City Council Agenda Packet 02-28-2011AGENDA
SPECIALMEETING–MONTICELLOCITYCOUNCIL
Monday,February28,2011–5:30p.m.
PublicWorksOffice
Mayor:ClintHerbst
CouncilMembers:LloydHilgart,TomPerrault,GlenPosusta,BrianStumpf
1.CalltoOrder
2.PurposeofMeeting:Reviewcapitalexpendituresandbudgeteditemsfor2011forPublic
Works
3.Workshop–ConsiderationofauthorizingreplacementofPublicWorksCapital
Equipment
4.Adjournment
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
1
3.ConsiderationofauthorizingreplacementofPublicWorksCapitalEquipment
(TM/BP)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
StaffwouldlikeCounciltoconsiderreplacementofagedequipmentcurrentlyusedin
operationsbythePublicWorksDepartment.Inthe2011CIP,thePublicWorks
Departmentrequestedreplacementoftheshopventilationsystem,a1978Fordflail
mowingtractoranda1992Forddump-plowtruck.WeareaskingCounciltovisitthe
PublicWorksfacilityandtakeafirsthandlookattheshopandequipment.
InJanuaryof2005,PublicWorksadoptedaVehicleReplacementPolicyasaguideline
sothedepartmentcanefficientlyevaluatethereplacementofequipment.Thegoalisto
maintainallequipmentingood/safe/efficientoperatingconditionandreplacethe
equipmentbeforeitbecomesadetrimentorsafetyproblemfortheCity.
PublicWorkshasothercapitalequipmentlistedontheCIP.IfCouncilwishestodiscuss
theseitems,staffwilladvisewithinformationavailabletodate.
Ventilation
Theoriginalshopwasbuiltin1975,andatthattimeaventilationsystemwasinstalled
withtheproject.In1992avehiclestoragebuildingwasaddedtothenorthend.Thenin
1995thetwobuildingswerejoinedtogether,addingapaintbooth/combinationwashbay.
Alsoaddedontothesouthsideofthebuildingisthelunchroom,bathroomsand
administrationoffice.Atthattime,itwasnottakenintoconsiderationwhetherthe
existingventilationsystemcouldhandlethefumesduringperiodsofexcessivewelding
andrunningofdieseltrucksintheshop.Sincethen,officepersonnelhavereported
numeroustimesofsmellingfumesoftenresultinginheadaches.Ventilationmorethan
likelywouldbeafutureissueonanOSHAvisit.Stafffeelsthisisasafetyissuefor
visitors,personnelintheoffice,andtothe18staffmembersintheshopenvironmentona
dailybasis.
Tractor
In2001,wepurchasedaused19874610Fordtractorequippedwitharearandside
mountedflailmower.Itisusedtomowditches,outlots,city-ownedlots,pondareas,and
alongpathwaysandroughareasofparks.Thisunitisnowinits24th yearofoperation
andonlyoffersuseinthesummermonthsforlackofauseablecabandmatchingwinter
attachments.Thisisawellusedmachineandithasservedauseablelife;howeverparts
arebecomingscarceandbreakdownsarebecomingmorefrequent.
Togiveyouanideaoftheamountofareaitcovers,wemow38lanemilesofditches,a
totalof2acresattheendof8differentdeadendstreets,1acrearoundvariouscul-de-
sacs,3acresalongpathways,17acresaroundvariousponds,and39acresofvariouslots
andoutlotsthatthecityowns.Thisparticulartractorcanonlybeusedinthesummer
months.
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
2
Wehavehadinjuriesrelatedtotheopencabsuchasbeestings,particlesineyes,andat
worstawirefromalocatemarkerwasejectedfromtheflailmowerdeckandembedded
intotheoperator’sback.Theneedforaclimatecontrolledcabtominimizedecibeland
environmentalexposureandtoreduceinhalationofdustandparticulatesintothe
operator’slungsarealsofactorsinsafety.
Asawaytomaximizeuseofequipment,staffadvisespurchasingatractorthatcanalso
beusedforsnowplowingparkinglots,cul-de-sacsandpathwayswiththeadditionof
respectivesnowremovalattachments.Wecould,therefore,utilizethispieceof
equipmentyeararound.
PlowTruck
Wehavea1992Fordplowtruckwhichisinits19thyearofoperation.Accordingto
policystandards,ithasmetandexceededlifeexpectancyforourneeds.Weareasking
youtolookatthetruckfirsthandandgiveusanopportunitytoexplainwhatwewould
liketoreplaceitwith.Supportingdocumentationshowsourequipmentlifeexpectancy
comparedtoothercities’equipmentlifeexpectancy,withonlyonecityexceedingthe
lengthoftimewekeepourequipment.
In2000,wereplaceda1985Internationaldump-plowtruckwitha2000SterlingHook
Lifttruckthathastheabilityofexchangingbodies.Alongwiththattruck,wepurchased
adumpbody,V-boxsander,flatbed,aconstructiondumpbody,andanasphalthotbox;
andstaffbuiltananti-icingtankapplicator.
Ahookliftroll-on/roll-offsystemusesahydraulicliftconnectedtoahook.Itisversatile
inthatitcaneasilychangebodies.
Thisuniquesystemhasproveditselfmanytimesover,allowingustouseonetruckfor
manyfunctions.Thereisconstantdemandforthistypeoftruckinallthedepartmentsof
thePublicWorksoperations.Staffbelievesthat,withtwoofthesetrucks,PublicWorks
Departmentwilloperatemoreefficientlyasthereismorefrequentneedtousetwo
attachments,especiallyinwinter.Morecitiesarereplacingstandardplowtruckswith
HookLifttrucks.MonticellowassecondtoNorthStPaultousethistechnologywhenit
initiallybecameavailable.Ourswasthefirstinthenationtoincorporateahotboxandan
anti-icingtankapplicator.Thehotboxsystemisnowdistributednationwideandanti-
icingtankbodies,wearesure,willfollowthetrend.Wehavehadmultiplecitiesvisitto
observeandadoptmultipleunitsintotheirfleet.Staffiscontinuallycomingupwithideas
fornewattachments;therearelimitlesspossibilities.
A1.BudgetImpact:Budgetedfor2011is$248,250foraHookLiftTruckandplow
attachments,$80,000foraDitchMowTractor,and$14,000foraShop
Ventilationsystem.
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffwillrequireseveralweekstoresearch,demo,and
writespecsoneachpieceofequipment,somewillrequiremoretimethanothers.
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
3
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.Motiontoauthorizestafftosolicitquotesand/orbidsonaHookLiftTruckand
plowattachments,asuitablesizeTractor,andaShopVentilationSystem
designedaccordingtospecifications,whichwillbepreparedbystaff.
2.Motiontodenyauthorizationtosolicitquotesand/orbidsatthistime.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1tosolicitquotesand/orbidsonthevariouspieces
ofequipmentlistedandbringbacktoCouncilforapprovaltopurchaseequipment.
Underthisalternative,PublicWorksstaffwouldbegintheprocessofresearchingand
developingspecificationsfortheequipmentdesignatedforreplacementpriortosoliciting
quotesand/orbids.
Theneedtobringcertainequipmentforwardearlyintheyearisthebuildtimerequired.
Anordermustbeputinbeforethemanufacturersbuildcutoffdateortheequipmentwill
notbecompletedintheyearordered.Generally,for28,000GVWvehiclesthedateis
June1st;theearliertheorder,thesoonerthedeliverydate.Ifanorderdateisnearthe
deadline,deliverycanbeexpectedintoDecemberofthatyear.Riggingofattachments
willrequiremoretime,soseasonaluseoftheequipmentcouldbeaffected.
IfthereareothercapitalitemsthatCouncilrecommendsconsideringforreplacement,
CitystaffwouldappreciatedirectionfromCouncil.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
CapitalImprovementPlan–pageshowingPublicWorksequipmentbudget
Monticelloequipmentlifeexpectancyschedule
Surveyofothercities’equipmentlifeexpectancyschedule
F:\ADMIN\WORDPROC\POLICIES\VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY PROPOSAL 2005.DOCX: 2/10/05 - Page 1 of 2 -
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY PROPOSAL
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
January 21, 2005
(Revised November 19, 2008)
The purpose of the guidelines is to create a means by which the department can efficiently evaluate the
replacement of the department’s equipment.
The goal is to maintain all equipment in good/safe/efficient operating condition and replace equipment
before it becomes a detriment or safety problem for the city.
PROPOSAL:
< All equipment will be evaluated at least two years before a possible replacement year. This will
allow us to plan ahead for future budgets and will give the city the flexibility of delaying
replacement of equipment if necessary.
< Pickups (1/2 ton, 3/4 ton and 1 tons) and light duty trucks are evaluated after 8 years of service for
expected replacement at age 10 to 12 years. This includes a vehicle inspection by the city’s
mechanic or a reliable dealership, a trade in value of the vehicle is determined, and an estimate of
how much longer the vehicle will perform efficient service for the city. This will help decide when
it will be most cost efficient to replace the vehicle. The vehicle will be inspected and evaluated
every two years after the initial eight year inspection.
< Other smaller motorized equipment such as tractors, skid steers, lawn mowers, etc. will be
assessed after 5 years and every two years after the initial inspection, with expected replacement at
age 7 to 9 years.
< Attachments will be assessed annually as to usage, wear, safety, and performance.
< If any piece of equipment is found to have possible safety issues or excessive miles/hour
associated with operation, that piece of equipment will have first priority for replacement.
< Each year at the departmental budget meetings the replacement schedule will be re-evaluated and
shared with other departments. The equipment replacement priority list will be determined at that
time.
< Additional new equipment purchases will be done when it has been shown that departmental
inefficiencies are occurring due to lack of equipment or that the city’s public service needs are
being negatively affected.
< Compact 4 x 4 pickups commonly used for off road construction inspection will be evaluated after
6 years with possible replacement at 8 years.
< The city will attempt to sell all vehicles and equipment outright through a bid process once trade-in
values are known.
F:\ADMIN\WORDPROC\POLICIES\VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY PROPOSAL 2005.DOCX: 2/10/05 - Page 2 of 2 -
< Projected growth may require keeping better trade-ins for backup use or transportation service.
< Large dump trucks: evaluated at 10 years of age for replacement at 12 or 14 years.
< Small loaders (non skid steer) and street sweepers: evaluated at 8 years of age with replacement at
10 to 12 years.
< Large loaders: evaluated at 10 years of age with replacement at 12 to 16 years.
< Motor grader: continue to buy late model used; evaluate at 18 years of age with replacement at 20
to 22 years.
< All trailers: inspect yearly with replacement as needed.
< Specialized equipment: Inspect yearly with replacement as needed.
< Vac-Con sewer cleaner: Evaluate yearly with estimated replacement at 12 - 16 years as well as
other wastewater treatment plant heavy duty rolling stock such as trucks, trailers and applicators.
AGENDA
REGULARMEETING–MONTICELLOCITYCOUNCIL
Monday,February28,2011–7p.m.
Mayor:ClintHerbst
CouncilMembers:LloydHilgart,TomPerrault,GlenPosusta,BrianStumpf
1.CalltoOrderandPledgeofAllegiance
2A.ApprovalofMinutes–February14,2011RegularMeeting
3.Considerationofaddingitemstotheagenda
4.Citizencomments,publicserviceannouncements,andstaffupdates
a.CitizenComments:
b.PublicServiceAnnouncements:
1)MarchMadness5KRun(3/22?)
c.StaffUpdates:
1)IntroductionofFiberNetMonticelloGeneralManagerJerryOlson
5.ConsentAgenda:
A.ConsiderationofapprovingnewhiresanddeparturesforCitydepartments
B.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-11approvingcontributionfromTom
PerraultfortheGeneralFund
C.Considerationofapprovingatemporarycharitablegamblingapplicationfora
raffleconductedbyWrightCountyDucksUnlimited
D.Considerationofapproving2010OperatingTransfers
E.Considerationofapproving2010FundBalanceDesignations
F.ConsiderationofwaivingstatutoryliabilitylimitsforCityinsurancerenewals
G.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-10amendingthe2008Monticello
ComprehensivePlanwiththeadditionofChapter6–TransportationPlan
H.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-12statingIntenttoReimbursefrom
BondProceedsfor2011StreetReconstructionImprovements,CityProjectNo.
11C001
SPECIALMEETING
5:30p.m.–Workshop:PublicWorksCapitalEquipment
(TobeheldatPublicWorksOffice)
I.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-14approving2011MunicipalState
AidSystemDesignationsandRevocations
J.Considerationofauthorizingout-of-statetravelfortrainingontheMetaSwitch
phonesystemforFiberNetemployees
K.Considerationofacceptingpreliminary4th QuarterFinancialreport
L.Considerationofadopting Resolution#2011-16toOrderAbatementofHazardous
Property
6.Considerationofitemsremovedfromtheconsentagendafordiscussion
7.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-13orderingimprovements
andauthorizingpreparationoffinalPlansandSpecificationsfor2011Street
Reconstructionproject,CityProjectNo.11C001
8.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofapprovingsubmissiontotheDepartmentofNatural
ResourcesoftheMonticello2011OutdoorRecreationGrantApplicationRequestforthe
PhaseIVPropertyAcquisitionattheBertramChainofLakesRegionalPark
9.Addeditems
10.ApprovepaymentofbillsforFebruary28th
11.Adjournment
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
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
Name Title Department Hire Date Class
Benjamin Schacht Slide Attendant MCC 2/7 PT
Craig Jacobson Liquor Store Clerk Hi-Way Liquors 2/14 PT
Name Reason Department Last Day Class
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
5A hires-terms 022811.xlsx: 2/24/2011
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
1
5B.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-11toacceptcontributionfromTom
PerraultfortheGeneralFund (CS)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
TomPerraultiscontributing$250forFebruarytogointotheGeneralFund.Asrequired
bystatestatute,iftheCityacceptsthedonationoffunds,theCityCouncilneedstoadopt
aresolutionspecifyingtheamountofthedonationanditsuse.
A1.BudgetImpact:None
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffaccountsforandreconcilesdonationscontributed
throughtheCity.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.Approvethecontributionsandauthorizeuseoffundsasspecified.
2.Donotapprovethecontributionsandreturnthefundstothedonors.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommendationistoadopttheresolutionacceptingthecontributions.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
ResolutionNo.2011-11
CityofMonticello
RESOLUTIONNO.2011-11
APPROVINGCONTRIBUTIONS
WHEREAS,theCityofMonticelloisgenerallyauthorizedtoaccept
contributionsofrealandpersonalpropertypursuanttoMinnesotaStatutesSections
465.03and465.04forthebenefitofitscitizensandisspecificallyauthorizedtomaintain
suchpropertyforthebenefitofitscitizensinaccordancewiththetermsprescribedbythe
donor.SaidgiftsmaybelimitedunderprovisionsofMNStatutesSection471.895.
WHEREAS,thefollowingpersonsandorentitieshaveofferedtocontribute
contributionsorgiftstotheCityaslisted:
DONOR/ENTITYDESCRIPTIONVALUE
TomPerraultCash$250
WHEREAS,allsaidcontributionsareintendedtoaidtheCityinestablishing
facilities,operationsorprogramswithinthecity’sjurisdictioneitheraloneorin
cooperationwithothers,asallowedbylaw;and
WHEREAS,theCityCouncilherebyfindsthatitisappropriatetoacceptthe
contributionsoffered.
NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVED bytheCityCouncilofMonticelloas
follows:
1.ThecontributionsdescribedaboveareherebyacceptedbytheCityof
Monticello.
2.Thecontributionsdescribedabovewillbeusedasdesignatedbythe
donor.Thismayentailreimbursingorallocatingthemoneytoanother
entitythatwillutilizethefundsforthefollowingstatedpurpose:
DONOR/ENTITYRECIPIENTPURPOSE
TomPerraultCityofMonticelloGeneralfund(Feb)
AdoptedbytheCityCouncilofMonticellothis28thdayofFebruary,2011.
CITYOFMONTICELLO
______________________________
ClintHerbst,Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator
CouncilAgenda:02/28/11
1
5C.Considerationofapprovingatemporarycharitablegamblingapplicationfora
raffleconductedbyWrightCountyDucksUnlimited (TK)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
WrightCountyDucksUnlimitedhasappliedtotheCityforapprovalofapermitfora
charitablegamblingfund-raisingeventtobeheldonMay23,2010atRiverCityExtreme
inMonticello.
ToreceiveapermitfromtheState,theCitymustapprovetheapplication.Inthepastthe
Cityhasnotopposedtheseexemptgamblinglicenseapplicationsforcharitableevents.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.Motiontoapprovetheonedaycharitablegamblingapplicationforaraffletobe
conductedbyWrightCountyDucksUnlimitedonMay2,2010.
2.Motiontodenytherequest.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
StaffsupportsAlternative#1andisnotawareofanyreasonwhythisapplicationshould
notbeapproved.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
ApplicationforExemptGamblingPermit
Copyoffinancialreport
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
1
5D.Considerationofapproving2010OperatingTransfers (TK)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
Everyyear,theCitytransfersmoneyfromoneCityfundtoanotherCityfund.These
transfershappenforvariousreasonsincludingprovidingfundingsourcesforCity
projects,repaymentofdebt,ortofundoperationsinsteadofapropertytaxlevy.Someof
thesetransferswereanticipatedandaccountedintheCity’s2010budget.Othersbecame
necessaryduringthecourseofoperationsduringtheyearorbasedonfundingdecisions
madebystafforCouncilduringtheyear.Whateverthereasonforthetransfers,itisa
goodmanagementpracticetoprovidetheCityCouncilwithalistofthetransfersmade
andhaveCouncilapprovethetransfers.
Attachedisalistofthe2010operatingtransfersfortheCity.Adescriptionofeach
transferisprovidedbelow.
1.TheCitybudgetedthepurchaseofpublicworksstreetequipmentinboththe
GeneralFundandtheCapitalRevolvingFundinthepast.Thetransferof
$45,000totheGeneralFundisforthepurchaseofstreetdepartmentequipment
andwasincludedinthe2010budget.
2.Thetransferof$4,000fromtheGeneralFundtotheLibraryFundwasincludedin
the2010budgetandwasnecessarybasedonoperatingexpenditures.
3.TheCity’s2010budgetalsoincludedatransferfromtheLiquorFundtothe
LibraryFundtohelpfundoperationsattheLibraryinsteadofapropertytaxlevy.
4.TheStreetReconstructionFundhasabudgetedtransferof$250,000fromthe
LiquorFundinplaceofapropertytaxlevy.
5.ThetransferintotheEDAFundfromthe2004ATaxableTIFBondwasnot
budgetedbutisneededtoretirethe2004ATaxableTIFBondandcloseoutthat
fundwhichisnolongerneeded.
6.Alsotocloseoutthisfund,theCityneedstotransfer$356,179fromtheEDA
Fundintothe2004ATaxableTIFBondforitsshareofthescheduled2010bond
payment.
7.The$343,201transferintotheConsolidatedBondFundfromthe2003ABond
Fundclosesthe2003ABondFundsincetheCityretiredthedebtin2010andthe
fundisnolongerneededorrequired.Thistransferwasnotbudgetedin2010.
8.Thetransferof$187,317intothe2002BondFundfromthe2010Improvement&
RefinancingBondFundistocloseoutthefundandretirethedebtofthe2002
Bondwhichwasrefinancedwiththe2010Bond.Thistransferalsowasnot
budgetedbutrequiredtocloseoutthe2002BondFund.
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
2
9.Thenextfourtransfersintothe2005BondFundallwerebudgetedin2010and
arebasedonthefundingsourcesofthe2005bondissuance.Thesetransfers
include$317,277fromtheEDAFund,$712,859fromtheSewerAccessFund,
$264,599fromtheStormSewerAccessFund,and$310,774fromtheWater
AccessFund.
10.Thetransferof$805,000fromtheCommunityCenterFundtothe2008A
RevenueRefundingBondwasbudgetedandisbasedonthe2008ARevenue
RefundingBondfinancingplanwhenthebondswereissued.
11.Thetransferof$400,137intothe2008SewerRefundingBondFundisforthe
SanitarySewerAccessFund’sshareofthe2010bondpaymentbasedonthedebt
retirementschedule.
12.ThetransferintotheLiquorFundof20,063wasnotbudgetedin2010butconsist
of$10,032fromtheCommunityCenterand$10,031fromtheFiberNetFundfor
theirshareoftheelectronicreaderboardinstalledontheLiquorStoresign.
13.Thefinaltransferwasnotbudgetedandisbasedonthecurrentundesignatedfund
balanceoftheGeneralFund.Basedonthe2010revenueandexpenditureactivity
plusthe2009undesignatedfundbalance,theCitywouldhaveapproximately
$2,000,000.00inundesignatedfundbalanceintheGeneralFund.WhiletheCity
needstomaintainsomeundesignatedfundbalanceintheGeneralFundthisis
excessiveforourpossibleneeds.Forthatreason,staffwouldrecommend
transferring$1,200,000.00outoftheGeneralFundandintothefollowingfunds.
$300,000totheParkDedicationFundtohelpfinancethenextpurchaseof
BertramChainofLakes.ThiswillprovidetheCitythefundstopurchase
section7betweenthelakesincludingthebeacharea.
