3(includestax) Statemaps$.55(includestax) WrightCountymaps$3(includestax) Memorials: Bench$1,500/Bench(taxincluded) Tree$300/Tree(taxincluded) Notary:$1 Signs:Currentlistedprice+10%handlingCharge+tax MonticelloFeeSchedule6 THEFOLLOWINGITEMSCANALSOBEDOWNLOADEDFROMCITYWEBSITE:www.ci.monticello.mn.us CityOrdinances: Entiresetofordinances$40plustax Toobtainpapercopies,contactCityHall. ZoningOrdinance$20plustax Chargesbasedonpriceslistedunder"Copies." SubdivisionOrdinance$8plustax CityCode$20plustax SanitarySewer$5plustax AssessmentPolicy$2.50plustax CityMaps MeetingAgendas/Minutes CityMaps $3(includestax) Citymap(small)$1(includestax) Zoningmap $3(includestax) Statemaps $.55(includestax) WrightCountymaps $3(includestax) Minutes/Agendas:Faxed $5.00/set+tax Mailed $7.00/set+tax Minutes-CDofproceedings $10.00(plustax) PUBLICWORKS Chipping:$40+taxper1/2hourorpartthereofforthefirst2hours $70+taxper1/2hourorpartthereofforthenexthour Nomorethan3hoursperyearperproperty ConstructionInspection(CityorEngineer)$80/hour SidewalkSnow&IceControl$35.00perlot-1stOffence $50.00perlot-2ndOffence $75.00perlotmaximumafter2ndOffence $75.00MobilizationChargeperOffenceatStaffDiscretion BoulevardDiseaseTreeRemovalIfCityiscontractedfortreeremoval,theCitywillpay1/2thecostof acreditof1/2thecostofremovalupto$225pertree,removalupto$225pertree,with withresidentresponsibleforthecostofsalestax.residentresponsibleforthebalance. BoulevardReplacementTreeat1/2cost$30maximumcrediteach Labor(noequipment):$35.00/hour Rodding:$230/hourforoneoperator&machine $115/hourorpartthereoffor2operators,machine andpickup. Sweeping:$125/hour.Includesoperator Vac/SewerJet:$287.50/hourforoneoperator&machine $345/hourfortwooperators&machine OtherEquipment(includingoperator): LargeFrontEndLoaders$125.00/hour MidSizeLoaders$75.00/hour BackhoeLoader$125.00/hour MotorGrader$125.00/hour SkidSteere$75.00/hour DumpTruck$75.00/hour SANITARYSEWER SewerRates:1st3740gallons.$15.15minimum Over3740gallons.$2.75per748gallons $3.00per748gallons SewerRates:SpecialCases$20.00x#ofpeoplein household MonticelloFeeSchedule7 IndustrialSewerRates:0-3740gallons.$15.15minimum Over3740gallons.$1.50/748gallons $3.00/748gallons BOD5:$0.265/lb.0.300/lb. TSS:$0.365/lb.0.400/lb. Testing Actualcosts+10% SewerDischargeEnvironmentalFee:1%ofsewerbill 2%ofsewerbill AllSewerCustomers SewerConnectionPermit:$75(residentialorcommercial) SewerandWaterCombinationPermit:$127(residential) $127plustax(commercial) SewerAccessCharge: Residential-SingleFamily$4,030/Unit Allothersperunitequivalent$4,030/Unit TrunkSanitarySewer: ResidentialUnit$1,223/unit Non-Residential$3,065/peracre WasteWaterDischargePermit: 10,000to15,000GPD$50annually 15,001to25,000GPD$100annually 25,001to50,000GPD$150annually 50,001to100,000GPD$250annually over100,000GPD$300annually STORMSEWER TrunkStormSewerFees:(Netacre)$3,245 AlternatePondingArea-Commercial$6,997peracre AlternatePondingArea-Industrial$8,176peracre AlternatePondingArea-Residential$3,490peracre WASTEITEMS GarbageCarts-Residential:90gallon $4.12perquarter(incl.9.75%tax) 60gallon $3.29perquarter(incl.9.75%tax)(removethissection) 38gallon $2.96perquarter(incl.9.75%tax) GarbageServiceFees-Apts:w/odumpsters PickupDisposal$18.90x#units+9.75%tax/perquarter DisposalSurcharge$3.48x#units(non-taxable)perquarter GarbageServiceFees-CommercialResidential&Non-CommercialResidential: 60gallon:PickupDisposal$15.93x#units+9.75%tax/perquarter DisposalSurcharge$2.31x#units(non-taxable)perquarter GarbageCart$3.29x#units(incl.9.75%tax)perquarter 90gallon:PickupDisposal$18.90x#units+9.75%tax/perquarter DisposalSurcharge$3.48x#units(non-taxable)perquarter GarbageCart$4.12x#units(incl.9.75%tax)perquarter CartTransferFee$30 GarbageCartReplacement(iflost): 38gallon$59.06+9.75%tax 60gallon$65.31+9.75%tax 90gallon$70.75+9.75%tax RecycleCartReplacement(iflost): 35gallon$60 64gallon$65 StorageBins(red,yellow,blue)$10plustax(untilsoldout) WATER HydrantRatesforContractors: (#1,#2and#3ISALLTAXABLEIFCOMMERCIAL) MonticelloFeeSchedule8 1.AllcontractorsmustobtainapermitfromtheWaterSuperintendent.Thepermitfeeis$500. Thispermitwilldefinethehydranttobeusedandprovidesatallysheetforwaterusage. 2.Thefollowingratesshallapply: A.$25.50minimumbillingforupto500cu.ft.or3,750gallons. B.Afterthe3,750gallons,therateshallbe$2.50per100cu.ft. or$3.30per1,000gallons. 3.ThefollowingdepositsshallbetakenforuseofCityequipment(noexceptions): A.HydrantWrench$30.00 B.2-1/2"fillhose$100.00 C.1-1/2"fillhosewith2-1/2"adapter$100.00 D.2-1/2"hydrantmeter$1,000.00 E.3/4"andsmallmeter$100.00 F.Nozzle$50.00 Ifequipmentisreturnedwithin10daysofpermitexpirationingoodcondition,thefullamountforwateruse andequipmentless10%permonthonportionthereofforrentshallberefunded. TrunkWaterCharge:$907/ResidentialUnit $2,267peracrenon-residential Resid.Water:0-3740gallons$13.00minimum $14.30minimum 3741-29,920gallons$0.85/748gallons 0.95/748gallons over29920gallons 29,921-100,000gallons $0.95/748gallons 1.10/748gallons over100,000gallons 1.20/748gallons MinimumBillforMalfunctioningMeter$150after4thcontactattempt. CommWaterRate,Mtr1 1st3740gallons.$14.75minimum+salestax $14.30minimum+salestax Over3740gallons.3741-29,920gallons $0.95/748gallons+salestax 0.95/748gallons+salestax 29,921-100,000gallons 1.10/748gallons+salestax over100,000gallons 1.20/748gallons+salestax Res.,Twnhms&CommIrrigationWaterRate 1st3740gallons.