The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 02-14-2011AGENDA REGULARMEETING–MONTICELLOCITYCOUNCIL Monday,February14,2011–7p.m. Mayor:ClintHerbst CouncilMembers:LloydHilgart,TomPerrault,GlenPosusta,BrianStumpf 1.CalltoOrderandPledgeofAllegiance 2A.ApprovalofMinutes–January24,2011SpecialMeeting 2B.ApprovalofMinutes–January24,2011RegularMeeting 3.Considerationofaddingitemstotheagenda 4.Citizencomments,publicserviceannouncements,andstaffupdates a.CitizenComments: b.PublicServiceAnnouncements: 1)CGIPromotionalVideo 2)OnlineZoningCode 3)“HaveaHeartforBertram”SnowSculptureContestresults 4)“LoveYourLibrary”Day(2/15) c.StaffUpdates: 1)FiberNet 2)LiquorStore 5.ConsentAgenda: A.ConsiderationofapprovingnewhiresanddeparturesforCitydepartments B.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-06approvingacontributionfrom LindenfelsersfortheFireDepartment C.ConsiderationofappointingarepresentativetotheMonticelloParksCommission tofillavacancywiththetermtoexpireon12/31/2013 D.ConsiderationofacceptingaSourceWaterProtectionCompetitiveGrantawarded totheCityandapprovingmatchingfunds E.ConsiderationofadoptingInterimOrdinance#524temporarilyprohibitingAdult- OrientedLandUsesinMonticello SPECIALMEETING 6:00p.m.-Litigationupdate(closed) F.ConsiderationofappointingarepresentativetotheMonticelloEconomic DevelopmentAuthorityfora6yeartermtoexpireon12/31/2016 6.Considerationofitemsremovedfromtheconsentagendafordiscussion 7.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofadoptingOrdinance#523amending2011Fee Scheduleforindustrialwater/sewerratesandcemeteryfrostchargefee 8.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-07approvingacontributionof20,000 sandbagbagsfromVeoliaSolidWaste 9.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-09approvingFeasibilityReportandcalling foraPublicHearingfor2011StreetReconstructionImprovements,CityProjectNo. 11C001 10.Addeditems 11.ApprovepaymentofbillsforFebruary14th 12.Adjournment CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 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 LauraDuCheneGuestServiceMCC1/31PT MichaelKaminskiLifeGuardMCC2/2PT NicolePetersonCertifiedFitnessInstructorMCC1/18PT JohnFalenschekCertifiedFitnessInstructorMCC1/19PT NameReasonDepartmentLastDayClass NatalieDornanVoluntaryMcc1/1PT NEWEMPLOYEES TERMINATINGEMPLOYEES 5AHires-TerminationsList:2/11/2011 CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 1 5B.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-06approvingacontributionfromthe LindenfelsersfortheFireDepartment (CS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: Recently,theMonticelloFireDepartmentreceivedacheckfromJeromeandCorrine Lindenfelserintheamountof$500.Themoneyisspecifiedtobeusedforfireorrescue equipment. Asrequiredbystatestatute,iftheCityacceptsthedonationoffunds,theCityCouncil needstoadoptaresolutionspecifyingtheamountofthedonationanditsuse. A1.BudgetImpact:None A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffaccountsforandreconcilesdonationscontributed throughtheCity. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Approvethecontributionsandauthorizeuseoffundsasspecified. 2.Donotapprovethecontributionsandreturnthefundstothedonors. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommendationistoadopttheresolutionacceptingthecontributions. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: ResolutionNo.2011-06 CityofMonticello RESOLUTIONNO.2011-06 APPROVINGCONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS,theCityofMonticelloisgenerallyauthorizedtoaccept contributionsofrealandpersonalpropertypursuanttoMinnesotaStatutesSections 465.03and465.04forthebenefitofitscitizensandisspecificallyauthorizedtomaintain suchpropertyforthebenefitofitscitizensinaccordancewiththetermsprescribedbythe donor.SaidgiftsmaybelimitedunderprovisionsofMNStatutesSection471.895. WHEREAS,thefollowingpersonsandorentitieshaveofferedtocontribute contributionsorgiftstotheCityaslisted: DONOR/ENTITYDESCRIPTIONVALUE Jerome&CorrineLindenfelserCash$500 WHEREAS,allsaidcontributionsareintendedtoaidtheCityinestablishing facilities,operationsorprogramswithinthecity’sjurisdictioneitheraloneorin cooperationwithothers,asallowedbylaw;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilherebyfindsthatitisappropriatetoacceptthe contributionsoffered. NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVED bytheCityCouncilofMonticelloas follows: 1.ThecontributionsdescribedaboveareherebyacceptedbytheCityof Monticello. 2.Thecontributionsdescribedabovewillbeusedasdesignatedbythe donor.Thismayentailreimbursingorallocatingthemoneytoanother entitythatwillutilizethefundsforthefollowingstatedpurpose: DONOR/ENTITYRECIPIENTPURPOSE Jerome&CorrineLindenfelserMonticelloFireDeptFire/rescueequipment AdoptedbytheCityCouncilofMonticellothis14thdayofFebruary,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 1 5C.ConsiderationofappointingarepresentativetotheMonticelloParksCommissionto fillavacancyforatermtoexpireon12/31/2013 (TP) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CityCouncilisaskedtoappointarepresentativeontheMonticelloParksCommissionfor apositionthathasbeenvacant.TheParksCommissionandParksSuperintendent recommendtheapprovalofTimStalpestofillthevacancywithhistermtoexpireon December31,2013. TimresidesintheCityofMonticelloandindicates,inhisapplication,aninterestin servinginthecommunityasavolunteerontheParksCommission.Timwastheonly applicantatthistime,andthereisoneothervacantpositionthatwillremainopenuntil anotherapplicationisreceived. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoapprovetheappointmentofTimStalpestotheMonticelloParks CommissionwiththetermendingDecember31,2013. 2.Motiontonotapprovetheappointment. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CityStaffandtheMonticelloParksCommissionrecommendAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: ApplicationforTimStalpes CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 1 5D.ConsiderationofacceptingaStateSourceWaterProtectionCompetitiveGrant awardedtotheCityandapprovingmatchingfunds (BP) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCityCouncilisrequestedtoauthorizeacceptanceoftheSourceWaterProtection CompetitiveGrantintheamountof$10,000.CityCouncilapprovedstafftosubmitthe preparedgrantapplicationon12/13/2010.Therequirementtoutilizethisgrantisby matchingfundsof$10,000foratotalprojectof$20,000withcompletionoftheproject byJune1,2012. OnJanuary19,2011,KarenVosswiththeMinnesotaDepartmentofHealthcontacted theCitytoannouncethatwewereawarded$10,000asarecipientfortheSourceWater ProtectionCompetitiveGrant.Thisisagreatopportunity;however,Councilmust approvethematchfundingorthegrantwillbeforfeitedgivingthenextqualifyingentity anopportunitytoreceiveStatefunds. TheSourceWaterProtectionCompetitiveGrantprojectwill: CompletepriorresearchbegunbyWSB.Initialresearchprovidedabasicgeologic studyoftheaquifersthatexistundergroundinMonticelloandsurrounding bordersThestudy,however,wasonlyaportionofresearchnecessarytosecurea sound,highproducing,highwaterqualitywell.Thegeologicstructurerevealsthe undergroundriversandpoolsofwater,stratacracksandhighpeaksofbedrock knownashaystacksorancientvalleysfilledinwithglacialgravelandsand.Each oftheseareaswillhavevariationsofwaterqualityandquantityinrelationtoa sustainableproductionwell.Allcontributinginformationgatheredisapermanent recordofgeologicstructureofourarea. Identifycompositionoftheaquiferelementsthatmakeupthedomesticwater supplytheCityhasavailable,revealingtreatmentrequirementsfortheaquifers beforewellsareconstructed.Deeperwellsmayhaveahigherconcentrationof manganeseandiron;shallowerwellsaremoresusceptibletoinfiltrationfrom surfacesourcesandcontamination,dependingonseparateimpermeablelayers. Someareasmayhaveelevatedconcentrationofnaturallyoccurringarsenic, fluoride,radonorcalcium.Futurewellscanbeconstructedwiththeknowledgeof aquifermaterialtoavoid,ensuringthehighestpossiblewaterqualitybystudying geologicformationandestablishedwells. Monitoringexistingwellsassistsindeterminationoftheeffectsofinterference betweenwellsbeforeconstructingnewwellsorbeforeincreasingpumpingrates inexistingwells.Aftermonitoring,theamountofwellinterferencewillbe predictableforanygivenlocation. CompiledatawiththecollectivedatatobeintroducedintoourPublicWater SupplyPlan(arequirementofstatestatutemanagedbytheDNR)asaprimary planofoperationforapotablewatersystem.Thisplanisrequiredforanyone CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 2 supplyingwatertoover1,000peopleandalsopreliminarytoacquiringpermits, licensing,andapermanentuniquewellnumber. Providenecessarylabortoconstructanobservationwellataproposedsiteata locationthatcouldbestservetheCityforitsfutureneedsortosupplementour existingsystemwithareplacementforWell#1,shouldtheCouncilconsiderthe redevelopmentoftheSEquadrantofdowntownorinaproximitycommontothe developmentoftheCity.Note:ifanyofourlargestproducingwellsareremoved withoutreplacement,wefallbelowourfirmcapacitywhichisinviolationofour permitfromtheDepartmentofHealth.“FirmCapacity”meansadequate pumpingequipmentand/ortreatmentcapacity(excludingcoagulation, flocculation,andsedimentation)tomeetpeakdailydemand,aswhenthelargest pumpingstationortreatmentunitisoutofservice. A1.BudgetImpact:$10,000isavailableintheWaterFundtomatchMDHfunds. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:MinimalasWSBwillexecuteadministrative,research, anddatacollectionstasksnecessarytofulfillgrantrequirements. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoacceptSourceWaterProtectionGrantandapprovematchingfundsin theamountof$10,000. 2.Motiontodenymatchingfundsandrefusethegrant. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CityStaffrecommendsAlternative#1.Beingpreparedfortheneedofapublicdomestic supplywellisalargetaskandtakesmuchtimeandpreparation.Wemaynotneedawell atthistime;howeverresearchdoeseventuallyneedtobecompletedanddatahastobe reviewedbyMinnesotaDNR,DeptofHealthandthePCAwithpermitsandlicensesto becompleteandinplace.Itcantakeyearstoaccomplishthesetasks.Wecanaccomplish thisfuturegoalatthevalueoftoday’sdollarwiththediscountofthegrantwehavebeen awarded. ItisinthebestinterestoftheCitytoacceptthisgrantinconsiderationoftheneedfor constructingwellsatthistimeandinthefuture.Thedowntownareahasgoodwater productionandthecontinuedinterestofredevelopingtheSEquadrantblockmayrequire theremovalofWell#1.Togetaheadofthenextredevelopmentrequest,additionalwork isrequiredforapermanentwellsite. Thisinformationwillperpetuallybeinhandforwatersupplyneedsfarintothefuture. ThefundingfromtheSourceWaterProtectionGrantwillbeasmartmovetosave substantialfundsthattheCitywouldotherwisehavetopay. CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 3 D.SUPPORTINGDATA: SourceWaterProtectionCompetitiveGrantApplicationFollow-upChecklist LetterfromWSB&Associates–proposaltoprovideengineeringservices Date this form was filled out (month-day-year) ……..\.........\............. SWP Competitive Grant Application Follow Up Checklist The purpose for this form is to provide the information that is needed to complete the grant agreement between the public water supplier and the Minnesota Department of Health so that the grant funds can be allocated. 1. Does the public water supplier still wish to receive the grant? ____Yes ____ No. (If not, the grant application will be withdrawn from consideration by the Minnesota Department of Health) NO work should begin until ALL required signatures have been obtained on the grant agreement, and grantee receives a signed copy of the grant agreement. 2. Public water supplier name: City of Monticello 3. Federal Tax ID # 41-6005385 4. Activities – please describe in detail all activities that are included in the project with the corresponding cost and/or cost share; use an additional page if necessary. (Note: Reporting, in-kind or other administrative costs related to using a source water protection competitive grant are not eligible. Fundable activities involve costs that are associated with implementing and completing the project). Activity Grant Amount ($) City Cost Share ($) Work Performed By Geological Study $4,100 $4,100 WSB Water Quality Testing $900 $900 Water Quality Lab Observation Well Construction $4,250 $4,250 Well Driller Data Loggers for Water Level Monitoring $750 $750 Data Logger Supplier TOTAL Total in column B must match the requested grant amount on your application Total in column C must match the cost share on your application $10,000 $10,000 M:\WaterWastewater\Monticello\LTR PROP-j oneill-020211-Geostudy.doc Engineering Planning Environmental Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 February 2, 2011 Mr. Jeff O’Neill City Administrator City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Proposal to Provide Professional Engineering Services for MDH Competitive Grant Tasks (Continuation of Geological Study) City of Monticello, MN Dear Mr. O’Neill: In December 2010, the City of Monticello applied for a Source Water Protection Implementation– Competitive Grant from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). This application was successful, and a $10,000 matching grant was offered in January 2011. A breakdown of the scope of work associated with the competitive grant is outlined in Table 1 below. WSB is pleased to propose to manage and complete the geological study as outlined in the grant proposal as a supplement to the well siting study WSB completed in June 2010. This work will aid the City in locating optimal sites for future wells in the City of Monticello. TABLE 1 City of Monticello MDH Competitive Grant Breakdown Activity Grant Amount ($) City Cost Share ($) Work Performed By Geological Study $4,100 $4,100 WSB Water Quality Testing $900 $900 Water Quality Lab Observation Well Construction $4,250 $4,250 Well Driller Data Loggers for Water Level Monitoring $750 $750 Data Logger Supplier TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 A delineation of tasks to be performed by WSB & Associates, Inc. and by the City of Monticello follows directly. Assumptions related to these same items are also defined in a subsequent section. Project Understanding In June 2010, WSB completed a well siting study in which a geological map was developed and potential well sites for further investigation were identified. Further investigation was recommended to confirm which aquifers are actually available and address water quality and quantity questions that need to be answered before constructing a production well. Mr. Jeff O’Neill February 2, 2011 Page 2 M:\WaterWastewater\Monticello\LTR PROP-j oneill-020211-Geostudy.doc The competitive grant awarded to Monticello is for conducting a geological study to research variable water quality and contamination vulnerability, to assess locations for replacement municipal wells. This will be done through analysis of water quality, aquifer materials, confining layer mapping, pumping tests, and construction of an observation well. WSB’s portion of these tasks includes: • examination of well cuttings • coordinating water quality testing for selected domestic wells • design and coordinate constructing an observation well • coordinate aquifer pumping test All of the above tasks can be used to supplement the well siting study to identify parameters that affect water quality in addition to future well placement and design. WSB has a geologist on staff that is experienced in these areas and will be conducting the work. Based on our discussions with City staff members, our understanding of the City’s goals and objectives is as follows: 1. Evaluate Well Cuttings. The City presently has five wells. These wells are in three separate aquifers that produce water with different water quality and available capacity. All three of these aquifers appear to be unevenly distributed. Examining the cuttings from these wells may identify whether the aquifer materials are the source of the difference in water quality. If this is so, cuttings from future wells may be used to predict water quality during well construction so that changes to the well design, if they are necessary to avoid poor quality water, can be made immediately before water quality problems can occur. Future wells can be constructed with the knowledge of what aquifer material to avoid to ensure the highest possible water quality. 2. Water Quality Examination. Monticello has access to multiple aquifers of varying water quality. Testing water quality in domestic wells in different aquifers will determine if a particular aquifer has water quality that is unique to that aquifer. Determining this will allow the City to identify treatment requirements for the local aquifers before wells are constructed. 3. Design and Coordinate Construction of One Observation Well. One observation well will be designed and constructed for the purpose of monitoring water levels within the City’s wellfields. This well will allow the City to monitor the sustainability of its water supply. Future wells will be able to be located with the knowledge of how much pumping interference to expect from other nearby wells. 4. Aquifer Pumping Test. Water levels in Monticello’s wells will be monitored over the course of normal operations to quantify the amount of pumping interference, if any. This will be done in conjunction with item 3 (construction of an observation well) in order to achieve the best possible result. This will allow the City to anticipate the effects of well interference before constructing new wells. Over the course of the study, WSB will focus on solutions that encompass all of these goals. Mr. Jeff O’Neill February 2, 2011 Page 3 M:\WaterWastewater\Monticello\LTR PROP-j oneill-020211-Geostudy.doc Proposed Scope of Services WSB’s project scope and proposed work plan is based on our understanding of the project and experience on similar projects. The following are the major tasks that will be performed to complete the geological study: Task 1: Evaluate Well Cuttings • Examine stored well cuttings at the Minnesota Geological Survey storage facility to determine if aquifer material differences correlate with differences in water quality. • Produce a brief description of each set of cuttings, with photographs if possible, to allow for aquifer discrimination in the field during well construction. Task 2: Coordinate Water Quality Testing for Selected Domestic Wells • Using the existing well siting study map, select wells for water quality sampling. • Compile water sample laboratory results. • Analyze lab results with respect to existing water quality and geological data. Task 3: Design and Coordinate Construction of One Observation Well • Design and prepare specifications (if necessary) for one observation well. • Have licensed geologist (PG) observe and log construction of observation well. • Compare cuttings collected during construction to stored cuttings. Task 4: Coordinate Aquifer Pumping Test • Coordinate installation of data loggers in monitored wells. • Perform calibrating manual water level measurements during test. • Analyze data collected during test. Task 5: Preparation of Technical Memorandum • Prepare a technical memorandum that incorporates the findings and recommendations of the above tasks. Fee We propose to perform the geological study for a fee of $8,200, which can be adjusted along with our scope to fit within the parameters of the grant and matching funds. We will bill at our 2011 hourly rates. We will review our progress monthly and will not exceed this amount unless the scope changes and we obtain your prior approval. City of Monticello’s Tasks In order to complete our tasks, we will need the City to provide the following: • Identify properties that may be used as sites for an observation well. Mr. Jeff O’Neill February 2, 2011 Page 4 M:\WaterWastewater\Monticello\LTR PROP-j oneill-020211-Geostudy.doc • Provide a copy of previous water quality studies. • Contact homeowners for permission to take samples from their domestic water supply. • Arrange for water samples to be taken and conveyed to the laboratory. • Allow access to City wells to install monitoring equipment. • Take periodic manual water level readings during pumping test. • Ensure that City wells operate in a way that makes water level monitoring useful. This will be coordinated in detail before monitoring equipment is installed in the wells. Time Schedule WSB will complete the geological study and memo within 150 days after authorization to proceed is given by the City. Proposal Assumptions WSB tasks and estimated fees are based on the following assumptions: • Only one observation well will be constructed. • The City will arrange to take samples for water quality analysis. • The City wells operate without problems during the pumping test. This letter represents our understanding of the project scope. If you are in agreement, please sign on the space provided and return one original signed copy to us for our records. We will start immediately upon receipt of the signed agreement. If you have any questions concerning the work plan or fee as discussed herein, please feel free to contact me at 763-287-8316. We look forward to working with you and greatly appreciate the opportunity to assist you and your staff in the completion of this project. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. BJ Bonin, PG Nancy D. Zeigler, PE Engineering Geologist Associate/Senior Project Manager ACCEPTED BY: City of Monticello, Minnesota Name Title Date CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 1 5E.ConsiderationofadoptingInterimOrdinance#524temporarilyprohibitingAdult- OrientedLandUsesinMonticello (AS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCityCouncilisaskedtoconsideradoptinganinterimordinanceprohibitingadult- orientedlanduseswithintheCity. WiththerecentcomprehensiveamendmenttotheMonticelloZoningOrdinance,areview ofadultuselanguagewasincludedwithinthebaseprojectscope. MFRAcompletedthebasicanalysisofthecode,updatingtheordinancelanguage consistentwithcurrentcaselawandstatutes.Theordinancelanguageallowsadult-uses withintheI-2(HeavyIndustrial)zoningdistrictandrequiresadditionalbuffering distancesfromusessensitivetothesecondaryimpactsofadultuses,suchasresidential neighborhoods,religiousinstitutions,schools,etc. However,beyondabasicupdatingofthiscodelanguage,theCitymustalsocompletean inventoryanalysisrelatedtolandareaavailableforadultuses.Incompletingthis evaluation,itwasdeterminedthattheCityneededtocompleteamoredetailedanalysisof theadultuseordinance.ThisisduemainlytochangestotheCity’soveralllandareaand boundaries,andtheinabilitytoincludeXcelEnergy’slargeI-2zonedareawithinthe areaavailableforadultuses.Thesechangeshaveraisedtheneedtoadjustzoning allowancesandbufferdistancestoensurethattheordinancecontinuestomeetlegal standardsinthisarea. ItisimportantthattheCitycarefullyconstructitsadult-useordinancesinorderto minimizethepotentialforlegalchallengeofthecode,whichcouldultimatelyresultin thecompletenegationofthezoningordinance. WhiletheCitycompletesthisanalysis,theCityAttorneyhasrecommendedaninterim ordinanceprohibitingthesitingofnewadultuseswithinthecommunity.Amoratorium ordinancecanbeenactedbytheCouncilatanytime,pursuanttoMinnesotaStatute 462.355,Subd.4.ThePlanningCommissionhasunanimouslyrecommendedthe adoptionoftheinterimordinance. CampbellKnutsonhasreviewedtheattachedinterimordinanceandprovidedsupporting documentationrelativetothecurrentcaselawandstudiesavailableontheissue.The reportsandstudiesreferencedwithintheinterimordinanceareavailableforthePlanning CommissionandCityCouncil’sreviewandwillbeincludedasreferencedocumentsin theCity’sown StudyfortheLocationofAdultOrientedLandUses. Theinterimordinancemaybeplacedforuptooneyear,withoneextensionofupto18 additionalmonths.Thereisnopublichearingrequiredtoenacttheinterimordinance. CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 2 PlanningCommissiondiscussedthedirectionofanyneededpotentialamendmentstothe ordinanceinFebruaryandwillbepresentedwithadditionalsupplementalanalysisin March.Itisexpectedthatactualamendmentstocodelanguageandthemapwillbe presentedinapublichearinginApril. ThePlanningCommissionwillholdfuturepublichearingsasnecessaryforany amendmentstotheexistingadultuselanguageortheOfficialZoningMap. CouncilisencouragedattendtheMarchandAprilPlanningCommissiontofollowthe discussionandamendmentdirection. A1.BudgetImpact:StaffhasrequestedthatCampbellKnutsonandNACprovidea summarywhichclearlydefinesactionstepsandbudgetfortheneededanalysis; thiswillbeprovidedinafutureCouncilupdate.Theonlycostforenactingthe interimordinanceisthenominalcosttopublishtheordinancedocument. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:FortunatelyforMonticello,NACandCampbell Knutsonhaveteamedinothercommunitiestoprovideanalysisandcode recommendationsforadultuseordinances.Inonenotableexample,NACand CampbellKnutsonpreparedordinancelanguageforElkoNewMarket,whichwas challenged.ElkoNewMarketwassuccessfulindefendingtheircodelanguage. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptInterimOrdinanceNo.524,temporarilyprohibitingAdult- OrientedLandUsesincertainareasoftheCityofMonticello. 2.MotiontodenyadoptionofInterimOrdinanceNo.524,temporarilyprohibiting Adult-OrientedLandUsesincertainareasoftheCityofMonticello. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1.ThePlanningCommissionunanimously recommendedAlternative#1.ItisessentialthattheCitycompletethisanalysisin ordertoensurethattheadultuseregulationscanwithstandlegalchallenges,and appropriatelymeetstatutoryandlegalrequirements. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: InterimOrdinance#524 ORDINANCENO.524 CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA ANINTERIMORDINANCETEMPORARILYPROHIBITING ADULT-ORIENTEDLANDUSESONCERTAINPROPERTYLOCATED WITHINTHECITYOFMONTICELLO THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFMONTICELLOHEREBYORDAINS: WHEREAS,theStateAttorneyGeneralhaspreparedareportentitled"reportoftheAttorney General'sWorkingGrouponRegulationofSexuallyOrientedBusinesses,"datedJune6,1989, preparedbyHubertH.Humphrey,III,AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofMinnesota/Olmstead CountyPlanningDepartment"AdultEntertainmentReport"datedMarch2,1988,and"A40- AcreStudy"preparedbytheSt.PaulDivisionofPlanningin1987,allofwhichreportsare hereaftercollectivelyreferredtoas"Reports".TheReportsconsideredevidencefromstudies conductedinMinneapolisandSt.Paulandinothercitiesthroughoutthecountryrelatingto sexuallyorientedbusinesses;and WHEREAS,theAttorneyGeneral'sReport,basedupontheabovereferencedstudiesandthe testimonypresentedtoithasconcluded"thatsexuallyorientedbusinessesareassociatedwith highcrimeratesanddepressionofpropertyvalues."Inaddition,theAttorneyGeneral'sWorking Group:"...heardtestimonythatthecharacterofaneighborhoodcandramaticallychangewhen thereisaconcentrationofsexuallyorientedbusinessesadjacenttoresidentialproperty."The reportconcludesthat: a)adultuseshaveanimpactontheneighborhoodssurroundingthemwhichisdistinctfrom theimpactcausedbyothercommercialuses; b)residentialneighborhoodslocatedwithincloseproximitytoadulttheaters,bookstores, andotheradultusesexperienceincreasedcrimerates(sex-relatedcrimesinparticular), loweredpropertyvalues,increasedtransiency,anddecreasedstabilityofownership; c)theadverseimpactswhichadultuseshaveonsurroundingareasdiminishasthedistance fromtheadultusesincreases; d)studiesofothercitieshaveshownthatamongthecrimeswhichtendtoincreaseeither withinorinthenearvicinityofadultusesarerapes,prostitution,childmolestation, indecentexposure,andotherlewdandlasciviousbehavior; e)theCityofPhoenix,Arizonastudyconfirmedthatthesexcrimeratewasontheaverage 500percenthigherinareaswithsexuallyorientedbusinesses; f)manymembersofthepublicperceiveareaswithinwhichadultusesarelocatedasless safethanotherareaswhichdonothavesuchuses; g)studiesofothercitieshaveshownthatthevaluesofbothcommercialandresidential propertieseitherarediminishedorfailtoappreciateattherateofothercomparable propertieswhenlocatedinproximitytoadultuses;and h)theIndianapolis,Indianastudyestablishedthatprofessionalrealestateappraisersbelieve thatanadultbookstorewouldhaveanegativeeffectonthevalueofbothresidentialand commercialpropertieswithinaonetothreeblockareaofthestore;and WHEREAS,theMonticelloCityCouncilfindsthatcharacteristicsofMonticelloaresimilarto thoseofthecitiescitedbytheReportswhenconsideringtheaffectsofadultuses;and WHEREAS,inlightofgrowthandchangeswithintheCitysincetheCity’soriginaladultuse ordinanceswereadopted,theCity'szoningordinancemaynotadequatelyaddresssuchadult useswhichhavebeenfoundbyothermunicipalitiestocausesimilaradversesecondaryeffects; and WHEREAS,theMonticelloCityCouncilisconcernedthattheCity'szoningordinancemaybe inadequateinitsscopeandinitsrestrictionstoaccomplishthepurposeforwhichitwas intended;and WHEREAS,inadditiontotheproperzoningclassificationofsuchuses,thereareanumberof significantplanningandlanduseissuespertainingtotheregulationofsuchuses,includingthe following: a)Theparticularzoningdistrictsinwhichsuchusesshouldbeallowedaseitherpermitted orconditionaluses; b)TheconcentrationanddensityofsuchusesintheCityanditsneighborhoods; c)Theeffectofsuchusesonotherusesinthesurroundingarea;and WHEREAS,theCityofMonticelloispresentlyconductingaplanningstudy identified as"AStudyfortheLocationofAdultOrientedLandUses"forthepurposeof consideringadoptionand/oramendmentofofficialcontrolsasdefinedinMinnesota Statutes,Section462.352,Subdivision15;and WHEREAS,theCityofMonticello,inrecognitionofthedocumentedsecondaryimpacts that"AdultOrientedLandUses"posetothepropertyvalues,minors,andnearbysensitive landuses,doesdeterminethatpriortothecompletionandimplementationoftheStudy, interimregulationsarenecessary;and WHEREAS,theofficialcontrolsandamendmentswillconsider,amongotherthings, appropriatelanduseregulationsrelatingto"AdultUses",AdultUse/Accessory”and“Adult Use/Principal”asdefinedbytheMonticelloZoningOrdinance;and WHEREAS,theStudywillconsiderregulationsofzoningdistrictsfortheproperty identifiedasZoningDistrictsA-O,R-A,R-1,R-2,R-3,M-H,R-PUD,TN,B-1,B-2,B-3, B-4,I-BC,I-1,andI-2asshownontheCityofMonticelloZoningMapattachedasExhibit Atothisordinance;and WHEREAS,thereisaneedforastudytobeconductedsothattheCitycanreviewits comprehensiveplansandlandusezoningregulationspertainingtoadultestablishmentusesin lightofchangeswithintheCityovertime.Suchastudywilladdressthelanduseandzoning issues,includingthosereferencedabove;and WHEREAS,thereisaneedforaninterimordinancetobeadoptedforthepurposeofprotecting theplanningprocessandthehealth,safety,andwelfareofthecitizensoftheCityandtoensure thattheCityanditscitizensretainthebenefitsoftheCity'scomprehensiveplanandzoning ordinanceuntilsuchastudyhasbeencompleted.Thereisaneedtorestrictsuchusesuntilsucha studyhasbeencompletedandanymodificationstotheCity'szoningandlanduseregulationsare accomplished. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED bytheCityCounciloftheCityofMonticello, Minnesota: 1.PursuanttoMinn.Stat.§462.355,etseq.,theCityherebyadoptsandapprovesthe orderforinterimordinancetemporarilyprohibiting“AdultUses”,“Adult Use/Accessory”and“AdultUse/Principal”withintheCityofMonticello. 2.Thisordinanceshalltakeeffectandbeinfullforcefromandafterits passageandpublication.Itshallremainineffectuntiltheadoptionofthe officialcontrolscontemplatedhereinoroneyear,whicheverfirstoccurs. 3.Thisordinanceshallnotapplytopropertieswhichhavefiledavalidapplicationfor Adult-OrientedUseasaprincipalusepriortoadoptionofthisordinancebytheCity Council. 4.Pendingtheadoptionofappropriateofficialcontrols,noapplicationAdult- OrientedUsewithintheCityofMonticelloshallbeaccepted,processed,or approved. 5.TheCitymayenforceanyprovisionofthisordinancebymandamus,injunction,or anyotherappropriatecivilremedyinanycourtofcompetentjurisdiction. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis14thdayofFebruary,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator VOTINGINFAVOR: VOTINGINOPPOSITION: CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 1 5F.ConsiderationofappointingarepresentativetotheMonticelloEconomic DevelopmentAuthorityfora6yeartermtoexpire12/31/2016 (MB) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CityCouncilisaskedtoappointanewrepresentativetotheEDAtofillavacancy.The EDAmetandinterviewedMatthewFrieonWednesday,February9andrecommendsthe approvalofMatttoa6-yeartermwiththetermtoexpireonDecember31,2016. Mr.FriehasbeenalifelongresidentofMonticelloandenjoysvolunteerwork.Alawyer byoccupation,heparticipatesintheVolunteerLawyersNetworkandvolunteersatSt. Henry’sChurch.Mattalsohasadegreeinpoliticalsciencesoisfamiliarwith governmentpractices. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoapprovetheappointmentofMatthewFrietotheMonticelloEconomic DevelopmentAuthoritywiththetermendingDecember31,2016. 2.Motiontonotapprovetheappointment. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CityStaffandtheEDArecommendAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: CopyofresumeforMatthewFrie CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 1 7.ConsiderationofadoptingOrdinance#523amendingthe2011FeeSchedulefor industrialwater/sewerratesandcemeteryfrostchargefee (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: ThefeesforservicesperformedbytheCityaresetbyCityordinance.Everyyear,staff reviewsthesefeestomakesurethefeeschargedareinlinewithwhattheservicecosts andtheywillprovidethefundsnecessarytoprovidetheservice.TheCityCouncil approvedthe2011feescheduleatitsDecember13,2010councilmeetingwiththe exceptionthatthewaterandsewerratesbereviewedastotheireffectsonCargill Kitchen.Also,sincetheDecembermeeting,itwasdiscoveredanewfeewasleftoffthe schedule. ThenewfeeisundertheCemeteryFeesandisafeeforgraveexcavationwhenfrostisin theground.TheCity’scontractforexcavationandburialsatRiversideCemeteryallows thecontractor,RayGlunzConstruction,tobilla“frostcharge”of$100.Therefore,the City’sfeescheduleshouldincludeafrostchargeof$100asapplicablebetween DecemberandFebruary. TheCity’swaterratesrequiredanincreasefromcurrentrates.Therates,asadopted, fundoperationsandasmallportionofdepreciationofthesystemassets.TheState requirescitiestoadoptatieredratestructureasawaytoencouragewaterconservation, whichiswhytheCity’sratestructurewaschangedtoatieredratestructure.However, whenstafffirstproposedthisratestructureandthechargesateachtier,staffdidnot realizethefullimpactthenewstructurewouldhaveonthefourorfivebusinessesthat usewaterintheirprocesses,andparticularlyCargillKitchenSolutions.Staffslightly decreasedtherateandtiersystemasoriginallyproposedtotheratesthatwerethen adoptedasshowninthefollowingtable. WaterUsage CurrentRates OriginalProposal AdoptedRates 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 Inadditiontothewaterrateincreases,theCityCouncilalsoapprovedanincreasetothe City’ssewerratesasfollows: SewerUsage 2010Rates AdoptedRates 0-3740gallons$15.15minimum$16.75minimum Over3740gallons$1.50/748gallons$3.00/748gallons BODs0.265/lb0.300/lb TSS0.365/lb0.400/lb CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 2 Undertheadopted2011waterandsewerrates,CargillKitchenSolutionsutilitybill wouldhaveincreasedaround$100,000fortheyearduetothefactthattheyusealmost 40,000,000gallonsofwaterayear.CityCouncilaskedstafftoreviewtheratesandseeif therewouldbeawaytolessentheimpactforCargillKitchenSolutions.Staffand CargillmetacoupleoftimeswithboththeCityandCargillKitchenSolutionsofferinga ratesolution.Basedonthesemeetings,staffisproposingthefollowingratesfor industrialwaterandsewerusage,whichwouldapplytoCargill.Itisproposedto implementasmallerincreaseforthefirstthreequartersofbillingandthefullincreasefor thefourthquarterbilling.Theratesareproposedasfollows: CargillKitchenCityofMonticello WaterUsage ProposedRates Qtr1,2,3Proposal Qtr4Proposal 0-3740gallons$1.14/748gallons$14.30minimum$14.30minimum 3741–29,920gallons$1.14/748gallons$0.95/748gallons$0.95/748gallons 29,921–100,000gallons$1.14/748gallons$1.10/748gallons$1.10/748gallons Over100,000gallons$1.14/748gallons$1.15/748gallons$1.20/748gallons SewerUsage ProposedRates Qtr1,2,3Proposal Qtr4Proposal 0-3740gallons$1.80/748gallons$16.75minimum$16.75minimum Over3740gallons$1.80/748gallons$2.15/748gallons$3.00/748gallons BODs$0.320/lb$0.280/lb$0.300/lb TSS$0.440/lb$0.380/lb$0.400/lb Basedonthis,autilitybillforCargillKitchenSolutionswouldchangeasfollows: ServiceBilled CargillProposalCityProposal Water$71,195.53 $73,047.72 Sewer$76,395.49 $100,288.88 BOD$159,562.24 $142,110.12 TSS$65,900.56 $57,662.99 TOTAL$373,053.82 $373,109.71 Thisproposalwouldbeanincreaseofapproximately$63,281.71forCargillKitchen Solutionsfrom2010to2011.Inadditiontotheratesproposedabove,theCitywould agreetoautilityrateincreasefor2012nottoexceed20%forindustrialwaterandsewer rateswhichaffectCargillKitchenSolutions. A1.BudgetImpact:Therateincreasewasincludedinthe2011budgetandadoption oftheserateswouldreducerevenuesabout$40,000fromwhatwasbudgeted, meaningtheCitywouldbefundingoperationsofthesystem,butfundinglessof thedepreciationofsystemassetsfor2011. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Thisitemwouldhavenoadditionalstaffworkload impact. CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 3 B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS 1.MotiontoadoptOrdinance#523amendingthe2011feeschedulewiththe additionofafrostchargetocemeteryfeesandadjustmentstotheindustrialwater andsewerratesaccordingtotheCity’sproposal;inaddition,a2012increaseshall notexceed20%forindustrialwaterandsewerratesaffectingCargillKitchen Solutions. 2.MotiontoadoptOrdinance#523amendingthe2011feeschedulewiththe additionofafrostchargetocemeteryfeesandadjustmentstotheindustrialwater andsewerratesaccordingtotheCargillKitchenSolutions’proposal;inaddition, a2012increaseshallnotexceed20%forindustrialwaterandsewerrates affectingCargillKitchenSolutions. 4.MotiontonotadoptOrdinance#523amendingthe2011feeschedule. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffsupportsAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: OrdinanceNo.523 ORDINANCENO.523 CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA ANORDINANCEREVISINGTHE2011FEESCHEDULE NOTICEISHEREBYGIVEN that,onFebruary14,2011,OrdinanceNo.523wasadoptedby theCityCounciloftheCityofMonticello,Minnesota,creatingthefollowingrevisionstothe 2011FeeSchedule. Section1.TheFeeSchedulecategory,Cemetery,oftheMonticelloCityCodeshallbe amendedasfollows: A.Addthefollowingfeetothe“GraveExcavation”section. FrostCharge$100(DecemberthroughFebruary) Section2.TheFeeSchedulecategory,SanitarySewer,oftheMonticelloCityCodeshallbe amendedasfollows: A.Changethefollowingsewerratefees. Qtr1-3,2011 Qtr4,2011 IndustrialSewerRates:0-3740gallons.$16.75minimum$16.75minimum Over3740gallons $2.15/748gallons$3.00/748gallons BOD5:$0.280/lb.0.300/lb. TSS:$0.380/lb.0.400/lb. TestingActualcosts+10% Section3.TheFeeSchedulecategory,Water,oftheMonticelloCityCodeshallbeamended asfollows: A.Changethefollowingwaterratefees. CommWaterRate,Mtr1Qtr1-3,2011 Qtr4,2011 0-3740gallons $14.75minimum+salestax$14.30minimum+salestax 3741-29,920gallons $0.95/748gallons+salestax$0.95/748gallons+salestax 29,921-100,000gallons $1.10/748gallons+salestax$1.10/748gallons+salestax over100,000gallons $1.15/748gallons+salestax$1.20/748gallons+salestax Section4.ThisOrdinanceshallbecomeeffectiveimmediatelyuponitspassageand publicationaccordingtolaw. Section5.Aprintedcopyofthewholeordinanceisavailableforinspectionbyanyperson duringtheCity’sregularofficehours.The2011FeeScheduleasrevisedwillbe postedontheCitywebsiteafteritispublished. APPROVEDFORPUBLICATION bytheCityCounciloftheCityofMonticello,Minnesota, this14thdayofFebruary,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: JeffO’NeillCityAdministrator VOTINGINFAVOR: VOTINGINOPPOSITION: CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 1 8.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-07approvingacontributionof20,000 sandbagbagsfromVeoliaSolidWaste (BP/RH) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CouncilisrequestedtoconsiderapprovingadonationfromVeoliaSolidWasteofa quantityof20,000sandbagbagswhichwillbeplacedinourEmergencyPreparedness inventory.Currentlyweonlyhave3,000sandbagsonhandatPublicWorks. Veoliaconsidersitselfpartofourcommunityandisinvolvedonapersonalbasiswithall residentsinseveralways.VeoliaSWstaffheardtherecentnewswhichbroadcastlarge floodingpotentialsforrivercommunities.HavinggreatconcernforMonticello,they wouldliketoprovideasecuritymeasureandhelpprotecttheresidentstheyserve. TheU.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS)hasstatedthepotentialforspringfloodingisabove normalfortheentireareaoftheMississippiriveranditstributariesfromSt.CloudtoRed Wing.StaffhasbeenresearchingdatafromUSGS,NorthCentralRiverForecastCenter, andtheMinnesotaEnhancedFloodForecast/WarningSystem;participatedinflood preventionteleconferences;metwithWrightCountyhomelandsecurity;andvisitedcities withfloodexperiences,suchasDelano,toassistinourpreventionpreparednessthis spring. StaffhasalsotakenelevationsandreferencedthemtoFEMA100yearfloodplain recordstodetermineanactionlevelforeachfootofelevationatandoverfloodlevels. Floodstagingisratedinaction,flood,moderatefloodandmajorfloodstages.Withinthe city,fivelocationsalongtheriverhavebeenchosenforriverelevationmarkers, indicatingthe100yearflood.Themarkerswillbemonitoreddailywhenlevelsapproach theactionstage. StaffhasalsometwithGaryScharberofRiverTerrace,whichisthefirstareaoflikely flooding.Staffhasassistedinpreparingaplanforfloodproofingandforevacuation steps. MonticellohasbecomeamemberofMNWARN.Intheeventofanemergency,mutual aidresourcesfromstatewidememberscanbeactivatedbyasinglephonecall. A1.BudgetImpact:Anexpenseforthisnumberofsandbagswouldhavecomefrom theGeneralfund.Thedonationvalueis$3,207. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffaccountsforandreconcilesdonationscontributed throughtheCity.Staffandvolunteertimeforfillingsandbagswillberequired onlyintheeventofafloodemergency. CityCouncilAgenda:02/14/11 2 B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoapprovethecontributionandauthorizeuseofdonationasspecified. 2.MotiontodenythedonationandreturnthecontributiontoVeoliasolidwaste. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CityStaffrecommendsAlternative#1toacceptthecontributiontobeused unconditionallybytheCity.Asrequiredbystatestatute,iftheCityacceptsthedonation offundsorgoods,theCityCouncilneedstoadoptaresolutionspecifyingthevalueofthe donationanditsuse. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2011-07 FEMA100yearfloodplain USGS100yearfloodinformation CityofMonticello RESOLUTIONNO.2011-07 APPROVINGCONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS,theCityofMonticelloisgenerallyauthorizedtoaccept contributionsofrealandpersonalpropertypursuanttoMinnesotaStatutesSections 465.03and465.04forthebenefitofitscitizensandisspecificallyauthorizedtomaintain suchpropertyforthebenefitofitscitizensinaccordancewiththetermsprescribedbythe donor.SaidgiftsmaybelimitedunderprovisionsofMNStatutesSection471.895. WHEREAS,thefollowingpersonsandorentitieshaveofferedtocontribute contributionsorgiftstotheCityaslisted: DONOR/ENTITYDESCRIPTIONVALUE VeoliaSolidWasteIn-kind$3207 WHEREAS,allsaidcontributionsareintendedtoaidtheCityinestablishing facilities,operationsorprogramswithinthecity’sjurisdictioneitheraloneorin cooperationwithothers,asallowedbylaw;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilherebyfindsthatitisappropriatetoacceptthe contributionsoffered. NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVED bytheCityCouncilofMonticelloas follows: 1.ThecontributionsdescribedaboveareherebyacceptedbytheCityof Monticello. 2.Thecontributionsdescribedabovewillbeusedasdesignatedbythe donor.Thismayentailreimbursingorallocatingthemoneytoanother entitythatwillutilizethefundsforthefollowingstatedpurpose: DONOR/ENTITYRECIPIENTPURPOSE VeoliaSolidWasteCityofMonticelloSandbagsforfloodprevention AdoptedbytheCityCouncilofMonticellothis14thdayofFebruary,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator General Information Product 106 April 2010 100-Year Flood–It’s All About Chance U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey In the 1960’s, the United States government decided to use the 1-percent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood as the basis for the National Flood Insurance Program. The 1-percent AEP flood was thought to be a fair balance between protecting the public and overly stringent regulation. Because the 1-percent AEP flood has a 1 in 100 chance of being equaled or exceeded in any 1 year, and it has an average recurrence interval of 100 years, it often is referred to as the “100-year flood”. Scientists and engineers frequently use statistical probability (chance) to put a context to floods and their occurrence. If the probability of a particular flood magnitude being equaled or exceeded is known, then risk can be assessed. To determine these probabilities all the annual peak streamflow values measured at a streamgage are examined. A streamgage is a location on a river where the height of the water and the quantity of flow (streamflow) are recorded. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates more than 7,500 streamgages nationwide (see map) that allow for assessment of the probability of floods. Examining all the annual peak streamflow values that occurred at a streamgage with time allows us to estimate the AEP for various flood magnitudes. For example, we can say there is a 1 in 100 chance that next year’s flood will equal or exceed the 1-percent AEP flood. More recently, people talk about larger floods, such as the “500- year flood,” as tolerance for risk is reduced and increased protection from flooding is desired. The “500-year flood” corresponds to an AEP of 0.2 percent, which means a flood of that size or greater has a 0.2-percent chance (or 1 in 500 chance) of occurring in a given year. A flood is any relatively high streamflow overtopping the natural or artificial banks in any reach of a stream. Floods occur for many reasons, such as long-lasting rainfall over a broad area, locally intense thunderstorm-generated rainfall, or rapid melting of a large snow pack with or without accompanying rainfall. Because floods result from many different circumstances, not all floods are equal in magnitude, duration, or effect. Placing floods in context allows society to address such issues as the risk to life and property, and to study and understand the environmental benefits of floods. Trying to place contextual framework around floods is where such terms as “100-year flood” came into being. What is a Flood? So what is a 100-year flood and how is it determined? How accurate are estimates of the 1-percent Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) Flood (also known as the 100-year flood)? Speaking of chance... The “100-year flood” is an estimate of the long-term average recurrence interval, which does not mean that we really have 100 years between each flood of greater or equal magnitude. Floods happen irregularly. Consider the following: if we had 1,000 years of streamflow data, we would expect to see about 10 floods of equal or greater magnitude than the “100- year flood.” These floods would not occur at 100-year intervals. In one part of the 1,000-year record it could be 15 or fewer years between “100-year floods,” whereas in other parts, it could be 150 or more years between “100-year floods.” The graph above shows how irregularly floods have occurred during the past 98 years on the Embarras River near Ste. Marie, IL. The magnitude of the 10-year flood has been determined through statistical analysis to be approximately 31,100 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). You can see from the graph that the actual interval between floods greater than this magnitude ranged from 4 to 28 years, but the average of these intervals is about 10 years. Admittedly, use of such terms as the “100-year flood” can confuse or unintentionally mislead those unfamiliar with flood science. Because of the potential confusion, the U.S. Geological Survey, along with other agencies, is encouraging the use of the annual exceedance probability (AEP) terminology instead of the recurrence interval terminology. For example, one would discuss the “1-percent AEP flood” as opposed to the “100-year flood.” Current streamflow conditions for the United States are available on the World Wide Web:waterwatch.usgs.gov The accuracy of the 1-percent AEP flood varies depending on the amount of data available, the accuracy of those data, land-use changes in the river drainage area, climate cycles, and how well the data fits the statistical probability distribution. As a demonstration of the uncertainty in the estimates of flood probability, the flood probability relation for the Big Piney River near Big Piney, MO, is plotted in the figure below as the solid black line. Above and below that solid black line are two dashed lines that represent the 90-percent confidence intervals of this relation. These confidence intervals simply mean that we are 90-percent confident that the true flood magnitude for a particular AEP lies between the confidence limit lines; or, there is a 10-percent chance that the true value lies somewhere outside the confidence interval lines. The 1-percent AEP flood (“100-year flood”) for the Big Piney River at this location has an estimated magnitude of 44,300 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). We know that 44,300 ft3/s is an estimate, but by looking closer at the graph, we can say that we are 90-percent confident that the true value of the 1-percent AEP flood is between 36,600 ft3/s and 56,400 ft3/s. Most policy makers and water managers often are more concerned with the height of the water in the river (river levels) than the streamflow quantity. The uncertainty for the streamflow quantity of the 1-percent AEP flood for the Big Piney River can be translated into an uncertainty of the river level. A streamflow of 36,600 ft3/s corresponds to a river level of 20.6 ft, whereas a streamflow of 56,400 ft3/s corresponds to a river level of 22.85 ft. Stated another way, the flood probability analysis reveals that we are 90-percent sure that the river elevation will be between 20.6 and 22.85 on the Big Piney River at Big Piney for the 1-percent AEP flood. Solid line through data indicates fitted frequency curve; dashed lines indicate 90-percent confidence lim- its for the Big Piney River near Big Piney, MO. The 1-percent AEP flood has a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year; however, during the span of a 30-year mortgage, a home in the 1-percent AEP (100-year) floodplain has a 26-percent chance of being flooded at least once during those 30 years! The value of 26 percent is based on probability theory that accounts for each of the 30 years having a 1-percent chance of flooding. On the river near me, we have had two 100-year floods in 15 years…I really am confused about this 100-year flood stuff. Haven’t we already had one this century? New Information and Additional Data Installation of Flood Controls Urban Development The designation of the “100-year flood” was changed for my river recently—Why? Robert R. Holmes, Jr. and Karen Dinicola Author information For more information on this poster contact: Office of Surface Water 415 National Center Reston, Virginia 20192 703-648-5301 1,000 10,000 100,000 AN N U A L P E A K D I S C H A R G E CU B I C F E E T P E R S E C O N D 99.5 98 95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 52 10 .5 0.2 ANNUAL EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, PERCENT 56,400 cubic feet per second 44,300 cubic feet per second 36,600 cubic feet per second Upper band of 90-percent confidence interval Lower band of 90-percent confidence interval 100,000 10,000 An n u a l P e a k S t r e a m f l o w Cu b i c F e e t P e r S e c o n d 1,000 99.5 98 95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 1 .5 .2 Annual Exceedance Probability, Percent Cedar River at Cedar Rapids, IA An n u a l P e a k The estimate of the magnitude of the 1-percent AEP (100-year) flood using only the first 20 years of data (1903-1922) is quite different from the estimate using all available data (1903-2008). This is an example of the value of long-term streamflow data. Collecting more data and updating the 1-percent AEP (100-year) estimate provides better information for agencies charged with managing flood-prone areas and protecting life and property. 1-percent AEP (100-year) flood 1-percent AEP (100-year) flood 1903 to 1922 data 1903 to 2008 data Green River near Auburn, WA An n u a l P e a k Flood control dams on the Green River in Washington State have reduced the magnitude of floods. 1-percent AEP (100-year) flood 1-percent AEP (100-year) flood 1937 to 1961 data 1962 to 2007 data Boneyard Creek at Urbana, IL An n u a l P e a k Urban development in Champaign-Urbana, IL has increased the magnitude of flooding of the Boneyard Creek. 1-percent AEP (100-year) flood 1-percent AEP (100-year) flood 1948 to 1963 data 1964 to 2007 data Incidence of the 10-year flood for the Embarras River at Ste. Marie, IL (03345500). The variability in time between “10-year floods” ranges from 4 to as many as 28 years between floods. 17 yrs 11 yrs 5 yrs7 yrs7 yrs4 yrs7 yrs 28 yrs “10-year flood” 31,140 CFS 6 yrs6 yrs An n u a l P e a k 17 yrs 11 yrs 5 yrs 7 yrs 7 yrs 4 yrs 7 yrs 6 yrs 6 yrs28 yrs 10-year flood 31,100 cubic feet per second yrs = years City CouncilAgenda:02/14/11 1 9.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-09acceptingFeasibilityReportand callingforaPublicHearingfor2011StreetReconstructionImprovements,City ProjectNo.11C001 (BW) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: OnDecember13,2010,CouncilauthorizedpreparationofaFeasibilityReportforthe proposed2011StreetReconstructionProject,CityProjectNo.11C001.Thisprojectisin continuationoftheCity’sOverallStreetReconstructionProgramasadoptedbytheCity CouncilonFebruary9,2004.TheFeasibilityReportaddressestheneedfortheproject anddefinesitsscope,currentconditions,proposedimprovements,requiredpermitsand approvals,additionalright-of-wayand/oreasementneeds,estimatedcosts,fundingsplits, availabilityoffundsincludingthepotentialforassessments,andprojectschedule. Thestreetsproposedforreconstructionin2011arelocatedintwoareasinthenorthern portionoftheCityasshowninFigures1and2intheattachedFeasibilityReportand includethefollowing: Area4B(EastRiverStreet) EastRiverStreet–CedarStreetto+/-1,100’eastofWashingtonStreet CedarStreet–WestBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet PalmStreet–WestBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet NewStreet–WestBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet WrightStreet–WestBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet RamseyStreet–WestBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet HennepinStreet–WestBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet WashingtonStreet–WestBroadway(CSAH75)toEllisonParkentrance EllisonPark–Parkinglot,internaldrive,andboatlaunchaccessdrive WestRiverStreet WestRiverStreet–WestBroadway(CSAH75)toXcelballfieldsentrance Perthe2004OverallStreetReconstructionProgram,Area4Bwasoriginallyplannedto bereconstructedin2006,andWestRiverStreetwasplannedtobereconstructedin2008. However,duetotheeconomythesizeoftheprojectareasannuallydesignatedfor reconstructionwerescaledback,delayingthereconstructionofmanyofthestreets. ThestreetswithintheproposedprojectareaswereratedbyCitystaffin2003,with assistancefromWSBandAssociates.Theseratingsindicatedtheneedforthecomplete reconstructionofallstreetswithinArea4BandWestRiverStreet,westofCSAH75. WhilepreparingtheFeasibilityReportitwasdeterminedthatthestreetswouldnotneed tobere-ratedasnewratingswouldbeequaltoorworsethantheoriginal2003ratings, whichwouldnotchangetherecommendationtoreconstructthesestreets. City CouncilAgenda:02/14/11 2 OnJanuary26,2011,apublicinputmeetingwasheldwiththepropertyownerswithin Area4BandWestRiverStreet,westofCSAH75.Approximately21residentialand non-residentialpropertyownersattendedthemeeting.Allwhoattendedgenerally understoodthatthestreetsproposedforreconstructionhavedeterioratedtothepointthat theyrequirecompletereconstruction. Duringthepublicmeeting,CitystaffinformedtheArea4Bpropertyownersthatthe streetsintheirareaareproposedtobeleftattheircurrentwidthof36feet,eventhough thiswouldmeanon-streetparkingwouldberestrictedtoonesideofthestreetonEast RiverStreetbetweenPalmandWashingtonStreets,andonPalmStreetbetweenEast BroadwayandEastRiverStreet.Thisisbecausethesestreetsegmentsareonour MunicipalState-AidSystemandarethereforeeligibletoreceiveState-Aidfundsif designedandconstructedtoState-Aidstandardswhichallowforparkingononesideof streetsthatareaminimumof32-feetwide,andonbothsidesofstreetsthatarea minimumof38-feetwide.Noneofthepropertyownersinattendanceobjectedtothis. TheArea4BpropertyownerswerealsoinformedthattheCityCouncilrecentlydirected stafftoomittheconstructionofnewsidewalkwithinArea4Bfromtheproject,withthe exceptionofaone-blocksegmentalongCedarStreetbetweenEastBroadway(CSAH75) andEastRiverStreettoconnectexistingsidewalkonEastBroadwaytoEastBridgePark. Council’sdirectionwasbasedontheirreviewoftheresultsofasidewalksurveytakenin earlyJanuary.Thesurveyaskedthepropertyownersiftheysupportednewsidewalksin thisarea,andifso,where.Atotalof78surveysweremailed,ofwhich22responses werereceivedwhichequalsa28%responserate.Ofthosewhoresponded,6supported newsidewalks,1wasundecided,and15wereopposednotingtheleveloftrafficontheir streetdoesnotwarrantasidewalk,especiallysinceEastRiverStreetwasdetachedfrom TH25.Thepropertyownersinattendancealsostatedtheyfeltsidewalksarenotneeded becausetrafficvolumeshavedecreasedsignificantlysincetheEastRiverStreetaccessto PineStreet(TH25)wasclosedandthattheyfeelsafeenoughwalkinginthestreet. ItshouldbenotedthatseveralresidentsfromtheEastRiverStreetareadidcontactstaff inpreviousyearstorequestsidewalksbeconstructedalongEastRiverStreet;therefore staffwasexpectingagreaterlevelofsupportthanwereceived.Itshouldalsobenoted thatEastRiverStreetiscurrentlysignedasanon-roadbikeroute,andthatthissigningis proposedtoremaininplacefollowingthereconstructionofthestreet. TheWestRiverStreetpropertyownerswhoattendedthepublicmeetingseemedtoagree thatthestreetneededtobereconstructed,andunderstoodourrecommendationforadding curbandgutterandabituminouspathwayalongthestreet.However,theyquestioned whytheintersectionofWestRiverStreetandCSAH75wasnotproposedtoberealigned toforma90-degreeintersection,similartowhatwasdoneatPrairieRoad.Theysaid therehavebeennumerousnear-missesatthisintersectioninthepastduetoitsskewed configurationwhichforcestrucksheadingeastboundonCSAH75thatareturningright ontoWestRiverStreettoswingintothepathofvehiclesapproachingCSAH75onWest RiverStreet. City CouncilAgenda:02/14/11 3 StaffinformedthepropertyownersthatWrightCountyevaluatedtheintersectionof CSAH75andWestRiverStreetwhiledesigningtheirprojectbutdeterminedtherewas notenoughofanissuetowarranttherealignmentoftheintersection.However,wenoted thatWrightCountywillbeaddingprotectedrightandleftturnlanesatWestRiverStreet withtheirprojectwhichshouldincreasesafetysignificantly.Staffalsoinformedthe propertyownersthatourprojectwillincreasethesizeofthenortherlyradiusatthis intersectionsotrucksturningrightontoWestRiverStreetwillbeabletodosowithout encroachingintotheoncominglane.WealsonotedthatifCouncilauthorizestheproject wewilllookatthisintersectioninmoredetailduringfinaldesigntoensurethata realignmentoftheintersectionisnotnecessary,andifsowewoulddiscussitwithWright CountyandtheCityCouncil. TheWestRiverStreetpropertyownersalsoquestionedtheproposednon-residential assessmentrateof$80perfrontfoot.BillSeefeldt,ownerofElectroIndustries, submittedalettertotheCityfollowingthemeetinginwhichhequestionedtheratebeing proposedandaskedthatitbere-evaluated,alongwithseveralothercommentsand requests.Thisletterisattachedassupportingdata.ThepresidentoftheAlanoSociety alsoquestionedtheproposedassessmentrate,notingthattheirannualoperatingbudget wouldnotallowthemtocovertheirproposedassessmentbasedonthenon-residential rate.Staffthereforereviewedtheirproposedassessmentandrevisedittomatchthe standardassessmentratefortworesidentialpropertieswhichisconsistentwiththe assessmentapproachusedwithboththeRodandGunClubandRitzeTruckingaspartof the2007StreetReconstructionProject. IfCouncilauthorizestheproject,staffwillreviewthenon-residentialassessmentrate againstrecentprojectstoseewhatpercentageofprojectcoststheirassessmentshave covered.ThisinformationwouldthenbediscussedwithCouncilpriortodevelopingthe finalassessmentrollsandholdingtheAssessmentHearinginthefall. ThefollowingisasummaryoftheproposeddesignsforthestreetswithinArea4B, whichtotalapproximately6,700feetinlength,aswellasforWestRiverStreet,westof CSAH75,whichtotalsapproximately1,650feet. EastRiverStreet: Reconstructbituminouspavementtomatchexisting36-footwidth. Existingcurbandgutterwillbesalvagedwhereverpossible.Exceptionstothis wouldincludethosecurbandgutterpanelsinneedofrepair,andwherethe replacementofsanitarysewer,stormsewerand/orwatermainisrequired. On-streetparkingisproposedtobelimitedtothesouthsidebetweenPalmStreetand WashingtonStreetinordertoallowstate-aidfundstobeutilized. CedarStreet: Reconstructbituminouspavementtomatchexisting36-footwidth. Existingcurbandgutterwillbesalvagedwhereverpossible.Exceptionstothis wouldincludethosecurbandgutterpanelsinneedofrepair,andwherethe replacementofsanitarysewer,stormsewerand/orwatermainisrequired. City CouncilAgenda:02/14/11 4 Constructa6-footwideconcretesidewalkontheeastsidebetweenEastBroadway andEastRiverStreet,includingaconnectionthroughthecul-de-sac. PalmStreet: Reconstructbituminouspavementtomatchexisting36-footwidth. Existingcurbandgutterwillbesalvagedwhereverpossible.Exceptionstothis wouldincludethosecurbandgutterpanelsinneedofrepair,andwherethe replacementofsanitarysewer,stormsewerand/orwatermainisrequired. On-streetparkingisproposedtobelimitedtotheeastsidebetweenEastBroadway andEastRiverStreetinordertoallowstate-aidfundstobeutilized. New,Wright,Ramsey,HennepinandWashingtonStreets: Reconstructbituminouspavementtomatchexisting36-footwidth. Existingcurbandgutterwillbesalvagedwhereverpossible.Exceptionstothis wouldincludethosecurbandgutterpanelsinneedofrepair,andwherethe replacementofsanitarysewer,stormsewerand/orwatermainisrequired. WestRiverStreet,westofCSAH75: Reconstructbituminouspavementto34-footwidestreetsection. Constructconcretecurbandguttertoprotectbothpavementedgesandtoprovide positivedrainagetoreduceerosionpotential,whichisanissuealongthissectionof WestRiverStreet. Constructa9-footwidebituminouspathwaybehindthecurbalongthewestsideof thestreettoconnectthepathwaysouthofWestBroadwaytotheXcelballfields. ReconstructtheBNSFRRcrossing ConstructanewRRcrossingfortheproposedpathway. Thebituminouspavementintheparkinglot,internaldriveandboatlaunchaccessdrive atEllisonParkarealsoproposedtobereconstructedwiththisprojectduetotheirexisting poorconditions.However,theparkinglotinEastBridgeParkisnotproposedtobe reconstructedwiththisprojectsinceCouncilrecentlynotedtheyfelttheseimprovements werenotneededatthistime. ThecontractorwouldnotbeallowedtostartconstructionoperationseastofNewStreetin Area4BuntilafterJuly11th toavoidimpactingRiverFestactivitiesinEllisonPark.This isnotanticipatedtoresultinsubstantialdelaysorincreasedcoststotheproject. Thetotalestimatedprojectcostforcompletingtheworkdefinedhereinis$2,413,200 whichincludes10%contingencyand22%indirectcosts.Thisprojectisproposedtobe fundedusingstreetreconstructionfunds,Citycontributions,utilitytrunkfunds,stateaid funds,andassessmentstobenefittingproperties. Single-familyresidentialpropertyownersareproposedtobeassessedforstreet constructionatarateof$4,000perlotwithaccesstoanyofthereconstructedstreets. Thisstreetassessmentratereflectsa5%increaseoverthe2010StreetReconstruction projectassessmentrates,whichwereincreased5%peryearfromtheratesassessedwith City CouncilAgenda:02/14/11 5 the2007StreetReconstructionproject.Thiswasdonetoaccountforincreasesin inflationandtheconstructioncostindex,andtoensurewecanmeettheminimum requirementthat20%oftheprojectcostsbeassessedifusingChapter429bondfundsfor theproject. Non-residentiallotsareproposedtobeassessedforstreetreconstructionatarateof$80 perfrontfoot,withanadditional$12perfrontfootaddedforsidewalkassessmentswhen appropriate.Perourpreviousassessmentpolicy,thesenon-residentialratesareappliedto 100%ofthefrontfootageand50%ofthesidefootageoftheproperty,aslongasthe propertyhasdirectaccesstothereconstructedstreet,and25%ofthesidestreetifthe propertydoesnothavedirectaccess.However,ifadirectaccessisaddedatalaterdate thepropertywouldpaytheadditional25%atthattime.Previousassessmentsfor propertiesassessedwiththeCSAH75improvementprojectweretakenintoconsideration withthepreliminaryprojectassessmentsbasedontheabovemethodology. Ashasbeenthecaseinthepast,assessmentswillbeappliedbasedonthecurrentuseof thepropertyatthetimetheimprovementsaremade.However,iftheuseoftheproperty changesinthefuture,theassessmentwouldbere-evaluatedatthetimebasedona20- yearpavementlife,notincludingadditionalinterestcosts. Cityutilityfundsareproposedtobeusedforsanitarysewerandwatermainreplacements onanyofthestreetswithintheprojectareas,aswellasforgeneralutilityadjustments. Replacementofindividualsewerand/orwaterserviceswouldbeassessedtothe benefittingpropertyowners.Stormsewerutilityfundswouldfundanynewstormsewer work. BasedonCouncilinputreceivedduringtheJanuary24th workshop,staffisnotproposing toenhancetheexistingstreetlightingwiththisproject. A1.BudgetImpact:TheestimatedprojectcostsidentifiedintheFeasibilityReport, whichincludea10%constructioncontingencyand22%indirectcostsforlegal, engineering,administrative,andfinancingitems,areasfollows: $1,858,500–Area4B $554,700–WestRiverStreet $2,413,200–Total Duetotheexistinglowbondratesstaffrecommendsusingbondstofundthe project.Bondpaymentswouldthenbemadeusingtheappropriatefunds. AsCouncilisaware,thebiddingenvironmentforstreetimprovementprojectshas beenveryfavorablerecentlyduetotheeconomywithbidpricescominginat 10%-20%lessthansimilarprojectsconstructedseveralyearsago.All indicationsarethatthisfavorablebiddingenvironmentwillcontinuethisyear whichwilllikelyresultinsignificantsavingsfortheCityifwemoveaheadwith thisprojectin2011. City CouncilAgenda:02/14/11 6 A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:StafffromtheEngineering,PublicWorksandFinance Departmentswouldbeimpactedbythisprojecttovaryingdegrees,bothduring thedesignandconstructionphases.ItshouldbenotedthatEngineering Departmentstaffwouldberesponsibleforprovidingfull-timeconstruction inspection,whilePublicWorksDepartmentstaffwouldspendaconsiderable amountoftimeinspectingutilitiesconstruction. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolutionNo.2011-09acceptingtheFeasibilityReportand callingforaPublicHearingforCityProjectNo.11C001onFebruary28,2011. 2.MotiontoadoptResolutionNo.2011-09acceptingtheFeasibilityReportwith modificationsasdirectedbyCouncilandcallingforaPublicHearingforCity ProjectNo.11C001onFebruary28,2011. 3.MotiontodenyadoptingResolutionNo.2011-09atthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsapprovingAlternative#1or#2sincedelayingthePublicHearing couldjeopardizeprojectcompletionin2011. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2011-09 LetterfromBillSeefeldtdatedJanuary31,2011 FeasibilityReportforCityProjectNo.11C001 CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2011-09 ACCEPTINGFEASIBILITYREPORTANDCALLINGFORPUBLICHEARING FOR2011STREETRECONSTRUCTIONIMPROVEMENTS, CITYPROJECTNO.11C001 WHEREAS,pursuanttoaresolutionoftheCounciladoptedDecember13,2010,aFeasibility ReporthasbeenpreparedbytheCityEngineerwithreferencetoproposedimprovementstoArea 4BincludingEastRiverStreetanditsadjoiningsidestreetsbetweenCedarStreetandapoint approximately1,100feeteastofWashingtonStreet,aswellasWestRiverStreetbetweenCSAH 75andtheentrancetotheXcelballfields,includingthereconstructionofstreets,curband gutter,andpublicutilitiesasneeded,theinstallationofsidewalk,andotherappurtenantwork; and, WHEREAS,thereportswerereceivedbytheCityCouncilonFebruary14,2011;and, WHEREAS,thereportsprovideinformationregardingwhethertheproposedprojectis necessary,cost-effectiveandfeasible; NOWTHEREFORE,BEITHEREBYRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOF MONTICELLO,MINNESOTA: 1.TheCouncilwillconsidertheproposedimprovementsforsaidstreetsinaccordancewith theFeasibilityReportsandtheassessmentofabuttingpropertiesforalloraportionofthe costoftheimprovementspursuanttoMinnesotaStatutes,Chapter429atanestimated totalcostoftheimprovementsof$2,413,200. 