$200,000totheCommunityCenterFundforbuildingrepairs.
Remaining$700,000toreducethe$3,344,000cashdeficitintheI-
94/CSAH18InterchangeConstructionFund.
Thesearethe2010operatingtransfersproposedbystafftofundCityoperationsandfund
futurepurchases,projectsortoreducefunddeficits.
A1.BudgetImpact:Asnoted,someofthetransferswereincludedinthe2010
budget,whileothertransfersareneedtocloseoutfundsthatarenolongerneeded
orrequired.Finallysometransfersweremadetobetteraccountforfuture
expenditures,financefutureprojectsorreducefunddeficits.
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Therearenostaffworkloadimpactsforthesetransfers.
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
3
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.Motiontoapprovethe2010operatingtransfersaslisted.
2.Motiontoapprovesomevariationofthe2010operatingtransfers.
3.Motiontodenythe2010operatingtransfers.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1,toapprovethe2010operatingtransfersaslisted.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
Listof2010operatingtransfers
TransfersInTransferOut
Fund#FundAmountFund#FundAmount
#1101GeneralFund45,000240CapitalRevolvingFund45,000
#2211LibraryFund4,000101GeneralFund4,000
#3211LibraryFund16,000609LiquorFund16,000
#4212StreetReconstructionFund250,000609LiquorFund250,000
#5213EDAFund5,3013792004ATaxableTIFBond5,301
#63792004ATaxableTIFBond356,179213EDAFund356,179
#7300ConsolidatedBondFund343,2013112003ABondFund343,201
#83102002BondFund187,3173172010AImprov.&RefinancingBd187,317
#9213EDAFund317,277
3122005AG.O.BondFund1,605,509262SanitarySewerAccessFund712,859
263StormSewerAccessFund264,599
265WaterAccessFund310,774
#103142008RevenueRefundingBond805,000226CommunityCenterFund805,000
#113152008SewerRefundingBond400,137262SanitarySewerAccessFund400,137
#12609LiquorStoreFund20,063226CommunityCenterFund10,032
656FiberNetConstructionFund10,031
#13229ParkDedicationFund300,000
226CommunityCenterFund200,000101GeneralFund1,200,000
486I-94/CSAH18InterchangeFund700,000
TotalTransfersIn5,237,707TotalTransfersOut5,237,707
BudgetedOperatingTransfers
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
1
5E.Considerationofapproving2010FundBalanceDesignations (TK)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
AttheendoftheCity’sfiscalyearthedifferencebetweenrevenuesandexpendituresis
closedoutintothefundbalanceaccountofeachindividualCityfund.Someofthese
fundbalancesarerestrictedbylaworbythenatureoftheirrevenuesource.Forexample,
parkdedicationfeescollectedfromdeveloperorindividualarerestrictedforparkland
purchases.Inaddition,debtservice(bond)fundsarerestrictedfortherepaymentofdebt.
Besidesthesefundsthatarelegallyrestricted,theCitymaydesignateallorportionsof
fundbalancesforfutureuse,suchasequipmentpurchasesorcapitalprojects.Attheend
of2010,staffrecommendsthefollowingfundbalancedesignations:
GeneralFund:
DesignationforWorkingCapital(45%of2011Budget)$2,875,000.00
DesignationforContingencies(5%of2011Budget)$320,000.00
StreetReconstructionFund:
DesignationforFutureEdmonson$187,990.61
DesignationforElkStreet$10,300.00
DesignationforFuture85th $135,636.50
Designationfor7th StreetExtension$600,000.00
DesignationforFenningAve.$202,077.55
DesignationforFallonAve.$72,015.00
DesignationforHaug&95th $122,500.00
CommunityCenterFund:
DesignationforBuildingRepairs$200,000.00
CapitalRevolvingFund:
DesignationforCommunicationImprovements$48,516.79
TheCityshoulddesignatethesefundbalancesbecausetheStateAuditorandthe
LegislatureoftenpointtoCitiesashavingexcessfundbalances(reserves)and,thatby
designatingthefundbalances,itwilldemonstratethattheCityhasapurposefor
maintainingthesereserves.Theexplanationforthedesignationoffundbalancesis
describedbelow.
GeneralFund:
Theworkingcapitaldesignationis45%ofthe2011GeneralFundbudgetperCity
reservepolicy.TheStateAuditorrecommendsCitiesmaintain35%to50%of
nextyear’sbudgetforworkingcapitaltofundCityoperationsuntilcitiesreceive
theirfirsthalftaxsettlementinJuly.
Thecontingencydesignationisforunexpected“mustfund”itemsduringtheyear.
Thisisnotforitemsthatwouldbenicetohavebutwerenotbudgeteditems.This
designationismoreformajor,mustgetdone,unexpecteditems,suchasifastorm
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
2
destroyedtreesallaroundtheCityandweneededtohiretreetrimmersand
removerstohelpclearstreetsandpowerlines.
StreetReconstructionFund:
Allofthesedesignationswerefundscollectedfromassessmentstodevelopersfor
futuremajorstreetimprovementprojects.Whenothervacantlandintheareais
developedtheimprovementswillbeneededforthoseareas.
CommunityCenterFund:
Basedonapprovalofthe2010operatingtransferagendaitem,ifthe$200,000is
transferredfromtheGeneralFundtotheCommunityCenterFundforbuilding
repairsneeded.Designatethosefunds.
CapitalRevolvingFund:
Thisdesignationisfrom2009unbudgetedcablefranchisefeerevenueswhich
werereturnedtotheCityforthepurposeoffinancingcommunication
enhancementsintheMississippiRoomorotherCityfacilitiesandtoimprove
otherCitycommunicationtools.
A1.BudgetImpact:Theamountdesignatedwillnotneedtobebudgetedandlevied
forinfutureyearssincethesefundsarebeingsetasideforthepurchaseor
improvement;therefore,thebudgetimpactistolowerthebudgetintheyearthe
purchaseorworkiscompleted.
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Therewouldbenostaffworkloadimpactsforthese
reserves.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.Motiontoapprovethe2010fundbalancedesignationsaslisted.
2.Motiontoapprovesomevariationofthe2010fundbalancedesignations.
3.Motiontodenythe2010fundbalancedesignations.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
Citystaffrecommendsalternative#1fortheapprovalofthe2010fundbalance
designationsaslisted.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
None
CouncilAgenda:2/28/2011
1
5F.ConsiderationofwaivingstatutoryliabilitylimitsforCityinsurancerenewals (TK)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
ThepurposeofthisitemistohavetheCouncilformallyadoptwhetheritwantstowaive
ornotwaiveitsmonetarylimitsontortliabilityaspartoftheirinsurancecoverage.
OurannualinsurancecoveragesarerenewableinMarchofeachyear,andaspartofthe
renewalprocess,theCityCouncilmustformallyindicatewhethertheywanttowaive
monetarylimitsestablishedbystatestatute.Bystatestatute,statutorytortlimitsinplace
limittheCity’sliabilityto$500,000onanyclaimperindividualand$1,500,000fromall
claimantsforoneincident.Inadditiontothebasic$1,500,000coveragelimit,theCity
has,inthepast,purchasedanumbrellapolicyaddinganother$1,500,000worthof
coverage.EventhoughtheCitycarriesineffect,$3,000,000worthofliabilitycoverage,
ithasbeenthepastdecisionoftheCityCounciltonotwaiveitsmonetarylimitsontort
liabilitythusstillnormallylimitingourliabilityto$500,000perperson.IftheCouncil
didnottakethisposition,anindividualcouldseekdamagesabovethe$500,000limitin
anylawsuit.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.Motiontodenywaivingthemonetarylimitsontortliabilityestablishedby
MinnesotaStatute466.04.
2.Motiontoapprovewaivingthemonetarylimitsontortliabilityestablishedby
MinnesotaStatute466.04.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
ItistherecommendationoftheCityStaffforAlternative#1.Underthisoption,theCity
Councilwouldutilizethetortlimitsestablishedbystatestatuteandnotwaivethe
monetarylimits.Thisensuresalimitontheamountofdamagesthatanindividualcould
seekinalawsuitinvolvingtheCity.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
Copyofliabilityinsuranceapplicationform
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
1
5G.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-10amendingthe2008Monticello
ComprehensivePlanwiththeadditionofChapter6–TransportationPlan
(AS/BW)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
CityCouncilisaskedtoapprovethisresolution,whichisessentiallyahousekeeping
item,formalizingpreviousactiontakenonJanuary24th.
OnJanuary24th,theCityCouncilapprovedtheadoptionoftheTransportationPlanina
3-1-1vote.TheadoptionoftheTransportationPlanasaformalamendmenttothe
ComprehensivePlanrequiresasupermajorityvote.Councilwillrecallthatthe
TransportationPlanistoserveasChapter6oftheComprehensivePlan.
Theresolutionproposedsimplycodifiesthedecisionandthelanguageofthe
ComprehensivePlanamendment.
Councilwillrecallthatthe2008ComprehensivePlanadoptedthe1997Downtown
RevitalizationPlanastheguidingdocumentforthedowntowndistrict.Assuch,by
amendingthe2008plan,the1997planisalsoamended.
A1.BudgetImpact:Asmallfeewillbeincurredfortheupdateofthe
ComprehensivePlandocument.
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:None.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-10amendingthe2008ComprehensivePlan
withtheadditionofChapter6–TransportationPlan.
2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolution#2011-10amendingthe2008
ComprehensivePlanwiththeadditionofChapter6–TransportationPlan.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1.Thisalternativeisconsistentwithformalaction
takenbytheCityCouncilonJanuary24th andisanimportantstepinincorporationof
transportationplanningwithintheoveralllong-rangeplanningeffortsforthecommunity.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
Resolution#2011-10
CityCouncilMinutesofJanuary24,2011
ComprehensivePlan-Chapter6CoverPage
TransportationPlan-asadoptedonJanuary24,2011
CITYOFMONTICELLO
WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTIONNO.2011-10
APPROVINGANAMENDMENTTOTHE2008COMPREHENSIVEPLAN
WITHTHEADDITIONOFCHAPTER6–TRANSPORTATIONPLAN
WHEREAS,theCityadoptedanupdatetoitsmunicipalComprehensivePlanin2008;and
WHEREAS,theCityadoptedaTransportationPlanatitsregularCouncilMeetingonJanuary
24,2011;and
WHEREAS,theadoptionoftheTransportationPlan asanamendmenttotheComprehensive
PlanprovidesanappropriatetransportationchapterfortheComprehensivePlan,supportsthe
proposedlanduseplan,andfurtherstheCity’sland-useanddevelopmentpoliciesthroughthe
provisionofvitaltransportationfacilities;and
WHEREAS,itisintheCity'sbestinteresttoreevaluateitscomprehensiveplanandconsiderand
analyzeamendmentsasnecessary;and
NOWTHEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFMONTICELLO,
MINNESOTATHAT,the2008ComprehensivePlanshallbeamendedasfollows:
AdditionofChapter6–TransportationPlan(seeattachedbooklet)
ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis28th dayofFebruary,2011.
CITYOFMONTICELLO
_________________________________
ATTEST:ClintHerbst,Mayor
________________________________
JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator
Transportation | 6-12008 Comprehensive Plan
The City of Monticello anticipates the completion of an updated
Transportation Plan in 2008. Th e City will use the information in
the Transportation Plan to prepare a transportation chapter for the
Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter Contents
6
completion of an updated
will use the information in
nsportation chapter for the
Chapter Contents
Transportation
6-2 | Transportation City of Monticello
This page intentionally left blank
January 2011
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300,
Minneapolis, MN 55416 763-541-4800
Monticello
Transportation Plan
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION PLAN
January 2011
Adopted by City Council January 24, 2011
Prepared by:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
(763) 541-4800
(763) 541-1700 (Fax)
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1
2.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS .............................................................3
2.1 Background ..................................................................................................3
2.2 Existing Functional Classification ...............................................................3
2.3 Existing Jurisdictional System .....................................................................5
2.4 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................5
2.5 Current Safety Conditions............................................................................5
2.5.1 Surface Streets .................................................................................5
2.5.2 Interstate 94 ......................................................................................9
3.0 PLANNING ISSUES ...........................................................................................11
3.1 Monticello Land Use..................................................................................11
3.2 Relevant Planning Documents and Projects/Activities..............................11
3.2.1 Documents .....................................................................................11
3.2.2 Projects/Activities ..........................................................................16
4.0 ROADWAY NEEDS ............................................................................................19
4.1 2030 Deficiency Analysis ..........................................................................19
4.2 Alternatives Analysis – TH 25 Relief ........................................................20
4.2.1 Local Improvements ......................................................................21
4.2.2 Network Improvements .................................................................23
4.3 Intersection Analysis ..................................................................................28
4.4 Long-Term Planning ..................................................................................28
5.0 TRANSPORTATION PLAN ..............................................................................31
5.1 Funding Sources.........................................................................................31
5.2 Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvements .........................................32
5.2.1 Pavement Maintenance ..................................................................32
5.2.2 Future Improvement Projects .........................................................33
5.3 Future Functional Classification and Roadway Jurisdiction .....................34
5.3.1 Future Functional Classification ....................................................34
5.3.2 Future Jurisdictional Classification................................................35
5.4 Access Management and Roadway Right-of-Way ....................................35
5.4.1 Access Management ......................................................................35
5.4.2 Right-of-Way .................................................................................36
5.5 Non-Motorized Transportation ..................................................................37
5.6 Transit ........................................................................................................38
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
List of Tables
2.1 Number of Crashes by Location (2002-2006)
2.2 Crash and Severity Rates by Intersection (2002-2006)
2.3 2006 State-Wide Average Crash Rates by Intersection Category
3.1 Wright County Transportation Plan – Monticello Small Area Study Summary
3.2 Cumulative Impacts Study – Projected 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios at
Mississippi River Crossings
4.1 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming No New River Crossing
4.2 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road River Crossing
4.3 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Washington Street River Crossing
4.4 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming CSAH 18 River Crossing
4.5 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming No New Interchange
4.6 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road Interchange
4.7 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming CSAH 39 Interchange
4.8 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road Interchange Plus
CSAH 39 Interchange
5.1 Primary Future Capital Improvement Projects
5.2 City of Monticello Access Spacing Guidelines
5.3 City of Monticello Right-of-Way Guidelines
List of Figures
(Please note that all figures are compiled at the end of the text)
1.1 Regional Location Map
2.1 Planning Area Aerial Photograph
2.2 Existing Roadway Functional Classification Map
2.3 Existing Roadway Jurisdictional Classification Map
2.4 Existing Traffic Volumes
2.5 Surface Street Crash Locations and Frequencies
2.6 I-94 Crash Locations and Frequencies
3.1 Future Land Use Map
4.1 Projected Baseline 2030 Traffic Volumes
4.2 TH 25 – Local Improvement Alternatives
4.3 River Crossing Alternatives with No New Interchange – 2030 Traffic Volumes
4.4 River Crossing Alternatives with Interchange in the Vicinity of Orchard Road –
2030 Traffic Volumes
4.5 River Crossing Alternatives with Interchange in the Vicinity of CSAH 39 – 2030
Traffic Volumes
4.6 River Crossing Alternatives with Two New Interchanges – 2030 Traffic Volumes
4.7 Long-Term Roadway Improvement Plan
5.1 Future Roadway Functional Classification Map
5.2 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian/Bicycle Ways
5.3 River Rider Transit Service Map
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Monticello is located in Wright County, approximately 45 miles northwest of
downtown Minneapolis, and 30 miles southeast of St. Cloud (Figure 1.1). Given its
relative proximity to these metropolitan areas and the fact that it has quick access to
Interstate I-94, Monticello experienced rapid growth until the housing downturn
beginning in 2006. Because of its location relative to other urban centers and important
regional roadways, there is still strong potential for growth into the future once the
housing market improves.
The primary goals of this Transportation Plan are as follows:
• Identify and characterize the existing transportation system, including safety
analysis (Section 2.0).
• Identify and discuss general planning factors pertaining to future transportation
needs for the City (Section 3.0).
• Identify potential future roadway deficiencies and assess improvement options to
address the deficiencies (Section 4.0).
• Prepare an overall Transportation Plan for the City, addressing capital
improvement needs; functional classification, jurisdiction, right-of-way issues;
bike / pedestrian considerations; transit (Section 5.0).
This Transportation Plan will be summarized as Chapter 6 and included wholly by
reference into the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan Update.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
2
This page is left blank intentionally
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
3
2.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS
2.1 Background
The City of Monticello’s municipal boundaries and primary roadways are depicted on an
aerial photograph included as Figure 2.1. Historically, the City developed in an area
between the Mississippi River and what is now Interstate 94 (I-94). The construction of
I-94 in the 1970s has had a large impact on the development of Monticello. This facility
provides efficient access between Monticello and the Twin Cites to the southeast and St.
Cloud to the northwest. This has encouraged steady growth and has substantially
impacted development patterns for the City.
According to the 1970 census, the population was 1,636. By the 2000 census, this figure
had grown to 7,866, and the 2007 population as estimated by the Minnesota Office of
Geographic and Demographic Analysis at 11,253. Because much of the recent
development as taken place south of the freeway, Monticello is now divided by an
interstate freeway. This factor will become more pronounced in the future as
development continues south of I-94.
2.2 Existing Functional Classification
Roadways serve two basic functions: mobility and access. Mobility refers to relatively
rapid movement over distance, and access refers to comprehensive connection with
individual land uses. These are competing functions, in that roads designed for one
function will often not serve the other effectively. As an extreme example, freeways
cannot be used to get directly to the “corner store.” Conversely, traveling from one end
of a large metropolitan area to another by using only local streets would be a very slow
process with increased potential for crashes at intersections or other locations.
The functional classification system is a hierarchy of roadways based upon the degree to
which they provide the mobility versus the access function. The different classifications
have different design and operating standards as dictated by their respective functions. A
properly designed roadway network has an appropriate mix and integration of the
different roadway types, allowing the overall system to operate efficiently and safely.
The primary functional classifications are as follows:
• Principal Arterials
• Minor Arterials
• Collectors (major and minor)
• Local streets
Further information on these classifications and the existing network in Monticello is
provided under the following headings. The existing functional classification system for
Monticello is presented on Figure 2.2.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
4
Principal Arterials have the highest traffic capacities and volumes of all roadways.
Their purpose is to provide the mobility as opposed to access. They are intended to
connect metropolitan centers with one another as well as regions with one another. They
usually connect only with other principal arterials and select minor arterials. The
principal arterial roadway in Monticello is:
• Interstate 94
Minor Arterials provide somewhat more access than principal arterials and serve shorter
trips. However, they still are intended to primarily provide the mobility function and
should be designed accordingly. Only concentrations of commercial or industrial land
uses should have access to them. Minor arterials should connect only with principal
arterials, other minor arterials, and collectors (see below). The minor arterials serving
Monticello are either state or County roads. The Wright County Transportation Plan
states that Wright County minor arterials are generally spaced approximately five to ten
miles from other arterials.
The minor arterials in the Monticello area are:
• TH 25
• CSAH 39 (east of CSAH 75)
• CSAH 75
Major Collectors “collect” traffic from local streets and minor collectors and deliver
these travelers to other major collectors or the arterial network. Collectors generally
serve shorter trips at lower speeds than arterials. Major collectors place an equal
emphasis on the mobility and access functions referenced previously. In developing
urban areas, only local streets and large traffic generators should have access to major
collectors and spacing should every one-half mile to one mile. In rural areas, collectors
can provide more of a mobility function than in urban areas because access needs are less
significant.
The major collectors in the Monticello area are:
• CSAH 39 (west of CSAH 75)
• CSAH 37
• CSAH 18/Fenning Avenue (between CSAH 75 and CSAH 37)
• CSAH 18 (east of Fenning Avenue)
• School Boulevard (between TH 25 and Fenning Avenue)
Minor Collectors serve approximately the same function as major collectors (connecting
local traffic to the larger network) but place a greater emphasis on land access than
mobility. They generally do not carry as much volume as major collectors and can
accommodate more driveway connections.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
5
The minor collectors in the Monticello area are:
• CR 117/Edmonson Avenue
• CR 106
• Chelsea Road
• 7th Street (between TH 25 and Fenning Avenue)
Local Streets are intended to provide access to individual parcels of land as their primary
function. They generally serve short trips at low speeds. In most cases, they will
connect to other local streets or collectors. All of the roads not depicted on Figure 2.2 as
arterials or collectors are local streets.
2.3 Existing Jurisdictional System
Roadways are classified on the basis of which level of government owns or has
jurisdiction over the road. The levels of government which have involvement for
roadways within the City are the State of Minnesota (Mn/DOT), Wright County, the City
of Monticello, and Monticello Township. Mn/DOT maintains the Interstate and Trunk
Highway System. Wright County maintains the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) and
County Road (CR) systems. The remaining streets (including State Aid streets) located
within the City are the responsibility of the City of Monticello. Non-County streets that
are on a municipal/township boundary are jointly owned by the City and the Township.
These City/Township roads are maintained through agreements between the City and
Township. Figure 2.3 depicts the jurisdictional classification for roadways serving
Monticello.