$14.75minimum+salestax $14.30minimum+salestax Over3740gallons.3741-29,920gallons $0.95/748gallons+salestax 0.95/748gallons+salestax 29,921-100,000gallons 1.10/748gallons+salestax over100,000gallons 1.20/748gallons+salestax WaterShutOff,thenTurnedOn:$50.00($25on/$25off)+delinquency(taxableifnon-res.) WaterConnectionPermit:$65(residential) $65plustax(commercial) WaterAccessCharge:1"line$801+materials 1-1/4"line$1,217+materials 1-1/2"line$1,460+materials 2"line$1,920+materials 3"line$2,402+materials 4"line$3,164+materials 6"line$3,984+materials 8"line$5,231+materials WaterMainTapping-NewServices(1"only)$250each+materials WaterMeters:5/8"meter$330.00+salestax $370+salestax 3/4"meter$365.00+salestax $400+salestax 1"meter$370.00+salestax $410+salestax 11/2"meter$550.00+salestax $600+salestax 2"meter +up Cost+$50+salestax 1"Valves $29.00+salestax $45+salestax WaterAvailabilityCharge$34.75 (Forthosewhohavecitywateravailablebut(BilledinJuly) choosenottohookup) WaterViolations(sprinkling): 1stViolationNoFee 2ndViolation$25 $50 EachSubsequentViolation$50/perviolation $100/perviolation MonticelloFeeSchedule9 From:KittyBaltos Sent:Thursday,December09,201012:41PM To:TomKelly Subject:MCCFeeChanges 1.Peoplerentingalocker(approximately35ineachmen’sandwomen’slockerroom)theirrate goesupeffectiveJan1to$5perlockerpermonth.Theoldratewas$2.75perlockerper month.Thisisamemberonlybenefit. 2.In2011memberscanopttoincludechildcareintheirmembership.Thisequatesto$5per monthperchildaddedtoanymembershipavailableatMCC.Wewillstillmaintainourpayas yougofeeschedule. 3.DuetohighdemandwecreatedafeeschedulefortheMississippiRoomforalcoholeventsthat arenotweddingreceptions ResidentAlcohol RegularAlcohol OrganizationAlcohol MississippiRoom $125perhour $137perhour $115perhour *Thereisatwohourminimum *Reservationcanbetakenwithin3monthsoftheeventonly. 4.Weadjustedthegymnasiumrentalratesaswell.Theyhadnotbeenreviewedsincewe opened.Althoughourhighestpriorityistomaintainandopengymforourmembersand guests. Resident Regular Organization Gymnasium PrimeTime$52/hour NonPrime$35/hour PrimeTime$60/ hour NonPrime$40/hour $48perhour NonPrime$32/hour $500MaxFee FullKitchenRental $75flatfee $75Flatfee $75Flatfee EnergyFee $75flatfee $75Flatfee $75Flatfee DamageDeposit ½ofrentalfees ½ofrentalfees ½ofrentalfees Earlysetupfee $52/hour $52/hour $52/hour KittyBaltos CommunityCenterDirector DirectLine:763-271-3268 Fax:763-271-7105 kitty.baltos@ci.monticello.mn.us CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 9A.ConsiderationofadoptingOrdinance521Aforsummarypublicationofthe2011Fee Schedule (TK/CS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: IftheCityCouncilapprovestherecommendationsforthe2011FeeSchedule,Councilis thenaskedtoapprovesummarypublicationofthenewfeeschedule.ThisallowsCity stafftoprepareanabbreviatedversionofthefeescheduleshowingthechangesthatwere approvedwithouthavingtoprinttheentireFeeSchedule. CityStaffwillpublishtheentireFeeScheduleontheCity’swebsiteunder“City Ordinances”(thiswouldbesimilartotheversionpresentedtoCouncil).Thepublic couldalsorequestapapercopyatCityHall. A1.BudgetImpact:Publishingasummaryfeeschedulewouldpotentiallysavethe Cityseveralthousanddollars.Itshouldalsoinvolvelesstimetopreparea summarypublicationratherthantheentirefeescheduledocumentintheformat requiredforpublication. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:None B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptOrdinance521Aforsummarypublicationofthe2011Fee Schedule.(Itshouldbenotedthatthisrequiresa4/5voteofCouncil.) 2.Motiontodenysummarypublication. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1.Itwouldsavetimeandmoneytopublisha summaryFeeSchedulewhichwouldincludeonlythoseitemsthathavechanged. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Ordinance521A–SummaryofFeeSchedulechanges SUMMARYORDINANCENO.521A CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA ANORDINANCEESTABLISHINGTHE2011FEESCHEDULE NOTICEISHEREBYGIVEN that,onDecember13,2010,OrdinanceNo.521was adoptedbytheCityCounciloftheCityofMonticello,Minnesota.Duetothelengthy natureofOrdinanceNo.521,thefollowingsummaryoftheordinancehasbeenprepared forpublicationasauthorizedbystatelaw. SectionX.{Note:changesapprovedbyCouncilwillbelistedbysectionforthe publicationofthesummaryordinance.} SectionX.ThisOrdinanceshallbecomeeffectiveimmediatelyuponitspassageand publicationaccordingtolaw. SectionX.Aprintedcopyofthewholeordinanceisavailableforinspectionbyany personduringtheCity’sregularofficehours. APPROVEDFORPUBLICATION bytheCityCounciloftheCityofMonticello, Minnesota,this13thdayofDecember,2010. CITYOFMONTICELLO ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: JeffO’NeillCityAdministrator VOTINGINFAVOR: VOTINGINOPPOSITION: CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 10.ConsiderationofapprovingCityparticipation,withassistancefromWSB,inCSAH 75pedestrianpathwayandunderpassconstructioninconjunctionwithWright County’sCSAH75improvementproject (BW/JO) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: In2011WrightCountywillbereconstructingCSAH75betweenthewesterlyCitylimits andWestRiverStreet.ThisreconstructionwillincludetherealignmentofCSAH75, whichisshowninFigure1(attached).ThisrealignmentwillallowWrightCountyto removetheexistingbridgeovertheBNSFrailroadtracksandconstructanat-grade railroadcrossinginstead,whichBNSFRRhasagreedto.Theexistingbridgewasin poorconditionandneededtobereplaced.Byconstructingtheat-gradecrossing,Wright Countywillnotneedtoreplacethebridge,therebysavingthemthisexpense. WrightCountyandXcelEnergyhaveagreedtoexchangelandtoallowCSAH75tobe