2.Apublichearingshallbeheldonsuchproposedimprovementsonthe28th dayof February,2011intheCouncilChambersofCityHallat7p.m.andtheClerkshallgive mailedandpublishednoticeofsuchhearingandimprovementsasrequiredbylaw. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis14th dayofFebruary,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO __________________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator February 9, 2011 2011 Street Reconstruction Project Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City Project No. 11C001 Prepared By: Feasibility Report City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 763-295-2711 MONTICELLO FEASIBILITY REPORT 2011 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (AREA 4B & WEST RIVER STREET) STREET, UTILITY, AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF MONTICELLO PROJECT NO. 11C001 February 9, 2011 Prepared By: City of Monticello Engineering Department 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 763-295-2711 763-295-4404 (Fax) Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 TITLE SHEET LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CERTIFICATION SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................1 2. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................4 2.1 Authorization ....................................................................................................................4 2.2 Program Overview ............................................................................................................4 2.3 Scope.................................................................................................................................4 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................8 3.1 Existing Soil Conditions ...................................................................................................8 3.2 Water Main .......................................................................................................................9 3.3 Sanitary Sewer ..................................................................................................................9 3.4 Storm Sewer/Drainage ....................................................................................................10 3.5 Streets ..............................................................................................................................10 3.5.1 State Aid Routes .................................................................................................10 3.5.2 Existing Typical Sections ...................................................................................10 3.6 Land Use .........................................................................................................................10 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..........................................................................................11 4.1 Street and Stormwater Improvements .............................................................................11 4.1.1 East River Street .................................................................................................11 4.1.2 Cedar Street ........................................................................................................12 4.1.3 Palm, New, Wright, Ramsey, Hennepin and Washington Streets ......................12 4.1.4 West River Street ................................................................................................13 4.1.5 Other Considerations ..........................................................................................14 4.1.6 Geotechnical Recommendations ........................................................................14 4.2 Stormwater Treatment .....................................................................................................14 4.3 Water Main Improvements .............................................................................................15 4.4 Sanitary Sewer Improvements ........................................................................................15 4.5 Construction Methods .....................................................................................................16 4.6 Private Utilities................................................................................................................17 4.7 Permits ............................................................................................................................17 4.8 Rights-of-Way/Easements...............................................................................................17 5. FINANCING ...........................................................................................................................18 5.1 Opinion of Cost ...............................................................................................................18 5.2 Funding ...........................................................................................................................19 5.2.1 Assessments ........................................................................................................19 5.2.2 City Contribution ................................................................................................21 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE .........................................................................................................23 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................24 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Appendix A Figure 1 – Project Scope, West River Street Figure 2 – Project Scope, Area 4B Figure 3 – Typical Sections, Area 4B & West River Street Figure 4 – Surface Improvements, Area 4B (1 of 3) Figure 5 – Surface Improvements, Area 4B (2 of 3) Figure 6 – Surface Improvements, Area 4B (3 of 3) Figure 7 – Utility Improvements, Area 4B (1 of 3) Figure 8 – Utility Improvements, Area 4B (2 of 3) Figure 9 – Utility Improvements, Area 4B (3 of 3) Figure 10 – Surface and Utility Improvements, West River Street (1 of 2) Figure 11 – Surface and Utility Improvements, West River Street (2 of 2) Appendix B Opinion of Probable Cost Appendix C Preliminary Assessment Rolls – Area 4B & West River Street Assessment Maps – Area 4B & West River Street Appendix D Geotechnical Evaluation Report Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Project Number 11C001 continues the City’s Overall Street Reconstruction Program as adopted by the Monticello City Council on February 9, 2004. This project proposes the reconstruction of numerous streets located in the northern portion of the City. The streets proposed to be reconstructed include the last remaining unreconstructed segment of West River Street, west of CSAH 75, and all streets within Area 4B of the Overall Street Reconstruction Program which includes East River Street from Pine Street (TH 25) to approximately 1,100 feet east of Washington Street, as well as Palm, New, Wright, Ramsey, Hennepin, and Washington Streets between East Broadway (CSAH 75) and East River Street. Two maps showing the scope of the project areas are included as Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A. All streets within the proposed project areas were most recently evaluated and rated by City staff in 2006. The ratings indicated a need for complete reconstruction of all streets within Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75. After the preparation of this Feasibility Report was authorized by Council on December 13, 2010, City staff reviewed the ratings and determined that any new ratings would either be equal to or worse than the 2003 ratings so it was decided that re-rating the streets would not be necessary. On January 26, 2011, a public input meeting was held with the property owners within Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75. Approximately 21 residential and non-residential property owners attended the meeting. All who attended generally understood that the streets proposed for reconstruction have deteriorated to the point that they require a complete reconstruction. The Area 4B property owners agreed with leaving the streets at their current width of 36-feet, even though this would mean on-street parking would be restricted to one side of the street only on East River Street between Palm and Washington Streets, and on Palm Street between East Broadway and East River Street. This is because these streets are part of our Municipal State- Aid System and are therefore eligible to receive State-Aid funds if designed and constructed to State-Aid standards which allow for parking on one side of streets that are a minimum of 32-feet wide, and allow for parking on both sides of streets that are a minimum of 38-feet wide. During the meeting the Area 4B property owners were informed that the City Council recently directed staff to omit the construction of any new sidewalk within Area 4B, with the exception of a one-block segment along Cedar Street between East Broadway (CSAH 75) and East River Street to connect the existing sidewalk on East Broadway to East Bridge Park. This was in contrast to what the property owners in attendance had been anticipating since staff originally planned to propose a new 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk along East River Street and several of the side streets within Area 4B for the purpose of connecting East Bridge and Ellison Parks with off-street pedestrian facilities, which are safer that on-street facilities. Several of the property owners in attendance voiced their opinion that sidewalks were not needed in Area 4B since traffic volumes have decreased significantly since the East River Street access to Pine Street (TH 25) was closed in 2008, and that they feel safe enough walking in the streets. It should be noted that East River Street is currently signed as an on-road bike route, and that this signing would remain in place after the project was complete. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 2 The following is a summary of the proposed designs for the streets within Area 4B, which total approximately 6,700 feet in length, as well as for West River Street, west of CSAH 75, which totals approximately 1,650 feet. Input received from the City Council and property owners has been incorporated into this report. East River Street: Reconstruct bituminous pavement to match existing 36-foot width. Existing curb and gutter will be salvaged wherever possible. Exceptions to this would include those curb and gutter panels in need of repair, and where the replacement of sanitary sewer, storm sewer and/or watermain is required. On-street parking is proposed to be limited to the south side between Palm Street and Washington Street in order to allow state-aid funds to be utilized. Cedar Street: Reconstruct bituminous pavement to match existing 36-foot width. Existing curb and gutter will be salvaged wherever possible. Exceptions to this would include those curb and gutter panels in need of repair, and where the replacement of sanitary sewer, storm sewer and/or watermain is required. Construct a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk on the east side between East Broadway and East River Street, including a connection through the cul-de-sac. Palm Street: Reconstruct bituminous pavement to match existing 36-foot width. Existing curb and gutter will be salvaged wherever possible. Exceptions to this would include those curb and gutter panels in need of repair, and where the replacement of sanitary sewer, storm sewer and/or watermain is required. On-street parking is proposed to be limited to the east side between East Broadway and East River Street in order to allow state-aid funds to be utilized. New, Wright, Ramsey, Hennepin and Washington Streets: Reconstruct bituminous pavement to match existing 36-foot width. Existing curb and gutter will be salvaged wherever possible. Exceptions to this would include those curb and gutter panels in need of repair, and where the replacement of sanitary sewer, storm sewer and/or watermain is required. West River Street, west of CSAH 75: Reconstruct bituminous pavement to 34-foot wide street section. Construct concrete curb and gutter to protect both pavement edges and to provide positive drainage to reduce erosion potential, which is an issue along this section of West River Street. Construct a 9-foot wide bituminous pathway behind the curb along the west side of the street to connect the pathway south of West Broadway to the Xcel ball fields. The pavement sections in the parking lot, internal drive and boat launch access drive at Ellison Park are also proposed to be reconstructed due to their existing poor condition. However, the parking lot in East Bridge Park is not proposed to be reconstructed with this project since the City Council recently noted they felt such these improvements were not needed. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 3 The total estimated project cost for completing the work defined herein is $2,413,200. These costs include 10% contingency and 22% indirect costs. This project is proposed to be funded using street reconstruction funds, City contributions, utility trunk funds, state aid funds, and assessments to benefitting properties. Single-family residential property owners are proposed to be assessed for street construction at a rate of $4,000 per lot with access to any of the reconstructed streets. This street assessment rate reflects a 5% increase over the 2010 Street Reconstruction project assessment rates, which were increased 5% per year from the rates assessed with the 2007 Street Reconstruction project. This was done to account for increases in inflation and the construction cost index, and to ensure we can meet the minimum requirement that 20% of the project costs be assessed if using Chapter 429 bond funds for the project. Non-residential lots are proposed to be assessed for street reconstruction at a rate of $80 per front foot, with an additional $12 per front foot added for sidewalk assessments when appropriate. Per our previous assessment policy, these non-residential rates are applied to 100% of the front footage of the properties, 50% of the side footage as long as the property has direct access to the reconstructed street, and 25% of the side street if the property does not have direct access. However, if a direct access is added at a later date the property would pay the additional 25% at that time. Previous assessments for properties assessed with the CSAH 75 improvement project were taken into consideration with the preliminary project assessments based on the above methodology. As has been the case in the past, assessments will be applied based on the current use of the property at the time the improvements are made. However, if the use of the property changes in the future, the assessment would be re-evaluated at the time based on a 20-year pavement life, not including additional interest costs. City utility funds are proposed to be used for sanitary sewer and water main replacements on any of the streets within the project areas, as well as for general utility adjustments. Replacement of individual sewer and/or water services would be assessed to the benefitting property owners. Storm sewer utility funds would fund any new storm sewer work. This project is necessary, feasible, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint and can be constructed as proposed herein. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 4 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Authorization The preparation of this report was authorized by the City Council on December 13, 2011 as a continuation of the Overall Street Reconstruction Program adopted by the City Council on February 9, 2004. This project has been designated as City Project No. 11C001. 2.2 Program Overview The following report addresses the seventh reconstruction project to be completed from the multi-year overall street reconstruction program. This project includes all of Area 4B, as well as West River Street west of CSAH 75, which is included in Area 6. These streets were scheduled to be reconstructed in 2006 and 2008 respectively, but due to budget constraints in recent years several areas of the program were split into smaller projects thereby delaying the completion of the overall program as originally proposed. In 2003 City staff rated all of the streets in the Overall Street Reconstruction Program based on the condition of the existing pavement, the existing curb, underground public utilities, and existing sidewalk. This data was then utilized to provide a pavement condition index (PCI) rating for all streets proposed for improvements. PCI ratings are based on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating an extremely poor street with a failed pavement structure and 100 indicating a newly constructed street. These PCI ratings were then tabulated for each improvement area which resulted in the creation of the Overall Street Reconstruction Program. This program, adopted by the City Council on February 9, 2004, was subsequently used to develop a Capital Improvement Program for the reconstruction of streets identified within each project area. In 2009 the streets in Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75, were reviewed by City staff. The results indicated that the streets were continuing to deteriorate and that if new PCI ratings were to be calculated they would be substantially worse than the 2003 ratings and would therefore not affect the recommendation to reconstruct all of the streets. As such, all streets in Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75 are recommended for reconstruction in 2011. These streets are shown in Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A. 2.3 Scope The scope of this Feasibility Report includes the reconstruction of all streets located in Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75 as defined in the 2004 Overall Street Reconstruction Program. The PCI ratings for these streets are shown in Table 1 on the following page. The pavement sections in the parking lot, internal drive and boat launch access drive at Ellison Park are also proposed to be reconstructed due to their existing poor condition. Staff will contact the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to determine if any portion of the reconstruction of the boat launch access drive would be eligible for funding through the DNR. The reconstruction of the East Bridge Park parking lot is not being proposed at this time due to Council direction in 2010. TABLE 1 Proposed Improvements – Area 4B & West River Street, west of CSAH 75 Street Name From To 2003 PCI Maintenance Method East River St Pine St/TH 25 1,100’ east of Washington St 39 Reconstruct Cedar St East Broadway East River St 12 Reconstruct Palm St East Broadway East River St 27 Reconstruct New St East Broadway East River St 29 Reconstruct Wright St East Broadway East River St 33 Reconstruct Ramsey St East Broadway East River St 40 Reconstruct Hennepin St East Broadway East River St 50 Reconstruct Washington St East Broadway East River St 30 Reconstruct West River St CSAH 75 Xcel Ball Fields 23 Reconstruct Pavement Management System (PMS) software was utilized to calculate the data from the ratings to achieve the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which is based on the physical condition of the streets. The PCI is obtained from a field inspection of every square yard of street surface measuring both the quantity and the type (severity) of distresses in the pavement. Some examples of typical pavement distresses that are found in these streets include transverse and longitudinal cracking, block cracking, and alligator cracking. Representative pictures of these types of pavement distresses are shown below. Longitudinal cracking Block Cracking Alligator Cracking The calculation of the PCI value for an individual street takes into account the total area of distresses encountered and the severity of the distresses. The field inspection was completed by staff from the Monticello Public Works Department, with assistance from WSB and Associates, in accordance with the flexible “Pavement Distress Manual” prepared by the Minnesota Local Road Research Board (MLRRB). This is a commonly used pavement rating system and was utilized in our past street rating operations. Areas with the lowest PCI values represent streets exhibiting the highest levels of distresses in the pavement, while areas with the highest PCI values represent streets with the lowest levels of pavement distresses. The following table shows the general relationship of the PCI to the recommended maintenance strategies. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 5 Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 6 PCI Range Street Characteristics Maintenance Method Additional Items Often Repaired 70 - 100 Low to medium severity potholes, frost cracking, medium severity transverse cracking, aggregate polishing, low severity raveling Routine Maintenance / Crack Seal / Sealcoat Spot patching, gate valve adjustments 36 - 69 Low to medium severity longitudinal and transverse cracking, low and moderate severity edge and curb cracking and spalling, low to medium severity block cracking, medium severity raveling Patch / Repair / Resurface / Overlay Raise manhole castings, adjust gate valves, repair or replace cracked or spalled curb, repair or replace catch basin castings 0 - 35 Medium to high severity longitudinal and transverse cracking, medium to high severity reflective cracking, alligator cracking, medium to high severity potholes, high severity edge and curb cracking and spalling, rutting, excessive skin patching, high severity raveling, medium to high severity frost heaving Reclaim and Recycle / Reconstruct / Upgrade Replace or install sanitary sewer, replace or install storm sewer, replace or install water main, replace utility castings, adjust road grade and alignment, replace or install curb and gutter Each of these maintenance strategies has its own life cycle, as well as its part in extending the life of the overall pavement section. Streets with PCI ratings from 0 to 35 indicate the presence of several distresses in the pavement and it is difficult to quantify the amount of distresses given that there are so many. As a result, comparing the ratings in this range, for example whether it is a 2 or a 20, does not result in a significant change in the type of maintenance method for these streets or make the street with the higher PCI rating in better condition than the street with the lower PCI rating. It is therefore recommended that a street with a PCI below 35 be reconstructed for these reasons. All streets within Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75 are exhibiting significant pavement distresses as described above. Following are descriptions of the relative ratings for each street within Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75. East River Street (Pine Street/TH 25 to 1,100 feet east of Washington Street): East River Street was last reconstructed in 1977 and had an average PCI rating of 39 in 2003. Some patching has been completed on this roadway in the past. The entire pavement section of this street will be reconstructed and the existing curb and gutter will be left in place, except any panels needing to be repaired or replaced due to existing damage or utility improvements/repairs. This would primarily occur between Cedar and New Street due to the proposed trunk sanitary sewer replacement, and at the east end by the New River Medical Center where a section of trunk sanitary sewer is proposed to be upsized. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 7 Cedar Street (East Broadway to East River Street): Cedar Street was last reconstructed in 1977 and had an average PCI rating of 12 in 2003. Some patching has been completed on this roadway in the past. The entire pavement section of this street will be reconstructed and the existing curb and gutter will be left in place, except any panels needing repair or removal and replacement due to utility improvements/repairs. Since the trunk sanitary sewer line is proposed to be replaced, the westerly line of curb and gutter will need to be removed and replaced in its entirety. Palm, New, Wright, Ramsey, Hennepin and Washington Streets (East Broadway to East River Street): These streets were last reconstructed in 1977 and had PCI ratings ranging from 27 to 50 in 2003. The entire pavement section of these streets will be reconstructed, but all curb and gutter will be left in place, except any panels needing to be repaired or replaced due to existing damage or utility improvements/repairs. West River Street (CSAH 75 to Xcel ball fields): West River Street was last reconstructed in 1975 and had an average PCI rating of 23 in 2003. The entire pavement section of this street will be reconstructed, and new concrete curb and gutter will be constructed along both sides to protect the pavement edges and provide positive drainage, thereby preventing erosion issues which have become a problem recently. It should be noted that one of the goals of the Overall Street Reconstruction Program was to leave each area with a consistent quality and life span for each roadway. This goal was taken into account when evaluating the quality of each street. In addition, the recommendations of Braun’s Geotechnical Evaluation Report and the quality of the underlying soil impacts the determination of the appropriate maintenance strategy. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 8 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Existing Soil Conditions A total of nine (9) new soil borings were taken this winter and the results were used to determine the subsurface soil conditions beneath the streets proposed for reconstruction with this project. Two (2) of the borings were taken along West River Street, and the remaining seven (7) were taken in Area 4B. It should be noted that most of the borings were taken when groundwater is typically low so groundwater elevations are likely higher than the borings are indicating. As such, this report assumes that dewatering will not be an issue during construction, and that sump pumps should be sufficient for dewatering. However, it is staff’s opinion that groundwater will likely be encountered during construction of utilities near the east end of the project. The West River Street borings generally encountered 5-inches of bituminous surfacing underlain by silty to poorly graded sand. No groundwater was observed in either of the borings. The East River Street borings generally encountered 4 to 7-inches of bituminous surfacing over 0 to 10-inches of aggregate base, which is underlain by silty to poorly graded sand. A deeper vein of clayey sand was observed in the boring between New and Wright Streets, as was groundwater at a depth of 15-1/2 feet. The report assumes this is perched groundwater confined by the clayey sand layer below. The boring on Palm Street encountered 5-inches of bituminous surfacing over 12-inches of aggregate base, which is underlain by silty to poorly graded sand. No groundwater was observed in this boring. The boring on Wright Street encountered 5-inches of bituminous surfacing over 12-inches of aggregate base, which is underlain by 3-feet of silty sand fill over poorly graded sand. No groundwater was observed in this boring. The boring on Hennepin Street encountered 5-inches of bituminous surfacing over 12-inches of aggregate base, which is underlain by 4-feet of silty sand fill over poorly graded sand. No groundwater was observed in this boring. The soil borings generally indicate that the existing street subgrade soils consist of silty to poorly graded sand, and are therefore suitable subgrade soils for street construction. However, when silty and clayey sand soils are at or above their optimum moisture contents they will be unstable and will require farming and drying, or alternatively a subcut could be completed with the soil being replaced with compacted select granular material. The borings also indicate that the existing street subgrade soils appear suitable for the support and bedding of utilities. The Geotechnical Evaluation Report, including all soil borings, is included herein as Appendix D. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 9 3.2 Water Main In Area 4B, the trunk water main was installed in the 1950’s and 1960’s and consists of 6 to 8- inch diameter cast iron pipe (CIP) with approximately 8 to 10-feet of cover. The existing water main system was tested for leaks in 2010 and no leaks were detected. Based on visual inspections of several sections of water main in Area 4B the pipe appears to be in very good condition and as such is not recommended to be replaced with this project. However, the hydrants and valves are nearing the end of their useful lives so all valves and hydrants will be replaced. Under West River Street, west of CSAH 75, the trunk water main is 12-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) that was installed in the early 1980’s with approximately 8-feet of cover. This existing water main system has never been tested for leaks but based on the material and its age this water main should still be in very good condition and as such is not recommended for replacement with this project. However, staff will test the watermain for leaks prior to construction to make sure there are no leaks before the road is reconstructed. The water main is proposed to be extended to the west to provide service to the undeveloped property at the west end. Chlorine residual levels have not posed an issue in these areas in the past, and the majority of the system provides adequate fire flows to adjacent properties. 3.3 Sanitary Sewer Area 4B, east of Cedar Street, is currently served by a gravity trunk sanitary sewer comprised of 8 to 15-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) that was installed in the 1950’s and 1960’s with approximately 6 to 15-feet of cover. The existing trunk line is generally located along the centerline of each street and conveys wastewater to the City’s wastewater treatment facility located north of CSAH 75 in the north central portion of the City along the Mississippi River. The sewer in Area 4B has been televised numerous times over the years, and was televised again this winter. When the ground water was at its highest, numerous groundwater leaks were detected. Based on staff’s review of the existing televising tapes, some of the existing VCP sanitary sewer is in adequate condition to meet the needs of the residents during the design lives of the reconstructed streets and as such does not need to be replaced with this project. However, certain sections will need to be replaced due to excessive sagging and/or cracking. These segments have been sealed multiple times over the past several years. The trunk sanitary sewer under West River Street, west of CSAH 75, is 10-inch poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe that was installed in the early 1980’s with approximately 6 to 24 feet of cover. Based on the material, its age, and recent inspections, the pipe is still in very good condition and as such does not need to be replaced with this project. The sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended to the west to provide service to the undeveloped property at the west end. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 10 3.4 Storm Sewer/Drainage The existing roadways within Area 4B have curb and gutter to collect stormwater runoff and transport it via storm sewer to outlets along the banks of the Mississippi River located at Cedar Street, New Street, Ramsey Street and Washington Street. There are no existing treatment facilities such as ponds in this area. West River Street is a rural section with a series of ditches and culverts that direct stormwater runoff to an existing pond south of West River Street and to the drainage ditch system along CSAH 75. Erosion issues have occurred in the past where the drainage ditch in front of the Monticello Alano Society parcel ends and is directed into the pond at the Timber Ridge development. 3.5 Streets 3.5.1 State Aid Routes East River Street between Palm and Washington Streets is planned to be re-designated as a State Aid route, as is Palm Street between East Broadway and East River Street. The re-designation of these segments is needed as East River Street will no longer connect to TH 25 as part of the NE Quadrant Improvement project. 3.5.2 Existing Typical Sections All streets within Area 4B were constructed in 1977 and include B618 curb and gutter. The widths of the streets are all 36-feet from curb-face to curb-face, and all are within 80- foot right-of-ways, except for Washington Street which has 100-feet of right-of-way. West River Street, west of CSAH 75 was constructed in 1975 as a rural section with ditches for drainage. The width of this street is 34-feet within a 66-foot right-of-way. 3.6 Land Use The properties affected by the proposed improvements in Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75 are a mix of both single-family residential and non-residential properties. In Area 4B there are a total of 13 non-residential properties including the New River Medical Center parcels, and 68 single-family residential parcels, all of which are proposed to be assessed for the project improvements to varying degrees. There are also 2 parcels owned by the City in Area 4B including the old landscaping/nursery parcel on Cedar Street and both Ellison Park parcels. On West River Street there are a total of 5 non-residential properties. Area 4B is zoned residential east of Palm Street and CCD between Palm and Cedar Streets. West River Street is zoned I-2 on the north side, and is a mixture of residential and I-2 on the south side. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 11 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 4.1 Street and Stormwater Improvements 4.1.1 East River Street This feasibility report presents a design that provides additional direct access for local pedestrian traffic to East Bridge Park, salvages a portion of the existing concrete curb and gutter, utilizes existing drainage systems, and seeks to minimize impacts to residents and businesses during construction. The typical section for East River Street can be seen on Figure 3, and all the proposed surface improvements are shown on Figures 4 - 6. Sidewalk: The only new sidewalk proposed to be constructed along East River Street is near the east end where the New River Medical Center constructed a sidewalk through the old Dayton Street right-of-way to connect East Broadway to East River Street when the City vacated this right-of-way. At this time there is an existing curb cut on the north side of East River Street, and with this project it is proposed to construct an ADA compliant pedestrian curb ramp and connecting sidewalk into Ellison Park. This design will be formalized during final design. Street Design: East River Street is currently 36-feet wide from face-of-curb to face-of-curb between Cedar Street and the east end of the project by the New River Medical Center. Staff is proposing to maintain this 36-foot width. The existing B618 curb and gutter will remain in place, except for any panels needing replacement to correct defects within the panel, to restore the existing flow line and grade where the curb has settled, where differential settlement has occurred, or where utilities work will require the curb to be removed and replaced. Spot repairs will receive a full- depth saw cut to minimize disruption to the curb adjacent to the repair area. Hydraulic jacking could also be utilized, which would involve injecting a concrete mix to repair small segments of the curb. This method may be less expensive and provide fewer impacts to the adjacent curb. Parking will be restricted to the south side of the street in order to conform to Mn/DOT’s State Aid standards, which will allow the City to use state aid funds to pay for part of the improvements. The south side is being recommended for parking because the north lots are generally deeper and more room is therefore available in their driveways for off-street parking. No parking signs would therefore be installed on the north side of the street. Stormwater Improvements: The existing storm sewer system is proposed to be left in place on East River Street. Several catch basins do need to be replaced however, and some work will be required on other existing pipes, structures and castings. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 12 Staff is also proposing that the Mississippi River storm sewer outlets at Cedar, New, Ramsey and Washington Streets be repaired with this project. Various components of these outlets including pipe sections, aprons, trash guards and/or riprap are proposed to be repaired and/or replaced. 4.1.2 Cedar Street Sidewalk: A 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed to be constructed along the east side of Cedar Street. This will connect the existing sidewalk along East Broadway to East Bridge Park. Street Design: Cedar Street has existing B618 concrete curb and gutter and will have the complete pavement section removed prior to receiving a new pavement section. The width of the street will remain at 36-feet wide. The typical section for Cedar Street can be seen on Figure 3, and the proposed surface improvements are shown on Figure 4. The existing curb and gutter will remain in place, except for any panels needing replacement to correct defects within the panel, to restore the existing flow line and grade where the curb has settled, where differential settlement has occurred, or where utilities work will require the curb to be removed and replaced. Spot repairs will receive a full- depth sawcut to minimize disruption to the curb adjacent to the repair area. Hydraulic jacking could also be utilized, which would involve injecting a concrete mix to repair small segments of the curb. This method may be less expensive and provide fewer impacts to the adjacent curb. Stormwater Improvements: The existing storm sewer system is proposed to be left in place. Some work will be required on other existing pipes, structures and castings. 4.1.3 Palm, New, Wright, Ramsey, Hennepin and Washington Streets Sidewalk: No new sidewalk is proposed to be constructed along these streets. Street Design: These streets all have existing B618 concrete curb and gutter and will have the complete pavement section removed prior to receiving a new pavement section, including aggregate base class 5. The width of these streets will remain at 36-feet wide. The typical sections these streets can be seen on Figure 3, and all proposed surface improvements are shown on Figures 4 - 6. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 13 The existing curb and gutter will remain in place, except for any panels needing replacement to correct defects within the panel, to restore the existing flow line and grade where the curb has settled, or where differential settlement has occurred. These spot repairs will receive a full-depth saw cut to minimize disruption to the curb adjacent to the repair area. Hydraulic jacking can also be utilized, which would involve injecting a concrete mix to repair small segments of the curb. This method may be less expensive and provide fewer impacts to the adjacent curb. The entire pavement section will be removed prior to receiving a new pavement section, including aggregate base class 5. The typical section for this street can be seen on Figure 2, and all proposed surface improvements are shown on Figure 6. Stormwater Improvements: The existing storm sewer system on these streets is proposed to be left in place. A couple of catch basins will need to be replaced however, and some work will be required on other existing pipes, structures and castings on these streets. 4.1.4 West River Street Sidewalk: A 9-foot wide bituminous pathway is proposed to be constructed along the entire west side of West River Street between CSAH 75 and the Xcel ball fields. The boulevard width between the pathway and West River Street is proposed to be 5-feet. While wider boulevards are preferred to provide a buffer area between pedestrians and vehicular traffic, and to accommodate snow storage, there is limited right-of-way in this area so the proposed boulevard width was reduced accordingly. Street Design: West River Street is proposed to receive concrete curb and gutter. A new pavement section will then be constructed between the curbing, including aggregate base class 5. The typical section for this street can be seen on Figure 2, and the proposed surface improvements are shown on Figure 6. The intersection of West River Street and CSAH 75 form a skewed intersection. As part of the final design of the project, staff will evaluate whether this intersection should be realigned to form a right-angle T-intersection, similar to what was done at West Prairie Road. However, doing so would result in significant costs due to the need to remove and construct a new railroad crossing over the BNSF railroad tracks. While current crash records do not indicate there is a safety issue at this intersection, staff would consult with the Wright County Highway Department to determine if the intersection should be realigned at this time since both Wright County and the City will be reconstructing their intersecting roads which would likely result in some cost savings to perform the work in 2011. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 14 4.1.5 Other Considerations Ellison Park Improvements: The parking lot, internal access drive, and boat launch access drive are all proposed to be reconstructed with this project due to their poor existing conditions. 4.1.6 Geotechnical Recommendations The Geotechnical Evaluation Report is included in Appendix D. The report recommends excavating any organic soils within 3-feet of any pavement subgrade. This project includes reconstructing local access roadways that have been in service for well over 30 years and while the roadway pavements have failed their failure seems to be caused more from age than poor subgrade conditions. Excavating subgrade soils and replacing them with select granular borrow increases project costs significantly. Staff is therefore proposing to follow Braun’s recommendation for the purposes of providing a cost in this Feasibility Report. However, should it become apparent during construction that the existing subgrade soils are adequate for construction we will limit subcut depths to 1-foot below the bottom of the aggregate base whenever practical, which is what was done during previous reconstruction projects along West River Street which are holding up well. 4.2 Stormwater Treatment Area 4B involves reconstructing existing urban streets with existing storm sewer systems. Unlike new developments, which would provide stormwater catch basins, pipes and stormwater ponds to provide flood control and water treatment, redevelopment projects require a more creative approach for stormwater management. It is the City’s policy that redevelopment projects incorporate stormwater treatment systems where feasible. In the past, water quality has been provided by grading new ponds or expanding existing ponds, by grading drainage swales, and by installing sump manholes or “stormceptor” manholes. The current management of stormwater in this section of the City utilizes storm sewer to route and discharge stormwater runoff directly into the Mississippi River. Flooding or ponding of surface water due to rainfall events are not significantly problematic in this area. This project as proposed will not result in a new net increase in impervious surface area. The existing storm sewer outlets along the banks of the Mississippi River in Area 4B are proposed to be repaired and/or reconstructed with this project. These outlets are located at Chestnut Street, Minnesota Street, Maple Street, Linn Street, Locust Street and Walnut Street, and will require repairing or replacement of pipe sections, aprons, trash grates and/or riprap. During preparation of this report staff checked with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regarding potential future requirements for stormwater treatment in previously developed areas since adding stormwater treatment ponds in these areas can be problematic. The MPCA is not able to provide any clear direction at this time on which types of treatment may be required of City’s in the future, but they did inform us that stormceptor type manholes are Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 15 probably not a method they will approve of on a large scale approach. As such, staff does not recommend installing any stormceptor manholes with this project, but rather recommends adding sump manholes in several key locations to remove as much grit from our stormwater runoff as possible before discharging it into the river. Sump manholes involve minimal costs to construct and maintain but provide sizeable gains by reducing the overall discharge of solids. This approach will allow us to wait and see what the MPCA’s position will be in the future while avoiding spending money on treatment methods that they may not approve of. The reconstruction of West River Street will involve reconstructing the existing rural section to an urban section by adding concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer. This will allow all of the stormwater runoff from the street to be collected and channeled into adjacent stormwater ponds and ditches. While this will not generally result in increased runoff volumes, it will require erosion control measures to be incorporated at any new storm sewer system outlets. 4.3 Water Main Improvements The existing watermain in Area 4B was tested for leaks in 2010. Based on the results of the leak detection tests, as well as on recent visual observations, staff is proposing to leave the existing water main in place unless it is identified for replacement for other reasons during the project. As was previously noted, only valves, hydrants and leaking service lines will be replaced with this project. The location of all proposed repairs and/or replacements is shown in the plans in on Figures 7, 8 and 9 of Appendix A. The existing water main under West River Street has not been tested for leaks, but based on the age and material of the existing pipe, staff is proposing to leave the existing water main in place unless it is identified for replacement for other reasons during the project. However, staff will test this water main before construction activities occur to ensure any leaks are taken care of before the roadway is reconstructed. Only an extension of the 12-inch DIP trunk line to the west is proposed with this project to provide service to the undeveloped property on the west end. The location of the proposed water main extension is shown in the plans in Figure 10 of Appendix A. 4.4 Sanitary Sewer Improvements The existing sanitary sewer in Area 4B was televised this winter. After reviewing all available televising tapes, including previous tapes when the groundwater was higher that better showed locations of groundwater infiltration, staff is recommending that the sanitary sewer trunk lines along Cedar Street, East River Street from Cedar Street to New Street and from old Dayton Street to the east end, and along Washington Avenue be replaced. This is due to the presence of cracks, substantial sags in the sewer line, and leaking joints. Other shorter sections of mainline sewer may need replacement to correct issues with significant sags and cracked pipe sections. These pipe sections will be replaced with polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC) pipe. In addition, most of the sanitary service lines will likely need to be replaced due to widespread root intrusion. It is proposed to slip-line other segments of the sanitary sewer that have significant infiltration and root intrusion. The locations of the proposed repairs or replacements are shown in the plans in on Figures 7, 8 and 9 of Appendix A. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 16 The existing sanitary sewer under West River Street was previously televised and based on a review of the tapes staff is proposing to leave the existing sanitary sewer in place unless it is identified for replacement for other reasons during the project. Only an extension of the 12-inch DIP trunk line to the west is proposed with this project to provide service to the undeveloped property on the west end. The location of the proposed sanitary sewer extension is shown in the plans in Figure 10 of Appendix A. Some manhole castings and adjustment rings have exhibited cracking and spalling and will be replaced as necessary. Manhole casting lids with open pick holes will be removed and replaced with sealed solid lids with concealed pick holes. This will reduce the volume of stormwater inflow into the sanitary sewer system which will serve to lower the volume of clean water to be treated at the wastewater treatment plant thereby reducing wastewater treatment costs at the plant. 4.5 Construction Methods Existing pavements will be reconstructed by removing the existing bituminous surface and any class 5 aggregate base. The existing subgrade will then be farmed and compacted to provide a stable base for the pavement section. However, if during construction it is noticed that the subgrade soils are not deemed to be stable enough for construction purposes they will either be farmed to dry the soil, if time allows, or they will be removed and replaced with a 1 to 2-foot section of compacted select granular borrow as directed by the engineer. Pavement reclamation may be used for this project depending on the suitability of the existing subgrade soils. This will be evaluated during subgrade preparation operations. During utilities construction, manhole and catch basin castings will be removed and the structures will be covered to prevent materials from dropping into these facilities. Paving will be completed in two separate lifts upon acceptance of the grading of the aggregate base. It is anticipated that the final lift of the bituminous wear course could be placed on some of the streets in the fall of the same year, as long as the weather cooperates, and where there are no utilities installed under the street. On streets that had deep utilities installed under them, the wear course will be left off until the following year to allow the soils under the street enough time to settle. During construction the contractor will be required to phase their operations to smaller areas of the overall project to minimize areas of disruption. This would serve to minimize the level of traffic control needed on the project and minimize disturbances to properties. The contractor will also be required to start their construction operations east of New Street in Area 4B after July 11th to avoid impacting any of the RiverFest activities. We are not anticipating that this would result in substantial delays or a significant increase to the project cost. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 17 4.6 Private Utilities Staff has not yet met with the telephone, gas, and cable utilities regarding this project. If the City Council approves the preparation of Plans and Specifications staff will meet with the private utility companies to discuss the proposed improvements. The alignment of streets, sidewalks and pathways were considered to minimize impacts to private utilities. It is anticipated that a few of the power poles will need to be relocated. Should some of the utility companies indicate that they want to upsize or modify their services during this project those upgrades and replacements of private utilities will be at the discretion and cost of the individual utility. Residents voiced a desire for Xcel Energy to bury their overhead lines with this project. City staff will contact Xcel Energy to relay these comments. 4.7 Permits Permits required as part of the proposed improvements are anticipated as follows: MPCA General Stormwater Permit (NPDES).....Grading and Storm Water Wright County........................................................Roadway Right-of-Way US Army Corps of Engineers.........Mississippi River Storm Water Outlets MPCA MS4 Permit..................................................Impaired Water/TMDL MPCA MS4 Permit....................................................Scenic River Segment 4.8 Rights-of-Way/Easements It is anticipated that all improvements will occur within existing City right-of-ways. There are no existing drainage and utility easements in this area of the City. It is not anticipated that the City will need to acquire any additional right-of-way or easements for this project. Rights of entries from individual property owners may need to be obtained prior to construction commencing for grading, utility construction and restoration. The potential costs for any other easements have not been included in this feasibility report. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 18 5. FINANCING 5.1 Opinion of Cost A detailed opinion of probable cost for the proposed improvements can be found in Appendix B of this report. These opinions of probable cost incorporate anticipated 2011 construction costs and include a 10% construction contingency and 22% indirect costs. The indirect costs include legal, engineering, administrative, and financing items. Summary tables of the proposed project costs for Area 4B and West River Street are shown below in Tables 2 and 3. The total project cost for both areas is $2,413,200. TABLE 2 Proposed Project Costs 2011 Street Reconstruction Project Area 4B SCHEDULE TOTAL Schedule A – Surface Improvements $1,247,600 Schedule A1 – Sidewalk $16,600 Schedule B – Storm Sewer Improvements $82,000 Schedule C – Water Main Improvements $85,000 Schedule D – Sanitary Sewer Improvements $350,500 Schedule E – Ellison Park Improvements $76,800 TOTAL PROJECT COST - AREA 4B $1,858,500 TABLE 3 Proposed Project Costs 2011 Street Reconstruction Project West River Street, west of CSAH 75 SCHEDULE TOTAL Schedule A – Surface Improvements $451,600 Schedule B – Storm Sewer Improvements $27,900 Schedule C – Water Main Improvements $36,300 Schedule D – Sanitary Sewer Improvements $38,900 TOTAL PROJECT COST – WEST RIVER STREET $554,700 Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 19 5.2 Funding 5.2.1 Assessments A portion of the project costs is proposed to be recovered through assessments levied against benefitting properties in the project area. Assessments are proposed to be collected for surface improvements against residential lots and non-residential uses in Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75. These assessments are described below, and a summary is shown below in Tables 4 and 5. Residential Assessments The residential assessment is a per lot assessment for the general improvement work to the roadways within the project area. There are a total of 68 residential units within Area 4B that are proposed to be assessed. In general, any residential property with access to a street being improved is proposed to be assessed as one residential unit. To be consistent with previous assessment policies and past Council actions, corner lots and existing residential properties with more than one access to one or more streets are proposed to be assessed one residential unit. Assessments are based on the City’s standard residential assessment rate for previously completed street reconstruction projects with an approximate annual increase of 5%. This results in a proposed rate of $4,000 per residential unit for 2011 (the rate in 2010 was $3,800 per unit). Non-residential Assessments There are 13 non-residential properties in Area 4B, including the New River Medical Center parcels, and there are 5 non-residential properties along West River Street, west of CSAH 75. All these properties are proposed to be assessed at the City’s standard rate of $80 per front foot. If any sidewalks are constructed adjacent to the street their property fronts on they would also be assessed the standard non-residential sidewalk assessment rate of $12 per front foot. The proposed pathway along West River Street is not proposed to be assessed to the adjacent properties as this is a regional benefit for access to the City ball fields. These rates are based on the City’s standard non-residential rates for previously completed street reconstruction projects. However, there are several non-residential properties throughout the project that staff would recommend be assessed as follows. The Alano property on West River Street is proposed to be assessed a total of $8,000, which is the standard assessment rate for two residential properties. This is because this property is used by its members on a daily basis to varying degrees, yet it will most likely not generate the same volume of passenger vehicle and/or truck traffic compared to a typical non-residential lot. Therefore, by dividing the properties front footage of 174.33 feet by 80 feet, the average lot width considered for purposes of sub-dividing the property into residential lots, the property could be subdivided into two residential lots in the future. This is consistent with the assessment approach used with both the Rod and Gun Club and Ritze Trucking as part of the 2007 Street Reconstruction Project. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 20 The property at 2156 West River Street shares a driveway with Electro Industries, but does not have frontage on River Street. It is proposed to calculate the total assessment for these two properties by the frontage the Electro Industries property has on West River Street, and then spread the assessment to each property based on their acreage. The Xcel training facility is proposed to be assessed for the current useable frontage where their building and parking lot fronts West River Street. The assessment for the undeveloped property to the east will need to be reviewed. It should be noted that there are several properties in Area 4B that were previously assessed for their frontage along East Broadway for improvements completed under City Project No. 98C017. The proposed assessments for these properties are shown in the attached assessment rolls, but their assessments will be reviewed in more detail prior to the Public Hearing on February 28, 2011 so these assessments could change. City Property Assessments The City currently owns 2 properties in Area 4B that are included in the assessment calculations including the old landscaping/nursery parcel on Cedar Street and both Ellison Park parcels. The assessment for these properties totals $88,546 and is included in the non-residential assessment total noted in Table 4. Sewer and Water Service Assessments The Public Works Department will notify property owners if any service line issues are identified when televising their sanitary sewer. The property owners will have the option to replace their service lines and would be assessed for the actual costs from the mainline to the property line. These service lines will be identified and bid with the project. The preliminary assessment roll and accompanying map are included in Appendix C. TABLE 4 Preliminary Assessments Area 4B TYPICAL ASSESSMENT RATE NO. OF LOTS TOTAL Residential Assessment $4,000/Lot $272,000 Non-Residential Assessment $80/FF $194,745* Non-Residential Sidewalk Assessment $12/FF $7,532 TOTAL $474,277 * Includes City owned properties totaling $88,546. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 21 TABLE 5 Preliminary Assessments West River Street, west of CSAH 75 TYPICAL ASSESSMENT RATE NO. OF LOTS TOTAL Residential Assessment $4,000/Lot 2 $8,000 Non-Residential Assessment $80/FF $90,987 Non-Residential Sidewalk Assessment $12/FF $0 TOTAL $98,987 5.2.2 City Contribution The City’s contribution to the project would include funding that is annually set aside for street reconstruction, which has typically been between $250,000 and $500,000. In 2011 there was no money budgeted for this purpose. The current street reconstruction fund balance is approximately $2,503,000. The City’s Trunk Utility Fund could be utilized and, if necessary, funds could be used from the City’s General Fund. A summary of the proposed funding is presented below in Table 6. Please note that the table assumes a 1-year construction schedule. A description of other City funds is as follows: State Aid Funds: Available State Aid funds could be utilized for East River Street from Palm Street to Washington Street, and on Palm Street between East Broadway and East River Street. Each year the City designates 20% of our streets as Municipal State Aid Streets that are then eligible for State Aid funding. The current balance in our State Aid account is approximately $1,258,000. The estimated amount of State Aid funds that could be applied towards this project is $551,370. Trunk Funds: It is anticipated that the current trunk fund balance is available to fund the sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer improvements. Other Funds: Additional City revenue sources, special assessments, and general funds could be utilized to fund remaining project costs. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 22 TABLE 6 Proposed Project Funding Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75 ASSESSMENTS CITY FUNDS TOTAL Surface $565,732 $1,133,468 $1,699,200 Sidewalk $7,532 $9,068 $16,600 Storm Sewer – $109,900 $109,900 Water Main – $121,300 $121,300 Sanitary Sewer – $389,400 $389,400 Ellison Park – $76,800 $76,800 TOTAL $573,264 $1,839,936 $2,413,200 City funds can be distributed as follows for the proposed improvements in Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75: Total Project Cost $2,413,200 Less Assessments - $573,264 Subtotal = $1,839,936 Less State Aid Funds - $551,370 Subtotal = $1,288,566 Less Trunk Utility Funds (Storm, Water, Sewer) - $620,600 Subtotal = $667,966 Less City Street Funds - $667,966 TOTAL Remaining Cost = $0 Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 23 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE The proposed schedule is as follows: Council Orders Feasibility Report...............................................................December 13, 2010 Neighborhood Meeting....................................................................................January 26, 2011 Council Accepts Feasibility Report and Orders Public Hearing...................February 14, 2011 Council Conducts Public Hearing/Authorizes Plans and Specifications.......February 28, 2011 Private Utility Coordination Meeting......................................................................March 2011 Submit Final Plans to State Aid...........................................................................April 11, 2011 Council Approves Plans and Specifications/Authorizes Ad for Bids..................April 25, 2011 Receive Bids ........................................................................................................May 26, 2011 Award Contract ....................................................................................................June 13, 2011 Begin Construction ....................................................................................................June 2011 Construction Complete .........................................................................................October 2011 Assessment Hearing.........................................................................................October 24, 2011 Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 Page 24 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS City Project No. 11C001 consists of reconstructing streets, constructing new sidewalk/pathway, storm sewer improvements, sanitary sewer and water main improvements, and appurtenant work for the Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75 per the Overall Street Reconstruction Program. It is the recommendation of City staff that City Project No. 11C001 is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint. The Council should consider the following items as it relates to the project: 1. Reconstruct all streets and utilities within Area 4B and West River Street, west of CSAH 75 as identified herein. 2. Increase the standard residential street reconstruction assessment rate to $4,000 per unit for 2011. 3. Accept the standard non-residential street reconstruction assessment rate at $80 per front foot, and the standard sidewalk construction assessment rate at $12 per front foot for 2011. 4. Consider reconstructing the pavement in the parking lot, internal drive and boat launch access drive at Ellison Park. Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 APPENDIX A Figures Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 APPENDIX B Opinion of Probable Cost Engineer's Estimate WSB Project:2011 Reconstruction Program - East River Street (Area 4b)Design By:JAK Project Location:City of Monticello Checked By:SKB City Project No.:11C001 WSB Project No:1494-42 Date:2/17/2011 Item No. MN/DOT Specification No.DescriptionUnit Estimated Total Quantity Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 12021.501MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM1 $40,400.0040,400.00$ 22101.502CLEARING TREE 15 $150.002,250.00$ 32101.507GRUBBING TREE 15 $100.001,500.00$ 42104.501REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT3,775 $3.0011,325.00$ 52104.503REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK SQ FT1,200 $1.001,200.00$ 62104.505REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD425 $2.501,062.50$ 72104.505REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD675 $4.002,700.00$ 82104.509REMOVE MAIL BOX SUPPORT EACH 47 $50.002,350.00$ 92104.509REMOVE MAIL BOX EACH 47 $30.001,410.00$ 102104.511SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT150 $4.00 600.00$ 112104.513SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT700 $3.502,450.00$ 122105.501COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD13,360 $6.0080,160.00$ 132105.507SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV)CU YD1,340 $10.0013,400.00$ 142105.522SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV)CU YD8,900 $10.0089,000.00$ 152105.525TOPSOIL BORROW (CV)CU YD500 $16.008,000.00$ 162105.604GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE V SQ YD2,430 $2.004,860.00$ 172112.501SUBGRADE PREPARATION ROAD STA63.1 $225.0014,197.50$ 182123.610STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM)HOUR68.0 $125.008,500.00$ 192130.501WATER M GALLONS172.0 $30.005,160.00$ 202211.501AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 MOD TON8,035 $10.0080,350.00$ 212331.604BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT RECLAMATION SQ YD24,300 $3.0072,900.00$ 222357.502BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON1,215 $3.003,645.00$ 232360.501TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B)TON5,300 $55.00291,500.00$ 242360.503TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B)SQ YD425 $20.008,500.00$ 252504.602ADJUST VALVE BOX EACH 1 $250.00 250.00$ 262504.602IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR EACH 19 $300.005,700.00$ 272521.5014" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT840 $3.502,940.00$ 282531.501CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, DESIGN B618 LIN FT3,775 $10.0037,750.00$ 292531.5076" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT HE SQ YD675 $45.0030,375.00$ 302531.602PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP EACH 17 $450.007,650.00$ 312531.618TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT152 $50.007,600.00$ 322540.602INSTALL MAIL BOX SUPPORT (CLUSTER)EACH 15 $200.003,000.00$ 332540.602MAIL BOX EACH 61 $50.003,050.00$ 342540.602MAIL BOX (TEMPORARY)EACH 61 $20.001,220.00$ 352563.601TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM1 $10,000.0010,000.00$ 362564.531SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQ FT155.00 $45.006,975.00$ 372564.602FURNISH & INSTALL SIGN PANEL TYPE D EACH 28 $300.008,400.00$ 382564.60312" SOLID WHITE-EPOXY LIN FT225 $6.001,350.00$ 392565.6034" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT LIN FT1,000 $3.003,000.00$ 402565.603INSTALL 4" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT LIN FT1,000 $6.006,000.00$ 2011 Street Reconstruction Program SCHEDULE A. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS Engineer's Estimate 2010 Reconstruction Program - East River Street (Area 4b) WSB Project No. 1494-42 1 Of 5 K:\01494-42\Quantity\Preliminary\Engineer's Estimate 013111 (JAK) Engineer's Estimate WSB Project:2011 Reconstruction Program - East River Street (Area 4b)Design By:JAK Project Location:City of Monticello Checked By:SKB City Project No.:11C001 WSB Project No:1494-42 Date:2/17/2011 Item No. MN/DOT Specification No.DescriptionUnit Estimated Total Quantity Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 2011 Street Reconstruction Program 412571.502DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B&B TREE 15 $400.006,000.00$ 422573.502SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY LIN FT2,000 $3.006,000.00$ 432573.530STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 40 $200.008,000.00$ 442573.602TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH 9 $750.006,750.00$ 452575.501SEEDING ACRE 2 $2,000.004,000.00$ 462575.505SODDING TYPE LAWN SQ YD4,200 $3.5014,700.00$ 472582.503CROSSWALK MARKING-PAINT SQ FT760 $2.001,520.00$ SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE A - SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS$929,650 +10% Contingencies $92,970 Subtotal $1,022,620 + 22% Indirect Cost $224,980 TOTAL Schedule A - Surface Improvements$1,247,600 482103.507DISCONNECT WATER SERVICE EACH 5 150.00$ 750.00$ 492104.501REMOVE WATER MAIN LIN FT190 5.00$ 950.00$ 502104.509REMOVE HYDRANT AND VALVE EACH 6 300.00$ 1,800.00$ 512104.509REMOVE GATE VALVE & BOX EACH 13 250.00$ 3,250.00$ 522104.509REMOVE CURB STOP & BOX EACH 5 125.00$ 625.00$ 532104.509REMOVE WATER SERVICE EACH 5 150.00$ 750.00$ 542451.602GRANULAR FOUNDATION AND/OR BEDDING TON 25 10.00$ 250.00$ 552504.602RECONNECT WATER SERVICE EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$ 562504.6021" CORPORATION STOP EACH 5 95.00$ 475.00$ 572504.6021" CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 5 200.00$ 1,000.00$ 582504.602HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH 6 2,600.00$ 15,600.00$ 592504.6026" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 19 900.00$ 17,100.00$ 602504.6031" TYPE K COPPER PIPE LIN FT200 24.00$ 4,800.00$ 612504.6036" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 LIN FT190 30.00$ 5,700.00$ 622504.6044" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION SQ YD25 20.00$ 500.00$ 632504.608DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS POUND1,700 5.00$ 8,500.00$ SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE B - WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS$63,300 + 10% Contingencies $6,330 Subtotal $69,630 + 22% Indirect Cost $15,320 TOTAL Schedule B - Water Main Improvements$85,000 SCHEDULE B. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS Engineer's Estimate 2010 Reconstruction Program - East River Street (Area 4b) WSB Project No. 1494-42 2 Of 5 K:\01494-42\Quantity\Preliminary\Engineer's Estimate 013111 (JAK) Engineer's Estimate WSB Project:2011 Reconstruction Program - East River Street (Area 4b)Design By:JAK Project Location:City of Monticello Checked By:SKB City Project No.:11C001 WSB Project No:1494-42 Date:2/17/2011 Item No. MN/DOT Specification No.DescriptionUnit Estimated Total Quantity Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 2011 Street Reconstruction Program 642104.501REMOVE SEWER PIPE (SANITARY)LIN FT1,925 3.00$ 5,775.00$ 652104.501REMOVE SANITARY SERVICE PIPE LIN FT3,120 3.50$ 10,920.00$ 662104.509REMOVE MANHOLE (SANITARY)EACH 12 500.00$ 6,000.00$ 672104.509REMOVE CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 12 100.00$ 1,200.00$ 682104.525ABANDON MANHOLE EACH 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 692104.603REMOVE OUTSIDE DROP LIN FT6.3 50.00$ 315.00$ 702104.603ABANDON PIPE SEWER - SANITARY LIN FT250 10.00$ 2,500.00$ 712451.602GRANULAR FOUNDATION AND/OR BEDDING TON 125 10.00$ 1,250.00$ 722501.605CHEMICAL GROUT GALLON10 400.00$ 4,000.00$ 732503.601SANITARY SEWER BYPASS PUMPING LUMP SUM1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 742503.6028"X6" PVC WYE EACH 6 120.00$ 720.00$ 752503.60210"X6" PVC WYE EACH 22 150.00$ 3,300.00$ 762503.60212"X6" PVC WYE EACH 3 185.00$ 555.00$ 772503.60215"X6" PVC WYE EACH 38 275.00$ 10,450.00$ 782503.602CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLES (SAN)EACH 5 1,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 792503.602CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EACH 67 200.00$ 13,400.00$ 802503.602CHIMNEY SEALS EACH 16 350.00$ 5,600.00$ 812503.6034" PVC PIPE SEWER - SCH 40 LIN FT2,100 19.00$ 39,900.00$ 822503.6036" PVC PIPE SEWER - SDR 26 LIN FT700 22.00$ 15,400.00$ 832503.6038" PVC PIPE SEWER - SDR 35 LIN FT525 28.00$ 14,700.00$ 842503.60310" PVC PIPE SEWER - SDR 35 LIN FT820 33.00$ 27,060.00$ 852503.60315" PVC PIPE SEWER - SDR 35 LIN FT580 37.00$ 21,460.00$ 862503.603LINING SEWER PIPE 12"LIN FT444 40.00$ 17,760.00$ 872503.603SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING)LIN FT1,925 1.50$ 2,887.50$ 882506.522ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING (SANITARY)EACH 4 450.00$ 1,800.00$ 892506.602RECONSTRUCT SANITARY MANHOLES EACH 1 1,250.00$ 1,250.00$ 902506.602CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 11 450.00$ 4,950.00$ 912506.602CONSTRUCT SANITARY MANHOLES (8' AND ABOVE)LIN FT27.2 125.00$ 3,400.00$ 922506.602CONSTRUCT SANITARY MANHOLES (0-8')EACH 11 2,000.00$ 22,000.00$ 932506.603CONSTRUCT 8" OUTSIDE DROP LIN FT8.3 200.00$ 1,660.00$ SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE C - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS$261,210 + 10% Contingencies $26,120 Subtotal $287,330 + 22% Indirect Cost $63,210 TOTAL Schedule C - Sanitary Sewer Improvements$350,500 SCHEDULE C. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Engineer's Estimate 2010 Reconstruction Program - East River Street (Area 4b) WSB Project No. 1494-42 3 Of 5 K:\01494-42\Quantity\Preliminary\Engineer's Estimate 013111 (JAK) Engineer's Estimate WSB Project:2011 Reconstruction Program - East River Street (Area 4b)Design By:JAK Project Location:City of Monticello Checked By:SKB City Project No.:11C001 WSB Project No:1494-42 Date:2/17/2011 Item No. MN/DOT Specification No.DescriptionUnit Estimated Total Quantity Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 2011 Street Reconstruction Program 942104.501REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM)LIN FT450 5.00$ 2,250.00$ 952104.509REMOVE MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN EACH 6 350.00$ 2,100.00$ 962104.509REMOVE METAL APRON EACH 1 150.00$ 150.00$ 972105.601DEWATERING LUMP SUM1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 982105.604GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE IV SQ YD16.8 2.50$ 42.00$ 992501.60221" RC PIPE APRON W/ TRASH GUARD EACH 1 1,250.00$ 1,250.00$ 1002503.54115" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V LIN FT50 35.00$ 1,750.00$ 1012503.54121" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL III LIN FT400 38.00$ 15,200.00$ 1022503.573REPAIR STORM SEWER EACH 2 300.00$ 600.00$ 103 2506.501CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 LIN FT25 280.00$ 7,000.00$ 104 2506.501CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 60-4020 LIN FT 5 350.00$ 1,750.00$ 105 2506.502CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPECIAL 1 EACH 5 1,600.00$ 8,000.00$ 106 2506.522ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING (CATCHBASIN)EACH 27 450.00$ 12,150.00$ 107 2506.522ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING (STORM)EACH 9 $450.004,050.00$ 108 2506.602CASTING ASSEMBLY (CATCHBASIN)EACH 5 500.00$ 2,500.00$ 1092506.602CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM)EACH 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 1102511.501RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS IV CU YD8.4 100.00$ 840.00$ SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE D - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS$61,130 + 10% Contingencies $6,110 Subtotal $67,240 + 22% Indirect Cost $14,790 TOTAL Schedule D - Storm Sewer Improvements$82,000 SCHEDULE D. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Engineer's Estimate 2010 Reconstruction Program - East River Street (Area 4b) WSB Project No. 1494-42 4 Of 5 K:\01494-42\Quantity\Preliminary\Engineer's Estimate 013111 (JAK) Engineer's Estimate WSB Project:2011 Reconstruction Program - East River Street (Area 4b)Design By:JAK Project Location:City of Monticello Checked By:SKB City Project No.:11C001 WSB Project No:1494-42 Date:2/17/2011 Item No. MN/DOT Specification No.DescriptionUnit Estimated Total Quantity Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 2011 Street Reconstruction Program 1112101.502CLEARING TREE 1 $200.00 $200 1122101.507GRUBBING TREE 1 $150.00 $150 1132104.505REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD225 $2.50 $563 1142104.513SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT265 $3.50 $928 1152504.602IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR EACH 1 $500.00 $500 1162521.5014" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT2,150 $3.50 $7,525 1172531.602PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP EACH 2 $450.00 $900 1182531.618TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT16 $50.00 $800 1192571.502DECIDUOUS TREE 2" CAL B&B TREE 1 $300.00 $300 1202575.505SODDING TYPE LAWN SQ YD75 $3.50 $263 1212582.503CROSSWALK MARKING-PAINT SQ FT108 $2.00 $216 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE E - SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS$12,340 + 10% Contingencies $1,230 Subtotal $13,570 + 22% Indirect Cost $2,990 TOTAL Schedule E - Sidewalk Improvements$16,600 1222104.505REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD30 $4.00 120.00$ 1232104.513SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT40 $3.50 140.00$ 1242211.501AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 MOD TON 400 $10.004,000.00$ 1252331.604BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT RECLAMATION SQ YD3,450 $3.0010,350.00$ 1262357.502BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON175 $3.00 525.00$ 1272360.501TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B)TON 740 $55.0040,700.00$ 1282531.5076" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT HE SQ YD30 $45.001,350.00$ SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE F - PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS$57,190 + 10% Contingencies $5,720 Subtotal $62,910 + 22% Indirect Cost $13,840 TOTAL Schedule F - Parking Lot Improvements$76,800 $1,858,500GRAND TOTAL - 2010 Street Reconstruction Program - East River Street (Area 4b) SCHEDULE E. SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (CEDAR STREET) SCHEDULE F. PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS Engineer's Estimate 2010 Reconstruction Program - East River Street (Area 4b) WSB Project No. 1494-42 5 Of 5 K:\01494-42\Quantity\Preliminary\Engineer's Estimate 013111 (JAK) Engineer's Estimate WSB Project:2011 Reconstruction Program - West River Street Design By:JAK Project Location:City of Monticello Checked By:SKB City Project No.:11C001 WSB Project No:1494-42 Date:2/17/2011 Item No. MN/DOT Specification No.DescriptionUnit Estimated Total Quantity Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 12021.501MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 22104.501REMOVE PIPE CULVERTS LIN FT115 $5.00 $575.00 32104.505REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD300 $2.50 $750.00 42104.513SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT300 $3.50 $1,050.00 52105.501COMMON EXCAVATION (CV)CU YD3610 $7.00 $25,270.00 62105.507SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV)CU YD850 $10.00 $8,500.00 72105.522SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV)CU YD3250 $10.00 $32,500.00 82112.501SUBGRADE PREPARATION ROAD STA17.1 $250.00 $4,275.00 92211.501AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 MOD TON1130 $10.00 $11,300.00 102331.604BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT RECLAMATION SQ YD6460 $5.00 $32,300.00 112357.502BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON300 $1.50 $450.00 122360.501TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B)TON1500 $56.00 $84,000.00 132360.503TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B)SQ YD295 $20.00 $5,900.00 142504.602ADJUST VALVE BOX EACH 3 $250.00 $750.00 152506.522ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING EACH 4 $600.00 $2,400.00 162521.6042.5" BITUMINOUS PATH SQ YD1550 $18.00 $27,900.00 172531.507CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 LIN FT3100 $10.00 $31,000.00 182531.602PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP EACH 2 $450.00 $900.00 192531.618TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT16 $50.00 $800.00 202540.601RAILROAD CROSSING LUMP SUM1 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 212563.601TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 222564.531SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQ FT18.75 $45.00 $843.75 232564.602F&I SIGN PANEL TYPE D EACH 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 242564.602RELOCATE SIGN EACH 4 $150.00 $600.00 252565.6034" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT LIN FT100 $7.00 $700.00 262573.53INLET PROTECTION TYPE C EACH 4 $200.00 $800.00 272575.523EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, CATEGORY 3 SQ YD50 $2.00 $100.00 282575.605SEEDING (INCL. FERT. & MULCH)ACRE1.75$1,500.00 $2,625.00 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE A - STREET IMPROVEMENTS$336,490 + 10% Contingencies $33,650 Subtotal $370,140 + 22% Indirect Cost $81,430 TOTAL Schedule A - Street Improvements$451,600 2011 Street Reconstruction Program SCHEDULE A. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS Engineer's Estimate 2010 Reconstruction Program - West River Street WSB Project No. 1494-42 1 Of 3 K:\01494-42\Quantity\Preliminary\Engineer's Estimate 013111 (JAK) Engineer's Estimate WSB Project:2011 Reconstruction Program - West River Street Design By:JAK Project Location:City of Monticello Checked By:SKB City Project No.:11C001 WSB Project No:1494-42 Date:2/17/2011 Item No. MN/DOT Specification No.DescriptionUnit Estimated Total Quantity Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 2011 Street Reconstruction Program 292104.501REMOVE WATER MAIN LIN FT235 $5.00$1,175.00 302504.6024" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 1 $1,250.00$1,250.00 312504.602CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 2 $1,000.00$2,000.00 322504.602HYDRANT AND VALVE EACH 1 $3,000.00$3,000.00 332504.6034" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 LIN FT20 $28.00 $560.00 342504.6036" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 LIN FT10 $30.00 $300.00 352504.6038" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 LIN FT45 $34.00$1,530.00 362504.60312" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 LIN FT290 $50.00$14,500.00 372504.608DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS POUND900 $3.00$2,700.00 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE B - WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS$27,020 + 10% Contingencies $2,700 Subtotal $29,720 + 22% Indirect Cost $6,540 TOTAL Schedule B - Water Main Improvements$36,300 382104.501REMOVE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE PIPE LIN FT255 $5.00$1,275.00 392503.602CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLES (SANITARY)EACH 1 $2,000.00$2,000.00 402503.602RECONNECT SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EACH 1 $600.00 $600.00 412503.6028"X4" PVC WYE EACH 1 $200.00 $200.00 422503.6028"X6" PVC WYE EACH 1 $225.00 $225.00 432503.602CHIMNEY SEALS EACH 1 $225.00 $225.00 442503.6034" PVC PIPE SEWER - SDR 26 LIN FT100 $28.00$2,800.00 452503.6036" PVC PIPE SEWER - SDR 26 LIN FT35 $32.00$1,120.00 462503.6038" PVC PIPE SEWER - DR 18 LIN FT250 $55.00$13,750.00 472503.603TELEVISE SANITARY SEWER LIN FT250 $2.00 $500.00 482506.516CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 1 $650.00 $650.00 492506.603CONST. 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLE LIN FT28 $200.00$5,600.00 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE C - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS$28,950 + 10% Contingencies $2,900 Subtotal $31,850 + 22% Indirect Cost $7,010 TOTAL Schedule C - Sanitary Sewer Improvements$38,900 SCHEDULE B. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE C. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Engineer's Estimate 2010 Reconstruction Program - West River Street WSB Project No. 1494-42 2 Of 3 K:\01494-42\Quantity\Preliminary\Engineer's Estimate 013111 (JAK) Engineer's Estimate WSB Project:2011 Reconstruction Program - West River Street Design By:JAK Project Location:City of Monticello Checked By:SKB City Project No.:11C001 WSB Project No:1494-42 Date:2/17/2011 Item No. MN/DOT Specification No.DescriptionUnit Estimated Total Quantity Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 2011 Street Reconstruction Program 502501.51515" RCP PIPE APRON EACH 2 $475.00 $950.00 512501.602TRASH GUARD FOR 15" PIPE APRON EACH 2 $250.00 $500.00 522502.5416" PERF PVC PIPE DRAIN LIN FT320 $16.00$5,120.00 532503.51115" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V LIN FT125 $35.00$4,375.00 542503.603TELEVISE STORM SEWER LIN FT125 $2.00 $250.00 552506.501CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 LIN FT10 $300.00$3,000.00 562506.502CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 1 (2X3)EACH 2 $1,700.00$3,400.00 572506.602CASTING ASSEMBLY (CATCHBASIN)EACH 4 $500.00$2,000.00 582511.501GROUTED RIPRAP CLASS III CU YD8.8 $125.00$1,100.00 592511.604GEOTEXTILE FILTER TYPE IV SQ YD17.6 $3.00 $52.80 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE D - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS$20,750 + 10% Contingencies $2,080 Subtotal $22,830 + 22% Indirect Cost $5,020 TOTAL Schedule D - Storm Sewer Improvements$27,900 $554,700GRAND TOTAL - 2010 Street Reconstruction Program - West River Street SCHEDULE D. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Engineer's Estimate 2010 Reconstruction Program - West River Street WSB Project No. 1494-42 3 Of 3 K:\01494-42\Quantity\Preliminary\Engineer's Estimate 013111 (JAK) Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 APPENDIX C Preliminary Assessment Rolls – Area 4B & West River Street Assessment Maps – Area 4B & West River Street Pr e l i m i n a r y As s e s s m e n t Ro l l ‐ Ea s t Ri v e r St r e e t (A r e a 4b ) 20 1 1 S T R E E T R E C O N S T R U C T I O N P R O J E C T CI T Y O F M O N T I C E L L O , W R I G H T C O U N T Y , M I N N E S O T A S. A . P . R I V E R S T R E E T 2 2 2 - X X X - X X X , P A L M S T R E E T 2 2 2 - X X X - X X X , W A S H I N G T O N S T R E E T 2 2 2 - X X X - X X X Printed: CI T Y P R O J E C T N O . 1 1 C 0 0 1 Created: 1/31/11 Revised: 2/8/11 SANITARY TOTAL PR O P E R T Y ST R E E T S T R E E T S E W E R W A T E R M A I N P R O P O S E D No I D E N T I F I C A T I O N N O . P R O P E R T Y O W N E R PR O P E R T Y O W N E R PR O P E R T Y M A I L I N G A S S E S S A B L E R A T E T O T A L F F R A T E T O T A L S E R V I C E S E R V I C E A S S E S S M E N T (P I D ) AD D R E S S AD D R E S S U N I T S 1 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 6 6 0 1 0 S A N D R A L G O U L D 98 9 0 G R O V E R A V E S W HO W A R D L A K E M N 5 5 3 4 9 20 7 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 2 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 6 6 0 3 0 R O B E R T J & V A L E R I E S O M E R V I L L E 21 3 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 0- $ 0 - $ -$ 3 1 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 R O B E R T J & V A L E R I E S O M E R V I L L E 21 3 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 21 3 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 4 1 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 D I A N E B B L U E 21 9 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 21 9 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 5 1 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 M I C H A E L A P E L A R S K I 22 5 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 22 5 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 6 1 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 E L I Z A B E T H E B A L D R I D G E & 23 1 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 23 1 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 7 1 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 L E R O Y E & S H A R O N K R O B I D E A U 23 7 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 23 7 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 8 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 6 0 5 0 D A R Y L R & E L L E N E F I S C H B A C H PO B O X 5 0 2 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 30 3 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 9 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 6 0 3 0 F R A N K & L E A N O R A L I E B H A B E R 31 3 E R I V E R S T MO N T I C E L L O M N 31 3 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 10 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 6 0 1 0 D O N A L D & K A T H L E E N N I C O L A I PO B O X 5 3 6 BI G L A K E M N 5 5 3 0 9 32 5 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 11 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 7 0 5 0 F R E D W & B O N N I E C O X 40 1 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 40 1 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 12 15 5 0 1 5 0 0 7 0 4 0 R U T H M S P A R K S 40 9 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 40 9 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 13 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 7 0 2 0 P A U L S O N B U I L D E R S I N C 86 6 R I V E R L N AN O K A M N 5 5 3 0 3 41 3 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 14 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 7 0 1 0 P A T R I C K B D U G G A N 42 5 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 42 5 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 15 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 8 0 5 0 O L I V E R K M A L M I N 48 2 5 M A R K C E N T E R D R S T E 1 0 0 AL E X A N D R I A V A 2 2 3 1 1 50 1 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 16 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 8 0 3 0 J O H N & D O R I S H A R E L A N D 50 7 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 50 7 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 17 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 8 0 2 0 L E A N N K Z E L L G E R T & 51 9 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 51 9 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 18 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 8 0 1 0 J A Y A & A N N E T T E M S H I E R T S 52 5 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 52 5 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 19 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 9 0 5 0 D A R W I N G & S H I R L E Y M S T R A W PO B O X 3 4 4 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 60 1 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 20 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 9 0 4 0 T H O M A S A & C O L L E E N J W E I S S 60 7 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 60 7 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 21 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 9 0 3 0 K A R E N M & J E R R Y D W E L L S 61 3 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 61 3 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 22 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 9 0 2 0 O L I V E R K M A L M I N 48 2 5 M A R K C E N T E R D R S T E 1 0 0 AL E X A N D R I A V A 2 2 3 1 1 61 9 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ RE S I D E N T I A L NON RESIDENTIAL K:\01494-42\Admin\Docs\Assessment\Preliminary Assessment Roll SANITARY TOTAL PR O P E R T Y ST R E E T S T R E E T S E W E R W A T E R M A I N P R O P O S E D No I D E N T I F I C A T I O N N O . P R O P E R T Y O W N E R PR O P E R T Y O W N E R PR O P E R T Y M A I L I N G A S S E S S A B L E R A T E T O T A L F F R A T E T O T A L S E R V I C E S E R V I C E A S S E S S M E N T (P I D ) AD D R E S S AD D R E S S U N I T S RE S I D E N T I A L N O N R E S I D E N T I A L 23 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 9 0 1 0 A R V E A & J E A N A G R I M S M O PO B O X 8 1 5 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 62 5 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 24 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 6 0 J A M E S A D I C K R E L L & 70 7 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 70 7 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 25 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 4 0 A R N O L D C & K A T H E R I N E T E S S M E R 71 9 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 71 9 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 26 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 1 1 W I L L I A M J C U M M I N G S & 72 5 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 72 5 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 27 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 F R E D R & M A X I N E M T O P E L PO B O X 4 4 2 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 72 1 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 28 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 1 7 0 1 0 C I T Y O F M O N T I C E L L O 50 5 W A L N U T S T S T E 1 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 91 3 R I V E R S T E 0 - $ 7 2 6 . 6 8 0 . 0 0 $ 58,128.00$ 58,128.00$ 29 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 1 9 0 1 1 E D A N I E L & C H R I S T Y M S E C O R 10 0 5 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 10 0 5 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 30 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 1 9 0 1 0 P A M E L A A J O N E S 10 0 7 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 10 0 7 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 31 1 5 5 1 0 6 0 0 3 0 1 0 M O N T I - B I G L A K E C O M M H O S P I T A L 10 1 3 H A R T B L V D MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 0 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ - $ 0-$ -$ 32 1 5 5 2 1 8 0 0 1 0 3 0 0- $ 6 0 . 7 8 5 9 2 . 0 0 $ 5,592.22$ 5,592.22$ 33 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 6 7 1 5 1 D A V I D F S T R O M B E R G 10 2 C E D A R S T MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 10 2 C E D A R S T 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 34 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 6 7 1 4 0 C H A N T E L L E M M I T C H E L L 20 6 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 20 6 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 35 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 6 7 1 3 0 M A R K I M I C H A E L I S 21 2 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 21 2 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 36 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 6 7 1 2 0 A L E X A N D R A C P A R R 27 8 0 1 1 0 T H S T N E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 21 8 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 37 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 6 7 1 1 0 M I C H E L L E K H U G H E S 67 1 6 C O U N T Y R O A D 3 7 N W MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 0- $ 0-$ -$ 38 1 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 M I C H E L L E K H U G H E S 67 1 6 C O U N T Y R O A D 3 7 N W MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 23 0 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 39 1 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 J A C O B P & S A M A N T H A R O L I N G E R 24 2 E R I V E R S T MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 24 2 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 40 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 5 1 1 0 D A V I D M & N H U H R I C H A R D S O N PO B O X 2 3 4 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 30 0 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 41 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 5 1 2 0 J O S E F U E N T E S & 30 6 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 30 6 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 42 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 5 1 3 0 C H A S E H O M E F I N A N C E L L C 34 1 5 V I S I O N D R CO L U M B U S O H 4 3 2 1 9 31 2 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 43 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 5 1 4 0 D O N N A R H E R B E L 31 8 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 31 8 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 44 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 5 1 5 0 R O N A L D D & N A N C Y C H B E G I N 32 4 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 32 4 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 45 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 4 1 1 0 G A R Y L & B A R B A R A J H E G A R T Y PO B O X 1 2 6 2 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 40 0 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 46 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 4 1 3 0 G E R A L D A S R & B E A T R I C E A N D E R S O N PO B O X 2 0 1 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 40 6 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 47 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 4 1 3 1 J A S O N S Z A C H M A N 41 6 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 41 6 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 48 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 4 1 4 0 M I C H A E L R & B A R B A R A L U N D Q U I S T 42 4 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 42 4 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 49 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 3 1 1 0 W D A V I D & C H E R Y L M K I N N A R D 50 0 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 50 0 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ K:\01494-42\Admin\Docs\Assessment\Preliminary Assessment Roll SANITARY TOTAL PR O P E R T Y ST R E E T S T R E E T S E W E R W A T E R M A I N P R O P O S E D No I D E N T I F I C A T I O N N O . P R O P E R T Y O W N E R PR O P E R T Y O W N E R PR O P E R T Y M A I L I N G A S S E S S A B L E R A T E T O T A L F F R A T E T O T A L S E R V I C E S E R V I C E A S S E S S M E N T (P I D ) AD D R E S S AD D R E S S U N I T S RE S I D E N T I A L N O N R E S I D E N T I A L 50 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 3 1 2 0 B R A D L E Y K & M A R V E L E H A T F I E L D 50 6 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 50 6 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 51 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 3 1 3 0 D A V I D M W I L H E L M PO B O X 3 6 4 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 51 2 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 52 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 3 1 4 0 D I A N A L & M A R K J K R U S E 51 8 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 51 8 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 53 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 3 1 5 0 D O N A L D F N A G E L 10 5 9 7 9 7 T H S T N E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 52 4 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 54 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 2 1 1 0 G E O R G E E & M A U R E E N L A R S O N 60 6 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 60 6 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 55 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 2 1 3 0 E D W A R D M R E I L L Y PO B O X 1 6 3 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 61 2 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 56 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 2 1 5 0 N O R I T A M S O L T A U PO B O X 5 3 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 62 4 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 57 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 8 0 C O R Y A B E R N I N G 70 0 E R I V E R S T MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 70 0 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 58 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 3 1 J E F F R E Y R & L I S A M K O E P P E N 71 2 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 71 2 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 59 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 4 0 G E O R G E P O A C H 71 8 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 71 8 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 60 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 1 6 0 5 0 P A U L M & K E L L Y L B O I S C L A I R 22 6 7 G O S H E N A V E CL O V I S C A 9 3 6 1 1 80 6 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 61 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 1 6 0 6 0 A R I C H A R D & J O A N N E B O I S C L A I R 12 2 0 W O O D L A W N B C H BU F F A L O M N 5 5 3 1 3 81 2 R I V E R S T E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 62 1 5 5 2 0 8 0 0 1 0 1 0 M O N T I - B I G L A K E C O M M H O S P I T A L 10 1 3 H A R T B L V D MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 0- $ 6 1 0 8 0 . 0 0 $ 48,800.00$ 48,800.00$ 63 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 2 5 0 6 0 K L A T T F A M I L Y T R U S T 92 4 R I V E R S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 92 4 R I V E R S T E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 64 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 2 4 1 0 0 N E W R I V E R M E D I C A L C E N T E R 10 1 3 H A R T B L V D MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 10 0 0 R I V E R S T E 0 - $ 8680.00$ 6,880.00$ 6,880.00$ 65 1 5 5 2 0 8 0 0 1 0 2 0 M O N T I - B I G L A K E C O M M H O S P I T A L 10 1 3 H A R T B L V D MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 0- $ 0-$ -$ 66 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 5 3 1 1 1 D E N N I S F & M Y R N A R A N D E R S O N 10 3 B R A N S O N L A N D I N G B L V D BR A N S O N M O 6 5 6 1 6 10 7 C E D A R S T 0 - $ 5092.00$ 4,600.00$ 4,600.00$ 67 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 5 3 0 7 0 S E V E N K - P P R O P E R T I E S 11 2 8 2 8 6 T H A V E N MA P L E G R O V E M N 5 5 3 6 9 14 1 B R O A D W A Y E 0 - $ 6 1 . 4 7 -$ -$ 68 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 5 3 0 9 0 S E V E N K - P P R O P E R T I E S 11 2 8 2 8 6 T H A V E N MA P L E G R O V E M N 5 5 3 6 9 0- $ 33-$ -$ 69 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 P A U L A H L H O L K E R 79 6 4 I T H A C A L N MA P L E G R O V E M N 5 5 3 1 1 15 5 B R O A D W A Y E 0 - $ 9 9 . 2 9 9 2 . 0 0 $ 9,134.68$ 9,134.68$ 70 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 6 7 1 5 2 J & C E N T E R P R I S E I N C PO B O X 2 1 5 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 10 8 C E D A R S T 0 - $ 8792.00$ 8,004.00$ 8,004.00$ 71 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 6 7 0 1 0 C I T Y O F M O N T I C E L L O E D A 50 5 W A L N U T A V E S T E 1 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 20 1 B R O A D W A Y E 0 - $ 3 3 0 . 6 3 9 2 . 0 0 $ 30,417.96$ 30,417.96$ 72 1 5 5 0 1 0 0 6 7 1 0 1 S T E P H E N R & P A U L E T T E A C O N R O Y PO B O X 9 9 9 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 0 080.00$ -$ -$ 73 1 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 S T E P H E N R & P A U L E T T E A C O N R O Y PO B O X 9 9 9 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 26 1 B R O A D W A Y E 0 82.580.00$ 6,600.00$ 6,600.00$ 74 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 5 0 9 0 L Y L E S T R U N N E L L PO B O X 8 6 2 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 30 1 B R O A D W A Y E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 75 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 5 0 1 0 D O N A L D E & B O N N I E T H I C K M A N 54 0 3 1 6 5 T H A V E BE C K E R M N 5 5 3 0 8 35 5 B R O A D W A Y E 0 82.580.00$ 6,600.00$ 6,600.00$ 76 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 4 0 9 0 A N N M L I N D B E R G 99 0 8 1 0 7 T H A V E N MA P L E G R O V E M N 5 5 3 6 9 40 1 B R O A D W A Y E 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ K:\01494-42\Admin\Docs\Assessment\Preliminary Assessment Roll SANITARY TOTAL PR O P E R T Y ST R E E T S T R E E T S E W E R W A T E R M A I N P R O P O S E D No I D E N T I F I C A T I O N N O . P R O P E R T Y O W N E R PR O P E R T Y O W N E R PR O P E R T Y M A I L I N G A S S E S S A B L E R A T E T O T A L F F R A T E T O T A L S E R V I C E S E R V I C E A S S E S S M E N T (P I D ) AD D R E S S AD D R E S S U N I T S RE S I D E N T I A L N O N R E S I D E N T I A L 77 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 4 0 1 0 S A R A H L R A M E Y & 44 9 B R A O D W A Y S T E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 44 9 B R O A D W A Y E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 78 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 3 1 0 0 D A V I D M C N I C H O L S 24 3 7 B L A C K L A K E R D SP R I N G P A R K M N 5 5 3 8 4 11 2 W R I G H T S T 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 79 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 3 1 4 1 4 T H & B R O A D W A Y L L C PO B O X 1 6 3 9 MA P L E G R O V E M N 5 5 3 1 1 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 80 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 3 0 1 0 4 T H & B R O A D W A Y L L C 12 1 7 0 B U S I N E S S P A R K B L V D CH A M P L I N M N 5 5 3 1 6 54 9 B R O A D W A Y E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 81 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 8 0 J E F F R E Y A & S U S A N K M C I N T O S H 61 3 B R O A D W A Y E MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 60 1 B R O A D W A Y E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 82 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 1 1 S H A U N E B E R R Y M A N & 10 9 H E N N E P I N S T MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 10 9 H E N N E P I N S T 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 83 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 1 0 R I C H A R D & I S A B E L H O L K E R I R R T R 11 0 1 P A R K S T AN O K A M N 5 5 3 0 3 65 5 B R O A D W A Y E 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0 - $ 4,000.00$ 84 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 9 0 L A R R Y W I P P E R PO B O X 3 2 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 70 7 B R O A D W A Y E 0 - $ 0-$ -$ 85 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 3 0 P A T R I C I A M H O L T H A U S PO B O X 2 8 5 CA R R O L L I A 5 1 4 0 1 10 5 W A S H I N G T O N S T 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 86 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 1 1 3 1 N O R A M E N T E R P R I S E S I N C 11 2 8 2 8 6 T H A V E N MA P L E G R O V E M N 5 5 3 6 9 0- $ 4 2 . 5 8 0 . 0 0 $ 3,400.00$ 3,400.00$ 87 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 D E N N I S J & A M Y L R O B E R T S O N 12 4 M A R V I N E L W O O D R D MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 74 3 B R O A D W A Y A V E E 0 - $ 4 6 . 5 8 0 . 0 0 $ 3,720.00$ 3,720.00$ 88 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 1 6 0 3 0 R O B E R T G S T R O M 10 6 W A S H I N G T O N S T MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 10 6 W A S H I N G T O N S T 1 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 0-$ 4,000.00$ 89 1 5 5 0 1 5 0 1 6 0 1 0 T H O M A S P & L I S A P G R O S S N I C K L E 11 1 3 R I V E R S T W MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 11 0 W A S H I N G T O N S T 0 4, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 13080.00$ 10,400.00$ 10,400.00$ 68 27 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 25 2 8 . 7 7 5 202,276.86$ -$ -$ 474,276.86$ Total Assessments=474,276.86$ K:\01494-42\Admin\Docs\Assessment\Preliminary Assessment Roll Pr e l i m i n a r y As s e s s m e n t Ro l l ‐ We s t Ri v e r St r e e t 20 1 1 S T R E E T R E C O N S T R U C T I O N P R O J E C T Created: 2/8/11 CI T Y O F M O N T I C E L L O , W R I G H T C O U N T Y , M I N N E S O T A CI T Y P R O J E C T N O . 1 1 C 0 0 1 PR O P E R T Y No ID E N T I F I C A T I O N N O . PR O P E R T Y O W N E R PR O P E R T Y O W N E R PR O P E R T Y M A I L I N G ST R E E T AS S E S S A B L E RA T E ST R E E T TO T A L TOTAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENT (P I D ) AD D R E S S AD D R E S S UN I T S FFACREAGERATE PER FFRATE PER ACRETOTAL 1 15 5 5 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 1 MO N T I C E L L O A R E A A L A N O S O C I E T Y 20 2 5 R I V E R S T W MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 20 2 5 R I V E R S T W 2 $4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $8,000.00 2 15 5 5 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 ME R R L Y N L S E E F E L D T 16 7 J E R R Y L I E F E R T D R MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 21 5 0 R I V E R S T W 331.754.62$3,216.97$14,862.40$14,862.40 3 15 5 5 0 0 0 4 2 4 0 0 PR A I S E A C R E S L L C PO B O X 5 3 8 MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 155.59$80.00$12,447.20$12,447.20 4 15 5 5 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 0 NO R T H E R N S T A T E S P O W E R C O M P A N Y 41 4 N I C O L L E T M A L L MI N N E A P O L I S M N 5 5 4 0 1 21 0 0 R I V E R S T W 650$80.00$52,000.00$52,000.00 5 15 5 5 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 2 JE F F R E Y E & J O A N C M I C H A E L I S 63 0 E 4 T H S T MO N T I C E L L O M N 5 5 3 6 2 21 5 6 R I V E R S T W 3.63$3,216.97$11,677.60$11,677.60 TOTAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT$98,987.20 RE S I D E N T I A L NON RESIDENTIAL K:\01494-42\Admin\Docs\Assessment\Preliminary Assessment Roll H a rt Blv d River St W T e rritorial Rd E Broadway St Washington St Cedar St Pine St Hennepin St Ramsey StWright StNew St Palm St River St E 4th St E 3rd St E River St E 7 t h St E 53 80 79 81 54 55 56 83 82 84 57 58 59 858687 7 88 60 61 64 63 62 65 1 67 6869 66 32 33 71 70 23 89 22212019 272625 24 28 3029 31 2 4 3 8 65 109 14131211 18171615 363534 37 38 39 73 51 72 74 40 41 42 43 44 75 76 45 46 47 48 77 78 49 50 52 File: K:\01494-42\GIS\Maps\assessments.mxd, Dec 29, 2010 2:25:46 PM City of Monticello 2011 Street Reconstruction ¹ 0 300Feet Proposed Assessed Properties(CP 11C001) Residential Non-Residential City Owned Hospital !"b$ EÕGH 116TH STRE E T N E TOWNSHIP ROAD RIVER STREET WEST AL P I N E D R I V E MA R V I N E L W O O D R O A D CR O C U S L A N E CR O C U S CIR C L E HILL C R E S T CIRC L E CSAH 75 PRAIRIE ROAD EL W O O D R O A D RIVER ST. RAI L R O A D 2 4 5 3 1 File: K:\01494-42\GIS\Maps\RSW_prop.mxd, Jan 25, 2011 3:08:35 PM West River Street2011 Street Reconstruction (CP 11C001)Monticello, MN µ0 500 FeetProposed Assessed Parcels Feasibility Report 2011 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4B & West River Street Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 11C001 APPENDIX D Geotechnical Evaluation Report