2.4 Existing Traffic Volumes
Current average Daily Traffic volumes (ADT) on major streets in the City of Monticello
are shown on Figure 2.4. The ADT volumes consist of the total traffic carried on the
identified road in a typical 24-hour period. The information depicted on Figure 2.4 is the
most current data available for each volume location identified.
2.5 Current Safety Conditions
Crash data was obtained from Mn/DOT and was used to evaluate the relative safety of
the transportation network within Monticello. All reported crashes contained within the
Mn/DOT data set between 2002 and 2006 were used in the safety evaluation. The
evaluation was used to determine both the frequency and severity of crashes located at
intersections. The crash data was also reviewed to locate additional non-intersection
accident clusters at other potential problem locations.
2.5.1 Surface Streets
The evaluation revealed 39 intersections and one additional non-intersection cluster with
three or more crashes. Table 2.1 presents the number of crashes identified at each
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
6
Intersection / Location Crashes
(2002-2006)Intersection / Location Crashes
(2002-2006)
TH 25 / 7th St 75 Fenning Ave / Chelsea Rd 5
TH 25 bridge over I-94 48 CSAH 75 / Locust St 4
TH 25 / Chelsea Rd 39 Edmonson Ave / Dundas Rd 4
TH 25 / Oakwood Dr 39 Maple St / 3rd St 4
TH 25 / CSAH 75 38 School Blvd / Fenning Ave NE 4
TH 25 / 6th St 35 W River St / Otter Creek Rd 4
TH 25 / River St 34 Walnut St / 7th St 4
TH 25 / 4th St 15 CSAH 75 / River St W 3
TH 25 / School Blvd 13 CSAH 75 / Walnut St 3
CSAH 75 / Elm St 12 CSAH 75 / Willow St 3
Golf Course Rd / Elm St 11 Elm St / 3rd St 3
TH 25 / 3rd St 11 Fallon Ave / Chelsea Rd 3
CSAH 75 / Cedar St 10*Locust St / 3rd St 3
School Blvd / Cedar St 10 Maple St / 6th 3
CSAH 75 / Washington St 9 Sandberg Rd / Chelsea Rd 3
CSAH 75 / CSAH 39 8 TH 25 / I-94 WB ramps 3
CSAH 75 / Hart (west)7 TH 25 / I-94 EB ramps 3
Walnut St / 7th St 7 Walnut St / 3rd St 3
CSAH 75 / Hart (east)6
SOURCE: Mn/DOT; WSB & Associates, Inc.
*Includes a fatality in 2002.
location. Figure 2.5 displays the location and number of crashes at each location. The
highest cluster of accidents identified occurred at the intersection of TH 25 and 7th Street.
The non-intersection crash cluster identified was on the TH 25 Bridge over I-94. The
analysis revealed one fatality at the intersection of CSAH 75 and Cedar Street in 2002.
TABLE 2.1
Number of Crashes by Location – 2002-2006
(Table contains locations with three or more crashes)
The 15 intersections experiencing the greatest number of crashes were also evaluated to
determine the crash rate and severity rate. Crash rates for intersections were calculated in
terms of accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection. Severity rates were
calculated using the same formula used to calculate crash rates, but each accident is
weighted as follows: fatality – 5 points; incapacitating injury – 4 points; non-
incapacitating injury – 3 points; potential injury – 2 points; property damage only (no
injury) – 1 point. Table 2.2 presents the crash rates and severity rates for the 15
intersections in Monticello with the highest total number of crashes. For comparison,
Table 2.3 presents summary statewide crash rate information for different categories of
intersections as compiled by Mn/DOT.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
7
Intersection / Location Crashes
(2002-2006)
Crash
Rate
Severity
Rate
TH 25 / 7th St 75 1.20 1.59
TH 25 / Chelsea Rd 39 1.13 1.48
School Blvd / Cedar St 10 1.09 1.19
TH 25 / Oakwood Dr 39 0.96 1.35
Golf Course Rd / Elm St 11 0.92 1.25
TH 25 / River St 34 0.68 0.86
TH 25 / 6th St 35 0.68 1.14
CSAH 75 / Elm St 12 0.63 0.95
TH 25 / CSAH 75 38 0.49 0.74
CSAH 75 / Cedar St 10 0.39 0.63
TH 25 / School Blvd 13 0.35 0.48
TH 25 / 4th St 15 0.32 0.47
CSAH 75 / Washington St 9 0.31 0.38
TH 25 / 3rd St 11 0.23 0.30
CSAH 75 / CSAH 39 8 0.19 0.24
Low Volume/
High Speed
High Volume/
High Speed
Low Volume/
Low Speed
High Volume/
Low Speed
Urban or
Suburban
Through/Stop
All Way
Stop
Crash Rate 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.6
Severity Rate 1.1 1.2 0.8 1 0.4 0.8
SOURCE: Mn/DOT
NOTE: “Low Volume” = less than 15,000 daily vehicles; “High Volume” = greater than 15,000 daily vehicles; “Low Speed” = less than
45 mile per hour zone; “High Speed” = greater than 45 mile per hour zone; “Through/Stop” = no stop signs on the major street, stop
signs on the minor street; “All Way Stop” = stop signs on all four entering streets.
Signalized Unsignalized
TABLE 2.2
Crash and Severity Rates by Intersection (2002-2006)
TABLE 2.3
2006 State-Wide Average Crash Rates by Intersection Category
A useful way to review the information provided in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 and on Figure 2.5
is as follows:
• Total number of crashes indicates the general scale of the potential problem
• Crash and severity rates can indicate the degree to which the problem is likely the
result of a unique or specific deficiency associated with the facility or area in
question
Trunk Highway 25
Nine of the ten intersections with the highest total number of crashes in Monticello were
located along TH 25. This isn’t surprising, given that TH 25 also carries the highest
traffic volumes other than I-94. TH 25 is a minor arterial roadway carrying high volumes
of regional traffic, yet it is also an important street for local traffic, and there are currently
many local street and private driveway access points.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
8
In addition to intersection crash rates, Mn/DOT has also established guidelines for
calculating segment crash rates: the number of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled
on a given stretch of roadway. The 2002-2006 crash rate for TH 25 from School
Boulevard to River Street was 6.45. Based upon information provided by Mn/DOT, the
2006 Minnesota average for this type of roadway ranges from 3.7 (urban four-lane
divided) to 4.7 (urban four-lane undivided).
Summary Observations
1. Overall, Trunk Highway 25 through the City represents a significant safety
concern. The crash rate for TH 25 from School Boulevard to River Street is
higher than the average crash rate in Minnesota for similar roadways. The
number of crashes observed on TH 25 may be reduced by providing additional
opportunities for local traffic to use alternate routes to cross I-94 such as a bridge
over I-94 at Fallon Avenue (see Section 4.0). However, diverting traffic to
alternate routes may not reduce the overall crash rates without introducing
additional measures to modify driver behavior including access management,
signal modification, or traffic calming.
2. Individual intersections along Trunk Highway 25 may warrant attention. Table
2.2 indicates that the two intersections with both the highest crash rates and
severity rates among the surveyed intersections are located along TH 25. Safety
at individual intersections may be improved by modifying the geometry, signage,
signalization, or other intersection attribute.
3. There is a high number of accidents on TH 25 between the I-94 ramps, primarily
on the bridge over I-94. Intuitively, it would appear that movements onto or off
of I-94 are forcing other motorists to decelerate, change lanes, or generally make
abrupt maneuvers which cause safety difficulties. The information on the types of
accidents supports this idea to a degree. The majority of the accidents are either
“rear end” or “sideswipe—same direction.” However, it may be necessary to
interview local officials, motorists, and police representatives to better understand
the safety issues at this general location. It is possible that construction activities
in this portion of TH 25 caused elevated numbers of crashes during a portion of
the study period.
4. The Crash Rate analysis suggests that some intersections in Monticello have
unique design and/or operating features which may require attention. Based on
the findings summarized in Table 2.2, five intersections stand out as having high
crash rates relative to statewide averages and relative to other intersections in
Monticello:
• TH 25 / 7th Street
• TH 25 / Chelsea Road
• School Boulevard / Cedar Street
• TH 25 / Oakwood Drive
• Golf Course Road / Elm Street
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
9
The TH 25/7th Street intersection is notable as having both the highest number of crashes
in the City (by a wide margin) as well as the highest crash and severity rates.
These intersections should continue to be monitored to determine if there are any specific
operational or geometric features that could be monitored to improve safety conditions.
In particular, the intersections of TH 25/Oakwood Drive and Golf Course Road/Elm
Street have non-standard approach angles.
2.5.2 Interstate 94
Figure 2.6 displays the number of crashes (2002-2006) located along I-94 near
Monticello. The 2000-2004 crash rate for I-94 from the township road bridge (120th
Street NE) to the former eastbound entrance ramp between CSAH 75 and I-94 is 0.59.
The average statewide crash rate for rural freeway facilities is 0.6. Overall, the existing
crash rate along I-94 is consistent with the state-wide average crash rate.
The southeastern portion of I-94 near the former interchange with CSAH 75 has been an
area of concern. From 2002 through 2006, the segment between the CSAH 18 Bridge
over I-94 to the former eastbound ramp from CSAH 75 to I-94 had a crash rate of 0.84.
This portion of I-94 has a relatively sharp horizontal reverse curve which coincides with a
vertical crest curve. In addition, merging and diverging movements occurred in this area
resulting from the interchange. The westbound CSAH 75 exit ramp was located on the
outside of I-94’s curving mainline. The exit did not appear to have a terminus, creating
the illusion that the ramp disappeared. The interchange, in general, appeared hidden
because the interstate passed over CSAH 75, and the eastbound entrance and westbound
ramps were disconnected along CSAH 75.
In 2007, a new “folded diamond” I-94/CSAH 18 interchange opened and the ramps
connecting I-94 and CSAH 75 were closed. The crash rate in the former I-94/CSAH 75
interchange area should drop accordingly. It is reasonable to assume that the opening of
the I-94/CSAH 18 interchange where access previously did not exist will result in
additional crashes near this location. However, the design of the current I-94/CSAH 18
interchange is anticipated to provide safer operating conditions than the former I-
94/CSAH 75 interchange. It is recommended that a crash rate analysis be redone in the
coming years to compare the post-CSAH 18 interchange safety conditions with pre-
interchange conditions. The accumulation of three years of data should be sufficient for
such analysis.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
10
This page is left blank intentionally.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
11
3.0 PLANNING ISSUES
3.1 Monticello Land Use
In May of 2008, the City of Monticello adopted an update of its 1996 Comprehensive
Plan. The Transportation chapter of the 2008 document was not completed, with the
intention that this Transportation Plan will use the land use information from the 2008
Comprehensive Plan and will, in turn, be referenced and/or summarized as the
Transportation Chapter for that document once completed.
Determining future transportation needs is based on anticipated future land use. The land
use map from the 2008 comprehensive plan is included as Figure 3.1. For 2030 traffic
projections, the City was divided into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), and 2030
projections for population and employment were assigned to each zone. The TAZ map
for Monticello and the households/jobs projections for each TAZ are presented in
Appendix A (Monticello Travel Model and Procedures).
3.2 Relevant Planning Documents and Projects/Activities
3.2.1 Documents
Documents with information pertaining to transportation planning issues for the City
were reviewed. The most significant documents were as follows:
• Wright County Transportation Plan (1994 – most current Countywide
transportation planning document available)
• Northeast Wright County Sub-Area Transportation Study (2004)
• Sherburne County Long-Range Transportation Plan (2007)
• Mn/DOT Region 3 Long Range Transportation Plan (2005)
• Interstate 94 Inter-regional Corridor Study (2002)
• I-94/TH 10 Interregional Connection DEIS (2004)
• Cumulative Impacts Study for the Mississippi Scenic Riverway (2003)
• TH 25 Corridor Study (to be completed in 2009)
• Big Lake Land Use Plan
Wright County Transportation Plan (1994)
(This document has been updated on a smaller scale by the Northeast Wright County Sub-
Area Transportation Study, summarized under a separate heading below.)
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
12
Information from this document relevant to Monticello transportation planning is
summarized below:
• The functional classification information for roadways serving Monticello as
presented in Figure 2.2 of this document are consistent with information
provided by Wright County.
• A “Small Area Study” for Monticello was performed as part of the Wright County
Transportation Plan. The purpose of this study was “to evaluate problems in and
around the TH 25/I-94 corridors and develop a concept plan that would benefit
traffic operations for both TH 25 and local traffic.” The recommendations of this
study, as summarized in the Wright County Transportation Plan, as well as the
status of the recommended projects, are presented in Table 3.2.
• The stretch of TH 25 in Monticello is identified as the second highest accident
rate location in the County. It is also identified as a “high congestion” location
indicating capacity deficiency.
• The Wright County Transportation Plan notes that access management along
trunk highways and county roadways is very important to maintain desirable
speed, safety, and level of service characteristics for those facilities. That
document recommends that the access management guidelines included as
Appendix B of this Plan be adopted by the County. It also acknowledges that
access management guidelines “allow government agencies to have some
discretion and negotiating authority regarding access decisions.”
• A County Bikeway Plan is referenced and is noted as identifying approximately
174 miles of trail and paved shoulders along county roads over the next 20 years.
The Wright County Transportation Plan also recommends that roadways with
projected traffic volumes in excess of 6,500 vehicles per day should be planned
for off-street pedestrian/bikeway paths.
• The lack of a County-wide transit system providing scheduled service is
identified. A District 7W study (1994) is identified which recommended that
Wright and Sherburne County pool, coordinate, and expand existing transit
services. Similar demographics, proximity to the Twin Cities, and a history of
working together on transportation issues are identified as factors supporting
coordination between the two counties on transit services.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
13
TABLE 3.1
Wright County Transportation Plan – Monticello Small Area Study Summary
Recommended Action Current Status
Improve TH 25/CR 117 intersection and
frontage road (detach CR 117, frontage road
extension to CSAH 39, modifications to CR
117, and Chelsea Lane intersection
improvements)
Completed
Upgrade of CSAH 75 west of CSAH 18/39 Completed
Construct bridge over Fallon Avenue Assumed in this Plan for future construction
Provide a full interchange at CSAH 18 and I-94 Completed
Northeast Wright County Sub-Area Transportation Study (2004)
Information from this document relevant to the Monticello transportation planning is
summarized below:
• The study identifies the need for an additional Mississippi River crossing between
TH 101 and TH 25 and recommends locating the bridge on Kadler Ave NE.
• CSAH 18 east of Fenning Avenue is recommended for ROW Preservation by
local jurisdictions.
• CSAH 39, from CSAH 75 east to Ostego, is recommended for Long-Term
Improvements (2025-2040). The plan recommends reconstruction as a four-lane
Minor Arterial.
• Several streets are recommended for Functional Classification Changes: CSAH
18 (Fenning Ave NE – CSAH 19) from Major Collector to Minor Arterial;
Fenning Ave NE (I-94 – CSAH 37) from Minor Collector to Minor Arterial;
School Boulevard (TH 25 – Fenning Ave NE) from Local Street to Minor
Arterial.
Sherburne County Long-Range Transportation Plan (2007)
Information from this document relevant to Monticello transportation planning is
summarized below:
• Portions of TH 25 between Monticello and Big Lake are identified on Figure 3:
Existing Congestion as “Over Capacity.” Portions of TH 25 are also identified on
Figure 4: Segment Crash Rates as “High Rate, High Frequency.”
• The plan presents modeled 2030 traffic volumes from three development
scenarios. TH 25 between CSAH 17 and CSAH 11 is projected to carry as many
as 21,000 vehicles daily and is depicted as “Over Capacity” in all three scenarios.
• Figure 10: Future Improvement Projects indicates that TH 25 will require
“Congestion Improvements” and that the intersection of TH 25 and CSAH 11 will
require “Safety Improvements” by 2030.
• The plan identifies the need for additional Mississippi River crossings; the closest
to Monticello as depicted Figure 10 is in the vicinity of Kadler Ave NE in Otsego.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
14
• The plan identifies that RiverRider transit services are provided to both Sherburne
and Wright County residents.
• The corridor between TH 10 and the Mississippi River is identified as a
“Proposed Trail Corridor.” Figure 14: Multi-Modal Map also identifies an
“Existing Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing,” a “Possible Pedestrian Crossing,” and a
“Proposed Regional Trail Corridor Connection” near the TH 25 Mississippi River
crossing.
Mn/DOT Region 3 Long Range Transportation Plan (2005)
Information from this document relevant to Monticello transportation planning is
summarized below:
• Monticello-Big Lake is identified as a “Level 2 Regional Trade Center.”
• A “Park & Pool” facility is identified at TH 25 and School Boulevard.
• Figure 5.5 (Access Management Primary Categories) indicates that TH 25 south
of I-94 is a Medium Priority Interregional Connector (IRC) and TH 25 north of I-
94 is a Minor Arterial. Figure 5.6 (Access Management Subcategories) indicates
that TH 25 through Monticello is Rural/Exurban/Bypass.
• TH 25 between Monticello and Buffalo, without improvement, is projected to
surpass the assumed 16,400 vehicles per day threshold for LOS E under the
projected 2010 conditions.
• TH 25 is scheduled for expansion to four lanes between Monticello and Buffalo
during the 2008-2014 timeframe. (Please note: the most current information from
Mn/DOT is that this project will not commence until 2014).
• I-94 is scheduled for expansion to six lanes from Monticello to the east during the
2024-2030 timeframe.
Cumulative Impacts Study for the Mississippi Scenic Riverway (2003)
The Mississippi River is designated as a Wild and Scenic River for the 53 mile stretch
between the 10th Street Dam in St. Cloud and the western borders of the Cities of Anoka
and Champlin. Transportation planners from Mn/DOT, the Metropolitan Council, and
the St. Cloud APO have determined the need for three new crossings of the Mississippi
River in this stretch within the next 20 years:
• 33rd Street crossing in St. Cloud
• I-94/TH 10 Interregional Connection
• Crossing between the Cities of Dayton and Ramsey
To provide information to be used for “cumulative impacts” analysis in National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) environmental documentation for these and
potentially other projects, Mn/DOT and FHWA commissioned Cumulative Impacts Study
for the Mississippi Scenic Riverway (Cumulative Impacts Study). Within this study,
long-term transportation forecasting was performed to determine the potential need for
and location of new river crossings beyond the three identified above.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
15
Based upon extensive land use assessment and forecasting, the Cumulative Impacts Study
made projections of traffic levels for the year 2040 for crossings of the Mississippi River
in the area of the Wild and Scenic River stretch. These volumes were compared against
anticipated capacities to assess the potential need for additional crossings. “Selected
link” analysis was then used to identify advantageous locations for any additional
crossings.
The study assumed that a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 1.0 or greater defined the
threshold for level of service D or worse (i.e., “congested”) conditions, above which
slow-and-go or stop-and-go conditions exist. For the year 2040, assuming the three
crossing projects identified above and forecast land use growth, the river crossings were
projected to have the following V/C ratios identified in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Cumulative Impacts Study—Projected 2040 Volume to Capacity Ratios at
Mississippi River Crossings(1)
Mississippi River Crossing Projected V/C Ratio
St. Cloud Crossings 1.5
33rd Street (future) 1.5
TH 24 0.9
I-94/TH 10 Interregional Connection (future--DEIS Alternative C1) 0.9
TH 25 1.7
CSAH 42 0.6
TH 101 1.3
Dayton-Ramsey (future) 1.1
TH 169 1.7 (1) Cumulative Impacts Study for the Mississippi Scenic Riverway, Minnesota Department of
Transportation in cooperation with Federal Highway Administration (2003). Presented results are for
“Development Plus Minimum Additional Bridges” scenario.
The Cumulative Impacts Study then identified potential new crossing locations which
would relieve the congestion conditions identified above. Two of these locations were in
the general vicinity of Monticello. One (Alternative 3 1
) was within a mile southeast of
the existing TH 25 bridge, and the other (Alternative 4) was approximately three miles
northwest of the existing TH 25 crossing. The Alternative 3 location was projected to
reduce the 2040 V/C ratio at TH 25 to 1.0, and the Alternative 4 crossing location was
projected to reduce the 2040 V/C ratio at TH 25 to 1.5.
The Cumulative Impacts Study determined that a combination of Alternative 1 (west of
Elk River) and Alternative 3 in Monticello, as defined above, would provide the greatest
overall congestion relief for all river crossing corridors in the study area. This approach
also assumed maximized capacity improvements to the 33rd Street and TH 101 crossings,
and was used as the basis for defining the “Maximum Additional Bridges” scenario in
assessing 2040 impacts on the Riverway.
1 Please note that this alternative is identified as “Maximum 3” in the Cumulative Impacts Study.
Similarly, “Maximum 1” and “Maximum 4” from the Cumulative Impacts Study are referred to as
Alternative 1 and Alterative 4 in this Monticello Transportation Plan. Without the extensive background
in the Cumulative Impacts Study, its titles may be confusing to the readers of this Plan.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
16
3.2.2 Projects/Activities
TH 25/Sherburne CSAH 11 Intersection Improvements
This intersection is north of Monticello, just across the River. However, it affects the
operations on TH 25 through Monticello. As regional growth and associated traffic flows
have grown over the years, this intersection has become increasingly problematical. The
primary issue is the heavy northbound-to-westbound left-turning movement caused by
travelers crossing the River on TH 25 and turning west and north to Becker and more
regional destinations such as St. Cloud on TH 10. Conversely, the eastbound-to-
southbound movement is also heavy.
Mn/DOT studied various approaches to improving this intersection to address the
situation described above. A roundabout approach was considered but was deemed to be
not viable for this particular application. The alternative that has been selected is to
reconstruct the intersection with dual left-turn lanes on northbound TH 25 and dual right-
turn lanes on eastbound CSAH 11. This improvement is scheduled by Mn/DOT for
construction in 2010.
I-94 West Corridor Coalition
I-94, from Maple Grove to Monticello, has become a very congested roadway, as
extensive development in the northwest portion of the greater Twin Cities metropolitan
area has taken place. There is a broad range of users of this roadway, from commuters to
truckers hauling goods to recreational travelers accessing lakes and other amenities.
These users must frequently wait in heavily congested traffic because I-94 does not have
enough capacity to meet travel demand.
To help address this situation, the I-94 West Corridor Coalition was formed in 2008.
This body is made up of city governments, chambers of commerce and other business
organizations, as well as other stakeholders. Its primary focus is to promote the
construction of an additional freeway lane in each direction between the Fish Lake
interchange in Maple Grove and the TH 25 interchange in Monticello. It meets with
Mn/DOT staff and elected officials to heighten awareness of the congestion difficulties in
this corridor, as well as the associated safety and economic impacts. The I-94 West
Corridor Coalition has a goal helping identify sources of funding for the needed
improvements in the corridor.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
17
Northstar Commuter Line
In 2009, Northstar commuter rail service will commence. This service will run from a
station in Big Lake to downtown Minneapolis along existing Burlington Northern tracks
generally parallel to TH 10. Intermediate stations will be in Elk River, Anoka, and Coon
Rapids. The one-way trip duration between Big Lake and Downtown Minneapolis will
be approximately 40 minutes, regardless of traffic or weather conditions.
This service is significant for Monticello residents because the Big Lake station is only
approximately three miles from Monticello. It is further discussed in Section 5.6 of this
Plan.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
18
This page is left blank intentionally.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
19
4.0 ROADWAY NEEDS
4.1 2030 Deficiency Analysis
Background
In the following analysis, the Baseline Alternative will first be characterized with
deficiencies identified. Once these deficiencies have been identified, alternatives will be
evaluated to address primary deficiencies. The 2030 baseline roadway network assumes
the following improvements relative to current conditions:
• Extension of 7th Street continuously from CSAH 39 east to CSAH 18. It is
anticipated that 7th Street will increasingly become a southern alternative to
CSAH 75 through the historic downtown area and also serve as a northerly
frontage road to I-94. There is currently a gap between Elm Street and Minnesota
Street that is assumed will be closed by 2030.
• Southern Extension of TH 25 frontage roads. With the additional future
development adjacent or close to TH 25 south of I-94, it will become increasingly
important to remove as much local traffic and access from TH 25 as possible to
optimize operational and safety conditions. It is assumed that the west frontage
road will extend to 85th Street, and the east frontage road will extend to Davidson
Avenue.
• Expansion of TH 25 to four lanes from School Boulevard in Monticello south to
the City of Buffalo). Mn/DOT anticipates that this overall project would be
constructed no earlier than 2015 and requires two years to complete. This project
is not currently in the 2011-2014 STP Plan.
• Construction of a Bridge over I-94 at Fallon Avenue. This project has been
discussed for a number of years to provide an I-94 crossing location serving as an
alternative to TH 25 and CSAH 18. Residential development in the southeast
portion of the City would have easy access to this crossing, which should remove
significant volumes of local traffic from TH 25. The bridge would connect to 7th
Street north of I-94 which is proposed to become a major collector roadway.
• Extension of School Boulevard west to 90th Street and north to CSAH 39. It is
intended that this roadway will become an important link from CSAH 39 in the
western portion of the City to CSAH 18 to the east, serving existing and extensive
future development south of I-94.
• 7th Street, Chelsea Road, and School Boulevard ultimately striped as three-lane
roadways (one through lane each direction plus a center left-turn lane). This
approach will maximize the capacity and safety characteristics of these important
roadways, which are anticipated to become major collectors within the City street
system without the need to reconstruct or physically expand them.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
20
Traffic forecasts for year 2030 were generated using an updated and refined version of a
traffic forecasting model initially used for the 1994 Monticello Transportation Study
(OSM and Associates). The current model uses CUBE/TP+ software. The 2030 land use
data entered into this model was based on the Land Use Plan from the City’s 2008
Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 3.1). Further information on the modeling process is
provided in Appendix A of this Plan.
Results
The projected 2030 traffic volumes, assuming the baseline roadway alternative, are
presented on Figure 4.1. These volumes were compared against Level of Service “C”
capacities for the respective roadways within the network. Level of Service (LOS) is a
standardized measurement of operational performance of a section of road or an
intersection with grades from A through F. For roadway segments, LOS A represents
free-flow conditions where there is little or no restriction in speed or maneuverability
caused by presence of other vehicles. At the other extreme, LOS F represents excessive
congestion and delay. Operations at LOS D or even E may be acceptable in Monticello
for limited durations or distances. However, the overall goal is to provide LOS C or
better for all possible roadways within Monticello. This will strike a sound balance
between good operational and safety performance of the network versus economic and
other requirements.
It can be seen from Figure 4.1 that the majority of the roadway system is anticipated to
operate at acceptable levels of service in 2030 assuming the improvements identified
above. The only roadway segments which are projected to experience excessive
congestion include TH 25 through town. The most problematical segment will be
between I-94 and the Mississippi River.
4.2 Alternatives Analysis – TH 25 Relief
Given that the primary roadway deficiencies for 2030 are projected to be along TH 25
through the traditional downtown area, the alternatives to be evaluated in this plan focus
on relieving overall traffic congestion on TH 25 through town. There are two basic
categories of improvements that will be evaluated: local and network.
Local improvements include measures that specifically involve TH 25, such as traffic
signal timing improvements, additional turn lanes, access management, and added
capacity.
Network improvements involve the larger transportation system; they include a potential
new I-94 interchange and/or a potential new river crossing.
Local improvements are shorter-term options, and network improvements are longer-term
options requiring substantially more financial investment and regional coordination.
These two categories of improvements will be addressed, respectively, in the following
sections.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
21
4.2.1 Local Improvements
Six categories of local improvements have been evaluated as part of the TH 25 Study and
this comprehensive transportation planning process:
• Signal timing modifications
• Additional turn lanes
• Access modifications
• Roundabouts
• Additional through lanes
• One-way pair (includes new River bridge)
These improvements are addressed, respectively, under the headings below.
Signal Timing Modifications
Within the City, there currently are traffic signals on TH 25 at the following locations:
• School Boulevard
• Chelsea Road
• The I-94 ramps
• 7th Street
• CSAH 75
• River Street
These signals are currently coordinated with a hardwire interconnect. The timing system
has not been checked or refined for some time. With potential changes in local and
regional traffic patterns in recent years, the timing should be reviewed to ensure that the
allocation of “green time” to the various movements at each of the signalized
intersections is optimized. This review and potential adjustment would follow applicable
traffic engineering standards to ensure the best possible traffic operations along this
stretch of TH 25 combined with necessary access onto TH 25.
This approach would represent a relatively low-cost option, since no new construction
would be required. It would require close coordination with Mn/DOT, since TH 25 is a
State Highway. The potential operational benefits from this approach would not be
dramatic but could be significant. With the degree of congestion that this stretch of
roadway is experiencing, any form of operational and safety improvement should be
considered.
Additional Turn Lanes
The option of adding right-turn lanes has been reviewed for the following locations:
• Westbound I-94 ramp at TH 25
• Northbound TH 25 at 7th Street
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
22
• Southbound TH 25 at 7th Street
• Westbound 7th Street at TH 25
• Westbound CSAH 75 at TH 25
The benefit of these lanes would be to remove right-turning drivers from the primary
flow of “through” traffic at these intersections to improve operational and safety
conditions. These would be relatively low cost options, and additional right-of-way
would not be required. As with the signal timing review and potential improvements
discussed above, the traffic improvements associated with additional turn lanes would
likely not be dramatic, but given current and anticipated congestion conditions along TH
25 all reasonable improvements should be considered.
Access Modifications
A basic traffic engineering approach to improving operational and safety characteristics
of a roadway is manage access to it. With a high-volume roadway like TH 25 which is
seeing increasingly difficult levels of congestion and high-crash rates through town, it
may be necessary control how much access there is to the roadway. The access that is
provided is designed appropriately to ensure the best possible operations as well as
effective linkage to adjacent land uses. Some linkage to land uses may become
somewhat less direct, but this needs to be balanced against the overall gains in terms of
operational and safety conditions on this critical roadway through town.
The following access modifications measures have been reviewed and merit more
detailed study:
• Restrict access at River street
• Center median with right in/right access to TH 25 from cross streets
• Traffic signal at 4th Street
Roundabouts
Roundabouts have been widely used in Europe, particularly in Great Britain, for many
years. They are increasingly being used in the United States, including Minnesota.
Under the correct circumstances, they can handle more vehicles per hour than
conventional traffic signals and with greater safety. Roundabouts promote continuous
flow of traffic, because motorists only yield before entering the roundabout rather than
having to stop at a traffic signal for the full red phase of the signal cycle.
A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that roundabouts reduce
crashes by 75 percent at intersections where stop signs or traffic signals were previously
used. The crashes that do take place are significantly less severe because they typically
happen at lower speeds than is the case with signalized intersections. As more
roundabouts are built throughout Minnesota, such as the one at CSAH 18 and Meadow
Oak Avenue, drivers will become increasingly familiar and comfortable with them.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
23
Roundabouts have been reviewed on a preliminary basis for the following locations on
TH 25:
• 7th Street
• 4th Street
• CSAH 75
This alternative is depicted on Figure 4.2. Pending direction from the City, this approach
warrants further investigation.
Additional Through Lanes
One option to improve traffic flow and safety on TH 25 through town would be to
construct an additional traffic lane in each direction between I-94 and the Mississippi
River Bridge. This approach would involve substantial costs and right-of-way impacts
because the roadway would have to be physically widened to accommodate the lanes.
Additionally, the River Bridge and the I-94 Bridge would both likely need to be widened
under this approach. This alternative or any other major improvement for traffic flow
within the TH 25 corridor would be a long-term option requiring further study prior to
implementation.
One-Way Pair
An additional alternative to create expanded capacity to TH 25 through town would be to
create a one-way pair of roadways. This approach is depicted on Figure 4.2. Existing TH
25 would be southbound-only from the River to I-94. Cedar Street would be northbound-
only, connecting directly to the TH 25 and the I-94 ramps at the south, and then would
proceed over a new River crossing bridge, reconnecting to TH 25 directly north of the
River. As with additional lanes as discussed above, this alternative is a long-term option
that would require additional study prior to implementation.
4.2.2 Network Improvements
Interchanges
There currently are two I-94 interchanges serving Monticello, one at TH 25 and one at
CSAH 18. Two other locations have been identified as potential options for interchanges
that would improve access to existing and/or future Monticello land uses and that would
have the potential to relieve traffic levels on TH 25:
• In the vicinity of Orchard Road/120th Street
• In the vicinity of CSAH 39
These locations (along with six others in the overall study corridor which extended from
the Greater St. Cloud Area to Maple Grove) were identified on the I-94 Interregional
Corridor Management Plan (I-94 IRC Study, Mn/DOT, 2002) as potential interchanges
put forward by local authorities. The IRC Study identifies that an interchange could be
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
24
advanced at these locations pending analysis consistent with Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) requirements to document that the mainline operations on I-94
would not be adversely affected.
River Crossings
Another approach to relieve traffic volumes on the TH 25 River crossing and TH 25
through Monticello would be to construct a new River crossing that could serve as an
alternative to TH 25. As was discussed in Section 3.2 of this Transportation Plan,
Mn/DOT conducted a study in 2003 2
addressing potential future River crossings which
would connect TH 10 and I-94 between St. Cloud and Anoka/Champlin. The study
assumed three new crossings as part of its 2040 baseline scenario:
• 33rd Street in St. Cloud
• I-94/TH 10 Interregional Connection (one of four potential locations between St.
Cloud and Becker)
• Dayton -Ramsey
The study also identified four other potential crossing locations in the study area:
• West of Elk River/Otsego (Alternative 1 and 2 3
• East of TH 25 in Monticello (Alternative 3)
)
• Western portion of Monticello (Alternative 4)
The study results indicated that Alternative 3 had substantially greater benefits in terms
of relieving congestion conditions on TH 25 than Alternative 4. Alternative 3 was
projected to reduce 2040 travel demand on the TH 25 crossing by approximately 50
percent relative to the baseline bridge assumptions identified previously. The study
assumed Maximum 1 – 2 (one crossing) and Alternative 3 in its Maximum Additional
Bridge scenario.
For this Transportation Plan, three river crossing locations were identified and analyzed:
• Orchard Road – connect Wright CSAH 75 with Sherburne CSAH 11
• Washington Street – connect Washington Street with 20th Street Northwest (Big
Lake)
• CSAH 18 – connect Wright CSAH 18/39 with Ormsbee Street (County Road 68)
The Orchard Road option is in approximately the same location as Maximum 4 in
Mn/DOT’s 2003 study, and the Washington Street and CSAH 18 options are within the
general area defined for Alternative 3 in Mn/DOT’s 2003 study.
2 Cumulative Impacts Study for the Mississippi Scenic Riverway (2003) 3 Please note that “Maximum 1” through “Maximum 4” from the Cumulative Impacts Study are referred to
as Alternative 1 through Alternative 4 in this Plan. Without the full context and explanation of that Study,
its labels may be confusing to the readers of this document.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
25
Analysis and Findings
The network improvement options were modeled for the year 2030 to evaluate the degree
to which they would relieve travel demand on TH 25. The modeling included the
following assumptions:
• 2030 land use information for Monticello
• Baseline 2030 roadway network improvements summarized in Section 4.1
• Estimated 2030 land use for Big Lake / Sherburne County
• Estimated 2030 regional volumes on “external” arterial and collector roadways
The 2030 land use estimates for each of these areas was based on the assumptions in the
current Comprehensive Plan for each of the communities as discussed in Chapter 3.
Specifically the Big Lake / Sherburne County development growth were assumed to be
primarily in the area’s south of existing TH 10 between CSAH 11 and CSAH 15.
The findings of this modeling are presented graphically on Figure 4.3 through Figure
4.6:
• Figure 4.3: no new River crossing and the three new River crossing alternatives
assuming no new interchange
• Figure 4.4: no new River crossing and the three new River crossing alternatives
assuming an interchange near 120th Street/Orchard Road
• Figure 4.5: no new River Crossing and the three new River crossing alternatives
assuming an interchange near CSAH 39
• Figure 4.6: No new River Crossing and the three new River crossing alternatives
assuming interchanges near 120th Street/Orchard Street and CSAH 39
For clarity purposes, these figures only depict volumes at: a) the new crossing locations,
b) TH 25 at the River, and c) TH 25 just north of the I-94 ramps.
Effects of the Interchanges
Table 4.1 through Table 4.4 present information from Figure 4.3 through Figure 4.6
organized to facilitate an evaluation of how effective the interchange options are at
reducing travel demand on TH 25.
TABLE 4.1
2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming No New River Crossing
Traffic Volume
Location
Interchange Option
No new
interchange Orchard Rd. CSAH 39 Orchard Rd.
plus CSAH 39
TH 25 at River 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
TH 25 north of I-94 40,000 33,000 33,000 32,000
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
26
TABLE 4.2
2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road River Crossing
Traffic Volume
Location
Interchange Option
No new
interchange Orchard Rd. CSAH 39 Orchard Rd.
plus CSAH 39
TH 25 at River 40,000 38,000 38,000 38,000
TH 25 north of I-94 40,000 33,000 33,000 31,000
TABLE 4.3
2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Washington Street River Crossing
Traffic Volume
Location
Interchange Option
No new
interchange Orchard Rd. CSAH 39 Orchard Rd.
plus CSAH 39
TH 25 at River 30,000 29,000 29,000 29,000
TH 25 north of I-94 38,000 30,000 30,000 29,000
TABLE 4.4
2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming CSAH 18 River Crossing
Traffic Volume
Location
Interchange Option
No new
interchange Orchard Rd. CSAH 39 Orchard Rd.
plus CSAH 39
TH 25 at River 38,000 38,000 37,000 37,000
TH 25 north of I-94 39,000 30,000 31,000 30,000
From the information presented in these tables, three primary observations can be made:
• All of the interchange options are projected to result in a significant reduction of
traffic volumes on TH 25 north of I-94. These reductions range from 20 to just
over 30 percent.
• Interchange location does not appear to have an impact on how effective the
interchange is at reducing volume on TH 25. What has the most affect is what
river crossing option the interchange is paired with. The interchange options have
the greatest reduction on TH 25 when paired with the Washington Street River
crossing option.
• Having two new interchanges versus one only provides minimal additional traffic
relief on TH 25 north of I-94.
Effects of River Crossings
Table 4.5 through Table 4.9 present the information from Figure 4.3 through Figure 4.6
organized to facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of the various crossing options in
terms of reducing travel demand on TH 25.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
27
TABLE 4.5
2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming No New Interchange
Traffic Volume
Location
River Crossing Location
No New River
Crossing Orchard Rd. Washington St. CSAH 18
New Crossing N/A 9,000 22,000 15,000
TH 25 at River 45,000 40,000 30,000 38,000
TH 25 north of I-94 40,000 40,000 38,000 39,000
TABLE 4.6
2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road Interchange
Traffic Volume
Location
River Crossing Location
No New River
Crossing Orchard Rd. Washington St. CSAH 18
New Crossing N/A 11,000 22,000 15,000
TH 25 at River 45,000 38,000 29,000 38,000
TH 25 north of I-94 33,000 33,000 30,000 30,000
TABLE 4.7
2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming CSAH 39 Interchange
Traffic Volume
Location
River Crossing Location
No New River
Crossing Orchard Rd. Washington St. CSAH 18
New Crossing N/A 10,000 22,000 15,000
TH 25 at River 45,000 38,000 29,000 37,000
TH 25 north of I-94 33,000 33,000 30,000 31,000
TABLE 4.8
2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road Interchange Plus
CSAH 39 Interchange
Traffic Volume
Location
River Crossing Location
No New
River
Crossing
Orchard Rd. Washington St. CSAH 18
New Crossing N/A 11,000 22,000 16,000
TH 25 at River 45,000 38,000 29,000 37,000
TH 25 north of I-94 32,000 31,000 29,000 30,000
From the information presented in these tables, two primary observations can be made:
• All of the River crossing options significantly reduce TH 25 volumes across the
River.
• The location with the greatest reduction under all the interchange assumptions is
at Washington Street.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
28
Summary Observations
Overall observations from the analysis are summarized below:
• A new interchange would significantly reduce travel demand on TH 25 north of I-
94.
• Adding more than one new interchange would not result in further reduction of
travel demand on TH 25.
• A new River crossing would significantly reduce travel demand on TH 25 across
the River.
• Combining any of the interchange options with the Washington Street River
crossing would provide the most overall network relief to TH 25.
4.3 Intersection Analysis
As development in Monticello continues into the future and roadways carry increasingly
heavy traffic volumes, certain intersections will have to be assessed to determine the need
for traffic control measures, most notably traffic signals. Within the 2030 timeframe and
assuming an I-94 bridge to be constructed at Fallon Avenue, the following intersections
are anticipated to reach traffic levels where signal analysis will need to be done:
• 7th Street and Fallon Avenue
• CSAH 18 and School Boulevard
• School Boulevard and Fallon Avenue
• School Boulevard and Edmonson Avenue
• TH 25 and 85th Avenue
4.4 Long-Term Planning
As be seen on Figure 3.1, there are extensive areas of future development, primarily
south of I-94, which will require the existing network to be upgraded. This will involve
improving existing roadways and adding new links to expand system coverage, access,
and continuity.
Figure 4.7 depicts new roadway segments envisioned to support a network to serve as
the “backbone” of future development in Monticello. These new links and the overall
network is based upon an assessment of existing roadways, anticipated future
development patterns, general roadway spacing requirements, and environmental and
land ownership constraints (wetlands, Bertram Chain of Lakes area). How these new
roadways will be coordinated into the functional classification system will be further
discussed in Section 5.3 of this Plan.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
29
Some elements of the new roadway network depicted on Figure 4.7 will have to be built
within the Transportation Needs timeframe (2030 and before). For example, it is
anticipated the following segments from Figure 4.7 will be built prior to 2030 (and are,
therefore, part of the 2030 Baseline Alternative for traffic forecasting):
• Fallon Avenue Bridge
• Westerly extension School Boulevard
• 7th Street between Elm Street and Minnesota Street
• Southerly extension of TH 25 frontage roads
These segments will best be added in a manner which is consistent with the long term
plans for the network.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
30
This page is left blank intentionally.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
31
5.0 TRANSPORTATION PLAN
5.1 Funding Sources
Funding for transportation improvements and programs can be obtained from a variety of
sources as summarized below:
General Ad Valorem (Property) Taxes – Transportation projects can be funded
with the general pool of municipal revenues raised through property taxes.