realignedthroughXcelEnergy’sproperty.ThiswillresultinXcelgettingtheoldCSAH 75right-of-wayinexchangeforthenewright-of-waythatWrightCountyneedsto realignCSAH75. TherealignmentofCSAH75willre-routethehighwaythroughanexistinglow-lying areawestofWestRiverStreetandsouthoftheexistingentrancetotheNuclearPlant. Thedifferenceinelevationbetweenthenewroadwaysurfaceandtheexistinggroundat thispointisslightlylessthan11feet,whichwillrequireWrightCountytobringinfillfor thisareabeforeconstructingthenewhighway.ThiswouldallowtheCitytoinstallabox culvertatminimalcostinconjunctionwithWrightCounty’sreconstructionprojectfor useasapedestrianunderpassunderCSAH75.TheCitywouldsavesignificantcosts sincewewouldnothavetojacktheboxculvertundertheexistinghighway,whichis veryexpensivetodo,ortoopencutthehighwaytoinstalltheboxculvert,whichwould requireustoreconstructasignificantportionofCSAH75.SeeFigure1forlocation. WrightCountyrecentlycompletedtheirplansbutitwouldberelativelyinexpensivefor theCitytoaddtherequiredplansheetstotheirplansatthistimetoallowthepedestrian underpasstobebidasanalternatebidwiththeirproject.Oncethebidscomein,Council canthenmakeadecisionastowhethertheywanttoconstructthepedestrianunderpass withWrightCounty’sprojectornot. Inthefuture,theCitycanconstructapedestrianpathwaytoconnecttheexistingpathway onthesouthsideofCSAH75,whichterminatesatWestRiverStreet,tothesouthsideof thepedestrianunderpasssopedestrianscansafelycrossunderCSAH75.Thenonthe northsideoftheunderpass,pathwayscanbeconstructedtoallowpedestrianstoaccess theMontissippiParkpathwaysystem,whichalsoconnectstoWestRiverStreetbythe City’scompostfacility.Inaddition,WrightCountyplanstoconstructaregionalpathway alongthenorthsideofCSAH75betweenMonticelloandClearwaterinthefuture,soby constructingthepedestrianunderpasswewouldbeprovidingforthefutureconnection betweenourlocalpathwaysystemandtheCounty’sregionalpathwaysystem.Figure2 (attached)showspreliminaryalignmentsforproposedpathwaysandtheunderpass. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 2 InconsideringtheproposedimprovementsitwasnotedthattheNuclearPlantownsa privatepathwaythatitsemployeesusetotravelbetweentheNuclearPlantandthe trainingfacilityonWestRiverStreet,andthatthispathwaycurrentlycrossesunder CSAH75attheexistingbridge.ButwhenthebridgeisremovedduringtheCounty’s project,theXcelemployeeswillnolongerhaveasafecrossingforCSAH75andwill havetocrossCSAH75at-grade.Itwasalsonotedthattheirpathwayisinpoorcondition andwillthereforeneedtobereconstructedinthenearfuture.Staffthereforefeltthatit mightmakesensetoaskXceltopartnerintheconstructionofthepedestrianunderpass andanyconnectingpathwayssincetheycouldthenusethepathwayandunderpassfor theiremployeesinsteadofconstructinganewpathwaythatwouldhavetoincorporatean unmarked,at-gradecrossing. Xceliswillingtoproviderelatedtraileasementsnecessaryfordevelopmentoftrails contemplatedbythisprojectwhichincludesallowingthepathwaytomeanderthrough standsoftreestoprovideamorescenicpark-likerouteforpathwayusers.Inaddition, thereisachancethatXcelwouldcontributetofundingashareofthecostofthebox culvertbuttheamountisundeterminedatthistime.Betweennowandthebidaward date,staffwouldworkwithXcelandgrantauthoritiestoestablishaproposedcostshare ontheproject. Asofthetimethisreportwaswritten,CitystaffwasstillwaitingtohearwhatXcel’s finalpositionontheseissuesis,andstaffwillcontinuetoworkwithXcelinhopesof reachinganagreementallowingustopartnerwiththemtoshareinthecostsandthe benefitsoftheseimprovements. ThepostedspeedlimitonCSAH75onthewestendoftheCityis45mph,whichis consideredahighspeedroadway.Assuch,WrightCountywillnotallowustoconstruct anat-gradecrossingonCSAH75westoftheexistingat-gradecrossingbyPineview Elementaryschool.IthaslongbeentheCity’sobjectivetoprovideagrade-separated pedestriancrossingalongCSAH75,andthisisanopportunitytodosoatafractionofthe costofwhatitwouldcosttodosoafterCSAH75isreconstructed.Further,thecrossing occurswithinarelativelyclosedistancetothecurrentaccesstoMontissippiParkwhich requiresanat-gradecrossing.Inaffect,thisboxculvertwouldenablealargepercentage oftheMonticellopopulationtogettoMontissippiParkviatheCity’spathwaysystem withoutcrossingCSAH75at-grade. StaffisthereforerequestingCouncilauthorizationtohaveWSBpreparetherequiredplan sheetsforinsertionintoWrightCounty’splanstoallowthepedestrianunderpasstobe bidwithWrightCounty’simprovementprojectnextspring.Oncethebidsarereceived, staffwillpresentthebidsforthepedestrianunderpassconstructiontoCouncilfortheir considerationofawardingtheproject. Therequiredplansheetswillincludeonesheeteachfortheplanandprofileviews,as wellasseveralstandardplansheetsdetailingtheboxculvertandendsectiondimensions, reinforcement,jointwrapfabric/overlapdimensions,etc,aswellasguardrailstandard CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 3 plansheets,alongwithaguardrailconnectiondetailforconnectingtheguardrailtothe boxculvert.WrightCountyhasalreadysurveyedthesitesoWSBcanusetheirsurveyto checkthegradinganddesignanyrequiredwingwallsattheboxculvertendsections. TheestimatedcostforpreparingtherequiredplansheetsandinsertingthemintoWright County’splansetis$7,000. StaffestimatesthecosttoconstructtheboxculvertwithWrightCounty’sprojecttobe about$100,000.Thiswouldincludefurnishingandinstallinga10-foottallby14-foot wideboxculvertunderCSAH75,pavingthebottomoftheboxculverttosealthejoints andprovideasmoothsurfaceforthepathwayusers,furnishingandinstallingelectrical conduittoprovideforfuturelighting(ifdesired),andfurnishingandinstallingthe