City Council Agenda Packet 03-28-1988AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 28, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to order.
Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held March 14, 1988.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
NOTE: Betty Held, Coordinator for Community Education for the
Handicapped in Wright County, will be requesting the Mayor
to sign a Proclamation setting April 24 through April 30 as
Handicapped Awareness Week.
4. Consideration of Request by Wright Flyers Model Flying Club to Use Old
NSP Ballfields.
5. Consideration of Ballfield Concession Stand and Fees.
6. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding Bid for Sanitary Sewer, Watermain,
and Appurtenant Work for Projects 88-018, County Road 39 East; 88-02,
Dundas Circle; and 68-03, Grossnickle Project on west County Road 39.
7. Consideration of Continuing with or Abandoning Efforts to Complete Deep
Well 13.
B. Consideration of Liquor Store Landscape Plan.
9. General Discussion Concerning Construction and Funding of an Elevated
Water Storage Tank in the Industrial Park Versus a Ground Level Water
Reservoir on Monte Hill.
10. Consideration of Bills for the Month of March.
11. Adjourn.
�<< \ 1s -\-b caNtO;.s ""—` fist,
3 � �
MI MUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 14, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve Crimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith,
Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 22,
1988.
4. Consideration of Planning Commission Appointment.
Council discussed the qualifications of the five individuals that
applied for membership on the Planning Commission. It was noted by
staff that there was a tie between Dan McConnon and Patrick Faltersack
when voted on by the Planning Commission. A general discussion ensued
regarding the terms of office of Planning Commission members. After
discussion it was agreed by consensus that no changes would be made to
the present policy governing Planning Commission members terms of
office.
Bill Fair noted that all candidates are qualified but that he prefers
Mr. McConnon because McConnon has been a long-time resident of the
community. Motion was made by Bill Fair to appoint Dan McConnon to the
Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen. Motion passed
unanimously.
Arve Crimsmo requested that staff keep the resumes of the applicants
that were not chosen for the Planning Commission in a current file.
Consideration of Allowing the Monticello Food Shelf to Utilize the Old
Fire Hall Building.
Mary Nolan and Mary Swenson were present representing the Monticello
Food Shelf. Questions regarding the history and growth of the
Monticello Food Shelf were asked by Warren Smith. Mary Nolan responded
by saying that the Food Shelf has been growing in recent years with an
average monthly usage presently at 32. families. She went on to say that
all support of the program is donated. No public funds are provided to
the Food Shelf. Private support fluctuates widely with most support
coming from two major drives per year. Fran Fair asked where is the
ideal place for the Food Shelf. Mary Nolan responded by saying that the
best place for the Food Shelf is in a low profile area. She went on to
say that space needs include interviewing area, office area, and food
storage. area. A general discussion ensued regarding the relationship
between Christian Social Service and the Food Shelf Organization. Mayor
Crimsmo noted that communities cannot rely on federal and state programs
cl;t)
Council' Minutes - 3/14/88
and that each community should take care of its own. He went on to say
that a committee should be established to look at long range social
service needs of the community. Warren Smith added that a true measure
of a community is how it takes care of its sick and needy. Smith agreed
that a social service committee is a good idea. Bill Fair commented on
a need for an inventory of community needs through development of a
community survey. After further discussion, Fran Fair made a motion to
approve the use of the fire station for the Food Share Program. Motion
seconded by Bill Fair. Motion passed unanimously.
7. Consideration of Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Pump
House 03 and Authorization for Bids.
After discussion, motion by Bill Fair to approve a resolution approving
plans and specifications for pump house #3 and authorization for bids.
Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen. Motion carried unanimously.
See Resolution 88-6.
8. Consideration of Use of Commuter Parking Lot on Saturday, April 16, for
Tire Amnesty Day.
Motion made by Warren Smith to approve the use of the commuter parking
lot on Saturday, April 16, for Tire Amnesty Day. Seconded by Fran
Fair. Motion passed unanimously.
9. Consideration of City being General Contractor on Streetscape Project.
John Simola reported that if the City becomes the general contractor and
the project goes very smoothly with full cooperation of all parties,
approximately 520,000 to $25,000 can be saved. He noted that this is
only an estimate and that the savings could be actually lees. He rent
on to note that there are additional risks associated with the City
becoming general contractor on this project. He went on to state that
the risks associated with the City being general contractor on this
project outweight the potential savings. Bill Fair noted that he does
not see potential for significant savings to the community by acting as
general contractor on the project. Fran Fair added that the City would
be pushing its luck by adding this project to the list of projects
already on schedule for City Staff this summer. Fran Fair made a motion
to not have City act as general contract -or for the Streetseape Project.
Motion seconded by Bill Fair. motion carried unanimously.
10. Consideration of Cost Estimates for Frontage Road for Riverroad Plaza on
Fast County Road 39 Pro3eCt.
At tho October 26, 1987, Council meeting, the City Council had agreed to
build a frontage road that would serve rlacArlund Plaza Development with
no cost being assessed to abutting property owners. The frontage road
was needed to provide access to the develnpment due to the realignment
of County Poad 118, County Road 39, and County Road 75 intersection.
0
Council Minutes - 3/14/88
i
The cost of the improvement at that time had been estimated at $23,000
I to $25,000 by. the Wright County Highway Department; but after the design
' was completed, new estimates by the County placed the cost at close to
$38,000 to $40,000. Due to the large increase in cost for the frontage
road, the Council discussed the options available, including whether a
portion of the cost should be charged to the abutting property owners or
whether their previous decision to pick up all of the cost should be
adhered to. Previuusly, the Council had indicated that the City would
also relocate the sign for the Riverroad Plaza, as it would be in the
new road right-of-way; but because of the large increase in the
construction cost, the Council felt the property owner should be
responsible for the relocation cost.
Councilmember Blonigen expressed opposition to the large increase in
cost and the previous Council action to pick up the entire cost, as he
felt the frontage road primarily benefited the property owners within
that development. Although the Council was unhappy with the large
increase in the estimated cost, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded
by Warren Smith, to reaffirm its previous action to complete the
frontage road at no cost to the abutting property owner with the
understanding that the property owners would be responsible for removal
and relocation of their existing sign and any other items located within
the right-of-way. Voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill
Fair, Warren Smith. Opposed: Dan Blonigen.
11. Consideration of Funding Participation and Construction Agreement with
Wright County Department of Highways for the East County Road 39, County
Road 75, County Road 118, Frontage Road Projects.
Motion was made by Bill Fair to approve funding participation and
construction agreement with Wright County Department of Highways for the
East County Road 39, County Road 75, County Road 118, frontage road
projects. Motion seconded by Fran Fair. voting in favor of motion:
Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Arve Grimsmo. Opposed: Dan
Blonigen. Motion carried.
12. Consideration of Sanitary Sewer Discharge Permit Upgrade - Sunny Fresh
Fonds.
It was reported by the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant Consultant that
the proposed increase in wastewater flow associated with this permit
request would not significantly impact the ability of the system to
handle wastewater. tie noted that the am3unt of waste created by Sunny
Fresh should be monitored closely. Public Works Director Simola stated
that the permit will be monitored closely. Arve Grimsmo asked
representatives from Sunny Fresh if their company will live up to the
permit requirements. Sunny Fresh representatives agreed that they will
comply with all requirements noted in the permit. Finally, Arve Crimsmo
requested that the Sunny Fresh Foods company keep the City informed of
any plans for future growth so that the City can plan accordingly.
NO
Council Minutes - 3114%88
r
There being no further discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith to
approve sanitary sewer discharge permit upgrade for Sunny Fresh Foods.
Motion seconded by Bill Fair. Motion carried unanimously.
13. Consideration of Reconstruction of Mississippi Drive.
After discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair to approve expenditures
associated with street design only. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen.
Motion carried unanimously.
14. Consideration of Final Plat of Oakwood Second Addition - Applicant, City,
of Monticello.
Motion was made by Warren Smith to approve the final plat of Oakwood
Second Addition - Applicant, City of Monticello. Motion seconded by Dan
Blonigen. Motion passed unanimously.
15. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Allowing Participation in the
Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve
adopting a resolution allowing participation in the Minnesota Municipal
Money Market Fund. Motion carried unanimmusly. See Resolution 88-7.
16. Consideration of Ratifying the Proposed Date for the 1988 Board of
Review.
Council agreed by consensus that the Board of Review meeting would be
scheduled for May 16, 1988.
17. Consideration of Allowing the Granting of a Cambling License.
Motion was made by Bill Fair to take no action on this item. Motion
seconded by Fran Fair. Motion carried unanimously.
18. After the agenda items had been addressed, Council discussed the need
for a community survey. It was the general consensus of the Council
that a city survey is needed at this time which would assist the Council
in establishing plans for future activities. Assistant Administrator
O'Neill was directed to prepare information regarding a potential
citizens survey.
Council discussed a staff report which outlined maintenance issues
associated with the streets that lie north of,County Road 75 and west of
Chestnut Street. it was noted by staff that the streets involved are of
rural design and that significant maintenance or reconstruction work
will be needed on these streets in the near future. Mayor Grimsmo noted
that the City should seriously consider installing concrete streets in
Council Minutes - 3/14/88
replacement of asphalt streets. He noted that when all the costs are
added, including maintenance costs, it may be less expensive in the long
run to install concrete streets. The method by which this project would
be financed was discussed. No financing formula was established. There
being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted, _
JefO'Neill
Assistant City Administrator
-01
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
Consideration of Request by Wright Flyers Model Flying Club to Use old
NSP Ballfields. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello has had a lease agreement with NSP for a number of
years for the softball fields adjacent to Montissippi Park. Now that the
new softball field complex is nearing completion, it was assumed that the
lease arrangement would be terminated with NSP regarding the former
softball fields. Approximately two months ago, I met with Mr. Norm
Ecklund of NSP and members of the Wright Flyers Model Flying Club who
expressed an interest in converting the ballfields into a model airplane
flying park. With the location being somewhat remote from other
residential areas, the flying club organization felt it would be an ideal
site fur conducting their activities, and the organization requested that
the City of Monticello consider continuing its lease arrangement with NSP
for this purpose.
The Flying Club would like the City of Monticello to continue the lease
and to provide for monthly mowing of the grass at the site during the
flying season. The Wright Flyers organization would reimburse the City
for the cost of this grass mowing. In addition, the organization has
liability insurance which would protect the City from damages arising
from their activities by individuals using the park for the purpose of
modeling activities; but the insurance would only be valid for
participants who have the current Acadamy of Model Aeronautics
registration card.
From the City's standpoint, the use of the former NSP ballfields for
radio controlled care or airplanes may be an ideal site for this type of
activity, but the main question becomes should the City of Monticello
continue the lease for this special purpose activity or should the
organization obtain permission directly from NSP to use the properly. If
the City continues to lease the facility from NSP, the property is
technically open to the general public as an additional park facility;
and the City would still be somewhat liable for activities that take
place. Although the organization would provide liability insurance for
their activities, a liability exposure would still exist for the City.
Currently, there are no bathroom facilities at this location, and either
the City or the organization would have to provide satellite toilets to
accommodate the usage. Although the mowing of the grass once a month
would not be a major problem, it would seem more appropriate that with
the new softball fields being operational, this location could he
terminated as far as the lease is concerned; and this would eliminate
also the City responsibility of maintaining the gravel road that leads to
the old softbal3 fields. Another consideration would be whether this
activity would create any noise problems with surrounding residential
areas, which has not been determined at this time, although the nearest
resident is probably 2,000 ft or more away from this site.
to
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the request by the Flying
Club and continue leasing the old NSP ballfields from NSP along with
continuing maintenance operations at the site per their request.
2. The second alternative would be to deny their request to use the
facility and terminate the lease as planned when the new softball
fields are operational.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although it certainly is the objective of city government to provide a
variety of recreational uses for city residents, continuing the lease
with NSP for the Model Flying Club would be for a select group of
individuals. The problem the City staff has with this request is that
City personnel will have to continue to maintain the site by mowing and
occasional road maintenance along with the future possibility of expenses
for bathroom facilities. Additionally, the Flying Club has noted that in
the future they may be requesting City help in expanding the facilities
with blacktop runways for the airplanes, etc. Ideally, the organization
should lease the fields from NSP itself rather than involving the City.
NSP representatives indicated they would rather lease the facility to the
City rather than to individual organizations, as they were concerned over
a precedent being set concerning similar requests by other organizations
to lease NSP property. If the City provides the prope:ty for this
special interest group, we may also see requests of a similar nature in
the future by other organizations to provide facilities and locations for
their activities. There is currently nothing prohibiting lisp from
leasing directly to the Wright Flyers Club other than they feel the City
would have more control over the activities.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Outline of request by Flying Club organization.
CTM
PLAN FOR A CITY OF MONTIC:ELLO AND WRIGHT FLYERS MODEL FLYING PARK
The Wright Flyers a registered non-profit organization in the State of
Minnesota would like to enter into a plan with the City of Monticello
for the purpose of converting the old NSP ball fields into a model
flying park.
Currently the land in question is leased by the City of Monticello for
the purpose of a pair of Softball fields. With the construction of new
ballfields the old location is to be returned to NSP.
We the members of the Wright Flyers Modeling club would like to convert
the old fields to a model flying park. our proposal to the City of
Monticello would be as follows:
1} The fields would be cleaned up and the fences removed as shown on
figure 1, this activity would be completed by the City of
Monticello.
2) A sign listing the rules for the use of the park would be posted as
shown on figure 1. The exact text would be worked out by the club
and city designated representative. The basic rules would be that
the user must use legal (according to the Federal Communications
Commission) equipment, posses a current membership card for the
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) and abide by the AMA saftey code
at all times. The City and Club would work together to accomplish
this task.
3 � The City of Monticello would provide for the mowing of the grass at
the field at least once per month during the flying season. The
Wright Flyers would reimburse the city for the cost of this grass
mowing.
4. The Wright Flyers would provide liability insurance which will
protect the city from damages arising from activities by
individuals using the park for the purpose of modeling activities.