State Aid – Cities with populations of greater than 5,000 are eligible for funding
assistance from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (funded with the state
gas tax and vehicle taxes, as well as federal transportation funds through
Mn/DOT). These funds are allocated to a network of Municipal State Aid (MSA)
streets. Currently, the City of Monticello receives an apportionment per year for
improvements to its MSA streets, which are generally collector roadways.
Federal Transportation Funds – The guidelines for direct federal funding for
transportation projects are established under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETELU). Theses funds are allocated by
Mn/DOT District 3 through the Area Transportation Partnership (ATP).
Monticello is a member of the ATP as part of the former Region 7W area.
Roadway, transit, non-motorized, and other transportation-related projects are
selected on a competitive basis based on evaluation, prioritization, and
recommendation by the ATP. The process of solicitation for project proposals
and resulting allocation of federal funding to selected projects occurs every two
years on odd years (2011, 2013, 2015 etc.).
Cooperative Agreements with Mn/DOT and/or Wright County – Different
levels of government can cooperate on planning, implementing, and financing
transportation projects which provide benefits to all the concerned agencies. The
financial terms and obligations are generally established at the front end of the
projects.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) – This is a method of funding improvements
that are needed immediately by using the additional tax revenue anticipated to be
generated because of the given project’s benefits in future years. The difference
between current tax revenues from the targeted district and the increased future
tax revenues resulting from the improvements is dedicated to retiring the
municipal bonds used to finance the initial improvement(s).
Developer Contributions/Impact Fees – Under this approach, the impact of the
additional traffic from a proposed development on the local roadway system is
projected using standard traffic engineering procedures. Costs associated with
improving the roadway system to handle the additional traffic at an acceptable
level of service are assessed to the developer. This approach generally involves
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
32
some level of negotiation between the local government and the developer to
work out a cost-sharing agreement that allows the development to move forward.
Assessments – Properties that benefit from a roadway scheduled for improvement
may be assessed for the cost of construction. In order to assess the owner, it must
be demonstrated that the value of their property will increase by at least the
amount of the assessment.
Two potential sources of transportation funding have been proposed and discussed for a
number of years but are not currently allowed under state law. They are:
Road Access Charge – All new developments would be charged based on the
trip generation rates of the given development, without an estimation or
documentation of specific traffic impacts or improvement requirements. It would
be analogous to the Sewer Access Charge (SAC) for access to the Metropolitan
Council’s sanitary sewer system. Revenues from this source could be used to
build or improve collector and arterial roadways within the local jurisdiction
collecting the tax.
Transportation Utility Billing – All properties within the local jurisdiction
would be subject to a periodic fee, based on the number of vehicle trips generated
by the type of property. The pool of funding generated in this manner would be
used for community-wide transportation improvements such as preventive
maintenance and road reconstruction. The periodic nature of the billing would be
beneficial in terms of supporting ongoing or routine roadway maintenance
projects through the entire network.
The City supports the passage of legislation at the state level which would allow these
forms of dedicated local transportation revenue generation.
5.2 Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvements
5.2.1 Pavement Maintenance
The City has implemented a pavement management program which uses specially
developed software (ICON, GoodPointe Technology Corporation). The purpose of this
program is to allow the City to meet overall street maintenance policy objectives in the
most economically efficient manner possible on a life-cycle cost basis. The basis of this
approach is that the cost of maintaining or repairing roads can increase dramatically if
they are allowed to deteriorate past certain levels (better to pay a little now versus pay a
lot later).
City crews have completed a conditions survey of all Monticello City streets. This work
has utilized a detailed and standardized system of identifying and evaluating physical
distresses in pavements and computing a pavement condition index (PCI) for each
roadway. The PCI is a numerical expression of pavement conditions initially developed
by the US Army Corps of Engineers. It has been standardized by the American Society
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
33
of Testing and Materials, and is endorsed by numerous organizations including the
American Public Works Association (APWA).
WSB staff has completed entering the condition surveys for Monticello streets into the
software program and have calculated PCI values for all Monticello City street segments.
Next, WSB will discuss policy goals (such as maintaining all pavements at a given
pavement condition index level) with the City. Once agreement on policy goals is
reached, this information, along with maintenance cost information pertaining to the City
will be entered into the ICON program. WSB staff will then use the program to perform
iterative analysis and ultimately generate a long-term maintenance plan which, on an
annual basis over the life of the program, identifies:
• Required budgetary outlays.
• Appropriate allocation of budgeting between maintenance strategies
including seal coating, overlays, and reconstruction.
• Individual maintenance projects.
On an annual basis, one-third of the City streets will be surveyed so as to maintain a
complete and updated database of PCI information. The outputs and recommendations
will be regularly reviewed to ensure that the investment and maintenance objectives are
being met and to make revisions as necessary. Potential changes in budget availability
and/or overall policy goals can be effectively addressed within this overall approach.
5.2.2 Future Improvement Projects
Based on analysis summarized in this Transportation Plan and on previous planning work
and discussions, Table 5.1 identifies recommended transportation infrastructure
improvements and an overall timeframe for implementation.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
34
TABLE 5.1
Primary Future Transportation Capital Improvement Projects
Facility Improvement Project Responsibility
2009-2015
TH 25 between I-94
and Mississippi River
Congestion management strategy(ies) to be
determined, potentially including signal timing
modifications, added turn lanes, etc.
City coordinating with
Mn/DOT
Second River Crosses
New Mississippi River Crossing – Study
location and impacts to adjacent properties
including Monticello Big Lake Hospital
Mn/DOT/County/City
Fallon Avenue New bridge over I-94
City coordinating with
Mn/DOT
95th Street NE Connect to CSAH 75 City
School Boulevard Extension west to 90th Street City
TH 25 Intersection improvements at 7th Street
7th Street Extension west to Elm Street City
TH 25 Extend frontage south to 85th Street (west
side) and Davidson Avenue (east side)
City coordinating with
Mn/DOT
School Boulevard Extension from 90th Street to CSAH 39 City
2015-2030
TH 25 Intersection improvements at 4th Street, and
CSAH 75
City coordinating with
Wright County and
Mn/DOT
Orchard Road or
CSAH 39
I-94 Interchange (pending development
needs and funding availability)
City coordinating with
the Mn/DOT
2030 - 2050
Expanded Collector
Roadway Network
(Figures 4.6 and 5.1)
New roadways pending development needs City
NOTE: The timing of individual projects may be accelerated based upon development proposals
and requirements, as well as funding availability.
5.3 Future Functional Classification and Roadway Jurisdiction
5.3.1 Future Functional Classification
Future roadway functional classification information is provided on Figure 5.1. The
future roadways depicted will generally be collector roadways. Regarding existing
roadways, it is anticipated that the following classification revisions will take place:
• School Boulevard will become a minor arterial between TH 25 and Fenning
Avenue.
• CSAH 18 will become a minor arterial east of Fenning Avenue.
• CSAH 18 / Fenning Avenue will become a minor arterial south of CSAH 75.
• 7th Street will become a major collector which will ultimately extend between
CSAH 18 and Elm Street.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
35
• Chelsea Road will become a major collector linking CSAH 18 and CSAH 39.
• CR 117/Edmonson Avenue will become a major collector.
• Fallon Avenue will become a minor collector south of 7th Street.
• 90th Street south of Chelsea Boulevard will become a minor collector.
5.3.2 Future Jurisdictional Classification
Existing jurisdictional classification information for roadways serving Monticello was
discussed in Section 2.3 and summarized on Figure 2.3. There do not appear to be any
pressing jurisdictional issues which need to be addressed at this time or into the
foreseeable future.
5.4 Access Management and Roadway Right-of-Way
5.4.1 Access Management
Access to the transportation network serving the Monticello system through features such
as driveway openings and side street intersections should be appropriately controlled.
The level of control is determined by the type of access being considered and the
functional classification of the roadway itself. Arterials need the most access control to
provide their primary function of mobility (longer-distance trips at relatively high
speeds). Local streets, on the other hand, carry short trips and primarily serve an access
function. Collector roadways serve both a mobility and access function in roughly equal
measures and access should be managed accordingly.
Residential, commercial, and industrial access will be directed to local streets to the
greatest degree feasible. Property that is being developed or whose use is changing may
be required to provide internal access and circulation design so as to limit the number of
external access points to the network The City has developed and continues to expand a
frontage road system for TH 25 south of I-94 in an effort to limit local access onto TH
25, the most heavily traveled roadway in the City.
Table 5.2 outlines minimum desirable access spacing guidelines. This information
provides guidance, but City has discretion and negotiating authority regarding access
decisions.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
36
TABLE 5.2
City of Monticello Access Spacing Guidelines
Type of Access Principal
Arterial(1)
Minor
Arterial(1)
Major
Collector(1)
Minor
Collector(1) Local
Residential
Driveways
No Direct
Access
No Direct
Access
No Direct
Access
No Direct
Access As Required
Commercial
Driveways
No Direct
Access
Based on:
Speed, Traffic
Volume, Sight
Distance, etc.
(1/8 to 1/4
mile)
Based on:
Speed,
Traffic
Volume,
Sight
Distance,
etc. (Min.
500 ft)
Based on:
Speed,
Traffic
Volume,
Sight
Distance,
etc. (Min.
200 ft)
Based on:
Speed,
Traffic
Volume,
Sight
Distance,
etc. (Min 100
ft)
Low volume
Residential Streets 1/8 mile 1/8 mile 1/8 mile 1/8 mile 1/16 mile
High Volume
Residential Streets
(<1,000 ADT)
1/4 mile 1/4 mile 1/4 mile 1/8 mile 1/16 mile
Collector Streets 1/2 mile 1/2 mile 1/4 mile 1/4 mile 1/18 mile
(1) On Trunk Highway and County Roads, MN/DOT and Wright County has Jurisdiction for access spacing.
5.4.2 Right-of-Way
It is advisable for the City to purchase right-of-way for the future or to-be-expanded
roadways as early as practicable. This helps to limit future high costs and unforeseen
purchase issues as on-going development occurs in the areas of the roadways. Table 5.3
shows right-of-way requirements for different types of roadway cross sections. These
guidelines should be considered for inclusion in the City’s relevant ordinance sections.
The identified right-of-way widths could vary with topography and requirements for
sidewalks or off-street facilities and are intended to provide minimum street needs and
green space.
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
37
TABLE 5.3
City of Monticello Right-of-Way Guidelines
Functional
Classification ADT Lanes Right-of-Way Required (1)
Urban Rural
Principal Arterial 30,000 + 4 - Lane Divided 150 to 200 ft 200 +
Minor Arterial 15,000-30,000 4 - Lane Divided 120 to 150 ft 150 to 200 ft
Major Collector 7,500-18,000 4 - Lane
Undivided 100 ft 100 ft
10,000-25,000 + 4 - Lane Divided 120 ft 150 ft
Minor Collector
2,000-8,000 2 – Lane 80 ft 100 ft
4,000-16,000 3 – Lane 80 ft 100 ft
7,500-18,000 4 - Lane
Undivided 100 ft 100 ft
Local 0-9,000 2 – Lane 60 ft 80 ft
(1) Additional R.O.W. width should be obtained for the addition of left and/or right turn lanes.
5.5 Non-Motorized Transportation
Pedestrian Safety and Access
Ensuring pedestrian safety is a critical goal for the City. Most pedestrian accidents and
injuries take place at roadway intersections; thus, intersections must be properly designed
to accommodate both vehicular and pedestrian movements.
Many pedestrians in the downtown area must cross TH 25, which carries high volumes of
vehicular traffic. While there have been no known examples of vehicle/pedestrian
accidents in recent years along this stretch, it is an area that should be reviewed on an on-
going basis. This is particularly true given the anticipated increased volumes of regional
and local traffic along TH 25. CSAH 75 and CSAH 39 are other relatively high-volume
roadways that should be monitored in terms of potential pedestrian safety issues. Should
given intersections become problematic in terms of motorized/non-motorized conflicts,
safety measures including the following will be assessed and implemented as-needed:
• Installation of new traffic control signals
• Revised timing of existing signals
• Revised roadway geometry (layout and design of lanes)
• Curb bump-outs
• Traffic calming measures
• Others
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
38
Another way to promote pedestrian safety, as well as access, is to provide a coordinated
network of sidewalks in locations where there is sufficient demand. Figure 5.2 depicts
the existing and planned network of sidewalks in Monticello.
Bikeways
The City is committed to providing a comprehensive and coordinated series of bikeways.
Figure 5.2 depicts existing and proposed bikeways, including off-road paths on-road bike
routes. Future development will include bikeways consistent with the existing and
currently proposed network. The City will coordinate with Wright County regarding
bike/pedestrian facility planning and development.
Potential Motorized/Non-Motorized Conflict Points
With the expansion and anticipated added usage of pedestrian/bicycle facilities, locations
where non-motorized facilities cross roadways will need to be assessed and monitored
regarding safety conditions. Key locations warranting evaluation are identified on
Figure 5.2.
5.6 Transit
General Transit
Dial-a-ride transit services are provided in Monticello by River Rider, which is
administered under a Joint Powers agreement between Wright County and Sherburne
County. River Rider’s service area is depicted on Figure 5.3. Any resident can use the
service, which costs $1.25 per ride for pre-scheduled trips, and $2.00 per ride for same-
day trips. River Rider also has two scheduled runs per day on TH 25 between Big Lake
and Buffalo with a stop in Monticello. One of these runs is in the morning and the other
is in the late afternoon. The fare for this city-to-city service is $4.00 per round trip.
There currently is a park-and-ride lot off of School Boulevard west of TH 25. There is no
scheduled transit service which stops at this location; it primarily serves as a
consolidation point for carpoolers. It appears currently not to be heavily used. In the
future, potential regional transit services could make good use of this lot.
As development continues northwest of the Twin Cities it is anticipated that express
transit service will be extended further out along the I-94 corridor. Under these
circumstances, a good location for a new park-and-ride lot would be in the vicinity of the
I-94/CSAH 18 interchange. This would be particularly true with a new River crossing in
the vicinity of this interchange as discussed in Section 4.2.2 of this Plan.
Northstar Corridor
The Northstar line will provide commuter rail service paralleling TH 10, using existing
Burlington Northern tracks, northwest of the Twin Cities. Service is anticipated to
commence in late 2009. Initially, the line was to extend all the way from the Twin Cities
to St. Cloud. However, the service was shortened considerably to meet Federal Transit
City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011
39
Administration (FTA) requirements regarding cost-effectiveness. The service that will
open in 2009 will run from downtown Minneapolis (with connection to the Light Rail
Transit [LRT] service in the Hiawatha Corridor in Hennepin County) to a terminus
station in Big Lake. Other stations will include Fridley, Coon Rapids, Anoka, and Elk
River. The line could be extended to St. Cloud at a future date pending ridership demand
and funding availability.
Once the Northstar line is operational, the Big Lake station would be only approximately
three miles from Monticello. This facility would be accessed via TH 25 between the two
cities. It is anticipated that a number of Monticello residents would use the Big Lake
station. This would put some commuting trips onto TH 25 and would take these trips off
of I-94 and its access roads/interchanges.
Northstar’s official ridership model shows travel demand of 530 passengers per day at the
Big Lake station. This assumes come carpooling. The capacity at the park-and-ride lot
will be 518 spaces when the facility opens. Metro Transit staff reports that they are
evaluating parking expansion possibilities to implement as needed, but do not have a firm
expansion plan in place at this time.
It is possible that a commuter-timeframe (6-9 AM, 4-7 PM) shuttle service could be
provided between the Monticello park-and-ride and the Big Lake Northstar station. River
Rider currently does not have enough funding to provide such service without negatively
impacting their core 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. dial-a-ride service. The City may coordinate with
Mn/DOT, the Metropolitan Council, and the Northstar Corridor Development Authority
regarding additional funding that would be required for such service. There currently are
not any “Transit Advantage” features on TH 25, so potential future shuttle service
between Monticello and the Big Lake Northstar station would be subject to the same
congestion conditions as conventional passenger vehicles.
Other Commuter Transit
River Rider has considered the option of providing service linking residents from
Monticello and potentially other communities to express bus service in the
Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. However, this would not be viable given the funding
constraints referenced above. River Rider needs to cover as many of its operating
expenses as possible through fares; providing express commuter service would take
resources (buses and drivers) away from their core 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. dial-a-ride service
which recovers more economically than the express service would. This also raises the
issue of equity. Dial-a-ride service is needed by seniors and others who may have
difficulty driving. To sacrifice this service in order to help commuters get to work may
not be viewed as a fair trade-off in terms of social goals and policies.
Aside from these financial constraints, River Rider has considered the option of
providing service along TH 25 to link with the express transit service in the Metro area.
However, TH 25 does not have “transit preference” features, such as bus-only shoulders,
so transit buses would have no time savings relative to conventional passenger vehicles
along this route.
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
1
5H.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-12statingIntenttoReimbursefrom
bondproceedsfor2011StreetReconstructionImprovements,CityProjectNo.
11C001 (TK)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
TheInternalRevenueServicerequirestheCitytoadoptaresolutiondeclaringtheofficial
intenttoreimbursecertainprojectexpendituresfrombondproceeds,iftheCityplansor
wouldissuebondstofinanceprojectcosts.Bypassingthisresolutionitwouldallowthe
Citytoincludethe2011StreetReconstructionImprovementprojectinafuturebond
issue.Withouttheresolution,theprojectcouldnotbefundedbybonds.Atthistimeitis
unknowniftheCitywouldissuebondstofinancethisproject.
A1.BudgetImpact:Byadoptingtheresolution,theCitywouldhavetheabilityto
includethe2011StreetReconstructionProject#11C001inafuturebondissue.
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Therewouldbenoimpactonthestaffbythisaction.
WhentheCityissuesbonds,therewouldbestafftimeandconsultantcostsrelated
tothebondissue.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-12declaringtheofficialintenttoreimburse
expendituresfromtheproceedsofbondsforCityProject11C001–2011Street
ReconstructionImprovements.
2.Motiontonotadoptaresolutiondeclaringtheofficialintenttoreimburse
expendituresfromtheproceedsofbonds.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
CitystaffsupportsAlternative#1.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
Resolution#2011-12
CITYOFMONTICELLO
WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION2011-12
DECLARINGTHEOFFICIALINTENTOFTHECITYOFMONTICELLO
TOREIMBURSECERTAINEXPENDITURESFROMTHEPROCEEDS
OFBONDSTOBEISSUEDBYTHECITYFOR
2011STREETRECONSTRUCTIONIMPROVEMENTS,CITYPROJECT11C001
WHEREAS,theInternalRevenueServicehasissuedTreas.Reg.§1.150-2providingthat
proceedsoftax-exemptbondsusedtoreimbursepriorexpenditureswillnotbedeemedspent
unlesscertainrequirementsaremet;and
WHEREAS,theCityexpectstoincurcertainexpenditureswhichmaybefinancedtemporarily
fromsourcesotherthanbonds,andreimbursedfromtheproceedsofabond;
WHEREAS,theCityhasdeterminedtomakethisdeclarationofofficialintent(“Declaration”)to
reimbursecertaincostsfromproceedsofbondsinaccordancewiththeReimbursement
Regulations.
NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOF
MONTICELLO(THE“CITY”)ASFOLLOWS:
1.TheCityreasonablyintendstomakeexpendituresfortheprojectsdescribedinExhibitA
(the“Projects”),andreasonablyintendstoreimburseitselfforsuchexpendituresfromthe
proceedsofdebttobeissuedbytheCityinthemaximumprincipalamountdescribedin
ExhibitA.Allreimbursedexpenditureswillbecapitalexpenditures,costsofissuanceof
thebonds,orotherexpenditureseligibleforreimbursementunderSection1.150-2(d)(3)
oftheReimbursementRegulations.
2.ThisDeclarationhasbeenmadenotlaterthan60daysafterpaymentofanyoriginal
expendituretobesubjecttoareimbursementallocationwithrespecttotheproceedsof
bonds,exceptforthefollowingexpenditures:(a)costsofissuanceofbonds;(b)costsin
anamountnotinexcessof$100,000or5percentoftheproceedsofanissue;or(c)
“preliminaryexpenditures”uptoanamountnotinexcessof20percentoftheaggregate
issuepriceoftheissueorissuesthatfinanceorarereasonablyexpectedbytheCityto
financetheprojectforwhichthepreliminaryexpenditureswereincurred.Theterm
“preliminaryexpenditures”includesarchitectural,engineering,surveying,bondissuance,
andsimilarcoststhatareincurredpriortocommencementofacquisition,constructionor
rehabilitationofaproject,otherthanlandacquisition,sitepreparation,andsimilarcosts
incidenttocommencementofconstruction.
3.ThisDeclarationisanexpressionofthereasonableexpectationoftheCitybasedonthe
factsandcircumstancesknowntotheCityasofthedatehereof.Theanticipatedoriginal
expendituresfortheProjectandtheprincipalamountofthebondsdescribedinparagraph
1areconsistentwiththeCity’sbudgetaryandfinancialcircumstances.Nosourcesother
thanproceedsofbondstobeissuedbytheCityare,orarereasonablyexpectedtobe,
reserved,allocatedonalong-termbasis,orotherwisesetasidepursuanttotheCity’s
budgetorfinancialpoliciestopaysuchprojectexpenditures.
4.TheCityAdministratorisauthorizedtodesignateappropriateadditionstoExhibitAin
circumstanceswheretimeisoftheessence,andanysuchdesignationshallbereportedto
theCouncilattheearliestpracticabledateandshallbefiledwiththeofficialbooksand
recordsoftheCityasprovidedinSection3.
5.Thisresolutionisintendedtoconstituteadeclarationofofficialintentforpurposesof
Treas.Reg.§1.150-2andanysuccessorlaw,regulation,orruling.
ADOPTEDBY theCityCouncilthis28thdayofFebruary,2011.
CITYOFMONTICELLO
__________________________________
ClintHerbst,Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator
EXHIBITA
OFFICIALINTENTRESOLUTION#2011-12
ADOPTEDFebruary28,2011
DATEOF
DECLARATION DESCRIPTIONOFPROJECT
MAXIMUM
PRINCIPAL
AMOUNTOFDEBT
FORPROJECT
2/28/20112011STREETRECONSTRUCTION
IMPROVEMENTS,CITYPROJECTNO.
11C001
$2,500,000.00
CouncilAgenda:2/28/11
1
5I.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-14approving2011MunicipalStateAid
SystemDesignationsandRevocations (BW)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
TheMunicipalStateAidStreet(MSAS)systemallowscitieswithpopulationsover5,000
tobeeligibletoreceivefundingforstreetconstruction,improvementsandmaintenance
throughtheStateHighwayUsersFund,administeredbytheMinnesotaDepartmentof
Transportation’sStateAidoffice.TheCitycandesignateupto20%ofourlocal
improvedstreetstoreceiveMSASfunding.InordertomaximizefundingforourMSAS
system,staffdesignatesasmuchmileageaspossible,uptothe20%cap.
Wecurrentlyhaveabout54.76milesofimprovedlocalstreets,excludinganyStateand
Countyhighwaysandunimprovedstreets.Thisallowsustodesignateupto10.95miles
ofstreetsonourMSASsystemin2011.In2010wedesignated10.83milesofstreetson
ourMSASsystem.Thisleavesuswith0.12milesofcurrentlyundesignatedstreets.It
shouldbenotedthatforstreetstobedesignatedasMSASstreetstheymustconnectto
otherMSASstreetsoneitherend,orconnecttostreetsofahigherdesignationsuchas
countyroadsorstatehighways.
Currently,thesegmentofEastRiverStreetbetweenWashingtonandPineStreet/TH25is
designatedasoneofourMSASstreets.However,sinceEastRiverStreetwillnolonger
beconnectedatCedarStreetfollowingthecompletionofourTH25/CSAH75NE
QuadrantImprovementsproject,staffisproposingthefollowingmodificationsbemade
toourMSASsystemdesignations:
RemoveEastRiverStreetfromPineStreet/TH25toPalmStreet(0.18miles)
AddPalmStreetfromEastBroadwaytoEastRiverStreet(0.08miles)
AddPalmStreetfrom4th StreettoEastBroadway(0.16miles)
Aftertheproposedchangesaremade,onlyabout0.06miles(0.12+0.18-0.08-0.16=
0.06)ofundesignatedMunicipalStateAidStreetswillremain,whichislessthanone
block.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-14removingEastRiverStreetbetweenPine
Street/TH25andPalmStreetfromtheMSASsystem,anddesignatingPalm
Streetfrom4th StreettoEastRiverStreetasMSASadditionsfortheyear2011.
2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolution#2011-14.
CouncilAgenda:2/28/11
2
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsapprovalofAlternative#1.Uponadoptingtheresolution,theCity
shallprovideacertifiedcopyoftheresolutionbyMay1,2011fortransmittaltothe
CommissioneroftheDepartmentofTransportation.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
CopyofResolution#2011-14
Proposed2011MSASRevisionsdrawing
CITYOFMONTICELLO
WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTIONNO.2011-14
UPDATINGTHE
MUNICIPALSTATEAIDSTREETSYSTEM
FORTHECITYOFMONTICELLO
WHEREAS,asarequisitefortheCitytobeeligibletoreceivestateaidfunds,itisnecessarythatthe
CityCouncildesignatecertainstreetswithintheCityofMonticellotocompriseaMunicipalState
AidStreet(MSAS)system;and
WHEREAS,theCouncilhasreviewedtherecommendationoftheCityEngineerandhasapproved
certainstreetswithintheCitytoberemovedoraddedtosaidMSASsystem;
NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVED,bytheCityCouncilfortheCityofMonticellothat:
1.ThatEastRiverStreetfromPineStreet/TH25toPalmStreetshallberemovedfromtheCity
ofMonticelloMSASSystem.
2.ThatPalmStreetfromEastBroadwaytoEastRiverStreetshallbeaddedtotheCityof
MonticelloMSASsystem.
3.ThatPalmStreetfrom4th StreettoEastBroadwayshallbeaddedtotheCityofMonticello
MSASsystem.
4.ThattheCityAdministrator/ClerkprovideacertifiedcopyofthisresolutionbyMay1,2011
fortransmittaltotheCommissioneroftheDepartmentofTransportation.
ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis28th dayofFebruary,2011.
CITYOFMONTICELLO
_____________________________
ClintHerbst,Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator
CERTIFICATION
STATEOFMINNESOTA
COUNTYOFWRIGHT
Iherebycertifythattheforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofaresolutiondulypassed,
adoptedandapprovedbytheMonticelloCityCouncilattheirscheduledmeetingonDecember13,
2010,andrecordedinminutesofsaidmeeting.
____________________________________
JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator
NotaryPublic:_______________________________
Date:___________________________
(STAMP)
CityCouncilAgenda:2/28/11
1
5J.Considerationofauthorizingout-of-statetrainingontheMetaswitchphonesystem
forFiberNetemployees (JO/CS)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
InkeepingwithCitypoliciesgoverningapprovaloftrainingprovidedoutoftheState,
Councilisaskedtoauthorizeout-of-statetrainingforupcomingcoursesonthe
Metaswitchphonesystem,whicharecriticalforoperationofthesystemandinstallation
andimplementationinbusinesscustomersites.MetaswitchNetworkssystemconsistsof
integrated,stateofthearthardwareandsoftwarethatrequiresaconsiderableamountof
technicalunderstandingandexpertise.Metaswitchprovidesforallthetrainingthatis
availableforitssystemandtheclassesfillupveryfast.
TheoriginalcontractwithMetaswitchNetworksprovidedfor8daysoftraining,which
wasusedinprioryears.Additionalcoursesappeartobepricedat$500pertrainingday
foreachseat(perpersonattending).Courselengthsrangefrom1to5daysdepending
onthetopicstobecovered.Trainingcoursesareheldinlocationsdeterminedby
MetaSwitch,whichincludeBocaRatonFL,AlamedaCA,WestboroughMA,DallasTX,
andDesMoinesIA.Otherexpensesgenerallyassociatedwiththetrainingwouldbe
travel(airfareandassociatedfeesormileage),hotel,andmeals.
Attheirlastmeeting,theFiberNetAdvisoryBoardrecommendedsendinguptotwo
employeesforMetaSpheretraining,whichisdirectlyrelatedtothemanagedphone
serviceswithinMetaswitchthatwillbeusedbybusinesscustomers.Additionaltraining
willalsobeneededintheverynearfutureforFiberNetemployeestofacilitateoperations
andtroubleshootingofitsphonesystems.
WiththerecentchangeintheGeneralManagerforFiberNet,thetrainingschedulewill
bereviewedwithstaffandHBCtodeterminethecoursesthatarenecessaryandaplan
developedfortheappropriatetraining.Inordertoexpeditetheprocessforregisteringfor
coursesandmakingthenecessarytravelarrangements,Councilisbeingaskedto
authorizeout-of-statetraininginadvance.ThiswouldpermitFiberNetstafftoplacea
holdonthecoursestheyneedtoattendallowingenoughtimetomaketravel
arrangementsandkeepCouncilupdatedonout-of-statetrainingplans.
Inthesupportingdata,youwillfindsomegeneralinformationaboutMetaswitch
NetworksandalistoftheupcomingcoursesthatareincludedintheMetaswitchtraining
schedule.Atthistime,theyareschedulingoutintoMayandanumberoftheclassesare
alreadyfull.
A1.BudgetImpact:Fundsfortheseexpensesareidentifiedinthebusinessplan.
Thereisatotalof$12,000budgetedforTrainingandTravelExpensesin2011.
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:FiberNetemployeeswouldattendtrainingcoursesas
determinedbydiscussionsbetweenstaffandHBC.
CityCouncilAgenda:2/28/11
2
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.Motiontoauthorizeout-of-statetravelplanninganddirectstafftoworkwithHBC
indevelopingatrainingplanfortheMetaSwitchphonesystem.
2.Motiontodenyauthorizationofout-of-statetravelforFiberNetemployees.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1.TheMetaswitchtrainingisessentialforFiberNet
employeestobeabletooperateandmaintainthephoneswitchaswellasproceedwith
appropriateinstallationandimplementationofmanagedservicesforbusinessclients.
Thetrainingisonlyofferedinafewplacesatdesignatedtimesduringtheyearandisnot
availableinMinnesota.
Inordertominimizetravelcostwhilemaximizingtrainingopportunitiesthatcomewith
thecontract,aplanwillbepreparedidentifyinginspecifictermsthecourseandlocation
oftrainingneededbystaff.Registrationandtravelarrangementsfortheseclasseswill
bemadesufficientlyinadvancetoassureaspotintheclassandassureproper
managementoftravelexpenses.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
A-GeneralinformationaboutMetaswitchNetworks
B–MetaswitchTrainingSchedule
C-Traininginformationandsamplecoursesheets
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
1
5K.Considerationofacceptingthepreliminary4th QuarterFinancialReport (TK)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
Attachedisthepreliminary20104th quarterfinancialstatusreport.TheFinancestaffis
stillworkingonclosingoutthe2010fiscalyearwithsomerevenueandexpendituresyet
toberecorded.AlsotheCity’sauditfirmwillbeherereviewingtheCityrecordsand
makinganypossibleadjustmentsinlateMarch,whichiswhythisreportispreliminary.
Asyoucanreadinthereport,permitrevenueswereasexpectedbelowbudget,while
manyotherrevenuesourcesfinishedtheyearexceedingtheirbudgets.Expendituresalso
forthemostpartwereunderbudgetinmanyfunds,withtheexceptionoftheFiberNet
Fund.EvenwiththeeconomicsituationandtheStatebudgetissues,theCityfinishedthe
2010fiscalyearingoodfinancialcondition.
A1.BudgetImpact:Thequarterlyreportshaveverylittlebudgetimpactotherthan
stafftimetopreparethereport.
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Thereporttakesstaffacoupleofhourstoprepare,but
thehopeisthenewsoftwaresystemwillreducethistimeinthefuture.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.Motiontoacceptthepreliminary20104th QuarterFinancialStatusreport.
2.Motiontonotacceptthepreliminary20104th QuarterFinancialStatusreport.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
TheCitystaffsupportsAlternative#1.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
Preliminary20104th QuarterFinancialStatusReport
December31st InvestmentSchedule
1
2010Preliminary4th QuarterFinancialStatusReport
TheFinancestaffisstillprocessingfinancialrecordsfor2010andbalancingaccounts,
whichisoneofthereasonsthisreportissolateinbeingcompleted.TheCity’saudit
firmwasonsiteinFebruarytoperformpreliminaryauditworkandthenwillreturnatthe
endofMarchtocompletefieldworkforthe2010auditreport.Sincestaffisstill
processingsome2010recordsandtheauditisnotcomplete,thisreportoftheCity’s2010
financialstatusispreliminaryandsomeofthefigureswillbedifferentwhentheCity’s
auditorspresenttheAnnualFinancialReportinearlyJune.Withthat,hereistheCity’s
20104th QuarterPreliminaryFinancialReport.
Overall
InspiteoftheeconomytheCity’srevenuesandexpendituresareinlinewithpastrevenue
andexpenditurelevelsandtheirbudgetamounts.Thechartbelowshowseachfundtype
comparedtobudgetforyears2009and2010throughtheendofthe4 th quarter
2009 2009 %2010 2010 %
Budget 4thQTRYTD Received Budget 4thQTRYTD Received
GeneralFund7,157,601 7,091,117 99.07%6,329,450 6,814,338 107.66%
SpecialRevenueFunds 6,632,144 9,783,520 147.52%6,110,647 5,783,909 94.65%
DebtServiceFunds6,192,140 4,436,673 71.65%6,064,497 5,649,233 93.15%
CapitalImprovementFunds4,495,643 75,275 100.00%5,602,320 3,111,700 55.54%
EnterpriseFunds6,257,325 6,377,635 101.92%8,620,167 7,645,998 88.70%
TotalRevenues30,734,853 27,764,220 90.33%32,727,081 29,005,178 88.63%
2009 2009 %2010 2010 %
Budget 4thQTRYTD Received Budget 4thQTRYTD Spent
GeneralFund7,157,601 8,410,917 117.51%6,329,450 6,383,092 100.85%
SpecialRevenueFunds9,065,958 9,310,677 102.70%7,521,339 6,212,603 82.60%
Debt ServiceFunds 9,134,080 9,103,840 99.67%6,845,275 7,934,328 115.91%
CapitalImprovementFunds4,715,000 228,515 100.00%4,289,220 3,175,176 74.03%
EnterpriseFunds7,960,546 13,897,260 174.58%9,909,830 16,230,304 163.78%
TotalExpenditures38,033,185 40,951,209 107.67%34,895,114 39,935,503 114.44%
Thebiggestdifferencebetween2010and2009revenuesandexpendituresisthe2010
bondsale(revenues)andthe2010streetreconstructionproject(expenditures)bothwhich
havethe2010CapitalImprovementFundsmuchhigherin2010thanin2009.Theother
changeisFiberNetrevenuesandexpendituresintheEnterpriseFunds.
Therestofthisdocumentwilldescribethefinancialactivityofeachfundtype.
2
GeneralFund
TheCitywasabletocollectmorefundsthenbudgetedforrevenues,thisinspiteof
permitrevenuescontinuingtobeslow.TheCitylowereditsbudgetto$235,000for
buildingpermitsandcollectedonly$149,639.Onesurprisebasedontheeconomyisthat
theCitytypicallycollectsaround98%ofitspropertytaxlevyaftertheJanuarysettlement
hasbeendistributed,for2010thisappearstobealmost100%includingdelinquencies
collected.ThisalsoaffectedMiscellaneousRevenuesastheCitycollected$34,100in
specialassessmentlatefeesfromtheCounty.TheCityhasalwayschargedits
constructionprojectsa1%administrationsfeebasedoncurrentyearexpenditures.Due
tothelargeoverlayprojectin2010,theCityrecordedrevenuesof$181,628forthese
administrationfees.Thetablebelowcompares2009and2010budgetsand4th quarter
revenuesfortheGeneralFund.
2009 2009 %2010 2010 %
Budget 4thQTRYTD Received Budget 4thQTRYTD Received
PropertyTaxes5,272,397 4,912,384 93.17%5,297,065 5,289,336 99.85%
Licenses&Permits 591,900 266,297 44.99%296,650 217,184 73.21%
IntergovernmentalRevenues498,056 482,334 96.84%114,801 317,956 276.96%
ChargesforServices383,950 571,213 148.77%306,023 561,036 183.33%
Fines&Forfeits750 1,220 162.67%300 205 68.33%
Miscellaneous 291,452 388,555 133.32%269,611 383,621 142.29%
TransfersfromOtherFunds119,114 469,114 393.84%45,000 45,000 100.00%
TotalGeneralFundRevenues7,157,619 7,091,117 99.07%6,329,450 6,814,338 107.66%
OntheexpendituresidetheCityhasspent100.85%ofitsbudgetandtherearestillsome
billsforconsultingservicesandsomeothersmallbillsthatwillbechargedinto2010.
Thetablebelowcompares2009and2010budgettoactualexpendituresbydepartment.
2009 2009 %2010 2010 %
Budget 4thQTRYTD Received Budget 4thQTRYTD Spent
GeneralGovernment1,441,244 2,173,003 150.77%1,372,973 1,526,168 111.16%
PublicSafety1,977,997 2,433,275 123.02%1,697,794 1,684,220 99.20%
PublicWorks2,524,089 2,644,250 104.76%2,275,156 2,258,526 99.27%
Miscellaneous345,601 342,288 99.04%165,593 235,645 142.30%
Parks793,974 739,528 93.14%744,590 618,281 83.04%
EconomicDevelopment74,714 78,573 105.17%73,344 60,252 82.15%
TotalGeneralFdExpenditures7,157,619 8,410,917 117.51%6,329,450 6,383,092 100.85%
The generalgovernmentdepartment isoverbudgetduetotheelectionactivitybeing
overbudgetby$22,727andthepayingofthelobbyistrelatedtoYuccaMountainoutof
thelegalbudgetthatwasnotabudgetedexpenditure($66,342).FinallytheCityspent
$39,251(includingpropertytaxes)tooperatethePrairieCenterBuildingwhichwasnot
budgetedfor2010.
3
The publicsafetydepartment isjustunderbudgetfor2010,whichislargelyduetothe
onceayearpaymenttothefirereliefassociationmadeinOctoberandwas$13,242
belowbudgetbasedonStateAidpaymentsbeinglessthananticipated.Otherwiseline
itemswhichwereoverbudgetwereoffsetbylineitemswhichwereunderbudget.
The publicworksdepartment alsoisjustundertheirbudgetssofar.Againtheline
itemswhichareoverspentwereoffsetbylineitemsbeingunderspent.Oneareathat
shouldn’tcomeasasurprisethatwasoverspentwastheIceandSnowactivity.For2010
thisactivityoverspentitsbudgetby$48,144andthisismainlyintheareaofwagesand
benefits.However,thisisoffsetbetheStreetsandAlleysactivitybeingunderspentfor
theyearandagainmainlyintheareaofwagesandbenefits.
Anotheractivitywhichwasslightlyoverbudget($22,974over)wastheRefuse
CollectionandwasduetotheCitychangingthewaytheseservicesweredeliveredin
2010,mainlywiththecontractortakingoverthecartmaintenanceandchangingtothe
largerrecyclingcarts,whichincreasedvolumes.
Thebudgetforthe miscellaneousdepartment willfinishtheyearabovebudgetasthe
City’sinsurancepremiumshaveincreasedbecausestafffoundanumberofCity
propertiesnotcoveredundertheCitiespoliciesinthepastandincludedthosein2010.
The parksdepartment isunderbudgetduetomostlineitemsbeingunderbudgetand
onlyspending$5,379ofthe$$20,000budgetedfortrailmaintenance.Finally,the
economicdevelopmentdepartment wasunderitsbudgetby$13,092whichwasdue
againtomostlineitemsbeingunderbudget.
InsummarytheGeneralFundrevenuesshouldendtheyearabovebudgetandover
expenditures,whileexpenditureswillfinishtheyearjustoverbudget.Overallthe
GeneralFundshouldbeingoodshapeforthefiscalyear2010.
SpecialRevenueFunds
SpecialRevenueFundsarefundswhichtheusesoftheirrevenuesarerestrictedfor
specificpurposesbyagoverningbody.TheCitycurrentlyoperates17specialrevenue
funds,eachwiththeirownbudget.FundssuchastheLibrary,ShadeTree,Street
ReconstructionandCommunityCenteralldependonapropertytaxlevytosupporttheir
activities.ThechartonthenextpagecompareseachSpecialRevenueFund’srevenue
budgettoactualrevenuesfor2010.
4
ThetotalrevenuebudgetforallSpecialRevenueFundswas$6,110,647andtheCityhas
collected94.65%fortheyear.Onereasontheserevenuessourcesarebelowbudgetfor
theyearisinterestearningscominginbelowbudget.Thebudgetanticipatedsome
improvementsininterestratesin2010andthisdidnothappenresultinginlowerinterest
earningsfortheyear.AlsotheLibraryFund,StreetReconstructionFund,ShadeTree
Fund,andCommunityCenterFundallhaveataxlevyasarevenuesource.Allofthese
havereceivedaround99%oftheirtaxlevy.
TheDMVsurpassedtheirsalesprojectionsastheirbudgetwas$280,000andthey
collected$303,839fortheyear.AlsotheCommunityCenterFundhadabudgetof
$1,119,800forchargesforservices(memberships,concessions,etc.)buttookin
$1,149,915fortheyear.
OntheExpenditureside,allfundhavespentonly82.6%oftheirbudgetedexpenditures,
whichalargepartoftheirexpendituresisforoperatingtransferstoDebtServiceFundfor
theirshareofdebtpayment.
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
BudgettoActuals-Revenues
Budget 4thQTRYTD
5
DebtServiceFunds
TheCityhasmadeitsdebtpaymentfortheyear,soexpendituresarecompleteforthe
year.TheCityrefinancedthe2002improvementbondswiththeissuanceofthe2010A
ImprovementandRefinancingBond,thusreducingfuturepropertytaxleviesfordebt
service.Alsothe2004ATaxableTaxIncrementBondwasretiredin2010.Onthe
revenuesidethetransfersofCityfundsfortheCityshareofdebtpaymenthavebeen
madeandthespecialassessmentshavebeencollected.
OveralltheCityhasoutstandingdebtof$64,964,000atyear-end,whichincludedthe
FiberNetrevenuebond.ThisnumberishighforaCityofoursize,butithasalottodue
withthefinancingoftheinterchangeproject,wastewatertreatmentplantbond,and
communitycenterbond,whichhavebondsoutstandingof$18,065,000(13yrs.
remaining),$7,294,0000(8yrs.Remaining),and$4,920,000(5yrs.remaining)
respectivelyasof12/31/10.Plusthereisthe$26,445,000TelecommunicationsRevenue
BondforFiberNet,whichthecityisonlymakinginterestpaymentsatthistimeandhas
19yearsleft.IsaythisbecausethecommontoolforcomparingdebtfromoneCityto
anotherisdebtpercapitaandIoftenseetheserangingfrom$700to$1,500,butifwe
usedapopulationof12,000forMonticello,ourdebtpercapitawouldbeover$5,414.
Butagainyoucanpointtotheprojectslistedaboveasgoodreasonstobehighanddoes
notmeantheCityisinbadfinancialhealth.
TheCity’snextdebtpaymentwasdueandwasmadeFebruary1st,2011intheamountof
$5,252,472.82andincludesbothprincipalandinterest.
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
BudgettoActuals-Expenditures
Budget 4thQTRYTD
6
CapitalProjectFunds
In2010theCitybudgetedrevenuesorexpendituresfortheCity’scapitalprojectsand
wasbasedontheCity’s5-yearcapitalimprovementplan,whichincludeddoinga
reconstructionprojectin2010.BasedonthatplanWestRiverStreetandsomeofthe
adjacentstreetswerereconstructed.FortheyeartheCapitalProjectFundshadrevenues
of$3,111,700,whichwasfromtheissuanceofbonds,interestearningsandoperating
transfersfromthevariousfundswhichwerefundingsourcesfortheprojects.TheCity
hasspent$3,175,176onthevariousprojects.Thesefunds,dependingonthetimingof
revenuesourcesandtheirexpenditures,willorcanhaveperiodswhenexpenditures
exceedrevenuesbysomeamountor,ifalargefundingsource(forexample,bond
proceeds)isreceived,revenueswillexceedexpenditures.Sothisisnothingtobe
concernedwith.
EnterpriseFunds
TheCityhasfiveEnterpriseFundsthatitoperates.TheseareoperationsthattheCity
runslikeabusinessactivity.TheWaterandSewerFundsthroughDecemberhavebilled
andrecordedrevenuesforthefirstthreequartersoftheyearandwillbillforthefourth
quarterinJanuary.TheLiquorandCemeteryFundsreceivetheirrevenuesonapretty
consistentbasisthroughouttheyear,withDecemberfortheLiquorFundbeingitsbusiest
period.FinallytheFiberNetMonticelloFundisstillinthestartupphasesandin2010
beganbillingforthevariousservicesprovided.Belowisthetableofbudgettoactualfor
theEnterpriseFundrevenuesforthepasttwoyears:
20092009%20102010%
Budget 4thQTRYTD Received Budget 4thQTRYTD Received
WaterFund973,375804,00682.60%989,977956,93196.66%
SewerFund1,485,9501,086,00773.09%1,536,6251,568,418102.07%
LiquorFund3,742,0004,427,999118.33%4,121,5704,599,202111.59%
CemeteryFund31,00021,28668.66%24,2219,63939.80%
FiberNetMonticelloFund25,00038,3370.00%1,947,774511,808100.00%
Total6,257,3256,377,635101.92%8,620,1677,645,99888.70%
Ontheexpendituresidetherearenobigsurpriseseither.TheLiquorFundisover103%
spentduetoincreasedsales,whichrequiredincreasedmerchandisepurchases.The
FiberNetMonticelloFundbudgetisoverspent,butthatisbecausewebudgetedperthe
originalbusinessmodelswhichhadtheCityfinishingconstructionofthesysteminstead
ofconstructingthemajorityofthesystemin2010.
7
BelowaretheexpensesfortheEnterpriseFunds:
20092009%20102010%
Budget4thQTRYTDSpent Budget4thQTRYTDSpent
WaterFund1,165,368569,37748.86%1,307,876913,50169.85%
SewerFund2,402,7541,242,56851.71%2,477,1212,198,92488.77%
LiquorFund3,714,9264,072,125109.62%4,107,4344,234,041103.08%
CemeteryFund35,49824,09267.87%39,16923,22359.29%
FiberNetMonticelloFund642,0007,989,0980.00%1,978,2308,860,615100.00%
Total7,960,54613,897,260174.58%9,909,83016,230,304163.78%
WhileitappearsexpenditureshaveexceededrevenuesintheWaterandSewerFunds,
thislossisfromtherecordingofdepreciationofsystemassets,asrevenuesaresetata
leveltocoveroperationsandonlypartofthedepreciation.
Investments
Finally,theCity’sinvestmentactivityhasbeenrelativelyminor.Attheendoftheyear
theCityhad$23,937,204investedatanaverageinterestrateof3.40%andanaverage
yieldof3.30%.Thiscomparesto$29,495,024atanaverageinterestrateof3.56%and
averageyieldof3.61%attheendof2009.TheCityhasnotlostanyofitsinvestments
duetothetroublesofthefinancialmarkets;howevertheCityhashadanumberof
GovernmentSecuritiescalledearly.AlloftheCity’sCD’sarecoveredbyFDICand
shouldnotbeatrisk.OnthenextpageisthebreakdownoftheCity’sinvestments:
CD's
FNMA
FFCB
FHLMC
FHL Money
Markets
Bonds
InvestmentsbyType
8
FHL=FederalHomeLoan;MoneyMarkets=GovernmentSecurityMoneyMarketFunds;CD’s=
CertificateofDeposits;FNMA=FederalNationalMortgageAssociation;FFCB=FederalFarmCredit
Bank;FHLMC=FederalHomeLoanMortgageCorporation.
AlloftheseinvestmentsmeetStateandCityinvestmentrequirements.Attachedarethe
investmentholdingsoftheCityasofDecember31st.
Conclusion
Overall,consideringthestateoftheeconomyandtheState’sbudgetcrisis,theCitywill
endthe2010fiscalyearingoodshapewithsolidfundbalances.Revenueswillfinishthe
yearnearorbelowbudgetandduetodebtretirement,the2010streetreconstruction
project,andtheFiberNetconstruction,expenditureswillbeover2010budgetamounts.
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
1
5L.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-16toOrderAbatementofHazardous
Property (DJH/AS/CampbellKnutson)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
TheCityCouncilisaskedtodeclaretheabandonedRegencyInn&Suitespylonsigna
“hazardousbuildingorhazardousproperty”pursuanttoMinnesotaStatute463.15.
ThesignstructureislocatedonLot1,Block1oftheSilverFoxAddition.Thisisthe
southeastcorneroftheintersectionofCedarStreetandOakwoodDrive.Thesign
propertyisaseparateparcelfromtheSuper8Motelat1114CedarStreet,whichisLot2
oftheSilverFoxAddition.ThepropertyisownedbyJyotiPatelofBigLake,MN.Ithas
beenpurchasedonacontract-for-deedfromChinYuenSilverFoxInn,Inc.
TopLineAdvertising,thefirmwhichinstalledtheSuper8signsonthathotelbuilding
wasalsohiredtochangethepylonsignmessage.Afterinspectingthepylon,they
indicatedtotheCitythattheydeclinedtoworkonthatsignduetothedilapidatedstateof
thestructure.TopLineemailedphotosoftheirinspectiontoRonHackenmueller.These
photos,alongwithonsiteinspectionsbycitystaffwereusedindeterminingthehazardous
natureofthestructure.
Inseparatebutrelatedaction,theCitypreviouslynotifiedthepropertyownerthatthis
propertyisinviolationofthezoningcode,asthesignisnowaprohibitedabandonedoff-
premisesign.Thisisduetothefactthatthesignfacenolongerrepresentsthehotel
propertyontheLot2parcel.Throughthisprocess,theCityhasprovidedsufficienttime
toremovethesign.Thelastcorrespondenceregardingthezoningviolation(dated
February7th,2011)specificallycitestheconcernsregardingthehazardousnatureofthe
signandnotestheCity’sintentiontomoveforwardwithadditionalactioninthatregard.
TheCityhasnotreceivedanycorrespondenceinresponsetothatletter.
TheDamage:Thesteelcolumnsonthesignarebadlyrustedandshowingsignsof
disrepairandneglect.Theweldsconnectingthetwohalvesofthecolumnshaverusted
andseparatedallowingthesigntoswayandrockwhenthewindblows.Thenutsand
boltsthatconnectthesigntothepylonstructurearealsobadlyrustedandsomehave
backedoutandarenolongertightlysecured.
TheDanger:Thesignstructureisapproximately50feettallandisincloseproximityto
thepublicright-of-way.Thebasesofthepylonsaresetbackapproximately10-15feet
fromnortheastpropertyline(OakwoodDriveEastroadright-of-way)and20-25feet
fromnorthwestpropertyline(CedarStreetright-of-way).Itisalsolocatedapproximately
20feetfromthepedestriansidewalk.PowerlinesthatfollowtheCedarStreetcorridor
arealsowithinthefallradiusofthesign.
ThepurposeoftheresolutiontoOrderAbatementofHazardousPropertyistoallowCity
AttorneySorenMatticktostartthelegalproceedingsasoutlinedinMNStatute463.15.
Thefollowingisanoutlineofthisveryspecificstatutoryprocess:
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
2
TheOrdermustbeservedonthepropertyowner(JyotiPatel)andtheLienholder
(OnnKhauv,PresidentofChinYuenSilverFoxInn,Inc.)andanyoneelsewithan
interestintheproperty.
Alldefendantswillhave20daystoabatethehazardorfileananswerwiththeCourt
iftheywanttocontesttheOrder.
IfthedefendantsdonotcontesttheOrder,theCitywillmovetheCourtforsummary
enforcement.Ifitiscontestedtherewillbeaciviltrial.
Enforcement:iftheorderissustainedbytheCourt,theCourtwillfixatimeasto
whenthehazardousconditionsmustberemoved.
IfthejudgmentisnotcompliedwithinthetimeprescribedbytheCourt,theCitymay
removethestructure.
SubjecttoCourtapproval,thecostofremoval,andattorneys’fees,mayberecovered
byaspecialassessmenttotheproperty.
Councilshouldnotethatalthoughtheorderforabatementwillbeimmediatelyservedon
thepropertyownerandlienholder,theCityisnotobligatedtofiletheorderwiththe
Courtimmediately.TheCitycanwaitforaresponseand/orremovalwithinthespecified
20dayperiod.Ifnoactionistaken,theCitythenhastheopportunitytoimmediatelyfile
theorderwiththecourtandproceedasoutlined.
A1.BudgetImpact:TheCitywillincurlegalcostsassociatedwithpursuingthis
action.Asnoted,theCitymayrequestthatthecourtassignthosecostswithinthe
abatementassessment,butisnotguaranteedthatthecourtwilldoso.
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffwillcontinuetomonitoractionasdirectedby
Council’sdecisionandworkwiththeCityAttorneyontheabatementprocess.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-16toOrderAbatementofHazardousProperty.
2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolution#2011-16toOrderAbatementof
HazardousProperty.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
StaffbelievesthattheimmediateorderforabatementunderAlternative#1addressesthe
City’sconcernsregardingthestructuremostdirectly.IfCounciladoptstheOrderfor
Abatement,thepropertyownerdoeshavetheopportunitytoanswertheorderand
thereforehastheabilitytoprovideengineeringinformationsupportingthestructural
integrityofthesign.
Thepropertyownerhasbeenprovidedsufficienttimetoremovethesignunderthe
zoningcompliancecorrespondence.Additionally,theFebruary7,2011letterfromthe
CityspecificallystatesthattheBuildingDepartmentwouldproceedwithseparate
enforcementrelatedtothehazardousnatureofthesign.Thesignliescloseenoughtothe
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
3
publicrightofway,thepublicsidewalkandthepowerlinestonecessitateimmediate
reviewbytheCityCouncil.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
Resolution#2011-16
CopyofDemolitionOrderforRemovalofaHazardousProperty
LocationAerialImage
SignStructureImages
MinnesotaStateBuildingCodeReference
ZoningCodeComplianceLetters:
August25th,2010
December6th,2010
February7th,2011
PropertyOwnerResponseEmail
CITYOFMONTICELLO
WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTIONNO.2011-16
ORDERINGABATEMENTOFHAZARDOUSPROPERTY
WHEREAS,theChiefBuildingOfficialfortheCityofMonticellohasinspectedcertainproperty
intheCityofMonticello,Minnesota,legallydescribedasLot1,Block1,SilverFox,Wright
County,Minnesota;and
WHEREAS,theChiefBuildingOfficialhaspreparedanInspectionReportdated{fillin};and
WHEREAS,theMonticelloCityCouncilhasreviewedtheInspectionReportandhas
determinedthattheRegencysignonthedescribedpropertyconstitutesahazardousproperty
withinthemeaningofMinn.Stat.§463.15,subd.3.
NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED bytheCityCounciloftheCityofMonticello,
Minnesota:
1.PursuanttoMinn.Stat.§463.16,etseq.,theCityherebyadoptsandapprovesthe
DemolitionOrderforRemovalofHazardousProperty,attachedheretoasExhibit“A”.
2.TheCityofMonticellofindsthattheconditionofthepropertylegallydescribedasLot1,
Block1,SilverFox,WrightCounty.Minnesota,isahealthandsafetyhazardand
containsahazardouspropertywithinthemeaningofMinn.Stat.§463.15,subd.3.
3.TheCity’slegalcounsel,CampbellKnutson,P.A.,317EagandaleOfficeCenter,1380
CorporateCenterCurve,Eagan,Minnesota55121,isdirectedtoservetheOrderfor
RepairorRemovalofaHazardousPropertyandtoproceedwithenforcementin
accordancewithMinn.Stat.§463.15,etseq.
ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis28th dayofFebruary,2011.
CITYOFMONTICELLO
_______________________________
ClintHerbst,Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator
CERTIFICATION
STATEOFMINNESOTA
COUNTYOFWRIGHT
Iherebycertifythattheforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofaresolutiondulypassed,
adoptedandapprovedbytheMonticelloCityCouncilattheirscheduledmeetingonFebruary28,
2011,andrecordedinminutesofsaidmeeting.
____________________________________
JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator
NotaryPublic:_______________________________
Date:___________________________
(STAMP)
156208
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF WRIGHT TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: Other Civil
_____________________________________________
Court File No. ______________
IN RE:
The Matter of a Hazardous Property DEMOLITION ORDER
Legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Silver Fox, FOR REMOVAL OF A
City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota HAZARDOUS PROPERTY
_____________________________________________
TO: The following Owners and lienholders of the above real estate:
Jyoti R. Patel, 19749 County Road 14 NW, Big Lake, Minnesota 55309
Onn Khauv, President, c/o Chin Yuen Silver Fox Inn, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation,
1114 Cedar Street, Monticello, Minnesota 55362
PLEASE BE ADVISED that pursuant to order of the Monticello City Council and by
authority of Minnesota Statutes § 463.15 et seq., you have twenty (20) days from the date of
service of this Order upon you, to remedy the health and safety hazard and the hazardous
condition of the property located in the City of Monticello, State of Minnesota, and legally
described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Silver Fox, Wright County, Minnesota
The Chief Building Official for the City of Monticello has inspected the above referenced
property. The subject property contains an abandoned “Regency Inn & Suites” sign. The
inspections revealed that the condition of the property as presently situated is unsafe, and
constitutes a health and safety hazard to the residents of the City of Monticello.
If you fail to remedy the situation the City will seek permission from the District Court for
the City to do so. The City will move the District Court for summary enforcement of this Order
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 463.19 unless you remedy the situation within said twenty (20)
156208
day period or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20) days of service of this Order upon you.
Upon enforcement of the Order by the City, all costs expended by the City will be assessed against
the real property and collected as other taxes as provided in Minnesota Statutes § 463.21.
Dated: February _____, 2011. CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
By: ________________________________
Soren M. Mattick, #27785X
City Attorney
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
Telephone: (651) 452-5000
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The City of Monticello, by and through its undersigned attorney, acknowledges that
costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing
party or parties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 549.21, Subd. 2.
Dated: _____________, 2011.
__________________________________
Soren M. Mattick, #27785X
Regency Inn & Suites Sign Location
City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11
1
7.PublicHearing-ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-13ordering
improvementsandauthorizingpreparationoffinalPlansandSpecificationsfor
2011StreetReconstructionproject,CityProjectNo.11C001 (BW)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
OnFebruary14,2010,CouncilacceptedtheFeasibilityReportfortheproposed2011
StreetReconstructionProject,CityProjectNo.11C001.Thisprojectisincontinuationof
theCity’sOverallStreetReconstructionProgramasadoptedbytheCityCouncilon
February9,2004.TheFeasibilityReportaddressestheneedfortheprojectanddefines
itsscope,currentconditions,proposedimprovements,requiredpermitsandapprovals,
additionalright-of-wayand/oreasementneeds,estimatedcosts,fundingsplits,
availabilityoffundsincludingthepotentialforassessments,andprojectschedule.
Thestreetsproposedforreconstructionin2011arelocatedintwoareasinthenorthern
portionoftheCityasshowninFigures1and2ofthesupportingdataandincludethe
following:
Area4B(EastRiverStreet)
EastRiverStreet–CedarStreetto+/-1,100’eastofWashingtonStreet
CedarStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet
PalmStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet
NewStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet
WrightStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet
RamseyStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet
HennepinStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet
WashingtonStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)topublicaccess/parkentrance
EllisonPark–Parkinglot,internaldrive,andboatlaunchaccessdrive
WestRiverStreet
WestRiverStreet–WestBroadway(CSAH75)toXcelballfieldsentrance
Perthe2004OverallStreetReconstructionProgram,Area4Bwasoriginallyplannedto
bereconstructedin2006,andWestRiverStreetwasplannedtobereconstructedin2008.
However,duetotheeconomy,thesizeoftheprojectareasannuallydesignatedfor
reconstructionwerescaledbackinrecentyears,delayingthereconstructionofmanyof
thestreetsdesignatedwithintheprogram.
ThestreetswithinthetwoprojectareaswereratedbyCitystaffin2003,withassistance
fromWSBandAssociates.Theseratingsindicatedtheneedtoreconstructallofthe
streetswithinArea4BandWestRiverStreet,westofCSAH75.Whilepreparingthe
FeasibilityReportitwasdeterminedthatthestreetswouldnotneedtobere-ratedasnew
ratingswouldbeequaltoorworsethantheoriginal2003ratings,whichwouldnot
changetherecommendationtoreconstructthesestreets.
City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11
2
OnJanuary26,2011,apublicinputmeetingwasheldwiththepropertyownerswithin
Area4BandWestRiverStreet,westofCSAH75.Approximately21residentialand
non-residentialpropertyownersattendedthemeeting.Allwhoattendedgenerally
understoodthatthestreetsproposedforreconstructionhavedeterioratedtothepointthat
theyrequirecompletereconstruction.
Duringthepublicmeeting,CitystaffinformedtheArea4Bpropertyownersthatthe
streetsintheirareaareproposedtobeleftattheircurrentwidthof36-feet,eventhough
thiswouldmeanon-streetparkingwouldberestrictedtoonesideofthestreetonEast
RiverStreetbetweenPalmandWashingtonStreets,andonPalmStreetandWashington
StreetsbetweenEastBroadwayandEastRiverStreet.Thisisbecausethesestreetsare
onourMunicipalStateAidStreet(MSAS)systemandassuchareeligibletoreceive
stateaidfundsifdesignedandconstructedtostateaidstandards.Accordingtostateaid
standardsparkingisonlyallowedononesideofstreetsthatareaminimumof32-feet
wide,andonbothsidesofstreetsthatareaminimumof38-feetwide.Noneofthe
propertyownersinattendanceobjectedtothis.
TheArea4BpropertyownerswerealsoinformedthattheCouncilrecentlydirectedstaff
toomitanynewsidewalkconstructionwithinArea4B,withtheexceptionofaone-block
segmentofsidewalkalongCedarStreetbetweenEastBroadway(CSAH75)andEast
RiverStreettoconnecttheexistingsidewalkonEastBroadwaytoEastBridgePark.
Council’sdirectionwasbasedontheirreviewoftheresultsofasidewalksurveytakenin
earlyJanuary.ThesurveyaskedthepropertyownersinArea4Biftheysupportednew
sidewalkinthisarea,andifso,where.Atotalof78surveysweremailed,ofwhich22
responseswerereceivedwhichequaleda28%responserate.Ofthosewhoresponded,6
supportednewsidewalks,1wasundecided,and15wereopposednotingthatthelevelof
trafficontheirstreetdoesnotwarrantasidewalk,especiallysinceEastRiverStreetwas
detachedfromTH25.
ItshouldbenotedthatseveralresidentsfromtheEastRiverStreetareadidcontactCity
staffinpreviousyearstorequestthatsidewalksbeconstructedalongEastRiverStreet.
Staffwasthereforeexpectingagreaterlevelofsupportforsidewalkthanwhatwas
received.ItshouldalsobenotedthatEastRiverStreetiscurrentlysignedasanon-road
bikeroutepertherequirementsoftheISTEApathwayandpedestrianbridgeproject
completedinthelate1990’s.Thissigningisproposedtoremaininplacefollowingthe
reconstructionofthestreet.
TheWestRiverStreetpropertyownerswhoattendedthepublicmeetingseemedtoagree
thatthestreetneededtobereconstructed,andgenerallyunderstoodourrecommendation
toaddcurbandgutterandabituminouspathwayalongthestreet.However,oneproperty
ownerquestionedwhytheintersectionofWestRiverStreetandCSAH75wasnot
proposedtoberealignedtoforma90-degreeintersectionatthistime,similartowhatwas
doneatPrairieRoad.Hesaidhehaswitnessednumerousnear-missesatthisintersection
inthepastduetoitsskewedconfigurationwhichforcestrucksheadingeastboundon
CSAH75thatareturningrightontoWestRiverStreettoswingintothepathofvehicles
approachingCSAH75onWestRiverStreet.
City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11
3
StaffinformedthepropertyownerthatWrightCountyevaluatedtheintersectionof
CSAH75andWestRiverStreetwhiledesigningtheirprojectbutdeterminedtherewas
notenoughofanissuetowarranttherealignmentoftheintersection.Staffnotedthat
WrightCountywillbeaddingprotectedrightandleftturnlanesatWestRiverStreet
whichwillincreasesafety.Staffalsoinformedthepropertyownerthatweareproposing
toincreasethesizeoftheradiusinthenorthwestquadrantofthisintersectionwithour
project,whichwillincreasesafetybyallowingtrucksturningrightontoWestRiver
Streettobeabletodosowithoutencroachingintooncomingtraffic.Itwasalso
discussedthat,ifCouncilauthorizedthisproject,staffwouldthenreviewtheintersection
inmoredetailtoensurethatarealignmentoftheintersectionisnotwarrantedatthis
time.Ifitwere,wewouldthenrequestCouncilauthorizationtoworkwithWright
Countytoaddtherealignmentimprovementstotheirproject.
Itshouldbenotedthatsincethepublicinputmeeting,andfollowingCounciladoptionof
theFeasibilityReport,staffmetwithWrightCountyHighwayDepartmentstaffto
discussthedesignofthisintersection.Basedonourdiscussions,andconsideringthe
improvementsthatarebeingproposedwitheachofourprojects,itwasdeterminedthat
theintersectionshouldfunctionproperlyasis,bothnowandwellintothefuture.Wright
CountyHighwayDepartmentstaffnotedthattheydonotanticipateanincreaseintheuse
ofMontissippiParkintheforeseeablefuture,andsinceWestRiverStreetterminates
beforeI-94itisnotexpectedtogenerateanappreciableamountoftraffic.Itwasalso
discussedthatanyrealignmentoftheintersectionshouldincludearealignmentoftheleg
ofWestRiverStreetonthenorthsideofCSAH75aswell,whichwouldincreaseproject
costsbyabout$100,000anddelayWrightCounty’sprojectbyseveralweeksduetothe
needtore-designtheturnlanesatthisintersection.LettersfromWSBandAssociates
andtheWrightCountyHighwayDepartmentdescribingthesediscussionsinmoredetail
areattachedassupportingdata.
TheWestRiverStreetpropertyownersalsoquestionedtheproposednon-residential
assessmentrateof$80perfrontfoot.TheownerofElectroIndustries,BillSeefeldt,
submittedalettertotheCityfollowingthepublicmeetinginwhichhequestionedthe
proposedrateandaskedthatitbere-evaluated,alongwithseveralothercommentsand
requests.Thisletterisattachedassupportingdata.ThepresidentoftheAlanoSociety
alsoquestionedtheproposedassessmentrate,notingthattheirannualoperatingbudget
wouldnotallowthemtocovertheirproposedassessmentbasedonthenon-residential
rate.StaffthereforereviewedtheAlanoSociety’sproposedassessmentandreviseditto
matchthestandardassessmentratefortworesidentialpropertiestobeconsistentwiththe
assessmentapproachusedwithboththeRodandGunClubandRitzeTruckingaspartof
the2007StreetReconstructionProject.StaffthenreceivedaletterfromtheAlano
SocietyBoardofDirectorsonFebruary17th.TheletterrequeststhattheCityCouncil
waivetheirassessmentinitsentirety,therebyallowingthemtomaintaintheirpresent
obligationsandfutureplans.TheCouncilshouldtakeintoaccounttheCity’sestablished
assessmentpolicypracticesandwhatprecedentwouldbesetwhenconsideringthis
request.
IfCouncilorderstheseimprovements,staffwillreviewthenon-residentialassessment
rateagainstrecentprojectstodeterminetheactualpercentageofprojectcoststhattheir
City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11
4
assessmentscovered.ThisinformationwouldthenbereviewedwithCouncilpriorto
developingthefinalassessmentrollsandholdingtheAssessmentHearingthisfall.
ThefollowingisasummaryoftheproposedimprovementsforstreetswithinArea4B,
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.
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.
EllisonPark:
Reconstructbituminouspavementinparkinglot,internaldriveandboatlaunch
accessdriveareas.Theexistingpavementsectionsareinpoorconditionandthe
internaldrivewasoverlaidwith2”ofbituminousseveralyearsago.Staffisworking
withtheDNRtodetermineiftheywouldbewillingtoshareinsomeorallofthe
costsofreconstructingthepavementleadingtoandsupportingthepublicwater
access.
Installsanitarysewerandwaterservicestoeastendoflogshelterforfutureuse.This
workwouldinvolveloweringabout600-feetofsanitarysewertrunklineunderEast
RiverStreet,whichisbeingreplacedalready,toloweritenoughtoservethepark
City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11
5
shelter,andinstallingabout180feeteachofsanitaryandwaterservicelines.This
workwasnotaddressedintheFeasibilityReportpreviouslyadoptedbyCouncil.
Staffestimatestheconstructioncostsforthisadditionalworktobeabout$15,000.
AttheFebruary14,2011CityCouncilmeeting,staffwasdirectedtoreviewalternate
optionsforreconstructingWestRiverStreetincludingexcludingcurbandgutterand
narrowingthestreetwidth.Optionswereevaluatedforthisasidentifiedbelow.
WestRiverStreet,westofCSAH75:
Option1–34’wideurbanstreetw/off-roadpathway(perFeasibilityReport)
ConstructB618concretecurbandgutteralongbothsidesofthestreet to:
o allowforconstructionofanoff-roadpathway;
o protectpavementedgesfrombreakingupduetoheavytrucktraffic;and,
o providepositivedrainagetoreduceerosionpotential.
Reconstructpavementtoa31-footwidebituminoussection.
Constructa9-footwideoff-roadbituminouspathwaynorthofthestreet toconnect
thepathwaysouthofWestBroadwaytotheXcelballfields.
ConstructnewRRcrossingforWestRiverStreet.
ConstructnewRRcrossingforproposedoff-roadpathway.
Estimatedcostsforoption1=$451,600
Option2–34’wideurban/ruralhybridstreetw/off-roadpathway
ConstructB618concretecurbandgutteralongonlythenorthsideofthestreet to:
o allowforconstructionofanoff-roadpathwaynorthofthestreet;
o protectpavementedgesfrombreakingupduetoheavytrucktraffic;and,
o providepositivedrainagetoreduceerosionpotential.
Reconstructpavementtoa31-footwidebituminoussection.
Constructa1.5-footwidegravelshoulderonthesouthside.
Constructa9-footwideoff-roadbituminouspathwaynorthofthestreettoconnect
thepathwaysouthofWestBroadwaytotheXcelballfields.
ConstructnewRRcrossingforWestRiverStreet.
ConstructnewRRcrossingforproposedoff-roadpathway.
Estimatedcostsforoption2=$431,600 (decreaseof$20,000fornoC&Goneside)
Option3–35’wideruralstreetw/on-roadpathway
Nocurbandgutterwouldbeconstructedwiththisoption.
Reconstructpavementto33-footwidebituminoussectiontoaccommodatea16-foot
wideEBlane,a12-footWBlane,anda5-footwideon-roadbikelane.
Construct1-footwidegravelshouldersonbothsides.
Gradeadrainageditchonthenorthsideofthestreet.
ConstructnewRRcrossingforWestRiverStreet/on-roadpathway.
Estimatedcostsforoption3=$375,000 (decreaseof$76,600fornoC&G/off-road
path)
City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11
6
Itshouldbenotedthattheestimatedcostsforeachoptionshownaboveareforsurface
(streetandpathway)improvementsonlyanddonotincludeutilityimprovementcosts.
StaffrecommendsnotreducingthewidthofWestRiverStreettoanythingsubstantially
lessthanwhatitcurrentlyis,a35-footwidebituminouspavementsectionwithtwo15-
footdrivelanesandtwo2½-footbikelanes.Thisrecommendationtakesintoaccount
thecurrentuseofthisstreet,whichisprimarilynon-residential.Non-residentialstreets,
orstreetsthathavehighertrafficvolumesthanaverageresidentialstreets,aretypicallya
minimum36-feetwideaccordingtotheCity’sdesignguidelines.Inaddition,trafficon
thisstreetconsistsofahigh-percentageoflargetrucks,manyofwhichutilizethestreetto
turnaroundtobackintoloadingdocks,toparkalongtheedgewhilewaitingforaloading
docktoopenup,orwhilewaitingforinformationontheirnextdeliveryroute.Itis
thereforestaff’srecommendationthatthestreetwidthnotbenarrowedsubstantiallyfrom
whatitistoday,asisreflectedinthethreeoptionsabove.
Whileremovingcurbandgutterdoestendtoreduceconstructioncosts,italsotypically
increasesmaintenancecostsduetotheneedtogradethegravelshouldersperiodically,
andtocorrecterosionissuesthatoccurfromtimetotimeasaresultofhavingnocurb
andguttertodirectstormwaterrunoffawayfrompavementedgesandditchin-slopes.
However,sincetheCityalreadygradesthegraveldrivewayandparkinglotattheball
fieldsanyincreasedcostsassociatedwithgradinggravelshoulderswouldbeminimal,
buttherewouldlikelybeadditionalmaintenancecostsforaddressingdrainageand
erosionissueswiththeditchsystems.
PerCouncildirectiononFebruary14th,thereconstructionoftheparkinglotinEast
BridgeParkwillbebidasanalternateimprovementtothisproject.Aswasnotedby
Council,sincetheplansfortheseimprovementswerecompletedlastyearitwillnotcost
muchtoaddtheplanstotheoverallplansetforbiddingpurposes.
Thecontractorwhoisawardedtheprojectwouldnotbeallowedtostartconstruction
operationsinArea4BuntilafterJuly11th toavoidimpactinganyRiverFestactivitiesin
EllisonPark.Thisisnotanticipatedtoresultinsubstantialdelaysorincreasedcoststo
theproject.
ThetotalestimatedprojectcostforcompletingtheworkdefinedintheFeasibilityReport
is$2,413,200whichincludes10%contingencyand22%indirectcosts.Thisprojectis
proposedtobefundedusingstreetreconstructionfunds,Citycontributions,utility
operatingfunds,stateaidfunds,andassessmentstobenefittingproperties.
Single-familyresidentialpropertyownersareproposedtobeassessedforstreet
constructionatarateof$4,000perlothavingaccesstoanyofthereconstructedstreets.
Thisstreetassessmentratereflectsa5%increaseoverthe2010StreetReconstruction
projectassessmentrates,whichwereincreased5%peryearfromtheratesassessedwith
previousstreetreconstructionprojectstoaccountforincreasesininflationandthe
constructioncostindex,andtoensurethattheCitycanmeettheminimumrequirement
City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11
7
that20%oftheprojectcostsbeassessedwhenusingChapter429bondfundstopayfor
theproject.
Non-residentiallotsareproposedtobeassessedforstreetreconstructionatarateof$80
perfrontfoot,withanadditional$12perfrontfootaddedforsidewalkassessmentswhen
appropriate.Perpreviousassessmentpractices,thesenon-residentialratesareappliedto
100%ofthefrontfootageand50%ofthesidefootageoftheproperty,aslongasthe
propertyhasdirectaccesstothereconstructedstreet,or25%ofthesidefootageifthe
propertydoesnothavedirectaccess.However,ifdirectaccessisaddedatalaterdatethe
propertyownerwouldthenberequiredpaytheadditional25%atthattime.Previous
assessmentsforpropertiesassessedwiththeCSAH75improvementprojectweretaken
intoconsiderationwiththepreliminaryprojectassessmentsbasedontheabove
methodology.
Ashasbeenthecaseinthepast,assessmentsareproposedtobeappliedbasedonthe
currentuseofthepropertyatthetimetheimprovementsaremade.However,iftheuse
ofthepropertychangesinthefuture,theassessmentwouldbere-evaluatedatthetime
basedona20-yearpavementlife,notincludingadditionalinterestcosts.
Utilityoperatingfundsareproposedtobeusedforallsanitarysewerandwatermain
replacementsonstreetswithintheprojectareas,aswellasforgeneralutilityadjustments.
Replacementofindividualsewerand/orwaterservicelineswouldbeassessedtothe
benefittingpropertyownerwhentheworkisrequestedbythepropertyowner.IftheCity
initiatesworkonanindividualservicelinethepropertyownerwouldnotbeassessedfor
thework.Stormsewertrunkutilityfundswouldfundallnewstormsewerwork.
BasedonCouncilinputreceivedduringtheJanuary24th workshop,staffisnotproposing
toenhanceexistingstreetlightingwiththisproject.
A1.BudgetImpact:TheestimatedprojectcostsidentifiedintheFeasibilityReport,
whichinclude10%constructioncontingencyand22%indirectcostsforlegal,
engineering,administrativeandfinancingitems,areasfollows:
$1,858,500–Area4B*
$554,700–WestRiverStreet**
$2,413,200–Total
*ThisistheamountincludedintheadoptedFeasibilityReport.ShouldCouncil
approveaddingtheEllisonParkshelterutilityservicesworktotheprojectthe
estimatedcostwouldincreaseto$1,873,500forArea4B.
**ThisamountdependsonwhichdesignoptionCouncilapproves.
Duetothelowbondrateswearecurrentlyexperiencing,staffrecommendsthe
useofbondstofundtheproject.Bondpaymentswouldthenbemadeusingthe
appropriatefunds.
City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11
8
AsCouncilisaware,thebiddingenvironmentforstreetimprovementprojectshas
beenveryfavorablerecentlyduetotheeconomywithbidpricescominginat
10%-20%lessthansimilarprojectsconstructedseveralyearsago.All
indicationsarethatthisfavorablebiddingenvironmentwillcontinuethisyear
whichwilllikelyresultinsignificantsavingsfortheCityifwemoveaheadwith
thisprojectin2011.
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:StafffromtheEngineering,PublicWorksandFinance
Departmentswouldbeimpactedbythisprojecttovaryingdegrees,bothduring
thedesignandconstructionphases.ItshouldbenotedthatEngineering
Departmentstaffwouldberesponsibleforprovidingfull-timeconstruction
inspection,andthatPublicWorksDepartmentstaffwouldspendaconsiderable
amountoftimeinspectingutilitiesconstruction.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-13orderingimprovementsandauthorizing
preparationoffinalPlansandSpecificationsfor2011StreetReconstruction
Improvements,CityProjectNo.11C001.
2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolution#2011-13atthistime.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
CitystaffrecommendsapprovingAlternative#1whichincludesreconstructingWest
RiverStreetasa34-footwideurbansectionroadwaywithaseparatepathwayandnot
realigningtheintersectionatCSAH75.ReconstructionoftheEastBridgeparkinglot
andprovidingsewerandwaterservicestotheEllisonParkshelterarealsoincludedwith
Alternative#1,withtheEastBridgeparkinglotreconstructionbeingbidasanalternate.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
Resolution#2011-13
LetterfromElectroIndustriesdatedJanuary31,2011(2pgs)
LetterfromMonticelloAlanoSocietydatedFebruary14,2011(1pg)
Memow/figurefromWSB&AssociatesdatedFebruary23,2011(3pgs)
MemofromWrightCountyHighwayDepartmentdatedFebruary23,2011(3pgs)
CITYOFMONTICELLO
RESOLUTIONNO.2011-13
ORDERINGIMPROVEMENTSANDAUTHORIZINGPREPARATION
OFPLANSANDSPECIFICATIONS
2011STREETRECONSTRUCTIONPROJECT
CITYPROJECTNO.11C001
WHEREAS,aresolutionwasadoptedbytheCityCouncilonFebruary14,2011,acceptingthe
FeasibilityReportforthe2011StreetReconstructionProject,andcallingforaPublicHearingon
February28,2011onsaidproposedimprovements;and
WHEREAS,afterdueNoticeofPublicHearingwasprovidedontheconstructionofsaid
proposedimprovementsforthe2011StreetReconstructionProject:Area4B–EastRiverStreet
fromCedarStreettoapproximately1,100feeteastofWashingtonStreet,aswellasPalm,New,
Wright,Ramsey,Hennepin,andWashingtonStreetsbetweenEastBroadway/CSAH75andEast
RiverStreet,andthereconstructionofpavedsurfacesinEllisonPark;andWestRiverStreet,
westofWrightCSAH75.Improvementsincludethereconstructionofurbanandruralsection
roadways,curbandgutterreplacement,sidewalk,pathwayandstormsewerconstruction,utility
improvementsandotherappurtenantwork.OptionalimprovementsincludeEastBridgePark
parkinglotreconstruction.AhearingwasdulyheldonFebruary28,2011onsaidimprovements
andtheCityCouncilheardallpersonsdesiringtobeheardonthematterandfullyconsideredthe
same;and
WHEREAS,atsaidhearingtherewasavailableareasonableestimateoftheamounttobe
assessedandadescriptionofthemethodologywaspresented;
NOWTHEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED bytheCityCounciloftheCityofMonticello,
Minnesotaasfollows:
1.Saidimprovementsarenecessary,cost-effective,andfeasibleasdetailedinthe
FeasibilityReport.
2.Itisadvisable,expedientandnecessarythatsaidimprovementsasdescribedintheNotice
ofHearingthereonbeconstructed,andthesameareherebyorderedmade.
3.TheimprovementsdescribedinsaidNoticeofHearingareherebydesignatedandshallbe
knownasthe2011StreetReconstructionProject,CityProjectNo.11C001.
4.TheCityEngineeralongwithconsultingengineers,WSB&Associates,Inc.ishereby
directedtopreparefinalplansandspecificationsforsaidimprovements.
5.TheCityCouncilshallletthecontractforallorpartoftheworkforsaidimprovements
ororderallorpartoftheworkdonebydaylabororotherwiseasauthorizedby
MinnesotaStatutes,Section429.041,Subdivision2withinoneyearofthedateofthis
resolutionorderingsaidimprovements.
ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis28thdayofFebruary,2011.
CITYOFMONTICELLO
___________________________________
ClintHerbst,Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
1
8.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofapprovingsubmissiontotheDepartmentof
NaturalResourcesoftheMonticello2011OutdoorRecreationGrantApplication
RequestforthePhaseIVPropertyAcquisitionattheBertramChainofLakes
RegionalPark.(AS)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
InJanuaryof2011,theCityCouncilauthorizedsubmissionof2011grantapplicationsto
theDepartmentofNaturalResourcesforfuturelandacquisitionattheBertramChainof
Lakes.
Aspartofongoinggrantapplicationefforts,staff’sintentionwastopreparearequestfor
Councilauthorizationforapplicationtothe2011OutdoorRecreationGrantprogramfor
parcels1and2.Parcel1and2comprisethemajorityoftheactiverecreationareaatthe
BertramChainofLakesRegionalPark.ThegrantapplicationrequiresthattheCityhold
apublichearing.
However,staffisrequestingthatCounciltableactionontheOutdoorRecreation
applicationatthistime.Bytablingaction,Councildoesnotneedtoopenthepublic
hearing.AtsuchtimeastheCityseekstomoveforwardwiththeOutdoorRecreation
Grantprocess,apublichearingwillbeheldatthattime.
CityandCountyrepresentativesontheBertramChainofLakesAdvisoryCouncilwillbe
meetingonFriday,February25th todiscussnextstepsintheboththepublicreviewand
planapprovalprocessfortheactiverecreationareaconceptplan.
Althoughthe2011grantwouldallowtheCitytopursueacquisitionofparcel1and2
immediately,staffbelievesthattheinformationthatcomesoutofthemeetingonFriday,
andtheplanningthatfollowswillbehighlybeneficialtothefinalgrantapplication.In
short,moredetailedinformationabouttherecreationareaplanandtheplan’seventual
approvalprocesswillhelpstaffprepareamorecompletegrantapplicationpackage.
Therefore,staffisrequestingthattheCounciltableactiononthisitemuntiladditional
informationonthereviewandapprovalprocessfortherecreationalareacanbe
developed.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.Motiontotablethepublichearingindefinitelyforconsiderationofsubmissionof
anOutdoorRecreationGrantapplicationtotheDepartmentofNaturalResources
forthePhaseIVPropertyAcquisitionattheBertramChainofLakesRegional
Park.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1.
CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11
2
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
None