requiredguardrailalongCSAH75toprotectmotoristswhomightleavetheroadway fromdrivingovertheopenboxculvertendsections,whichwouldpotentiallyresultin severeinjuriesorafatality. WrightCountyhasaskedthatweprovidethemwithdirectionnolaterthanDecember 17th onwhetherornotweplantoaddourunderpassplanstotheirplansforbidding purposes.Ifso,wewillalsoneedtoenterintoacostparticipationagreementwiththe County,butthisissomethingstaffcanworkoutwiththeCountyandshouldthereforenot resultinadditionalexpenditures. Althoughthecosttopreparethedesigncouldbelostiftheprojectdoesnotproceed, doingsowouldbuytheCitytimetofindgrantfundsanddiscusscostsharing arrangementsforfundingtheboxculvertconstruction.Itisourviewthatthereissome chanceofgettingfundsfromoutsidesources.However,ofcourse,ifCouncilisnot interestedinpayingforanycostofthisproject,thenitwouldnotmakesensetocomplete theengineeringdesign. A1.BudgetImpact:Theestimatedcostforpreparingtherequiredplansheetsand insertingthemintoWrightCounty’splansettoallowthepedestrianunderpassto bebidwithWrightCounty’sprojectis$7,000. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffworkloadimpactswouldincludereviewingthe planssheetsastheyarepreparedandcoordinatingtheirinsertionintoWright County’splans.StaffwouldalsoneedtoworkwithWrightCountyonacost participationagreement,andwouldneedtoansweranyquestionsonthe underpassimprovementsduringthebiddingprocess. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotionauthorizingCitystafftoparticipateinCSAH75pedestrianpathwayand underpassconstructionandapprovingpreparationofplansheetsbyWSBtoallow thepedestrianunderpassandappurtenantitemsoutlinedabovetobebidwith WrightCounty’sCSAH75improvementproject. 2.Motiondenyingpreparationofplansheetsatthistime. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 4 C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsapprovingAlternative#1inordertotakeadvantageofthecost savingsassociatedwithconstructingtheunderpasswiththeconstructionofCSAH75,as wellastheexcellentbiddingenvironmentwearecurrentlyexperiencingonsuchprojects. AuthorizingtheplansdoesnotcommittheCitytospendingthemoneyontheprojectbut doesbuysometimetoexploreadditionalfundingsources.AndiftheCityiscommitted toprovidingagrade-separatedpedestriancrossingonthewestendofCSAH75,thiswill likelybethemostcost-effectiveopportunitywe’llhavetodoso. Althoughitmaynotappeartomakeanysensetobuildonoff-gradecrossingsthattoday willnotcarrymuchpedestriantraffic,thiscouldendupbeingatremendousinvestment longterm.Giventhecurrentandfutureleveloftrafficinthisareacombinedwiththe potentiallongertermdevelopmentassociatedwithafutureinterchangelocation,itmakes sensetoworkwithXcelandgrantauthoritiestofundandmakethisimprovement.There havebeeninstancesinthepastduringthedevelopmentofMonticellothatour pedestrian/vehicleconflictscouldhavebeenresolvedinadvanceifwehadconstructed off-gradecrossingcheaplywhenwehadthechance.Hereisoneofthoseopportunities. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Figure1–CSAH75RealignmentPlan Figure2–ProposedCSAH75Pathway&UnderpassPlan CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 11.ConsiderationofauthorizingCitystaff,withassistanceofWSB,toapplyforFederal fundingtoreconstructtheintersectionofTH25andCSAH75 (BW/JO) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCityofMonticello,asaStateAidCity,participatesinthedistributionoffederal fundsfortransportationprojects.Thisisacompetitiveprocessthatwehavebeen awardedfundspreviouslyontheCSAH75pathwayprojectandthepedestrianoverpass overI-94.Wehavenothadaroadwayprojectthatwouldscorewellinthepastandhave nothadanyrecentpathwayprojectsthatwefeltwereworthy,soithasbeensometime sincewehavereceivedanyfunding.Therefore,weareinaverygoodpositiontobe selectedforaprojectinthenearfuture. WiththerecentopportunitytoreconstructtheNEquadrantoftheTH25/CSAH75 intersection,wehavecompletedsomeplanningfortheultimateconfigurationofthe intersection.Webelievethattheultimatebuild-outprojecthastherightcombinationof CountyandMn/DOTsupport,aswellasthenecessarycongestion/safetyandother benefitstoshowthelocalandregionalbenefitsforutilizingfederalfunding. Constructionofthisintersectionwillgreatlyimprovetheaccessabilityofthedowntown areaandwillallowbettermovementthroughdowntownforregionaltraffic.Thisproject, combinedwiththereconstructionoftheTH25/CR11intersectionin2011,would significantlyreducecongestiononTH25. Theseintersectionimprovementsareshownontheattachedlayout,whichisthesame layoutapprovedbytheCouncilforsubmissiontotheMinnesotaDepartmentof Transportationfortheirreviewandapprovalseveralmonthsago,alongwiththe accompanyingIntersectionControlEvaluation(ICE)Report.Todatewehavenotheard fromMn/DOTregardingtheirprogressonreviewingtheStaffApprovedLayoutand/or ICEReport,butweanticipatetheywillapprovetheseitemsassubmittedwithfew comments,ifany. WSBhasestimatedcostsforconstructingthecompleteintersectionimprovementsas follows: ConstructionCosts=$2,050,000 IndirectCosts(30%)=$615,000 TotalProjectCost=$2,665,000 Theestimatedconstructioncostsincludetheremovalof$350,000fromtheoriginaltotal estimatedcostoftheintersectionimprovements($2,400,000)sincetheseimprovements arenowbeingcompletedwiththeNEQuadrantImprovementsproject.Also,theabove costsdonotaccountforanyright-of-wayacquisition,whichwillprimarilyinvolvethe SEintersectionarea.Becausethefundingisin2014dollars,wehaveincreasedthecosts assuminga2014constructiondate.Itispossibletoadvancethefundingtocompletethe projectsooner. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 2 TheestimatedprojectcostsplitbetweenTH25andCSAH75is$1,465,750and $1,199,250,respectively.However,duetothe80%federalfundingoftheconstruction cost,thetotalprojectcostcouldbereducedbyaround$1.6Mdollars,whichwillmake thecostsplitsmuchmoreacceptable. IftheCityissuccessfulinsecuringFederalfundingfortheseimprovements,thefunding splitwouldbe80%Federalfundingwitha20%localmatch.BecauseFederalfundingis involvedtheCitywouldberequiredtocompleteanEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)for theproject,whichisestimatedtocostbetween$15,000and$20,000.Inaddition,only constructioncostsareeligibleforFederalfundingsoalldesignwork,anynecessary environmentaldocumentation,andallcostsassociatedwithright-of-wayacquisition wouldbetheCity’sresponsibilitytocover,outsideofthe20%localmatch.Ifthe Councilauthorizesthisapplication,acompleteestimate,includingthesecosts,willbe prepared. TherearetwofundingapplicationsthatMn/DOTsuggestedbecompletedforreviewby theAreaTransportationPartnership(ATP)TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee(TAC). 1.TheHESapplicationworksheetlooksprimarilyatthesafetyoftheintersection andhowtheimprovementswouldprovidebenefitbyimprovingsafety. 2.TheFederalurbanapplicationworksheetlooksprimarilyatthecapacityand mobilitybenefitsoftheimprovementsontheintersectingtransportation corridors,inthiscaseTH25andCSAH75. Bothapplicationworksheets,whichareattachedassupportingdata,areduetoMn/DOT byJanuary14,2011.Theywouldthenbereviewedagainstallotherapplicationsbythe ATPTACinearly2011,afterwhichtheywouldberankedaccordingly. TheservicesofWSBandAssociateswillberequiredtofilloutbothapplications,and theyhaveestimatedtheircostsforpreparingtheapplications,includinganynecessary calculationsandattachments,tobe$4,600.Bothapplicationworksheetswillbeprovided totheCityEngineerforreviewbyJanuary7,2011toallowforsubmittaltoMn/DOTby theJanuary14th deadline. RegardinganypotentialcontributionsfromMn/DOTorWrightCounty,wehavenotyet hadthechancetodiscussthisprojectwiththeminanydetail,primarilybecausewehave notyetbeenapprovedforfunding.Weareunsureofanyadditionalfundingfrom Mn/DOT,butsincetheywouldlikelyreceiveabenefitwewouldrequestfundingfrom them.WewouldworkwithWrightCountyontheircostparticipationforthe20%local match. ThetimingofthisprojectwouldworkwellwiththeEmbracingDowntownplanning effortandexpectedfollow-upeffortstoattractbusinessesdowntown.Usingthedetailed marketdataandconnectionstotheprivatesectortoutedbytheMcCombsGroup,it CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 3 wouldbeourhopetoattractabusinesstotheSEquadrantblockinconjunctionwiththe downtownredevelopmentplanningeffort. TheproposedplanstoimprovethisintersectioncouldproveusefulastheCityattemptsto finddevelopersandusersforthedowntown.Also,TIFrevenuefromsuchany redevelopmentcouldhelptopayforthelandacquisitionneededfortheexpansionofthe rightofwaythatwillbeneededwiththeproject.Pleasenotethattheremaybepotential touseexcessTIFfundsalreadyavailabletopayforlandacquisitionneedsintheeventa newprojectisnotforthcoming.ThisoptionwillneedtobeexploredwiththeEconomic DevelopmentAuthority.Inotherwords,thetimingofthefullreconstructionofthis intersectionusingFederalfundscoulddovetailwellwithdowntownredevelopment efforts. A1.BudgetImpact:ThetotalestimatedcostforWSBandAssociatestopreparethe applicationworksheetsasnotedaboveis$4,600. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffworkloadimpactswouldbeminimal.Aminimal amountoftimewouldberequiredfortheCityEngineertoreviewandprovide anyinputontheapplicationspreparedbyWSBandAssociates. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoauthorizeCitystaff,withassistancefromWSB,toapplyforFederal fundingforreconstructingtheintersectionofTH25andCSAH75. 2.MotiontodenyauthorizationtoapplyforFederalfundingforreconstructingthe intersectionofTH25andCSAH75atthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsapprovingAlternative#1.SecuringFederalfundingfor80%of theconstructioncostsforthisprojectwouldallowtheCitytoreconstructthisintersection soonerratherthanlater,therebypromotingthecontinuedredevelopmentofourcore downtownarea.ByreducingtrafficcongestiononTH25andCSAH75,theCitywill haveaddressedamajordeterrentformanycustomersofourdowntownbusinesses. Furthermore,thisimprovementprojectandassociatedtimingcoordinatesnicelywiththe associateddowntownredevelopmentplanningeffort. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Figure2–TH25@CSAH75IntersectionImprovements HESWorksheet ProjectRankingWorksheet HESProgramAttachmentC Revised10/11/10 Control Section T.H./ Roadway Location Beginning Ref.Pt. Ending Ref.Pt. State, County, Cityor Township Study Period Begins Study Period Ends 2Sideswipe SameDirection 5RightAngle4,7RanoffRoad8,9HeadOn/ Sideswipe- OppositeDirection 6,90,99 PedestrianOtherTotal Fatal F A Study Period:B Numberof Crashes C Property Damage PD F A %Change inCrashes PI B C PD F A Changein Crashes PI B C PD Year (SafetyImprovementConstruction) ProjectCost (excludeRightofWay) Typeof Crash Study Period: Changein Crashes Annual Changein Crashes Costper Crash Annual Benefit B/C= RightofWayCosts (optional)F3,400,000$ TrafficGrowthFactor3%A270,000$B= CapitalRecoveryB58,000$C= 1.DiscountRate4.5%C29,000$ 2.ProjectServiceLife(n)PD4,200$ Total -$ 3LeftTurnMainLine OfficeofTrafficEngineering July2002 =No.of crashes x %changein crashes *Recommend usingMnDOT's %Changein Crashes -$ -$ Usingpresentworthvalues, See"Calculations"sheetfor amortization. Personal Injury (PI) Descriptionof ProposedWork AccidentDiagram Codes HES worksheet 1RearEnd HESProgram-AttachmentC J:\CityImprovementProjects\10C009-25&75IntersectionImprovements\10-11-10AttC_HESworksheet1 Revised10/22/07 Crash PresentWorth PresentWorth Year Benefits Benefits Costs 0-$-$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ 0 -$-$ Totals=-$-$ (B)(C) year(n)=1,2,3,…. discountrate(i)=7% CrashBenefits (@yearn)=(CrashBenefits)n-1 X(1+TrafficGrowthFactor) PresentWorthBenefits (@yearn)=(CrashBenefits)n X1/(1+DiscountRate)n Amortizing… Revised10/11/10 ATTACHMENTB.1 ProjectRankingWorksheet Urban Sheet1of2 Mn/DOTStateAidDist.