This insurance is only valid when the participants have the current
AMA card which is the reason for the rule that any fliers using the
field must have a current card or not use the field.
The Wright Flyers would expect to have the right to request any
person not complying with the park rules to not operates, their
equipment at the park until they were able to comply with the
rules.
6.1 in the future we the Wright Flyers would propose to construct at
the site a dirt track for the purpose of starting a youth program
to organize some races for Radio controlled cars. There is in the
Monticello area a large following of this kind of activity which
could be directed in a constructive way through a program of this
type.
Attached is figure 1 showing the proposed layout of the field. we the
Wright Flyers would like to meet with the City of Monticello City
Council to discuss this project to determine if an agreement is
possible.
Thankyou for your atten n and yf//wt//uta consideration.
The Wright Flyers. I+�f` K .s7v
President President
Ve 15
� J
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
old outfield area needs to be smoothed out after outfield tonces veto removed
i
intte ed same 1
1
' pt het slds Infleld new black.
dirt. to b1
leveled and seeded i
eklating the to bale line tone* (1) • t ealatl ng tl nt be "he feaee (1)
__----- _---- _---- _----- _--- ____ ------
at. a
_-_-_otes: •-----------• ._.......... i
1. Items noted are to renal. a* found, i . 6llating block building (l) aaY park also
•-------------------------_-_•----------_-_--`_------_-__•----_-------_--•----_----__•--------------------------------------------..
Ft&Afc- J
C7
13
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
5. Consideration of Ballfield Concession Stand and Fees. (R.M.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: (Concession)
You will recall that on February 22, 1988, the Monticello Softball
Association approached the City about constructing a concession and
restroom building at our new facility. At that time staff was instructed
to core up with a building design and estimated construction costs.
Following is a cost breakdown on a concrete block and a wood frame
building.
A) Cement block building with breakoff and glazed block.
1.
Block 6 labor
$ 8,700.00
2.
Roof (materials only)
5,541.90
3.
Steel doors 6 concession windows
300.00
4.
(materials only)
1,255.29
4.
Footings 6 floor (material only)
2,500.00
5.
Excavating
1,000.00
6.
Electrical (material only)
1,507.63
7.
Electrical Inspection
75.00
8.
Plumbing (installed)
5,805.00
9.
Paint 6 stain (materials only)
500.00
10.
Restroom windows (not on plan)
$20.906.H3
(materials only)
500.00
11.
Water 6 sewer services (materials only)
150.00
12.
Donated labor?
TOTAL
$27,534.82
*Professional labor for roof - $1,800.00.
+NOTE: May be better looking roof with wartanty if professionally done.
B) Wood frame building
1.
Materials
$10,769.20
2.
Floating slab 6 wire (materials only)
1,300.00
3.
Excavating
300.00
4.
Electrical (materials only)
1,507.63
5.
Plumbing (installed)
5,805.00
6.
Electrical inspection
75.00
7.
Paint 6 otain (materials only)
500.00
8.
Restroom windows (not on p lan)(materials only)
500.00
9.
Water 6 sewer services (materials only)
150.00
10.
construction labor donated?
TOTAL,
$20.906.H3
•Professional labor for roof - 61,800.00
5M
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: (Fees 6 Charges)
we have checked with some other communities to determine what fees, if
any, are charged to local softball and baseball organizations. We have
found that these fees vary greatly.
Elk River. City receives $125 per team for field use, $25 per field for
tournaments, league pays umpires, balls, drags 6 chalks fields.
Concessions are run by other non-profit organizations such as Boy Scouts,
Youth Hockey, etc.
Buffalo. Buffalo is in the process of building a large multi -sports
codex with soccer, football, baseball, and softball fields. At this
time, some of the ballfields are completed and they receive no fees from
organizations using them.
North Mankato. No team fees go to the City. However, the Players
Association has pledged $250,000 to the City for facilities and equipment
with the last of the payments coming in 1991 (approximately 4,000
players). They do charge $25 per field per day for tournaments and the
Park Department drags and chalks the fields and has someone there all day
to provide restroom maintenance, etc. The City does have a concession
agreement with a private contractor. They charge a $1,000/year license
and also receive 159 of gross sales except for weekend tournaments, the
158 is then paid to the tournament director. Included in the concession
stand for the $1,000 + 154 is a hot dog roasting machine, popcorn
machine, microwave, commercial refrigerator -freezer, coffee pot, and
electric griddle. The concessionaire is required to obtain all permits
and licences and carry his own insurance. People are not prohibited from
bringing their own food and beverages to the facilities.
In talking to these and other communities, I have found that no one
charges Little League Baseball Assuciatiuns fur use of facilities. Here
in Monticello, the school does not charge for the use of their fields at
Pinewood or the High School. However, the Baseball Association has
donated equipment to be used by both parties.
Teams wishing to use the ballf.ields this year:
1. Menlo Softball Association - 17 teams.
2. 7th 6 8th grade Little League Baseball.
3. weekend tournaments (7).
4. State Pee -Wee Tournament (Little League Baseball).
-4-
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: (Concession)
1. This alternative would be to do nothing this year. This alternative
will make it hard for the Softball Association to meet their funding
needs since part of their yearly income comes from concessions.
2. This alternative would be to construct a cement block building
according to the plan presented. This would be the most expensive
option but also the most durable.
3. This alternative would be to construct a cement block building with
modifications to the plan. These modifications could be things such
as no glazed or breakoff blocks or reducing the size of the building.
4. This alternative would be to construct a wood frame building
according to the plan presented. This alternative would be
constructed nearly entirely with donated labor and have the advantage
of b-ing somewhat portable should NSP ask us to leave the site.
5. This alternative would be to construct a wood frame building with
modifications such as size reduction, etc.
Since the City would likely be the general contactor for this project, we
have some additional concerns that will have to be addressed. They are
as follows:
1. Should the City hire someone to be in charge of construction or is
there a qualified volunteer within the softball or baseball
organization.
2. Is insurance required or needed in case a volunteer should get
injured during construction.
3. will builders risk insurance be needed.
4. Does the building have to have Dept. of Health approval since it will
be used for serving food.
5. workmanship and materials control.
B. kLTERNATIVE ACTIONS: (Fee a Charges)
1. This alternative would be to charge the men's Softball Association
$125 per team and $25 per field for weekend tournaments. This is the
same as the City of Elk River's fee schedule. This alternative would
not charge Little League Baseball for field use.
2. This alternative would be to modify the fee schedule. Possible
modifications could include charging the Little League Baseball to
play, raising the fees for men's softball, or charging a percentage
of concessions.
-5-
Council Agenda — 3/28/88
C. STAFF RDCOMMENDATION:
At this time, the staff feels that we cannot make a recommendation on the
concession/restroom building. However, it is in our long range plans to
have a complete facility at this site. Also the concession building was
in the 1988 proposed budget but was deleted, as it was felt we wanted to
wait to see the amount of participation and income available.
It is the Park Director's reconvendation to charge the men's Softball
Association $125 per team for use of the fields, and that we charge $25
per field for tournaments, except that NSP would not be charged for
theirs. I do not feel we should charge Little League Baseball any fees
since this is more or less community recreation and the City does already
fund community recreation. However, I do not believe any of those funds
go to Little League Baseball.
As far as concessions, if the Council opts to fund building of a
concession stand, I, as Parks superintendent, feel we should not charge
any concessionare fees this year. The men's Softball Association would
be in charge of concessions this year and Jeff Michaelis has indicated
that any extra profit would be donated back to the City at the end of the
season. I do feel that accurate records should be kept on the
concessions and the fees should be looked at again next year.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Preliminary concession/restroom building plan.
Expected income at proposed rates:
1. Team fees $2,125.00
2. Tournament fees 700.00
'TOTAL 3'F.B�b. a
Expected field and fence maintenance costo - $6,000 per year.
Expected building maintenance - $500 per year.
-6.
[X111=
f�
k"
MEN'S WC
RESTROOM k\RE
Lo
-Y/01`3
S.
€ -
_ CONCESSIONS \
DRAIN SYSTEM -j
- O
PLAN
12
It[ -
NOTE: t -
NOTE:
1.HIP ROOF
2.ASPHALT SHINGLES
3.VANDLE-PROOF FIXTURES
4.STEEL DOORS
5.ONE HANDICAP TOILET PER RESTROOM
6 -BREAK OFF BLOCKS
7.GLAZEO INTERIOR BLOCKS
8.3/8" PLYWOOD CEILING
9.INT BLKS=10' EXT ELKS=6"
.U
C
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
Consideration of a Resolution Awarding Bid for Sanitary Sewer, watermain,
and Appurtenant work for Projects 88-01B, County Road 39 East; 88-02,
Dundas Circle: and 88-03, Grossnickle Project on west County Road 39.
(J.S.)
L1��:1ii �:7�ua1�il`il�7:),IK3xL'iilh(L>F
Project 88-01B, the sanitary sewer lift station and watermain work along
County Road 39 and 118, based upon the January 11 preliminary cost
estimate, was to have construction costs of approximately $456,535. This
price included the 12 -inch trunk sanitary sewer, the larger diameter
watermain and extending it to the eastern city limits, and the
restoration of the first portion of Mississippi Drive. It did not
include the storm sewer work to be done by the County. Since that time,
we have deleted several hundred feet of watermain, and we have reduced
the watermain size. In addition, all of the restoration of the upper
portion of Mississippi Drive will be done with the County project. we,
therefore, expected bids to be considerably under the $456,535 for this
Portion of the project.
For Project 88-02, the Dundas Circle Project in the industrial park, I
did some preliminary estimates on October 6, 1987. At that time, without
a final design, I estimated the construction costs at $60,125. The
actual design done by OSM has changed slightly, but I still expect the
bids to be within reason.
For the Grossnickle Project, 88-03, on County Road 39 in the western part
of the community, the original feasibility study was done on February 22,
1988. At that time it indicated a total construction cost of $35,540.
After much discussion at that meeting, it was decided that John Badalich
should redesign the project to lessen costs but also to provide possible
service in the future to the Monticello Country Club. It was decided
that we would go out for bids on Lhis project. and have Mrs. Grossnickle's
input prior to the actual award. Also of concern for Mrs. Grossnickle to
make a decision, the City Council must give some indication as to what
portion of the project they would assess directly to Mrs. Grossnickle and
what portion of the project may be held in deferment for the Country
Club. There is some indication that the project cost should be split
50/50 between Mrs. Grossnickle and the Country Clubl but there are other
indications that it should be done on a unit basis with Mrs. Grossnickle
having three units and the Country Club having one unit. At this
particular time, we are still attenpting to get some input from Lhe
Country Club as to what they feel would be fair for them and what their
needs would be for such a service in the future.
The bid opening for the project will occur on Friday, March 25, 1988, at
11:00 a.m. It is expected that we will have apparent low bidder and cost
information that would be included with your agenda under separate cover.
-7-
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to award Project 88-01B, Project
88-02, and Project 88-03 to the lowest responsible bidder as
recommended by the City Engineer. His report will be available at
Monday evening's meeting unless unusual circumstances or problems in
the bidding would delay such report.
2. The second alternative would be only to award Project 88-018, the
East County Road 39 utility improvement project, and not award other
projects such as 88-02 and 88-03 for reasons of unacceptable costs in
the case of the Dundas Circle Project or unacceptable costs or cost
sharing in the case of the Crossnickle project.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff withholds its recommendation until the Monday evening meeting
until we have time to go over all of the cost information. one thing
that must be stressed is that we are fairly well locked into the East
County Road 39 utility project and that unless the costs are totally out
of the picture, we must proceed with that project as scheduled because of
the interface with the County project.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
`- Copy of the preliminary estimates dated October 6, 1987; January 11,
1988, preliminary estimated assessments; and preliminary cost estimate
dated February 22, 1988; Unverified copy of the bids from March 25,
1988.
.a-
'CORRECTION
RN
BID TABULATION
FOR
PROJECT NOS. 88-01B, 88-02,
AND 88-03
March
25, 1988 - 11:00
a.m.
CONTRACTOR
GROSSNICRLE
39 6 DUNDAS
DUNDAS CIRCLE
LaTour Construction
$ 39,181.35
$487,424.30
$ 55,046.40
J.P. Norex Inc.
$ 30,827.00
$501,926.70
S 60,992.90
S.J. Louis Construction
$ 32,386.50
$515,398.00
S 63,497.00
Burschville Construction Inc.
$ 46,154.30
$535,409.25
S 61,286.00
S a L Excavating
$ 38,530.50
$588,461.93
$ 58,560.00
Northdale Construction Co.
$ 37,952.30
$618,196.80
$ 64,245.20
Widmer, Inc.
$ 42,192.00
$619,570.00
S 58,081.00
F.P. Jedlicki
$ 38,668.00
$664,500.00
S 61,087.00
Rice Lake Contracting
$ 35,027.00
$738,614.55
$ 66,257.40
Barbarossa 6 Sons
$ 37,921.50
$747,706.50
S 64,889.00
P.M. Frattalone
$ 31,312.25
$775,862.25
S 79,456.50
Progressive Contractors
S 40,052.30
$811,999.90
$104,015.40
Bonine Excavating Inc.
$ 39,871.72
$814,378.49•
$ 88,015.22
'CORRECTION
RN
RESOLUTION 88-8
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND
AUTHORIZING CONTRACT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of County
Road 118, and County Road 39 between I-94 and Mississippi Drive with waterma.ns
and between Mississippi Drive and County Road 75 along frontage road with
sanitary sewer extensions and appurtenant work; and improvements to East County
Road 39 between Mississippi Drive and city limits with sanitary sewer,
watermain, and appurtenant work; extension of sanitary sewer and watermain
along Golf Course Road from the intersection of Country Club Road to western
city limits, and the improvement of sanitary sewer, waternain, bituminous
paving, curb and gutter extensions within Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Oakwood
Industrial Park, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law,
and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement:
AND WHEREAS, it appears that is the lowest
responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MON^.ICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed
to enter into the attached contract with
in the name of the City or Monticello for the
improvements to County Road 118, County Road 39, Golf Course Road,
and within Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park according
to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City
Council and on file in the office of the City Administrator.
2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all bidders the deposit made with their bids, except
that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder
shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
Adopted by the City Council this 28th day of March, 1988.
Mayor
City Administrator
D
ESTIMATED COSTS
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL PARK
LOTS 9 6 10 SUBDIVISION
CONSTRUCTION COST'S
water
(40 ft 9T)
460 £t
10" D.I.P. $20/ft
S 9,200
1 -
10"
valve 6 Box $450 ea e
$ 450
1 -
8"
valve 6 Box $400 ea n
S 400
1 -
7.5
ft Bury Hyd $900 ea
$ 900
4 -
6"
Service valves s Box 5300 ea
S 1,200
120
ft
6" D.I.P. water Service S15/ft
S 1,800
1 -
10"x10"
Dry Tap $1,000
S 1,000
S 1,000
TOTAL WATER -
5 4,950
Sanitary Sewer
440' 10" PVC SDR26 $25/ft $11,000
1 STD Manhole $1,000 e $ 1,000
1 - Construct Drop at Manhole $2,500 e $ 2,500
4 - 10" Wyes $90 ea • $ 360
120 ft 6" SDA 26 Service Pipe S15 ft . $ 11800
TOTAL SANITARY SDiER a TIS�, Ga
Street
(40 ft 9T)
X00 cu
yds Cowman Ex $2/cu
yd e
S 4,000
550 Tons
Class V (6") $5.50
ton e
$ 3,025
270 Tons
Bit. Base (2") $23
ton -
S 6,210
270 Tons
Bit. Wear (2") $27
ton -
$ 7,290
870 ft D
Mod Curb S7/ft .
S 6,090
0.5 Acre
Black Dirt 6 Seed 51,800/acre
S 900
Culvert
$1,000 ea .
S 1,000
TOTAL STREET
mTo-m
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST • $60,125
ENGR 6 ADMIN 254 ADD ON'S • $15,031
$75,156
Estimated total of 10.17 acres after road construction:
$75,156 divided by 10.17 • S 7,389.97 per acre
This does not include platting costs.
John E. Simola
Public Works Director
10/6/87
0
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ANO FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR
SANITARY SEWER. YATERMAiN.
AND APPURTENANT WORK
PROJECT NO. 88-03
CITY OF N NITICELLO
WRIGIR COUNTY. MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 22. 1988
1. TYPE OF WORK
This report covers the installation of sanitary sewer. watermain and appurtenant
work in the City of Monticello.
11. REASON FOR PROJECT
This report was ordered by the City at the request of the landowner. The City
presently has another project under design and it was thought that lower prices
could be obtained by combining Project 88-03 in a construction contract with a
larger project. The landowners wishes to evaluate the feasibility of developing
a parcel of land into three residential lots.
iii. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The project would involve the extension of sewer and water mains along Golf
Course Road from Country Club Road westerly approximately 300 feet. The
extensions would serve only the subject parcel but will allow future extension
for additional service areas. The parcel to be served is approximately 90.000
square feet and has 300 feet of frontage on Golf Course Road.
The sanitary sewer will be oversized from 8 -inch to 12 -inch diameter and the
watermain from 6 -inch to 8 -inch diameter.
IV. TIMiNB
it is proposed that the improvements be included in a construction contract with
Projects 88-01 8 and 88-02 to take advantage of the anticipated Tower unit
prices of a larger project.
D
V. SCOPE OF PROJECT
The project includes about 350 feet of 8 -inch watermain on the north side of
Golf Course Road; about 230 feet of 12 -inch sanitary sever on the south side of
the street; and a jacked crossing of Golf Course Road (C.S.A.H. 39) for sanitary
sewer.
Y1. FEASIBILITY
From an engineering viewpoint, the project is feasible. It may be best
accomplished if combined with other City projects.
VII. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs for the project are as follows. indirect costs include
engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative.
Sanitary Sewer , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , $24.800
Watermain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,740
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST. $35,540
Contingency - 3% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,060
Indirect Costs 27% 9,600
TOTAL PROJECT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $46.200
VIII. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS
For the watermain work, it is proposed that all costs be assessed except the
oversizing ($1,500) and the patching of the street pavement ($2,000). With the
sanitary sewer, it is again proposed that the City be responsible for the
oversizing costs ($1,380) and a major portion of the pipe jacking costs
($8,500). It is suggested that the property owner be assessed $2,000 of the
jacking costs as a cost equitable to the Cost of open cutting and patching the
roadway.
A summary of this Cost breakdown and suggested assessment is shown below.
-2-
y
SUGGESTED ASSEMENT
TRUNK COSTS
TOTAL
Construction Cost
$20,660
$14,880
$35.540
Contingency . . .
620
440
1.060
Indirect Costs. .
5,580
4,020
9.600
TOTAL PROJECT COST.
$26.860
$19,340
$46.200
-2-
y
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that 1 am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Charles A. Lepa P.E.
Date: February 22, 1988 Reg. No. 15138
LSD
0
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS
FOR
DEEP WELL, PUMPHOUSE, TRUNK WATERMAIN.
SANITARY SEWER. SANITARY LIFT STATION.
AND APPURTENANT WORK
PROJECT NO. 88-01
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 11, 1988
As shown in the Feasibility Report for Project No. 88-01,, approximately $307,300
of the $925,000 project cost is proposed to be assessed. This consists of
$123,500 for sanitary sewer, $167,000 for watermain and $16,800 for storm
water drainage. This is based on only the abutting property fronting on the
improvement being assessed, that portion of the utility improvement normally
assessed to property based on land use. The balance of cost is that portion of
the improvement attributable to oversizing i.e.: sanitary sewer and watermain as
part of a trunk extension to serve additional areas or having Citywide benefit
such as a new water well and pumphouse.
LATERAL ASSESSMENTS
The estimated lateral assessment for sewer and watermain is as follows:
• 8" Lateral Sanitary Sewer • S 28.50/ft.
(Residential, Duplex, Some Multiple)
10" lateral Sanitary Sewer • S 32.00/ft.
(Multiple, Commercial)
12' Lateral Sanitary Sewer $ 36.00/ft.
(Commercial, Industrial)
Area Assessment for Sanitary Sewer
Improvements • S 1000/acre
• 8' lateral Matermain Assessment S 24.75/ft.
(Residential Property)
10' Lateral Haternain Assessment • $ 28.00/ft.
(Commercial, Industrial)
Area Assessment for Plater
improvements 51250/acre
• The estimated lateral assessment for both sewer and water includes an
800' parcel of land on the riverside, north side, of C.R. i39 owned
by the ONR that will not benefit by this improvement. If this 800'
of cost is payable through ad valorem or area assessment and not
absorbed by the residential property owners, the estimated assessment
for 8' lateral sanitary sewer would be 523.80/ft., and for 8' lateral
wate►main would be 520.65/ft.
AREA ASSESSMENTS
The monies collected through area assessment would be kept in separate sewer and
water funds to pay for not only the current project costs, less the amount col-
lected from lateral assessments, but for future improvements to the respective
utility systems.
In the case of sanitary sewer, as the sewer is extended into the benefited area,
the subtrunk sewers, that convey sewage flow from the laterals would be paid for
from the sewer fund, as the area would have previously been assessed an area
amount.
The same analogy would apply to watermain except that other improvements such as
wells, pumphouses, storage and controls, would also be paid from these area
assessed funds.
Under this project, 1251,000 is estimated for sanitary sewer and lift station
under alternate or Option 1. The estimated lateral assessment is SI23,500
leaving a balance of 1127,500 to be paid for by ad valorem collected as an area
assessment. Alternative 1 will benefit 138 acres.
Under Alternative 2, the cost for oversizing incraases the trunk sewer cost by
$12,300 and the benefiting area increases to 298 acres.
Further under Alternative 3, the cost for oversizing to an 18" trunk increases
another $14,500 over Alternative 2 or to a cost of $277,300 and the benefiting
area increases to 868 acres.
Alternatives 2 and 3 do not extend trunk sewer easterly of the city limits but
only increases the sewer size within the City along County Road 39 from the city
limits back to Mississippi Drive from 10' to 12' to 18" depending on the area to
be served outside the present city limits. If and when the sanitary sewer is
extended easterly, the abutting property will receive a lateral benefit and the
oversized portion would serve the areas noted in Alternatives 2 and 3. An area
assessment again could be levied against the area benefiting. This could com-
pound itself as developemnt continues outward each time an extension is made.
This would be very cumbersome to administer and to keep assessing the same
property as an extension is made. Therefore, a one time area assessment is
recommended as is done in many growing communities statewide.
Previously the City handled all the oversizing through ad valorem financing and
assessed only lateral benefits.
Mater improvements are estimated at $604,000 with $167,000 of these costs being
assessed as lateral benefits, per foot, to abutting property within the present
city limits. The area benefiting from this improvement could be considered to
vary from 300 acres in the immediate area, as a minimum, to a city wide benefit
as a maximum.
As noted above for area sewer assessment, a similar scenario could be adopted
for water system extensions and improvements.
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE AND FEASIBILITY STUD
FOR
DEEP WELL, PUMPHOUSE, TRUNK WATERMAIN,
SANITARY SEWER, SANITARY LIFT STATION,
AND APPURTENANT WORK
PROJECT NO. 88-01
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 11, 1988
I. TYPE OF MORN
This report covers the instal lation of a deep well, pumphouse watermain,
sanitary sewer, sanitary lift station and appurtenant work in the City of
Monticello.
11, REASON FOR PROJECT ,
This report was requested by City staff to coincide with the Wright County
project to re -align County State Aid Highway (C.S.A.H.) 039 and County Road 9118
on the eastern side of the City. A water system analysis completed in 1985
suggested several system -wide improvements be made to the City's water
distribution system over a period of years. in the Summer of 1987, the City
experienced a water supply problem during high demand periods and requested
voluntary compliance of a lawn sprinkling program as a temporary solution. The
City Council, at the December 10, 1987 Council meeting, directed the City
Engineer to include the deep well and pumphouse as part of this report and
project. The replacement of the outdated and trouble -some control system for
the deep wells and high lift pumps at the ground storage reservoir will also be
a part of this project.
The Comprehensive Water Plan for the City has delineated the right-of-way of
County Road 0118 and C.S.A.H. 939 to be used for trunk watermain and it would
appear to be prudent to install the new watermain before the roadways are re-
constructed. The residents and commercial establishments in the area experience
low water pressure especially during high demand periods. The proposed trunk
1i�
watermain, although not providing any immediate relief for the flow and pressure
Problems, will serve as an integral part of system -wide improvements. To improve
pressures and fire fighting capabilities, a new elevated storage reservoir will
be required along with the extension of the trunk watermain to the south of 1-94
on County Road 0118.
The City staff has also surveyed the residents living along C.S.A.H. 039 east of
Mississippi Drive who do not presently have municipal sewer and water. Several
residents, while not formally petitioning the City, have expressed an interest
in municipal services. More specifically, the high ground watertable of the area
causes water seepage problems in basements and septic tank effluent disposal
concerns. City sewer and water will enhance the development potential of the
area.
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The proposed Deep Well and Pumphouse No. 3 would be located approximately 200
feet west of the ground storage reservoir on Chelsea Road and would pump
directly into that facility. The four high lift pumps at the reservoir would
pump the water into the water distribution system. The additional well would
make the reservoir a more integral part of the distribution water system and
will provide the volume necessary to meet peak summer demands.
The proposed project will include 24 -inch and 16 -inch trunk watermain along
County Road #118 beginning approximately 200 feet north of the 1-94 bridge;
crossing the Burlington Northern 'Railroad tracks and C.S.A.H. #75; and con-
tinuing along C.S.A.H. #39 to approximately 2,800 feet east of Mississippi Drive
to the City limits. The trunk watermain will connect to existing deadend
watermalns on Mississippi Drive and near Macarlund Plaza. Water services will
be provided to the residences and other properties along C.S.A.H. #39 and County
Road #118.
The low ground surface elevations and basement levels along C.S.A.H. 039 east of
Mississippi Drive preclude the use of gravity sanitary sewer to the treatment
plant and therefore a lift station is proposed which would pump into the sewer
on Mississippi Drive. As the area develops and the lift station is expanded, it
C
will be necessary to reconstruct the sewer on Mississippi Drive to provide
additional capacity. Presently, that sewer has the ability to handle a flow 1.7
cubic feet per second or sewage from approximately 2,750 persons . At this time,
the sewer provides local service and carries flow from the Meadow Oaks area.
See Section Vi - ALTERNATIVES, for more discussion.
Relocation and deepening of some sanitary sewer facilities is necessary in the
vicinity of Mississippi Drive because C.S.A.H. 39 will be widened and lowered in
this area. A small extension of sanitary sewer will be done near Macarlund
Plaza in conjunction with the creation of the service road fronting C.S.A.H. #39
and C.S.A.H. 175.
The 1975 Comprehensive Sewer Drainage Plan for the City proposes a trunk storm
sewer pipe along a portion of C.S.A.H. #39 and within the construction zone of
the proposed sanitary sewer and watermain utilities. Several homes in the
Manhattan lots First Addition presently experience groundwater seepage problems
and the proposed improvements to C.S.A.H. 1'39 could well stimulate development �
in the area which might compound any existing surface and groundwater problems.
It is therefore proposed that approximately 400 feet of the trunk storm sewer be
installed as part of this project.
IV. TINIMG
It is proposed that the proposed improvements be bid at the same time as the
Wright County project and that the underground work be completed before the
paving begins for the county project.
V. SCOPE OF PROJ%J
Deep Well and Pumphouse No. 3 would have a minimum pumping capacity of 1,000
gallons per minute.
The proposed trunk watermain is approximately 5,000 feet long and connecting
laterals are about 1,000 feet in length. The sanitary sewer relocation and the
frontage road extension involves about $50 feet of sewer. The new ;ravity
sanitary sewer east of Mississippi Drive discharging to a new lift station would
be 2.800 feet Tong with a required forcemain length of approximately 650 feet.
MAI
0
VI. ALTERNATIVES
Existing water system pressures and calculated available water flow rates for
fire fighting purposes have shown a critical need for an interconnection to the
existing trunk watermain on County Road 118. it would appear that the alterna-
tive of delaying watermain construction until a later date would only escalate
the cost of the project and compound the problem of low water pressures and
substandard water flow for fire fighting purposes. Proposed roadway improvements
by Wright County would have high restoration costs which can be avoided by
scheduling this project in 1988.
The City officials have three basic alternatives for providing sanitary sewer
service in the area as detailed below.
(1) The 10" diameter option previously estimated in this report at a
project cost of $115,400 could provide service to all of the area
north of 1.94 and east Mississippi Drive up to and including the
Halliger tree farm area. It would have a capacity of 450 gallons per
minute and serve a population of 1,600.
(2) If the service area was increased to include the Tyler east area,
then the larger pipe (12" diameter) would result in a cost increase
of about $12,300. This pipe has a capacity of 900 gpm and would
serve an effective population of 3,200.
(3) if the pipe size was increased (18' diameter) to allow servicing of
the entire orderly annexation area north of 1-94, then the cost would
increase by an additional $14,500 to a project cost of $142,200. This
pipe could serve about 8,900 people and has a flow capacity of 2,250
gpm.
The lift station and forcemain can be sized physically to accommodate the first
and second alternatives without any major complications. Initially, the pumps
would be sized to handle a flow from 1,600 persons and as the area developed
larger pumps and/or motors could be installed. The third alternative would
-4-
V
C
require replacement of the forcemain and major changes to the lift station when
the contributing flow exceeded 900 gpm.
It should also be noted that the sewer which is being relayed at the inter-
section of Mississippi Drive because of the C.S.A.H. #39 realignment should also
be sized to accommodate flows as appropriate for alternative 1, 2, or 3.
For storm sewer, the only construction option might be to build only that por-
tion of the pipe proposed to be within the C.S.A.H. #39 right-of-way. The pipe
would not outlet to the river at this time and therefore would not provide any
benefit. Later construction would be needed to provide an outlet and make the
pipe functional.
YLI. FEASIBILUI
From an engineering standpoint, the project is feasible and presents few prob-
lems. The City can realize a cost savings regarding pavement restoration if the
project is completed prior to the Wright County roadway project. A temporary
road surface, If required through the winter of 1988-89, and consisting of 3' of
gravel and 2' of bituminous would cost approximately $30,000.
Y111. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated project cost included construction cost and 27% indirect costs
(engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative).
.t
Deep Well No. 3 $ 89,400
Pumphouse No. 3 198,100
Trunk Watermain 272,100
Lateral Watermain 44,400
Sanitary Sewer 153,200 =1
Sanitary Lift Station 97,800
Storm sewer and Drainage 70.000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $925,000
5-
is
IX. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED
Properties to be assessed are within Auditor's Subdivision No. 1, Lot 15; Lot
19, Block 3 of Hoglund Addition; Macarlund Plaza; Manhattan lots First Addition;
the Northwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 121, Range 24; all within Wright
County, Minnesota.
X. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS
It is estimated that $123,500 of the sanitary sewer cost, $167,000 of the
watermain cost, and $16,800 of the drainage cost are assessable. A portion of
the lift station cost and storm sewer cost may also be assessed with the
remainder of the project funded through the City's general fund or ad valorem
taxes. A more detailed assessment plan will be presented at the public hearing.
I hereby certify that this plan. specification
or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered Pro-
fessional Engineer under the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
Charles A. Lepak, P(J.
Date: January 11, 1988 Reg. No. 15138
6-
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
7. Consideration of Continuing with or Abandoning Efforts to Complete Deep
Well q3. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For the past couple of years, City staff has been concerned with the
placement of the new well on Chelsea Road near the reservoir. In 1986
when we drilled the original test well, indications were that the
formation was extremely fine and the well would have limited
capabilities. Estimates at that time indicated we would get only
1,000 gallons per minute out of a gravel packed well. We, therefore,
decided to drill a test hole some 300 feet north of our proposed well
site near the freeway to determine if better subsoil strata existed in
this area. This test hole actually proved to be of poorer quality than
our original test well. In addition, sandstones were encountered near
the freeway in test hole number two. We, therefore, continued our
efforts to obtain as much information from test well number one as
possible. After significant well development, it was again emphasized
that we should be able to get at least 1,000 gallons per minute out of a
well drilled in this location. At the completion of the pumping
operations at test well number one, we took samples of the water and had
it analyzed for various heavy metals, pesticides, and solvents. Those
tests indicated that the water was safe to drink.
During our many discussions with the Council after completion of the test
well we looked at the
possibility of locating the final well in other
areas. The cost of testing or test boring is very expensive. We had
spent a total of $11,000 for test well number one and test hole number
two and the development of same. Since it would cost about $3,200 to
drill and close additional test borings and we didn't actually know a
good area to look for better water bearing sands and gravels, we
concluded that although we were not comfortable with the proposed well
site, it was our best option and still looked feasihle.
After the bid opening, we had a chance to discuss the proposed well with
Renner Well Drilling of Elk River, we again stressed our concern about
having a low production well. It was at that time we learned of the
gamma scan method of testing which may give us additional information
about potential well capacity. we hired Minnesota Ceophysical at a cost
of $550 and did a gamma scan of the well. The gamma scan indicated that
the lower formation was more of a sand and gravel deposit than the finer
sands indicated by the well log. Based upon this information and
recommendations from Renner, we decided to oversize the well, as it was
felt that we could get upwards of 1,500 gallons per minute out of this
coarser formation. We, therefore, added Change Order No. 1 to the well
project which added a cost to the finished well of $7,865, bringing the
total of the well construction to 648,375, still under the second bidder.
-9-
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
We requested that the driller use the cable tool method of drilling, as
it provides better indications of the actual strata as the well is being
drilled. The well driller did note differences in the formation than
those indicated by the original test well log. As he approached the
water bearing zone, he found himself in extremely loose and dirty
sandstones rather than the sand with clay stringers as indicated by the
boring or the sand and gravel deposit indicated by the gamma scan. So on
Tuesday, March 22, we suspended drilling operations pending further
investigation.
One of our concerns was the water quality. Originally we had felt that
we were going to be taking water out of the coarse sand and gravel
formation in the glacial till. We were not worried about the quality of
the water from a safety level, as we had tested all of those parameters.
We were concerned about the iron, manganese, and hardness of the water,
as often water taken out of the sandstones is harder and contains more
iron than that found in glacial till deposits. We pumped the test well
on March 22 and took samples to a laboratory for analysis. In addition,
we sampled the raw water from Well A2 uptown. Following are the results
of that testing.
As can be seen above, the water at the test well is slightly softer than
the water uptown, yet it contains about 1/3 more manganese and 4 times
more iron than the water in the downtown area. Generally speaking, one
does not need iron removal until concentrations of iron reach 0.50 parts
per million. This information is based upon that obtained from the City
of Buffalo, who owns and operates a water treatment facility, and
information retained from the City Engineer. When the iron, however, is
coupled with manganese of higher concentrations, it does become more
difficult to hold this material in suspension with the injection of
chemicals such as polyphosphates. In discussions with representatives
from Feedrite, who supply our current polyphosphate chemicals, it was
found out that the .90 manganese and the .34 iron together are near the
limits of polyphosphates. It is possible that at times we may have some
problems in spotting of laundry and discoloration of water due to the
higher concentrations. In addition, if you've ever seen a stucco house
in Monticello whose owner has allowed the sprinklers to run against it,
the condition would be much more aggravated with a significant increase
in iron.
-10-
RAW WATER
WELL 42
TEST WELL
PARAMETF31S
DOMITOWN
AT RESERVOIR
Hardness in Calcium
21.9 ppm
20.3 ppm
Magnesium
.66 ppm
.90 ppm
Iron
.09 ppm
.34 ppm
As can be seen above, the water at the test well is slightly softer than
the water uptown, yet it contains about 1/3 more manganese and 4 times
more iron than the water in the downtown area. Generally speaking, one
does not need iron removal until concentrations of iron reach 0.50 parts
per million. This information is based upon that obtained from the City
of Buffalo, who owns and operates a water treatment facility, and
information retained from the City Engineer. When the iron, however, is
coupled with manganese of higher concentrations, it does become more
difficult to hold this material in suspension with the injection of
chemicals such as polyphosphates. In discussions with representatives
from Feedrite, who supply our current polyphosphate chemicals, it was
found out that the .90 manganese and the .34 iron together are near the
limits of polyphosphates. It is possible that at times we may have some
problems in spotting of laundry and discoloration of water due to the
higher concentrations. In addition, if you've ever seen a stucco house
in Monticello whose owner has allowed the sprinklers to run against it,
the condition would be much more aggravated with a significant increase
in iron.
-10-
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
To build a water treatment facility for iron removal at this time, I
think, is cost prohibitive. The City of Buffalo built their water
treatment plant in 1981 treating the same quantity of water produced in
Monticello. The cost of that treatment plant was $1.4 million; and just
the annual debt service alone on that facility is $203,000 per year
without operational costs. As I have said in the past, I feel that water
treatment for Monticello is a last resort.
Earlier this week we met with Minnesota Geophysical, the people who did
the garmm scan for us. They indicated that the gamma readings for the
loose sandstone which we encountered are almost identical to the gamma
scan readings for a sand and gravel deposit which they indicated. They
based their decision upon the existing test well boring and general
knowledge of the glacial drift and bedrock formations in the area. They
indicated they would be willing to do an additional day's testing at no
cost using seismic equipment to attempt to determine the extent of the
sandstone and the possibility of finding an aquifer in the glacial till.
This testing should give us some additional information but may not be
entirely conclusive, as it works best when utilized between two known
points such as two deep wells with properly mapped strata. We will have
their report sometime Monday afternoon.
In looking at the surrounding area, we obtained information about the
Boyle well located south of Chelsea Road some 4,000 feet away in a
southeasterly direction from our test well. This well appears to be an
excellent well with capabilities of 1,500 gallons per minute plus. It
terminates at a depth of 165 feet and is located in a coarse sand and
gravel glacial till deposit. Wells to the south of our test well are
relatively shallow in the 60 -foot range and terminate in the glacial
till. The only other well in the area of any significant size is located
north of the existing trailer park on the east aide of Highway 25. we
have been unable to determine the strata at this well location.
On Wednesday, March 23, we learned that Renner Drilling had sent samples
of the loose sandstone formation to Johnson Screen in Minneapolis for a
determination of its water bearing qualities and estimates of well
production. Johnson Screen's estimate is that we can obtain 1,200 to
1,300 gallons per minute out of a naturally developed well located in
this sandstone if the cleaner sandstones are of adequate thickness. This
can only be determined by additional drilling, but the seismic testing
done by Minnesota Geophysical may shed some light in this area.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to continue drilling at the present
site. We are approximately 228 feet deep. we could extend the well
into the sandstone to determine whether we have sufficient strata
hoping to get 1,300 gallons per minute or more with a naturally
developed or gravel packed well. we could do the test pumping of the
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
well without grouting the casing in place, therefore allowing us to
remove the casing if the test pumping of the new well failed to yield
proper capacity. We must realize, however, that if we do obtain
adequate capacity at this well location, we would be able to build
the pumphouse as planned and be on line by mid-July as planned; but
we would still have water quality near the limits of the capabilities
of our existing chemical treatment.
2. A second alternative would be to delay the completion of the deep
well until we drill additional test holes on city property located to
the south in and about Dundas Road or to the east over near Fallon
Avenue. If those test holes indicate good strata, we could pull the
casing and abandon the deep well now in progress and drill a new well
at one of the other sites. In doing so, we would lose the money
spent on the existing deep well (this will be determined sometime
Monday from Renner), and we would have to construct a water line from
our new well location back to the reservoir at an estimated cost of
about $20 per foot ($20,000 to $40,000 depending upon distance). If
we are able to locate a well in the glacial till, this should limit
the need for a water treatment facility in the near future. (It
would be beat to test pump Boyle's well located in the glacial till
and obtain health tests as well as hardness, manganese, and iron
before making a determination as to whether the water quality within
the glacial till will be better than the sandstone.)
3. The third alternative could be the possibility of locating a well in
the Mississippi River outwash which typically exists north of the
Burlington Northern Railway all the way to the Mississippi River. In
this particular area, again we would have to drill some test holes to
determine the strata. We would not wish to locate the new well in
the immediate area of the existing downtown wells but more than
likely in the eastern portion of the community near Washington Street
where we have an empty freeway pipe crossing at this time for water.
If we chose to pump into the system rather than back to the
reservoir, we would save considerable cost in piping, but we would
still be hampered by the loss of system pressure when the reservoir
fills off of the main line rather than directly from a well. In
addition, sometime in the future it may necessitate building a line
from the well to the reservoir. Lastly, it would require that we
leave the existing water tower in place, as the discharge directly
into the reservoir from a well would solve the problem of maintaining
pressure when our new reservoir is empty.
4. A last or remote possibility is the conversion of the Boyle well to a
municipal well. It does have adequate capacity, and it is possible
that it could be converted to a municipal well. Additional study
would have to be done as to whether the well could be properly
grouted to meet Minnesota Department of Health standards and
additional tests would have to be taken as discussed earlier in
T
-12-
D
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
regard to iron, manganese, and hardness in addition to the safety
aspects of testing well water. This would necessitate building a
piping system back to the reservoir some 4,000 feet long at an
estimated cost of about $80,000. In addition, we would have to
purchase a small piece of land from Mr. Boyle and obtain a road
easement and build a temporary road out to the well site. Although
use of this well could be somewhat complicated, I believe we are in a
good bargaining position with Mr. Boyle at this point.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
I believe the staff has indicated its past concern with locating a well
at the reservoir site. The fact that we have spent thousands of dollars
in preliminary testing, test pupping, and gamma scan tests demonstrate
our concern about this site all along. At the present time, all
indications are that we could obtain a well of marginal capacity at the
existing site which will have safe drinking water but will also contain
significant amounts of iron and manganese. Again, being able to treat
these materials with chemical means is marginal. When you add two
marginals, you again get to an uncomfortable feeling about the well
location. I believe the City Engineer is also uncomfortable about the
existing location for the new well.
We hope to have a firmer recommendation for you for Monday evening's
meeting. At the current time, the Public Works Director is leaning
toward alternative number two and doing additional investigation. I hope
each of the Council members have had a chance to read and absorb all of
the material presented in this agenda supplement. I have attempted to
present all of the information up to date so that we Trey make a decision
together as one body or team rather than be giving you a couple of quick
paragraphs with a short recommendation. I sincerely felt this issue too
complicated for such a short, independent approach.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the test well number one log; Copy of the galmre scan.
(THIS INFORMATION WAS INCWDED IN YOUR 3/14/88 AGENDA PACKET.
-13-
C
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
B. Consideration of Liquor Store Landscape Plan. (R.M.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACRGRDUND:
You may recall in the summer of 1987, design bid proposals were submitted
by three (3) local landscape firms for the Liquor Store landscape. At
that time, all proposals were rejected. Also at that time, staff was
instructed to develop a landscape plan and have the local firms give us a
bid on supplying and installing material according to a universal plan.
The revised landscape plan is enclosed for your review. we would like
the Council to look it over and offer any suggestions you may have to
improve the plan.
C. STAFF RECOMENDATION:
Approve the landscape plan as is or with revisions and authorize staff to
seek bids from landscape contractors.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Landscape plan and material list.
-14-
A
1. Buckthorn, Columnar
2. Fuonymus, Winged 26"- 30"
3. Arborvitae, Techny 3'
6. Juniper, Webber 5 gal.
5. Spires, Anthony Waterer 12"
6. Potentilla, Gold Drop 15"
7. Ash, Marshall's 3-
a. Amur Chockcherry 6-8
9. Purple Leaf Sand Cherry 26"
10. Mockorange, Golden 12••
11. Maple, Amur 5-6•
12. Barberry, Japanese Green Leaf 12"-15"
13. Barberry, Japanese Red Leaf 12"- 15"
14. Crab, Spring Snow 2"
15. Pine, Mugo 15"
16. Linden, Greenspire 25•'
17. Maple, Norway 25"
18. Spirea, Goldflame 12"
(Use ) 6 ml. poly.
Valley View edging.
City to supply rock mulch.
Remove of a existing shade trees by City, all other
removal by contractor .
All planting and mulch placement, etc. , to be done
by contractor and completed by June 15, 1988.
9
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
9. General Discussion Concerning Construction and Funding of an Elevated
Water Storage Tank in the Industrial Park Versus a Ground Level Water
Reservoir on Monte Hill. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you know, we have been discussing the pro's and con's about placing a
ground level water reservoir on the Monte Hill ever since our water
system analysis was completed in July of. 1985. Things have remained in
limbo for the past 1-1/2 years because of annexation. Now that
annexation of Fenning Avenue leading to the hill and the hill itself has
failed, it is time once again to address the pro's and con's, anticipated
costs, and possible funding sources, as the need for increased storage
and higher water pressure has increased since our initial look in 1985.
The remaining portion of the projects to be completed as recommended by
the 1985 study would be as follows.
1. The ground level reservoir or elevated water tower.
2. The interconnecting lines between the water storage facility and the
City's existing water system. In the industrial park, this would be
very short. On top of Monte Club Hill, it would extend all the way
down Fenning from County Road 118 then in several hundred feet to the
proposed site.
3. The remaining interconnecting 24 -inch watermain along the east side
of County Road 118 from Chelsea Road to a point north of I-94 near
AME. Ready Mix.
4. The upgrading of municipal well pump number one (motor already
changed to 75 HP in 1986).
5. The upgrading of well pump and motor numher two.
The installation of approximately 1-1/2 blocks of 10 -inch watermain
from the existing wells downtown to the intersection of 4th and
Cedar. (Much of this work is expected to occur in the westerly
boulevard for Cedar Street.)
6. The installation of pressure reducing stations at various points
and/or within homes and businesses in the lager parts of Monticello.
7. The modification of one or more booster pumps at the reservoir in
addition to the installation of four electrically controlled check
valves at the reservoir.
8. Completion of the electronic control system installed originally with
the pumphouse construction.
-15-
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
Based upon the 1985 water study, the cost of an elevated tank in the
industrial park would be approximately $430,000. The cost of a ground
level reservoir on Monte Hill would be approximately $310,000 but would
include the necessary interconnecting piping. Some of that piping has
been installed for the middle school at this time. The estimated cost
for the Monte Hill facility does not include any necessary road building,
clearing, retaining walls, or land acquisition. 'he ground level
reservoir is preferred over the elevated tower type of construction for
several reasons. The first reason, of course, is cost. Another reason
is ease of maintenance. The ground level reservoir, for example, only
stands 60 feet high versus the elevated tank of 150 feet in height. A
second advantage of the ground level storage is that it would contain
300,000 gallons of additional water over the elevated tank, which could
be used in emergencies at a lower pressure. Lastly, in the future it
would be possible to recover some of the cost of constructing the lines
down Fenning Avenue by assessing benefiting property when it comes into
the city if it ever does.
Some of the negative aspects of the ground level reservoir on the Monte
Hill would be as follows.
1. The facility is located out of the city limits and frequent checks of
the facility would require additional travel time.
2. The facility is built into a hillside and some type of roadway system
would have to be bui It. Even on a temporary basis, a roadway system
and/or retaining wal is could be costly and a nuisance to maintain.
3. Since the facility is so far from our control system at the
reservoir, we would experience higher costs in maintenance of that
control sensing equipment and its operation over the design life of
the facility.
4. Any purchase of the land from the Monte Club may involve special
considerations as discussed earlier involving providing benefit to
the Monte Club without assessment and connection fees at reduced
rates.
The staff has been in contact with Bruce Gagnelius to discuss the
possible purchase of a parcel of land, but no firm price has yet been
established. The Monte Club owners have expressed a definite
interest in working with the City, and we will be continuing
discussions in the near future.
5. The City would have to apply to the Township for easemente along
Fenning Avenue, as well as a conditional use permit to install the
ground level reservoir on top of the Monte Hill. The Township and/or
the County Planning Officials will have to determine whether that is
the best use of the property and whether or not they will allow the
City to utilize it for a ground level reservoir.
.16-
Council Agenda — 3/28/AP
6. Of less consequence, but still a consideration, is the loss of a
landmark. With the destruction of the existing water tower in
downtown Monticello, we will lose that large signature saying "City
of Monticello". Such a signature would again be available and quite
noticeable on an elevated storage tank in the industrial park. It
may or may not be proper or visible on the ground level storage tank
at the Monte Club Hill.
All in all, if one was to sum up the costs of additional construction,
land costs, and concerns about the ground level reservoir, based upon
preliminary figures, it still may be from $70,000 to $90,000 cheaper in
initial capital outlay to build the facility on top of the Monte Hill
versus the elevated storage tank in the industrial park. One has to
weigh the potential cost savings and benefits against the hassles of
locating such a facility in the Township.
One of the other things that we need to discuss at this time is possible
financing of the improvements. It is expected, depending upon the design
or type of storage, that this part of the improvement project addressing
items one through seven, including contingencies and indirect costs,
would be somewhere between s800,00n and $900,000. .john Badalich is
expected to present some more refined figures for your review. In order
to fund this type of improvement, we have basically three alternatives.
They are as follows:
1. Revenue Bonds.
The City could fund the project through revenue bonds by raising
water rates. with a current estimated use collection for 1988 of
$102,000, one can see that to do such a large project could nearly
double the water rates in the City of Monticello. For that very
reason, this method of financing is most unattractive.
2. Referendum.
The City of Monticello could hold a referendum and issue bonds for
the financing of this project. There are enough areas in the City of
Monticello currently having water problems such as low water pressure
and/or surging or lack of proper flow for fire protection that a
referendum could pass. If a resident is faced with a doubling of his
water rate or a general obligation financing through a referendum,
more than likely he would vote for the general obligation funding, as
he would see a much smaller portion of the project cost on his taxes.
3. Chapter 424.
we were unable to fund this improvement through Chapter 429 without
annexation, as there were not enough assessable pieces of property to
make the project feasible. It could, however, he rolled in with a
-17-
Council Agenda - 3/28/88
general sewer and water and street improvement project for one of the
many private developments currently being discussed in the city of
Monticello. The City could agree to do from 509 to 758 of one of the
developments and assess it over a period of years and thereby gain
the 209 assessable amount by which to also do the water improvement
project under Chapter 429.
This information is being brought to you for the purposes of open
discussion and debate. It is expected that in the near future, it will
be presented as a formal agenda item requesting Council action. Please
feel free to tour any of our existing water facilities or contact me at
any time regarding the proposed improvements. If you have any concerns
or questions, there is adequate time to address each and every one of
them prior to an actual decision being made.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the water System Analysis, July 1985; Information from John
Badalich if completed in time for delivery with your packet. If not, it
will be hand delivered at Monday evening's meeting.
c -
R
CITY OF MONTICELLO WATER STUDY
I. EXISTING, WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
A. Source of Supply
The two existing wells were drilled in 1964 and 1970 each to a total depth
of approximately 250' and terminate in an alluvial drift formation. Roth wells
have 30 feet of well screen attached to a 16' inner casing with a 20' outer
casing, pumping against existing system pressure, the wells produce about 1100
gallons per minute (gpm) each.
The addition of chlorine and fluoride compounds and polyphosphates at the
pumphouses is the only water, treatment presently in effect. The high manganese
and total hardness of the water are recognized as contributing to undesirable
aesthetic conditions, such as discoloration or decreased cleansing ability,
especially in low use areas, but to this date neither the city nor the residents
have felt the problems to be great enough to warrant construction of city owned
water treatment facilities. The polyphosphates help keep the manganese in
solution and many users have opted to install private water softeners.
As reported in the 1975 Comprehensive Water plan, although the wells are
only 125' apart, the drawdown of one well has little effect on the water level
1 and output of the other. Static water level is at 12 feet below the ground
surface and the relatively high permeability of the water -bearing formation
results in a drawdown of only B feet and 26 feet in Well No. 1 and Well No. 2
respectively. Maximum daily demands during hot, dry periods now require one pump
to run nearly 24 hours to match demand. This is an undesirable situation which
could require restrictions on water use if one of the wells would have to be
removed from service.
B. Distribution pipe Network
r
The water distribution system of the city had its start in the 1940's with
-1-
the installation of a well, an elevated tank and cast iron pipe. Additions were
made as the community grew and recently an effort has been made to supplement
flnws for fire fighting purposes by running large trunk mains adjacent to the old
system and making connections as necessary to handle high demand situations.
The geometric configuration of the city, however, has contributed to dis-
tribution problems. The city is long and narrow and has expanded parallel to the
Mississippi River. On both the east and west end of town -fingers' of develop-
ment have extended outward. Some of these developments are served by undersized
watermain or by non -looped waterm ain with the situation being especially critical
on the east end of town and for the area south of Interstate Highway 94. Gene-
rally speaking, the addition of looping trunk lines to these areas will enhance
water quality and quantity because circulation will increase and water availabil .
ity during peak demand periods will be higher, A second Connection to those
areas will also provide a highly desirable factor of safety not presently
existing.
Computer modeling of the existing system using the Hardy Cross Analysis
Technique has shown anticipated pressures of less than 30 psi at normal maximum
daily usage rates for the Oakwood Drive - Dundas Road industrial area. With a
residual pressure of 20 psi, 1000 gpm is available on the west end of town.
Conversely, only 320 gpm can be withdrawn on the east end of town at Mississippi
Drive with a 20 psi residual pressure. Only 50 gpm is presently available at the
Macarlund Addition. in the central business district near walnut and Broadway
Streets, water availability is limited to shout 1400 gpm from two hydrants.
Several other scenarios were investigated but the above were presented here as
being most depictive of the capabilities of the existing distribution. These
flows assume a 1032 MSL water elevation in the elevated tank, and they would
-2-
�' o
0
increase slightly if the tank was nearly full at 3042 iiSL. It is also assumed
that the well pumps are not in operation and that all water is coming from the
elevated tank or the ground storage reservoir.
Appendix A is a computer printout of a simulated fire flow demand at nodes
26 and 27 (Walnut at Broadway and Walnut at Third) in the central business dis-
trict. The first three pages are input data and the last four are the results.
System consumption is at the maximum daily rate.
C. Storaqe Facilities
A 50,000 gallon elevated storage tank with an overflow elevation of 1042 MSL
provides system pressure which varies from 33 - 55 psi when the ground storage
reservoir is filling and from 23 - 45 psi when system demands are at the maximum
daily rate. Because the tank is critically undersized for present system demands
it does little more than provide system pressure with the water level being
�j maintained near the overflow elevation of 1042 at all times. Recent inspection
!i of the tank itself has shown the structural integrity of the side walls to he
questionable. If the tank served as a true component of the total storage
picture then repair might be considered feasible. However, this is not the case,
and with system pressures being less than desirable for most of the distribution
Insystem, abandonment and replacement of the existing tank is recommended.
In the late 1970's the water storage situation was greatly improved by the
addition of a 0.75 million gallon ground storage reservoir having four high
service pumps each rated at approximately 800 gpm. The reservoir was located
south of 1-94 adjacent to the area planned to serve as the future municipal well
field. Ultimately, the reservoir was designed for storage of treated well water
coming from new wells and new treatment facilities. Presently. Its use as the
main storage facility requires the use of a control system Involving timers,
pressure gauges and level controls. Recent failure of a component of the system
i
has required the operators to employ a partially manual operational procedure
which works quite well. The high service pumps satisfy daytime water demand and
will draw down the reservoir to a set point which activates one of the well
pumps. A well pump runs continuously through the night to refill the reservoir
and will cycle on/off to maintain a minimum level in the reservoir during the
day.
II. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The total annual pumpage and the maximum daily demand of the system have
increased significantly in the last 10 years. and the phenomena cannot be totally
explained by population increases alone. The following table also shows a marked
increase in the daily per capita consumption rate from 125 gpd in 1974 to 150 gpd
in 1974 which is most probably explained by large amounts of water used for
watering new lawns. This high consumption rate can be expected to conn nue as
long as new housing construction parallels population increases.
TABLE 1
WATER CONSUMPTION HiSTORY
(� 1974 1978 1981 1983
�f Total Annual Pumpage (Mil Gals) 89 130 159 174
Avg Daily Consumption (Gals/Capita) 125 137 148 150
Max Daily pumpage (Mil Gals) 0.708 -- 1.452 1.389
Maximum Daily Consumption (Gals/Capita) 370 -- 494 440
Population Estimate 2000 2500 2940 3160
i
The maximum daily demand along with fire fighting requirements are used to
.4.
9
calculate total storage requirements for municipal water systems. When studying
the calculations in Table 2, it is also apparent that a certain amount of re-
quired storage volume can be offset by providing additional well pump capacity.
The calculation assumes that 90% of the maximum daily demand must be supplied in
a period of 16 hours, Aile the well pumps are operating. The validity of this
assumption has heen confirmed by demand versus time of day studies of other water
utilities. A safety factor of 33% is added to the consumer storage requirement
and fire demand is then added to obtain the Total Storage Requirement.
-5-
H
TABLE 2
STORAGE DETERMINATION
Year 1980 1985 2000
2010 2010
IF 2020
Population Estimates 7.830 34nn 5600
8000 8nD0
11100
Max Daily Demand R 400 gpd/tap. 1.13 1.36 2.24
3.20 3.20
4.44
(MG)
Design Weil Capacity (gpm) 1200 1200c 20006
2000 3000
4000
9U% Max Day in 16 Hrs. (MG) 1.02 1.22 2.02
2.88 2.88
4.40
Pumpage in 16 Hrs. (MG) 1.15 1.15 1.92
1.92 2.88
3.84
Usage Storage Required (MG) 0 0.19 0.10
0.96 0
0.56
Storage Plus 33% Reserve (MG) 0 0.25 0.13
1.27 0.25
0.74
fire Demand (MG)a 0.72 0.72 0072
0.72 0.72
0.96
TOTAL STORAGE REQUIREMENT (MG) 0.72 0.97 0.85
1.99 0.97
1.70
1
Ground Storage Availahle (MG)e 0035 0.35 0035
0.35 0.35
0.35
NET STORA111 RF.OUIREMENT (MG)e 0.37 0.62 n.50
1.64 n.62
1.35
a The fire demand assumes a four hour fire flow at
3000 gpm through
the year
2010 and 4000 gpm by the year 2020.
b The existing ground storage reservoir has a total capacity of
0.75 MG but
this analysis assumes that it may be only partially
full with
0.35 MG
available for fire fighting purposes.
c As part of the recommended system improvements,
the capacity of
the exist.
Ing welts will be modified to 1000 gpm each.
and a new well will be
added.
d Refore the year 1990. the new well is on line.
e The reduction in the "Net Storage Requirement"
from the year
1985 to the
year 2000 and 2010(f) is a result of added well capacity. However. the
requirement increases dramatically by the year
2020 even with
additional
well capacity as planned.
f The second storage determination for the year 2010
i
was developed
to show
the Impact of adding well capacity.
II1. RECO141ENDED IMPROVEMENTS
A. New Wells
An initial analysis of well capacity requirements reveals that the existing
wells should be adequate to the year 2000 and a third well will be necessary
shortly after that. This conclusion assumes that the wells will continue to have
minimal impact on each other even with increases in total consumption through the
years. This may not be the case because as the wells are used more frequently,
the drawdown of one can be expected to have a greater effect on the other. Also,
should the city decide to construct a new elevated storage facility at the higher
elevation as proposed in the 1975 Comprehensive Plan, the additional static pres-
sure on the system will reduce the output of each of the existing wells from 1200
gpm to 50U or 600 gpm. This reduced output can be balanced by installation of
new pumps with larger motors on the existing wells or a new well could be
r constructed. The existing wells could be modified at a cost of $24,000 to bring
1
their capacities back to original levels. However, the small diameter pipe in
the vicinity of the existing wells would cause unacceptably high pressures
throughout the system to overcome the pipe friction associated with the 2000 gpm
output of the wells. A new trunk watermain from the wells and connecting to the
trunk watermain south of 1-94 would alleviate this problem at an additional cost
of $271,000. The total cost. therefore, of integrating the existing wells into a
water system with a new storage facility would be $255.000. All factors con-
sidered, this may be an opportune time to begin making the transition to the new
wells south of 1-94 as proposed in the Comprehensive plan.
A factor in addition to the well capacity that may influence decisions on
future well construction is the possible desire for a higher quality, more stable
water. The long range plan for abandonment of the existing wells and construc-
ir tion of new wells south of 1.94 will provide a potential for centralized water
treatment: with a source of supply adequate for many years into the future.
Existing development surrounding the present wells greatly reduces the feasibil-
ity of centralized treatment at that location and emphasizes desirability of new
wells in a less developed area where land can be reserved for that purpose. The
construction of a new well and pumphouse is estimated to cost $190,Ono plus the
purchase of any necessary land. Generally, it appears that the community is
satisfied with the overall quality of the water and that centralized treatment
for hardness and manganese wi 11 not be needed in the near future if water quality
from the wells remains constant. With this in mind, the most prudent option may
be for the city to upgrade one of the existing wells and construct one new well.
To allow full use of the upgraded well for the expanding water system, it is
recommended that approximately 600 feet of 12 inch trunk watermain be installed
in Cedar Street from the well site to Fourth Street where connection would he
r{ made to the existing 12 inch trunk main. The construction cost of this watenmain
is estimated at E26.000. In conclusion, the total construction cost for existing
well modification would be 550,000.
g. Elevated Storaqe
The deficiencies of the existing elevated storage tank have been known for
some time. The 1975 Comprehensive plan developed a size and location for a pro-
posed tank. This updated study has reviewed and further developed the calcula-
tions of the previous report. Table 2, Storage Determination, shows that a
$00.000 gallon facility combined with addition well capacity will meet the needs
of the city to the year 200n. To analyze the validity of using Monti Will for a
storage facility, a more centrally located alternate site for the proposed
storage facility was also investigated.
Locating a storage tank in the area bounded by Oakwood Drive, Chelsea Road.
J
-s-
0
Fallon Avenue and Oundas Road would bring the facility approximately 8,000 feet
closer to the center of town and within the existing corporate limits of the
city. The overflow for the tank would be about 150 feet above the ground sur-
face at elevation 1106. The reduced pressure tosses due to friction in the pipe
would result in fire flow increases of about three percent throughout the system.
It is estimated that the construction cost of an elevated tank such as the
"Hydropillar" design at this site would be about 5430.000.
This compares to an estimated cost of $310.000 for a 48 foot diameter x 60
foot high standpipe for location of the storage facility on Monti Hill with the
same overflow elevation. This cost includes the construction of 2600 feet of 16"
watermain to the standpipe. The standpipe alternative has the advantage of
providing storage plus 2600 feet of watermain at a lesser cost than the elevated
tank alternative. This pipe would became an integral part of the water distribu-
tion network as the city expanded southward into that area. Additionally. the
standpipe would provide about 300.000 gallons of additional water in the lower 23
feet of the standpipe. This water would be available for emergency use at a
lower pressure but that pressure would be still greater than what presently
exists in the system.
Wit" respect to improving water availability, either storage alternative by
itself wouid increase fire flows as follows:
West End 4 Marvin Elwood Road: From 1000 gpm to 1400 gpm
Central Business District: From 1400 qpm to 1800 gpm
East End 0 Mississippi Drive: From 320 gpm to 470 gpm
System pressures which presently range from 30 to 56 psi would increase to
range from S7 psi to 83 psi when system demands are low and the storage tanks are
refilling. Static water pressure with water at its maximum elevation would be
-q-
a D
about 5 psi greater than these pressures. Increased system water pressures are a
ti concern with older plumbing and for newer water heaters which have internal
pressure release devices set at 80 psi. Water customers in the lower areas of
town where static pressures would exceed 80 psi would be furnished with pressure
regulation valves to protect water heaters and plumbing.
In this report, the fire flow determinations assumed that the water would be
withdrawn from a single hydrant in residential and from two hydrants in the
downtown area. all with a 20 psi pressure residual at the hydrant, if the
residual pressure was allowed to drop to 10 psi Such as through the use of
pumpers, then water availability in the downtown area would increase by about 300
9pm-
In comparing the elevated tank to the standpipe. there appears to be no
major advantage to opting for the elevated storage tank in the industrial area
South of 1-94 and there is significant cost savings in constructing a standpipe
On Monti Hill.
C. Trunk Watermains
Computer analysis of the existing system has shown that water availability
is not nearly as great on the east end of town as it is on the west end. Also.
without the use of pumpers and the accompanying danger of creating negative
pressures in the system, fire flow capability in the central portion of town is
limited to about 1400 gpm. The only reasonable solution to alleviate the
situation in the Riverview Drive area is to extend a trunk water main to that
area. This can be accomplished by extending the 24" watermain on County Road 118
northward. crossing 1-94 and C.S.A.M. 15, and making connection to the watermain
on Riverview Drive. This single watenmaim addition in combination with new
elevated storage facilities would greatly increase water availability throughout
aa -
U
w
the system. Appendix B depicts a fire flow availability in the central business
l district with a new storage facility on Monti Hill and a new trunk watermain on
County Road 118. Water avaibility, would increase above existing conditions as
fO110wS:
West End w Marvin Elwood Road: From 1000 gpm to 1551) gpm
Central Business District: From 1400 qpm to 2100 gpm
East End R Mississippi Drive: From 320 gpm to 1440 gpm
In the future, as the water system expands. the additional watermain cross-
ings of 1-94 as shown in the 1975 Comprehensive Plan would increase fire flow
capability to over 3000 gpm at 20 psi in the central business district. The
ctm ptitor printout in Appendix C is intended to show the increased flow potential
in the central husiness district with the added crossings of I-94.
IV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
A. Cost Estimates
From the previous discussions and design analysis, it becomes apparent that
to enhance system pressures in general and to increase fire flow capabilities, it
is necessary to provide a greater static water pressure than .hat is presently
available. The fire flow situation on the far east end of town does not improve
significantly until a trunk watermafn is added to service that area. It should
be noted that the west end of town is served by a trunk watermain which provides
1
adequate fire flow capacity for existing and near future conditions. increasing
I system static water pressure reduces the output of each Of the existing wells
1 from 1100 qpm to 600 gpm or less and thereby necessitates additional well
capacity at this time.
In 1916. following the recommendations of the 1975 Comprehensive Plan, the
I
City constructed a 0.15 million gallon ground storage reservoir along with a 12`
it
9
trunk wetennain through the main part of the City and to the west end as the
first step in a long range water system improvement program. Additional storage
capacity is needed at this time but the actual amount which should be provided is
debatable. The net storage requirement varies from 0.72 MG in 1985, to 0.50 MG in
2000. to 0.62 MG in 2010. It is recommended that a 0.5 million gallon facility
be constructed now with additional storage to be phased in after the year 2000.
The estimated costs for the minimum system improvements of a new storage
facility, existing well improvements, a new well and trunk watermain to the east
end of town are as follows:
CONSTRUCTION COST
Existing Well Improvements E 50.000
Well and Pumphouse 190,000
Watetmain to Reservoir 90,000 i
i ( 0.5 Million Gallon Standpipe 220,000
�s
Trunk Watermain C.R. 118 R C.R. 39 217,000
' TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST S 767,000
Contingency (15%) 115.000
Indirect Costs (25%) 192.000
i
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1.074.000
B. Financing
There are several methods of financing various components of a water system.
Any one or a combination of the following could be used:
1. General Ad Valorem Tax
2. Special Assessments
3. Connection Charges
4. Revenue from System Users
1(
-12•
The General Ad Valorem Tax method would have the advantage of providing an
income tax return deduction for those persons itemizing deductions. A disadvan-
tage of this method is that the present property owners will pay a larger portion
of the water system cost than residents of the future since current residents
will be taxed for a longer period of time. Northern States Power Currently pays
a high percentage of the taxes in the City and any tax increase would be borne by
NSP customers throughout the area served by the power plant.
Special Assessments against the benefitted property are used extensively for
water projects. Usually properties abutting the project are judged to have
! received a benefit, but in a project such as this one, it would be possible to
have a city-wide assessment.
Connection Charges are collected at the time a property owner hooks up to
the water system. This charge is often used in lieu of a portion of a special
assessment. This postpones some of the cost to undeveloped property until it is
t developed and in need of service.
Revenue from System Users, in the form of a quarterly usage charge, is used
I to pay the operating cnsts of the system. However, it is sometimes used to pay a
portion of the capital costs of the system. usually for treatment or storage
facilities.
-1J-
v
MARCH GENERAL FLND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
VOID
-0-
25640
Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees
206.00
25641
Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees
118.00
25642
Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees
18.00
25643
Cragun's Conf. Center - Deposit for City Mgr's. conf.
70.00
25644
Liquor Store - Investments
100,000.00
25645
State' Treasurer - Surplus Property Fund - Furniture'- PWD
62.50
25646
Prentice Hall - Mag, sub. - Public Works Dept.
51.13
25647
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Pump b misc. repairs
2,636.42
25648
Bethke Co. - Parts - Disposal :Plant repairs
512.93
25649
Phillips 66 - Gas
18.95
25650
MN. State Documents Center - State Register sub.
136.99
25651
Companion Pets - Animal control supplies
17.99
25652
Transport Clearings of Twin Cities - Freight
33.20
25653
Bowman Bar -nee - St. Dept. supplies
123.49
25654
Cary Anderson - Mileage expense
31.70
25655
Mobil Oil - Gas
110.86
25656
Continental Fire Equip. - Alarm hose - Fire Dept.
180.52
25657
Monticello Township - 2nd half of 1987 OAA payment
13,750.00
25658
Hennepin Technical Inst. - Seminar reg. for Matt Theisen
60.00
25659
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
70.00
25660
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
70.00
25661
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
90.00
25662
Netter -Schmidt Assoc. - 2 FS -1000 - Supplies
121.30
25663
Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment
7,042.20
25664
Jerry Hermes - Library janitorial
227.50
25665
David Stromberg - Animal control expense
302.00
25666
Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense
275.00
25667
VOID
-O-
25668
3CMA Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded.
786.17
25669
State Capitol Credit Union Payroll ded.
123.04
25670.
MN. Pollution Control - Sanitary sewer permit - East 039
140.00
25671
MN. Dept. of Health - Watermain ext. - County Rd. 639
150.00
15672
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Feb.
2,108.00
25673
PENA - Pera V1H
1.306.03
25674
Wright County State Bank - FICA 6 FWT
4,510.06
25675
YMCA of Mp1s. - Monthly contract payment
625.00
25676
Mr. Warren Smith - Council salary
123.19
25677
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
25678
Bill Fair - Council salary
125.00
25679
Mrs. Fran Pair - Council salary
125.00
25680
Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
25681
Prousse Cleaning - City hall b Fire hall cleaning
450.00
25682
David Stromberg - Animal adoption reimbursement
146.00
25683
Mrs. Cindy Lamm - Planning Comm. salary
49.27
25684
Richard Carlson - Planning Comm. salary
49.27
25685
Richard Martie - Planning Comm. salary
49.27
2$686
Corrow Sanitation - Landfill chargee for Feb.
1,177.80
25687
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded.
204.00
15688
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg, fees
18.00
25689
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dap. Reg. fees
85.00
25690
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
18.00
25691
Robert Krautbauer - Property purchase for lift station
100.00
25692
Holmes 6 Graven - Professional services
102.63
25693
Ramier, Cries, etc. - Professional services
202.50
25694
_. -, , I.J.
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Business b Ind. Comm. - 1987 contribution
5,000.00
25695
Monticello Chamber of Commerce - 1988 membership dues
250.00
25696
American National Bank - St. Paul - Bond fees
719.58
25697
Turnquist Paper Co. - Paper towels for city hall
19.91
25698
The Plumbery - Toilet for 4th St. park b tile grout
259.75
25699
Suburban Gas - Supplies
68.40
25700
Latour Construction - WWTP repairs
2,800.00
25701
Blake Drilling - WWTP dewatering
3,500.00
25702
Unoval - Fire Dept. gas
9.01
25703
Midway Industrial Supply - Parts - PWD
290.22
25704
National Bushing - Parts - PWD
111.73
25705
Barsness Drug - Supplies
22.50
25706
Rockmount Research d Alloys - Supplies for St. Dept.
449.17
25707
Vance's Service - Fire Dept. gas
20.30
25708
Wright County Treasurer - Police contract - March
11,896.62
25709
Simonson Lumber - Supplies
10.85
25710
Harry's Auto Supply - Supplies - PWD
146.03
25711
AME Ready Mix Co. - Sand
110.00
25712
Monticello Printing - Office supplies 6 printing
83.10
25713
J M 011 Co. - St. Dept, gas
11.49
25714
Coast to Coast - Supplies
89.76
25715
Gould Bros. - Parts
11.43
25716
Concrete Sawing - WWTP repairs
594.00
25717
Martie's Farm Service - Animal control supplies
20.03
25718
Local #49 - Union dues
92.00
25719
Douglas Smith - Membership dues for Fire Dept.
25.00
25720
Automatic Systems - Water Dept. services
178.28
25721
Bowman Barnes - Nuts and bolts - PWD
15.30
25722
North Star Waterworks - Supplies - Water Dept.
93.39
25723
Davis Water Equip. - WWTP services
667.33
25724
Monticello Times - Legal pub.
800.49
25725
American National Bank - Bond payment
1,662.50
25726
Sentry Syscems - Alarm system - Water Dept.
90.00
25727
Dahlgren, Shardlow - Professional services
2,914.99
25728
Wang - Computer mice. agreement payment
426.00
25729
Professional Services Group - WWTP contract payment
22.083.35
25730
TW Hardware - Supplies
3.59
25731
Maus Foods - Supplies for all Depts.
•98.15
25732
Feedrice Controls - Supplies for Water Dept.
1,469.91
25733
Albany Carbide - Pour pot and tar - St. Dept.
11990.00
25734
Northern States Power - Utilities
7,384.96
25735
U. S. Postmaster - Postage machine refill
500.00
25736
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
910.71
25737
Mankato Technical Inst. - 6 Rog, fees for Fire Dept. school
240.00
25738
ECP Technical Inst. - 2 Reg. fees for Fire Dept. school
80.00
25739
Monticello Fire Dept. - Salaries - Feb.
1,739.23
25740
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. foes
36.00
25741
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
39.00
25742
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
54.00
25743
North Central Public Service - Utilities
2,484.69
25744
Rick Wolfscellor - Mileage allowance
300.00
25745
Principal Mutual Life - Group ins.
4,421.75
25746
State Capitol Credit Union -Payroll dad.
123.04
25747
ICMA Retirement - Payroll dad.
911.17
25748
PERA - Ins. premiums - reimb.
27.00
25749
Jerry Hermes -.Library janitorial
227.50
25750
-2-
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
David Stromberg - Animal control expense
302.00
25751
PERA - Pere W/H
1,435.10
25752
Norwest Investment Services - Computer payment
2,407.61
25753
Wright County State Bank - FICA 6 FWT taxes
5,975.98
25754
Government Training Building - Reg. fee for J. O'Neill
80.00
25755
Radisson Hotel St. Paul - LMC Conference dep.
216.00
25756
Smith, Pringle 6 Hayes - Legal services -
990.25
25757
McDowall Co. - Furnace repair at City Hall
126.70
25758
Servistar Hardware - Supplies for PWD
136.56
25759
The Plumbery - Shover stall at Maintenance Building
270.00
25760
Central McGowan - Cyl. rental
119.40
25761_
Richards Asphalt Co. - Crackfiller
756.70
25762
L 6 S Tool 6 Design - Parts for sweeper
150.00
25763
Matt Theisen - Mileage expense to seminar
15.00
25764
Motor - Sub. - Public Works Dept.
14.00
25765
Contractors Tabulating Service - Sub. - Public Works Dept.
58.00
25766
Tri State Pump b Control - WWTP repairs
1,125.00
25767
Kiplinger Letter - Renewal sub.
58.00
25768
SMA Const. - Supplies
5.00
25769
Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control expenses
30.00
25770
Sweeney Bro. - Parts for Street Dept .
398.06
25771
Granite Electronic - Fire Dept. repairs
45.00
25772
Unitog Rental Service - Uniform rental
128.00
25773
The Dickson Co. - Pens, etc. - Water Dept.
51.85
25774
Northern Oxygen Service - Fire Dept. supplies
11.70
25775
Safety Kleen Corp. - St. Dept. expense
111.50
25776
AT&T Inf. Systema - Fire phone charge
3.96
25777
Wright County Mayors Assoc. - Mayor's dues for 1988
80.00
25778
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
36.00
25779
Olson 6 Sone Elec. - Repairs & mist. repairs
1,415.64
25780 ,
Fitzharris Athletic Supply - 3 sets bases - Softball fields
449.01
25781
Phillipe 66 Company - Gas
55.98
25782
Marco Bus.,.lness Supply - New copy machine - P.Worke & Paper
331.95
25783
Mobil Oil Co. - Gas
79.68
25784
Snap-On Toole - Ratchet - Shop
38.44
25785
Monticello Office Prod. - Office supplies
102.20
25786
Wright County Treas/Aud. - 1988 assessment listing
26.00
25787
011ie Koropchak - Expenses
6.57
25788
Little Mountain Electric - Installation of shover at mtce. bld.
480.69
25789
PERA - PERA Withholdings 3/16 Pay Period
379.19
25790
G. Anderson - Mileage expense
54.70
25791
Chaplin Publishing Co. - Ad. for bids - sanitary sever system
183.60
25792
The Glass Hut - Replace windows - Streets
157.68
25793
Holiday Gas - Gas - Fire Depart.
27.01
25794
Dept. of Not. Rea. - Dep. Reg. fees
18.00
25795
Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dap. Reg. fees
93.00
25796
Star City Conference - Reg. fee for 0. Koropchak
35.00
25797
DMDI - Computer fees and mileage expense
4.903.49
25798
Payroll for February 24,993.16
'TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR MARCH $266.961.38
-3-
v
ab
k
LIQUOR FUND
LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR MARCH - 1988
AMUNT
CFZM
90.
Foster, Franzen Agency - Liquor liability ins. renewal prem.
13,813.77
13639
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
2,869.49
13640
Quality Wine - Liquor
1,077.75
13641
Eagle Wine - Liquor
556.59
13642
Johnson Bro. - Liquor
738.98
13643
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
200.00
13644
Wright County State Bank - FICA W/H
703.14
13645
Commissioner of Revenue - ST. W/H
233.00
13646
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
3,218.62
13647
Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco, etc. - Liquor license renewal
98.00
13648
PERA - Pera W/H
217.55
13649
First National Bank of Monticello - 6 month C. D.
60,000.00
13650
Northern States Power - Utilities
499.18
13651
North Central Public Service - Utilities
240.21
13652
Monticello Times - Advertising
167.00
13653
Granite City Jobbing - Misc. mdse.
114.13
13654
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer
4,386.05
13655
Grosslein Beverage - Beer
11,460.60
13656
Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer
12,298.35
13657
Howard's Welding Shop - Thaw water lines
150.00
13658
Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse.
359.90
13659
Cloudy Town Dist. - Misc. mdse.
131.50
13660
Granite City Cash Register - Supplies
81.27
13661
Ron's Ice Co. - Ice purchase
83.42
13662
Maus Foods - Store expense
3.17
13663
Coast to Coast - Store expense
51.66
13664
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer
1,371.10
13665
7 Up Bottling--Misc. mdse.
148.80
13666
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse.
319.15
13667
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse.
543.48
13668
Rubald Beverage Co. - Beer
16.00
13669
Day Dist. - Beer
701.80
13670
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for Feb.
5,568.89
13671
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
1,861.88
13672
Monticello Jaycees - Adv.
30.00
13673
Taylor Land Surveyors - 10 prints
12.50
13674
Bolles Sanitation - Garbage contract payment
133.50
13675
Eagle Wine - Liquor
263.20
13676
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
90.76
13677
Johnson Bro. - Liquor
.1.838.59
13678
Principal Mutual Ins. - Group ins.
388.37
13679
Wright County State Bank - FICA b FWT taxes
672.36
13680
PERA - Ins. premium
9.00
13681
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
200.00
13682
Paustis 6 Sone - Liquor
889.22
13683
Liefert Trucking - Freight
270.12
13684
Ed Phillipe 6 Sone - Liquor
1.066.16
13685
PERA - Para W/H
216.38
13686
Quality Wino - Liquor
1,032.03
13687
Wright County State Bank - FICA 6 PVT taxes
321.30
13688
Johnson Bro. - Liquor
1,721.62
13689
LIQUOR FUND
AMUNT CPrC%
NO.
Smith, Pringle 6 Hayes - Legal
42.00
13690
Jack Weiss Sports Calendars - Adv.
170.00
13691
McDowall Co. - Furnace repairs
159.10
13692
Servistar Hardware - Store expense
11.58
13693
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
4,604.71
13694
Ed Phillips - Liquor
983.45
13695
Eagle Wine Co. - Wine
390.35
13696
Quality Wine 6 Spirits - Wine
1,227.21
13697
PERA - Pera WH for 3/16 Pay Period
119.56
13698
Payroll for Feb. 3.700.43
TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - MARCH $144,847.93
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
INFORMATIONAL ITE14
Increase in Wright County Landfill Surcharge. W .S.1
At the request of the Wright County Solid Waste Task Force, the Oounty Board
recently instituted an additional $.30 surcharge on all mixed municipal solid
waste entering landfills in Wright County. The primary reason for the
surcharge increase was to place additional tax burdens on the enormous amounts
of refuse finding its way into Wright County landfills from other counties,
primarily Hennepin County. The Solid Waste Task Force and County Board
originally wished to increase the surcharge for only that portion of the waste
coming from outside the county. After a year of study by the Attorney
General's office, the Wright County Solid Waste Task Force was informed that to
place the surcharge unequally could interfere with interstate comanerce and
result in potential litigation for Wright County.
After receiving the final word from the Attorney Ceneral's office, the County
Board enacted a $.30 increase in the surcharge across the entire county. The
surcharge will go into effect on or about May 1. Our contract with Corrw
Sanitation contains an escalator clause whereby Corrw will pass on the
increase in surcharges to us. At a generation rate of approximately 2.7 lbs
per person per day based upon a 12 -month tabulation of dumping tickets from
Corrw Sanitation, the anticipated cost to the City is about $1,681.20 per
year. If the City charged directly for garbage pickup and assuming a
population of 3,400 people and 1,416 living units in Monticello, the average
cost of the increase would be $1.19 per living unit per year, or 49.4 cents per
person per year.
The additional surcharge collected in Wright County will go strictly for
landfill closure and post -closure monitoring. This fund which now totals
approximately $150,000 in Wright County, will be used to enable the County to
react immediately to any reports of pollution problems from any landfills ir.
Wright County involved in closing or closed. This is not intended to subsidize
a landfill that has sufficient closure or post closure funds. Anyone wishing
additional information about the current status of Wright County Solid Waste
Program should attend a County informational meeting at the Community Building
at the County Courthouse Annex at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday. March 15, 1988. Yours
truly is expected to open the meeting and present an update about the solid
waste issues in Wright County for the past four years.
COUNCIL UPDATE
ICruising (R.W.)
A meeting was held recently with Wright County Sheriff's Department
representatives to discuss the cruising problem and recommended courses of
action to tackle this problem during the upcoming year. Along with myself,
Councilmember Warren Smith and Steve Johnson met with Chief Deputy Jim Powers,
Lieutenant Don Hozempa, and another deputy familiar with Monticello.
The main areas of discussion concerned 1) sidewalk congestion, 2) the actual
traffic cruisers, and 3) the resulting litter problems. It certainly was the
consensus of all members that although cruising by itself was a problem,
efforts would have to be made to disperse the groups that gather and congregate
in the downtown area. with the addition of an additional man being available
for Friday and Saturday evenings as part of our police contract, it is the
primary intent at this time that the new individual will be doing extensive
foot patrol activities in the downtown area and will concentrate on dispersing
the youths from Broadway. With the spectators being eliminated, it is believed
that some of the reasons for cruising will also disappear in that without
spectators, cruising loses some of its prestige.
With emphasis on eliminating gathering along the sidewalk, litter should also
be reduced along Broadway. The group discussed where the youth may gather if
they are removed from Broadway and felt that efforts should be made by the City
and the Sheriff's Department to allow the kids to gather in a different
location such as the municipal parking lot east of the old fire hall between
the former Security Federal building. By eliminating groups on Broadway, it is
only natural that the kids will just move to a different location; and it was
felt by all at the meeting that it would be better for these Individuals to
concentrate in one area such as the municipal parking lot. In order to combat
the litter problem, the City will be installing three trash containers in the
municipal parking lot. We are also checking into adding additional garbage
containers on Broadway in various locations and hopefully with some enforcement
from the foot patrol officer, the garbage containers will he used.
The committee also discussed the idea of possibly making the downtown area a no
parking zone during the evenings or after a specific time but felt that this
may become hard to enforce unless it pertained to all individuals. With the
Monticello Liquor Store being open later in the evening along with Dino's
Restaurant and the theater, the City would have to eliminate quite a few
parking spaces on Broadway if it were to enforce strictly no parking. At this
time, it was recommended by the Sheriff's Department that this option be kept
open but did not recommend that no parking signs be installed.
With the Monticello HRA recently acquiring the former Ford building site and
the building being removed, the City will be installing no parking signs on the
property to eliminate the youth from congregating on this property. If. this
continues to he a problem during the summer months, the City may actually have
to fence the property or close it off somehow to avoid the cruisers from
congregating in this location: but the Sheriff's Department should be able to
enforce no parking if signs are erected. The committee also recommended that
Council update - 3/14/88
Page 2
the City of Monticello consider removing the park bench located on the small
green area next to Koppy's Insurance building, as this seems to be a prime
piece of property where the youth gather. The area is not currently lit and
lighting this area is not feasible at this time. Overall, it is hopeful by the
Sheriff's Department that with the additional foot officer being present on
weekends, especially on foot patrol, the loitering of kids in the downtown area
will be eliminated; and as a result, some of the reasons for cruising would
also disappear. The idea of erecting no cruising signs or passing ordinances
prohibiting cruising would be extremely difficult to enforce, and it's hopeful
that with the presence of additional officers immediately with warm weather
appearing, the cruising and loitering problems will not accelerate as they did
last summer before any stricter enforcement was initiated.
Annexation Update (R.w.)
As you have all heard by now, the Municipal Board has tentatively ruled to
allow annexation of approximately 400+ acres. The three main areas approved
for annexation were approximately 160 acres owned by Kent Kjellberg located
south of the city limits, including the east trailer park between Highway 25
and County Road 117. A second parcel consisting of approximately 160 acres
owned by Jim Boyle surrounds the additional 80 acres owned by the School
District located between Fallon Drive and County Road 118. The third parcel
approved was 34 acres known as Halliger Tree Farm property owned by Mr. John
Sandberg.
In a recent conversation with Pat Lundy of the Municipal Board, the Board must
still officially meet to ratify their original annexation motions, which should
be forthcoming in the next few weeks. Officially at this point, no annexation
has yet occurred; and we are awaiting the official documents relating to these
parcels. Assuming that no changes are made by the Board, I am assuming the
City Council is willing to accept the parcels into the city limits. If. for
some reason the Council is not willing to accept any or all of these parcels, I
would have to check with the City Attorney on whether the City has the option
of turning down the Municipal Board's decision.
As you will note in the Council agendA, Mr. Rent Kjellberg has been wasting no
time in planning on developing his parcel of land included in the annexation
decision. A preliminary sketch plan has already been prepared on how he would
like to develop the parcel; but I believe the Planning Commission along with
the City Council has many questions that have to be addressed prior to any
proposal receiving approval at this time. The first problem exists in creating
the proper zoning districts for all the parcels that will come as part of
annexation. In some cases, it is obvious what the zoning should be such as
With the Halliger Tree Farm parcel in that it has already been subdivided and
platted for residential usage. In regards to the school property and the
surrounding property owned by Jim Boyle, some thought will have to go into
zoning the property in order for it to he compatible with the existing school
usage. The Consulting Planner has previously reviewed Mr. Boyle'a property
surrounding the school and roughly outlined some proposed zoning uses that
r would be compatible; but further research will have to be done before a
recommendation can he made. In regards to Mr. xjellherg's property, his sketch
C
11
C
Council Update - 3/14/88
Page 3
plan is proposing a residential and mobile home park expansion, which at this
time the staff has not determined to be completely acceptable as proposed. I
believe the zoning in this area can be reasonably accomplished without much
difficulty, but the most important issue that has to be addressed is whether
the City wishes to allow the mobile home park to be expanded, especially as
proposed adjacent to a residential single family area.
In the upcoming weeks new staff member, Jeff O'Neill, will be reviewing the
City's Comprehensive Plan and its proposed land uses for the areas that are
proposed to be annexed. In consultation with the City's Consulting Planner, it
is hopeful once a decision has been made by the Municipal Board that the
Planning Commission and City Council can immed iately address the zoning for
these areas.
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
Pre -Planning for Street Improvement Project, West Monticello. U.S.)
The west Monticello area, which contains a street system of rural design, lies
north of County Road 75 and west of Chestnut Street. Most of this street
system was constructed in 1975 with the completion of a sewer and water
improvement project. The area was crack sealed and then sealcoated in 1979.
Typical street sections in the area utilized about 7 inches of Class v and
2-1/2 inches of blacktop. Going on the 13th year of life cycle, it is time to
make some decisions for this area which will affect the type of maintenance
used on the street and/or the final street design. Some sections in the area
are in need of patching or replacement. A typical street section in the area
is only in fair condition with significant amounts of longitudinal and
transverse cracking.
It is expected that some work in the area will have to be done this summer. A
minimal amount of work would involve patching and sealcoating. The minor
patching could amount to $3,000 to $5,000 done by City staff, and a sealcoating
project could be approximately $20,000. The patching and sealcoating at this
time, however, will not greatly extend the life of the existing pavement. very
shortly, we will reach a point at which time the surface will deteriorate to a
point where it cannot successfully be overlayed. It could successfully be
' overlayed this year, possibly next year, utilizing a single 2 -inch lift overlay
with minimal patching and some minor culvert and drain work. Estimated cost of
such a project would be $185,032. Assuming 19,471 lineal feet of assessable
front footage out in the area would give us a cost of about $9.50 per front
foot to the residents.
If we do not overlay in the very near future, we could look at el lowing the
street to go through its full life cycle of about 15 years and look at
teplacemenL in or around 1991. The cost of replacing the existing 24 -foot wide
surface with a new 3 -inch bituminous surface would he in the neighborhood of
$349,169. Again, dividing this by the estimated assessable front footage would
give us a cost of about $17.93 per front foot. If in 1991 we decided to go for
a full -bore urban type section utilizing a street width of 32 feet but with
curb and gutter and storm sewer, we would be looking at a project costing about
$1.3 million. The street portion of the project without storm sewer is
estimated to cost approximately $881,462. Dividing this again by the estimated
front assessable footage of 19,471 gives us about $45.27 per foot. This,
again, is without storm sewer. Storm sewer would benefit a much greater area
than that fronting on the street system. If this area were improved like the
77-3 Project and only 20 percent assessed, there would he a front footage
assesament of about $9.05 per front foot. Again, this does not include storm
sewer.
I have enclosed a tabulation of these projects for your review. It should be
stressed that these are very, very rough estimates only for pre -planning
f purposes. This information is presented as food for thought. It will be
coming back to Lhe Council as a formal agenda item sometime during the month of
April, as the Public works Department will need direcLion for maintenance
planning.
PLANNING ESTIMATE FOR
WEST MOMCELLO STREET PROJECT
{ March 10, 1988
OPTION I. Total Reconstruction using 32 -foot width with B6-18 curb and
storm sever. (Life expectancy 15-20 years bituminous.)
A. Bituminous removal, 42,733 sq yds. @ $1.00 per yard $ 42,733.00
B. Class V (8"), 19,643 tons @ $4.75 per ton - $ 93,305.00
C. B6-18 curb including driveways, 32,536 ft @ $7 per ft • $ 227,752.00
D. 3-1/2^ bituminous surface, 11,952 tons @ $25 per ton $ 298,800.00
E. Manhole Adjustment 60 @ $150 each S 9,000.00
F. Storm sewer (guess) • S 300,000.00
S 971,590.00
CONTINGENCY 5% $ 48,580.00
CONSTRUC^ION S 1,020, 170.00
ENGINEERING, INSP., LEGAL 6 ADMIN. 258 • S 255,043.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST S1,275,213.00
,
Estimated assessable front footage • 19,471 ft.
(excludes Riverside Cemetery)
Total street project without storm sewer • S881,462 divided by 19,471 ft
$45.27 ft. At the rate of 209 this would be S9.05 ft. + storm sewer.
L
Planning Estimate
West Monticello Street Project
March 10, 1988
Page 2
OPTION II. Replace existing 24 -foot surface with 3 -inch two lift bituminous.
(Life expectancy 15 years.)
A. Bituminous removal, 42,733 sq yds. @ $1.00 per yard • 5 42,733.00
B. 3 -inch bituminous, 7,372 tons @ $25 per ton $184,300.00
C. 60 manhole adjustments @ $150 each • S 9,000.00
D. Culverts 6 drains (guess) - $ 30,000.00
$266,033.00
CONTINGENCY 59 13,302.00
CONSTRUCTION COST $279,335.00
ENGINEERING, INSP., LEGAL 6 ADMIN. 258 • 69,834.00
TOTAL PROJECT $349,169.00
$349,169 divided by 19,471 ft. • $17.93 foot.
OPTION III. Single lift 2 -inch overlay on existing surface.
(Life expectancy 8-10 years.)
A. 2 -inch bituminous, 4,914 tons @ $25 per ton a
$122,850.00
B. Misc. patching 6 subgrading correction (guess)
$ 10,000.00
C. 60 manhole adjustments @ $150 each
S 91000.00
D. Minimum culverts 6 drains (guess)
$ 5,000.00
5146,850.00
CONTINGENCY 56
S 7,343.00
CONSTRUCTION COST
51b4,191.00
ENGINEERING, INSP., LEGAL b ADMIN. 208
$ 30,839.00
PROJEC^. COST
$185,032.00
$185,032 divided by 19,471 ft. • 69.50 foot.
C
CITY OF M0ITICCLLO
Monthly Building D.P."-.t;
Report
Month of FEBRUARY
19��
PERMITS AND USES
'
Le.t 'This
8e.. Month -Leat Year 'This
Y.er
POIMITS ISSUED
Month .lenuery Month F.bru.rl
"at Year To
Det.
To Data
RESIDENr IAL
Isenr
1 I
5
16
2
Vainon
L 5,000.00 5 58,500.00
S 277,100.00 S
759,200.00
5 67,000.00
re..
50.00 749.26
],061.]0
6,229.61
799.26
Surehe rpaa
2.50 29..0
118.55
379.59
31.90
CONMEACIAL
f.uaber
1
2
5
1
Veluet Lon
225,000.00
202,.00.00
246 30,00
225,000.00
Fe..
1,077.00
1,109.60
1,527..0
1,07700
Sureharpaa
112.50
101.20
123 .0
112..50
INCAISTRIAL
Number,
ion
ZVelm
Surcharge.
PLUMBING
NusDer
1
514
3
I.M
23.00
123.00
340.00
63.00
Surcha rge.
. 50
2.50
7.00
1.50
OTHERS
muster
Valuation
/.e.
Sulrharge.
TOTAL NO. PERMITS
O 1
12
35
6
TOTAL VALUA71014
230,000.00 56,800.00
439,500.00
1,006,030.00
266,600.00
TOTAL FEES
1,167.00 772.26
4,293.90
6,197.01
1,939.21
TOTAL SURCHARGES
116.00 29.90
222.25
509.99
I 145.9(
CURRENT MONTH
• 2'E F.5
amber
tb Dat.
PFAMIT NATURE
amber PLRMIT SUNC,IARGR V.lu.11on
This 1.
Laat Year
01.9le really
1 S 719.26 5 29.90
6 56, B00. 00
1
13
'
0""
0
0
Multi-Taa11Y
0
0
Commercial
0
0
iiia. tr Lal
0
0
Ra.. Oaregae
0
0
Dlgn.
0
0
Publto Bullding.
0
0
ALTERATION OR REPAIR
O..IIInpa
I
3
Case. role1
1
5
In6u. tr1U
*
0
0
PLUMBING
All Type.
1 23.00 .50
I
14
ACCESDORT BTRUC"RES
a. leastfibula
0
0
D.rA.
0
0
rrJawany rami?
0
0
DEMOLITION
0
0
CTOTALS
1 712.26 29.90
56,600.00
6
35
INDIVIDUAL PERRIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of FEBRUARY 1966
PERMIT PEE -
NUMBER DESCRIPTION TYPE RAME/IUCATION VALUATION - PERMIT . SURCHARGE PLUMBING . SURCHARGE
57-1189 No— end Geroge Sr Cyr CCnRtrUCtiOn, Ltd/2781 Red Oak Lane 855,800.00 8858.10 829.40 $29.00 5.50
TOTALS 750,8 00.00 8458.10 II2980 823.00 5.50
PLAN REVIEW
87-1149 Ho— end Gere9e 8► Cyr Con-rvrtton, Ltd/2781 Rad Oek Lne 8 295.16
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW 8 295.16
Y
G
TOTAL REvpRIt 5 502.16
C