__________________Agency___________________________ RDC/MPO____________________________Date___________________________ RouteNo.____________________________ConstructionType_________________ FunctionalClassification______________________________________________________ Isprojectonanewroadoralignment?(YorN)IfNoCompleteSectionsI.-III.IfYesCompleteSectionsIV-V. I.RoadwayConditionforProjectonExistingRoad(100Pts.Max.)ExistingScale ProposedScale A.SurfaceCondition(useproposedconstructionyearasbase) 1.Agesincelastsurfacing(bituminousroad). 2.Agesincelastsurfacing(concreteroad). B.StructuralCapacity 1.Standarddesignintons. 2.Existingdesignintons. 3.Existingdeficiencyintons. 4.Projectdesignintons. 5.Deficiencyintonsafterproject. C.RoadwayCurbtoCurbWidth 1.Standardcurbtocurbwidthinfeet. 2.Existingcurbtocurbwidthinfeet. 3.Existingdefiencyinfeet. 4.Proposedcurbtocurbwidthinfeet. 5.Deficiencyinfeetafterproject. D.DesignSpeed 1.Doesthehorizontal/verticalalignmentmeettherules fortheroadway'sdesignspeed?(YorN) 2.Willthehorizontal/verticalalignmentmeettherulesfor theroadway'sdesignspeedaftertheproject?(YorN) E.TurnLanes 1.Doesroadsegmenthaverightturnlanes wherewarranted?(Y,N,NA) 2.Willroadsegmenthaverightturnlanes wherewarrantedaftertheproject?(Y,N,NA) 3.Doesroadsegmenthaveleftturnlanes wherewarranted?(Y,N,NA) 4.Willroadsegmenthaveleftturnlanes wherewarrantedaftertheproject?(Y,N,NA) F.Drainage 1.Rainfalleventinyearsforwhich theroadisdesigned.(0,5,or10) 2.Rainfalleventinyearsforwhichtheroad willbedesignedaftertheproject.(0,5,or10) G.TrafficControls 1.Aretheretrafficsignalswherewarranted?(Y,N,NA) 2.Willtheroadhavetrafficsignalswherewarranted aftertheproject?(Y,N,NA) 3.Aretherestreetlightswherewarranted?(Y,N,NA) 4.Willtheroadhavestreetlightswherewarranted aftertheproject?(Y,N,NA) 5.Areallrailroadcrossingstostandards?(Y,N,NA) 6.Arecrossingimprovementsincludedwithprj.?(Y,N,NA) H.D SufficiencyRating 1.ExistingSufficiencyRating(ESR).0 2.ProposedSufficiencyRating(PSR).0 Score 3.D SufficiencyRating(D SR)=ESR-PSR. Revised10/11/10 ATTACHMENTB.1 ProjectRankingWorksheet Urban Sheet2of2 Mn/DOTStateAidDist.__________________Agency___________________________ RDC/MPO____________________________Date___________________________ RouteNo.____________________________ConstructionType_________________ FunctionalClassification______________________________________________________ II.CostEffectiveness(70Pts.Max.)Score A.DesignyearADT(20yearADT). B.Costin$1,000'spermile. C.CostEffectiveness=Des.Yr.ADTx D SRx0.16/Cost($1,000's)permile. III.Safety(30Pts.Max.)Score A.NumberofCrashespermillionmilesofvehicletravel. B.(#Crashes/millionvehiclemiles)x3.333 TotalRankingPointsforReconstructionofExistingRoad 0.00 IV.ProjectonNon-existingRoad(75Pts.)Score Isthisprojectonanon-existingroad?(YorN)D SR= V.CostEffectiveness(70Pts.Max.)Score A.DesignyearADT(20yearADT). B.Costin$1,000'spermile. C.CostEffectiveness=Des.Yr.ADTx 75 x0.16/Cost($1,000's)permile. TotalRankingPointsforProjectonNon-existingRoad 0.00 CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 1 12.ConsiderationofadoptingResolutionNo.2010-79callingforaFeasibilityReport for2011StreetReconstructionProject,CityProjectNo.11C001 (BW/WSB) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: The2010StreetReconstructionProjectmarkedthesixthprojectthathasbeencompleted asidentifiedintheCity’sOverallStreetReconstructionProgramthatbeganin2003.The Cityhasbenefittedfromthecompetitivebiddingmarketoverthepastfewyearsand2011 lookstobeanotheryearwithcompetitivecontractorpricing.Wehaverealizedpricing thatis20%to30%belowwhatthe2007pricingwas.TheCouncil’sdecisiontotake advantageofthesepriceshasbenefittedtheCity’sstreetreconstructionbudget. Theremainingstreetreconstructionareasthatareidentifiedintheprogramasthenext mostcriticalstreetsbasedonpreviousstreetconditionratingsareasfollows: Area4B–IncludesEastRiverStreetfromCedarStreettoapointapproximately 1,100feeteastofWashingtonStreet,aswellasCedar,Palm,New,Wright, Ramsey,HennepinandWashingtonStreetsnorthofEastBroadway.Thiswork willconnecttotheworkassociatedwiththeNEQuadrantImprovementproject andcouldresultinsomeadditionalsavings. Area5–Includes3rd and4th StreetsbetweenPineStreet/TH25andWashington Street,aswellasallassociatedsidestreetsboundedbyEastBroadwayand7th Street.ThisisthelastremainingareatobereconstructedintheCity’score downtownarea. Area6–WestRiverStreetfromWestBroadwaytotheCity/Xcelballfields(this streetisinthemostcriticalconditionandtheotherstreetsareaddressedbelow). ItisrecommendedtocompletethenextsegmentofRiverStreet,identifiedasArea4B, fortheCity’snextstreetreconstructionproject.Thestreets,totalingapproximately6,700 feetinlength,haveexhibiteddeteriorationoftheroadwaysurfaceformanyyears,similar totherecentlyreconstructedsegmentofWestRiverStreetbetweenChestnutStreetand PineStreet/TH25,andtheassociatedsidestreets. Area5wasskinpatchedin2010toaddressspecificareasofpavementdeterioration withintheroadwaysurface.Thistypeoftemporarypatchingisanticipatedtolast2to3 yearsbeforethecrackingandpotholeswillbereflectedagainontothepavementsurface. Itisnotcosteffectivetocontinuallyrepairthesesegmentsovertime,butispracticalona temporarybasisuntiltheroadwayisreconstructed.Sincetheskinpatchworkwas completedthisyearitisrecommendedtoreconstructarea4Bfirst. InadditiontoWestRiverStreet,Area6alsocontainsMarvinElwoodRoad,CrocusLane andCrocusCirclebetweenWestRiverStreetandPrairieRoad,aswellasHedmanLane, MarvinElwoodRoadandBalboulCirclesouthofPrairieRoad.Thesestreetsareinless criticalconditionandcouldthereforebereconstructedatalaterdate.AndasFigure1 shows,PrairieRoad,KevinLongleyandJerryLiefertDriveswerealreadyreconstructed. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 2 Basedonperfootcostsreceivedforthe2010StreetReconstructionproject,anestimated costfortheproposed2011StreetReconstructionprojectisprojectedinthetablebelow. Thistableestimatescostspermajorworkgroupssuchassurfaceimprovementswhich includespavement,curbandgutter,driveway,turfestablishment,mailbox,andsigning andstripingwork,aswellasutilityimprovementswhichincludessanitarysewer,storm sewerandwatersupplywork. 2011StreetReconstructionProject–Area4B EstimatedProjectCosts ItemDescriptionTotal SurfaceImprovements$1,250,000 SanitarySewerImprovements$150,000 WatermainImprovements$50,000 StormSewerImprovements$50,000 TotalImprovements $1,500,000 Surfaceimprovementsareanticipatedtoincludereclamationoftheexistingroadway pavementwithasimilarperfootcostasthe2010project.Aswiththe2010project, streetwidthswouldbeheldtotheirexistingwidths,withexistingcurbandgutteronly beingreplacedifdamagedorifitneededtoberemovedtofacilitateutilityconstruction. TheCity’sSewerandWaterDepartmenthascompletedapreliminaryreviewofthe sanitarysewerandwatersystemsandsuggestthatsanitarysewermainlinerepairsare anticipatedtobeapproximately25%oftheperfootcostasthe2010projectandwould includereplacementofallservicesfromthemaintothepropertyline.Thisisbecause Citystaffnotedexcessiverootintrusionintotheservicelineswhentelevisingtheservices recently.Watersupplysystemimprovementsareanticipatedtoincludereplacementof hydrantandvalvesonly.Stormsewerrepairsareanticipatedtobeapproximately25%of theperfootcostasthe2010project.Thesearetheassumptionsmadeindeterminingthe estimatedcostsinthetableabove. TheCouncilcouldconsideraddingsidewalkalongthenorthsideofEastRiverStreet fromEastBridgeParktoEllisonPark,whichisnotincludedintheabovecosts.If Councilwishestoexplorethisoptionstaffwouldrecommendmailingasurveytoall propertyownersintheprojectareaaspartoftheFeasibilityReportphasetogaugethe levelofsupportforconstructingasidewalkbeforedecidingwhethertoaddittothe project.IftheprojectdoesmovesforwardCouncilcouldalsodirectstafftobidthe sidewalkconstructionasanalternatebid. Theestimatedcostsincludea20%contingencyanda22%indirectcost.Asapointof reference,the2010StreetReconstructionProjecttotaledapproximately$2,800,000,so thisprojectisproposedtobeapproximatelyhalfthecost,primarilyduetothedecreasein utilityreplacementneedsorupgradesandthesmallerscopeofwork. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 3 Cityrevenuesources,specialassessments,andgeneralfundscouldbeutilizedtofundthe projectcosts. Thefundingsourcesaredescribedinmoredetailbelow. Assessments:AssessmentsarebasedontheCity’sstandardresidentialandnon- residentialrates,whichwere$3,800perresidentialunitand$80perfrontfootfornon- residentiallotsforthe2010StreetReconstructionproject.A5%increasetotheserates hasgenerallybeenappliedyeartoyearandwouldbeevaluatedwiththefeasibilityreport. ShouldCouncilchoosetoconstructanysidewalksthefundingwouldbeproposedtobe acquiredthroughanarea-wideassessmentprogram,similartotheprogramsusedtofund sidewalksonpreviousStreetReconstructionprojects.Thisrequiredbenefittingproperty ownerstopayfor25%ofthesidewalkconstruction,withtheCitypayingtheremaining 75%ofthecosts. StateAidFunds:Itisestimatedthatapproximately$550,000inStateAidfundscanbe utilizedforEastRiverStreetfromPalmStreettoWashingtonStreet,andonPalmStreet andWashingtonStreetbetweenEastBroadwayandEastRiverStreet.Thisisbecause thesestreetsareeithercurrently,orareplannedtobe,designatedasMunicipalStateAid (MSA)streetsandwouldthereforebeeligibleforusingStateAidfunds. Councilshouldbeawarethatinthebeginningof2011theCity’sStateAidfundbalance willbe$1,257,802andtheStateAidOfficehassetamaximumthresholdof$1,250,000 forfundbalances.ThismeanswewillnolongerbeeligibletoreceivefutureStateAid allotmentsuntilwedrawourbalancedownbelowthe$1.25millionthreshold.Therefore, ifwewaituntil2012tocompleteournextStreetReconstructionprojectwewillpassup ourannualallotmentfor2011,whichisestimatedtobe$350,000.Anymoneywearenot eligibletocollectwillthenberedistributedamongallothereligiblecities. ItshouldalsobenotedthatportionsofArea5arealsoeligibleforStateAidfundingas 3rd StreetandCedarStreetaredesignatedasMSAroutesanditisanticipatedthattheCity willhaveavailableStateAidfundstofundtheeligibleportionsofthisprojectifitwere tomoveforwardinthenearfuture. TrunkFunds:Itisanticipatedthatthecurrenttrunkfundbalanceisavailabletofund thesanitarysewer,watermain,andstormsewerimprovementsasoutlinedabove. StreetFund:TheCityhasbudgetedfrom$250,000to$500,000annuallyfortheStreet Reconstructionprojects,andformanyprojectswehavebondedforthecostofthe improvements.Thestreetreconstructionfundhasacurrentbalanceof$2,503,210. Itisanticipatedthatacombinationoftheabovefundingsourceswillfund100%ofthe project.Sincebondratesarecurrentlyverylowstaffwouldrecommendusingbondsto fundtheprojectinitially. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 4 ThefirststepinmovingforwardwiththisprojectistoauthorizeaFeasibilityReportthat willaddressthelocationandscopeoftheproposedimprovements,theestimatedcosts, availablefundingsources,apreliminaryprojectschedule,andadeterminationastothe necessity,feasibilityandcost-effectivenessoftheproject. A1.BudgetImpact:Asoutlinedabove,areasonablecostestimateforreconstructing Area4Bwouldbeabout$1,500,000.TheCity’s5-yearCapitalImprovement Planincludes$2,100,000forthisproject,butduetothescopeofworkbeing reducedduetoaportionoftheworkbeingcompletedwiththeNEQuadrant Improvements,andbecauseofareducedutilityconstructionscope,theestimated costshavebeenreduced.Again,aswasnotedabove,ifwedonotspenddown ourState-Aidfundbalancein2011wewillloseoureligibilitytocollectour annualallocationfor2011,andthiswillcontinueuntilweareabletospendour accountdown.Itshouldbenotedthatasignificantpercentageoftheengineering coststopreparetheFeasibilityReportcanbefundedusingState-Aidfunds.Staff willofcourseconsiderothermeansbywhichwecantrytospenddownourState Aidfundbalance,butatthistimetherearen’tanyproposedprojectsthatwould allowustodoso. WSBestimatestheircostsforcompletingthetopographicalsurvey,amajorityof thecostestimate,andanyrequiredgraphicsandreproductionworktocomplete theFeasibilityReporttobe$40,000.Thisisincomparisonto$54,000whichwas spentonthe2010StreetReconstructionprojectFeasibilityReport,whichwas largerinscope.ItshouldbenotedthatanymoneyspentonaFeasibilityReport forArea4BwillnotbelostifCouncildecidestoauthorizethepreparationofthe Reportforthisprojectbutthendecidestodelaytheprojectforayearormore. ThisisbecausetheworkcompletedwiththisFeasibilityReportwillbeabletobe usedagainwhenevertheCouncilauthorizesthisprojectbecausetheareaisfully builtoutandshouldnotchangeappreciablyoverthenextseveralyears. Sincebondratesarelowrightnow,staffwouldrecommendusingbondsalesto fundtheprojectupfront,withbondpaymentsthenbeingmadefromthevarious fundingsourcesidentifiedabove. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staff,whichwillincludevariousstafffromthe EngineeringandPublicWorksDepartments,willspendaconsiderableamountof timeworkingontheFeasibilityReport.Similartothe2010project,staffwill completeasmuchoftheFeasibilityReportin-houseaspossible. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2010-79orderingaFeasibilityReportforthe2011 StreetReconstructionProject,CityProjectNo.11C001. 2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolutionNo.2010-79atthistime. CityCouncilAgenda:12/13/10 5 C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsapprovingAlternative#1.TheroadwayswithinArea4Bhave deterioratedovertimeandareinneedofrepair.Ifthisprojectistomoveforwarditis imperativetostarttheprocessforthisprojectnowtoallowenoughtimetocompletethe publichearingprocess,preparationofplansandspecifications,theStateAidreview process,andbiddingtheprojectsoconstructioncanbegininthespringof2011.The Cityhasreceivedverycompetitivebidsoverthelastfewyearsduetotheeconomic climateandweanticipateseeingsimilarcompetitivebidsin2011.Thismakesthisavery cost-effectiveandfavorablemarketforcompletingsuchprojects. StaffunderstandsthebudgetaryconstraintstheCouncilisoperatingunderandisaware thatthereissomeconsiderationforcompletingfuturestreetreconstructionprojectsonan every-other-yearscheduleuntiltheeconomyturnsaround.However,itshouldbenoted thatwedidtakea2-yearbreakbetweenprojectsbetween2007and2010,soifCouncil weretoauthorizeaprojectin2011theywouldhaveauthorizedback-to-backprojectsand couldthenchoosetostartanevery-other-yearprojectcyclein2012.Thiswouldallowus tospenddownourStateAidfundbalancein2011toavoidlosingallofour2011State Aidallocationandonlyaportionofour2012allocation. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2010-79 FigureNumber1–OverallStreetReconstructionProgramLayout FigureNumber2–Proposed2011StreetReconstructionLayout CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2010-79 ORDERINGFEASIBILITYREPORTFOR2011STREETRECONSTRUCTION CITYPROJECTNO.11C001 WHEREAS,itisproposedtoimproveArea4BasidentifiedintheCity’sOverallStreet ReconstructionProgramincludingEastRiverStreetfromCedarStreettoapointapproximately 1,000feeteastofWashingtonStreet,aswellasCedar,Palm,New,Wright,Ramsey,Hennepin andWashingtonStreetsbetweenEastRiverStreetandEastBroadwaybythereconstructionof streetsincludingtheadjustment,construction,reclamation,removal,and/orrepairofexisting pavement,curbandgutter,sanitarysewer,stormsewerandwatersupplysystems,andother necessaryappurtenantwork,andtoassessthebenefittingpropertiesforalloraportionofthe costoftheimprovements,pursuanttoMinnesotaStatutes,Chapter429. NOWTHEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNICLOFMONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:ThattheproposedimprovementbereferredtotheCityEngineerforstudy,with assistancefromWSBandAssociates,Inc.,andthattheCityEngineerisinstructedtoreportback totheCouncilwithallconvenientspeedadvisingtheCouncilinapreliminarywayastowhether theproposedimprovementisnecessary,cost-effective,andfeasible;whetheritshouldbestbe madeasproposedorinconnectionwithsomeotherimprovement;andtheestimatedcostofthe improvementasrecommended. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis13th dayofDecember,2010. CITYOFMONTICELLO ________________________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator